161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Are the effects of baptism of water eternal separation from God in some limbo for adults? No.

Also, does a child below the age of reason, or the mentally handicapped or brain damaged have to believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation? No. Therefore it is a necessity of means and not an absolute necessity. If one through no fault of his own is invincibly ignorant of the true faith he is not guilty in this matter in the eyes of God (Pope Pius IX-Singulari Quadam).

[39] And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind. [40] And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard: and they said unto him: Are we also blind? [41] Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth. John 9:39-41

Your knowledge of the subject is limited to your own erroneous interpretation of St. Thomas's use of the word "implicit",  a quote from a catechism in the 20th century which explains nothing,  and your own interpretation of scripture.

Read the teachers manual explanation of the Baltimore Catechism.

By your response, I gather that you believe that an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, nor are martyred for the faith, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which is opposed to St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri and all of the Father, Saints, Doctors and the Athanasian Creed, (and the Baltimore catechism explanation I posted, as well as the catechism of Trent)  


Do you believe that  an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, nor are martyred for the faith, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation?

Her is the OP of my thread "BOD Issue Simply Explained" which can be found in this same Crisis in the Church section of the CI Forum.

A CI member expressed the natural frustration of someone who first comes into contact with the almost innumerable ramblings of like 10 threads started by Lover of Truth.

Therefore, I shall teach here the issue of Baptism of desire simply explained.

Below is my response to his comment in another thread.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: 2Vermont

And now I'm really out of these so-called discussions.

 There is no need to "get out" these "so-called" discusions. It sounds like you are frustrated with all of the information coming at you. Are you not learning something that you didn't know before?

The problem is that you have to discern truth from obfuscations. You'll find that people who don't know the subject will keep harping on the same points, the little that they know and always stick to that, never learning anything new. This is a sign if ignorance. On the point of Baptism of desire, it is very simple:


Find a person who limits his belief in BOD to a catechumen or a martyr for the Faith, and you have someone with common sense. That person can have the confidence that he is supported by St. Thomas and many other Saints and Doctors after the time of St. Thomas. (I've only known one person who only restricted his belief in BOD to these examples. There should be many more out there, but there just isn't. I think it is because it BOD of the catechumen and BOB are like a harmless drug that leads to stronger drugs, belief in anything you desire.)

Find a person who believes in John 3:15  and the dogmas on EENS and baptism as they are written, literally that is, and you have a person with the support of the Fathers, doctors and saints that came before St. Thomas. And you can read the dogmas as they were intended to be read, as the final word.

Or you can go with the BOD Hypocrites (and believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity)and thus go against all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the Athanasian Creed. In other words become a fool[/b].

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

 
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Are the effects of baptism of water eternal separation from God in some limbo for adults? No.

Also, does a child below the age of reason, or the mentally handicapped or brain damaged have to believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation? No. Therefore it is a necessity of means and not an absolute necessity. If one through no fault of his own is invincibly ignorant of the true faith he is not guilty in this matter in the eyes of God (Pope Pius IX-Singulari Quadam).

[39] And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind. [40] And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard: and they said unto him: Are we also blind? [41] Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth. John 9:39-41

Your knowledge of the subject is limited to your own erroneous interpretation of St. Thomas's use of the word "implicit",  a quote from a catechism in the 20th century which explains nothing,  and your own interpretation of scripture.

Read the teachers manual explanation of the Baltimore Catechism.

By your response, I gather that you believe that an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, nor are martyred for the faith, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which is opposed to St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Ligouri and all of the Father, Saints, Doctors and the Athanasian Creed, (and the Baltimore catechism explanation I posted, as well as the catechism of Trent)  


Do you believe that  an unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be baptized, nor are martyred for the faith, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation?

Why do keep repeating the same questions? The Church says it is possible if a person is invincibly ignorant of the true faith through no fault of their own. Possible.  Not probable, nor likely.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

...The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Decree

The Priest Leonard Feeney is Declared Excommunicated

      Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

      On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

      Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

                                                                  Marius Crovini, Notary

Do you accept Pope Paul VI as being a valid Pope?  If so, why was Father Feeney reconciled to the Catholic Church without having to recant and/or abjure his "errors"?

Who is required to recant their errors according to the conciliar church? As long as there is no opposition to their "council" and their "mass", just about anyone is welcome aboard.

Feeney's excommunication was for "grave disobedience" and not heresy, that is, his refusal to come to Rome.  He should have gone; he didn't.  I would have; it was, after all, a free trip to Europe!  Why he did not go is beyond me!!  In any case, the Holy Office could have declared him to be a formal heretic, but they did not.  (They did just that for other individuals.)  Disobedience and heresy are two separate offenses of ecclesiastical (and divine) law.  One can be guilty of the former without being guilty of the latter.  The SSPX are, after all, openly disobedient!

It was the long time suspension (not excommunication) that was incurred by his grave disobedience. During the time of his disobedience he was being warned of ipso facto excommunication. Therefore the disobedience you speak of, was not for his refusal to come to Rome. Fr. Feeney was being disobedient to the laws of the Catholic Church, and this disobedience earned him a suspension. The reason for the ipso facto excommunication is not specifically stated in the decree of excommunication itself. It was due to failing to heed repeated warnings and threats. One such warning was in regards to the spreading of his false teachings through periodicals. One of his periodicals "From the Housetops" was mentioned. Therefore he was warned in regards to spreading heresy. What other warnings were given to him I do not know at this time. Therefore your claim that Father Feeney was excommunicated for failing to go to Rome (although that may have been the last straw) is demonstrably false. Certainly he was believed to be at least a material heretic. Further inquiry may have been required to determine formal heresy. Nevertheless he was excommunicated most likely in regards to the spreading of heresy in the Church. This can further be deduced by the fact that it was the Most Eminent Fathers, charged with safeguarding faith and morals that declared him excommunicated. One does not need a Plenary session of Most Eminent Fathers charged with safeguarding faith and morals to excommunicate someone for failing to come to Rome.


DECREE: THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

 On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

 Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary


Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949 [Suspension of Priestly Functions]
 
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

 Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.


On September 4, 1952, Archbishop Cushing summoned Fr. Feeney to appear before him no later than October 4, 1952


Fr. Feeney received a second summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.

 The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

Father Feeney was suspended/disobedient long before he was summoned to Rome.

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949 [Suspension of Priestly Functions]
 
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion. ................

Let's look at the enemy who was already in place here, your Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949 [Suspension of Priestly Functions]


Richard J. Cushing, Cardinal

Cushing's main role was as fundraiser and builder of new churches, schools, and institutions. He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite, as he softened the traditional confrontation between the Catholic Irish and the Brahmin upper-class. Cushing built useful relationships with Jews, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community. He helped presidential candidate John F. Kennedy deflect fears of papal interference in American government if a Catholic became president. ......................His work contributed to making the Roman Catholic Church acceptable to the general American population at the time of then-Senator John F. Kennedy's run for the White House. .....................At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version: . .........................He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades. .............He was a member of the NAACP.

Oh, and his sister was married to a Jew.

Boston Globe Article

What made Cushing's excommunication of Feeney astounding was that Feeney's line had been official Church teaching for most of a thousand years: No salvation outside the Church. Feeney confidently appealed to Rome, forcing the Vatican to take a position on the question. When the Vatican supported Cushing and upheld the excommunication of Feeney [for disobedience], the long-held doctrine of Catholic exclusivism was overturned.

Why was Cardinal Cushing the one to force this change? Cushing's sister Dolly, an MTA toll taker, was married to Dick Pearlstein, who, with his father Louis, ran the haberdashery that was on the way to being Boston's best men's store, which it remains. Cardinal Cushing was often in the Pearlstein home, and he had ample occasion to experience his brother-in-law's innate goodness. There came to be no question for Cushing as to whether his sister's beloved husband was beloved of God. That Dick Pearlstein was Jєωιѕн -- a ''non-Catholic" -- ceased to have decisive meaning, and Cushing began to take Feeney's ''orthodox" preaching as an insult to his own family. An abstract principle of theology was upended by the sort of cross-group interaction that had become common in America.


Are YOU telling us that YOU would fold like a wet washcloth and obey the heretic +Cushing - or would YOU have the priestly courage that Fr. Feeney had to stand against him even at the cost of being excommunicated for your disobedience to him?

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949 [Suspension of Priestly Functions]
 
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion. ................

Let's look at the enemy who was already in place here, your Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949 [Suspension of Priestly Functions]


Richard J. Cushing, Cardinal

Cushing's main role was as fundraiser and builder of new churches, schools, and institutions. He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite, as he softened the traditional confrontation between the Catholic Irish and the Brahmin upper-class. Cushing built useful relationships with Jews, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community. He helped presidential candidate John F. Kennedy deflect fears of papal interference in American government if a Catholic became president. ......................His work contributed to making the Roman Catholic Church acceptable to the general American population at the time of then-Senator John F. Kennedy's run for the White House. .....................At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version: . .........................He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades. .............He was a member of the NAACP.

Oh, and his sister was married to a Jew.

Boston Globe Article

What made Cushing's excommunication of Feeney astounding was that Feeney's line had been official Church teaching for most of a thousand years: No salvation outside the Church. Feeney confidently appealed to Rome, forcing the Vatican to take a position on the question. When the Vatican supported Cushing and upheld the excommunication of Feeney [for disobedience], the long-held doctrine of Catholic exclusivism was overturned.

Why was Cardinal Cushing the one to force this change? Cushing's sister Dolly, an MTA toll taker, was married to #### Pearlstein, who, with his father Louis, ran the haberdashery that was on the way to being Boston's best men's store, which it remains. Cardinal Cushing was often in the Pearlstein home, and he had ample occasion to experience his brother-in-law's innate goodness. There came to be no question for Cushing as to whether his sister's beloved husband was beloved of God. That #### Pearlstein was Jєωιѕн -- a ''non-Catholic" -- ceased to have decisive meaning, and Cushing began to take Feeney's ''orthodox" preaching as an insult to his own family. An abstract principle of theology was upended by the sort of cross-group interaction that had become common in America.


Are YOU telling us that YOU would fold like a wet washcloth and obey the heretic +Cushing - or would YOU have the priestly courage that Fr. Feeney had to stand against him even at the cost of being excommunicated for your disobedience to him?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Fr. Feeney was wrong in this instance. The traditions are an anchor in this crisis. Our Lady (The Star of the Sea) will  help us in standing fast. Baptism of desire and blood has been accepted by the Church for nearly 2000 years. It was made a dogma at the Council of Trent. Great doctors, popes and Catechisms have taught it. Along with that tradition is the tradition of the Church boldly proclaming EENS along with proclaiming that there are few who find the narrow road that leads to life.  Feenyism is an over reaction to the abuse of the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church" by the modernists and other enemies in the Church. Two wrongs don't make a right.