CathInfo.com

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5

Baptism of desire supporters have argued for years that John 3:5 does not mean what it says, that it should not be interpreted literally, that what ultimately matters is not the sacramental character of baptism, but the Grace of Baptism.  The grace of baptism is the key they say to understanding John 3:5.  The grace of baptism, not the sacramental character, is what’s absolutely necessary, they have proclaimed.  The grace of baptism is what God can provide apart from the external rite of baptism, they have asserted.  God will not save anyone who does not have this ‘spiritual rebirth,’ even if He must grant the spiritual rebirth without water, they have declared.

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments. The theologians … call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism, the new birth… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”

John Salza: “The Church teaches that being “born again” is an absolute necessity for salvation (with which God cannot dispense), and that “water baptism” is a necessity of means (with which God can dispense)… In John 3:5, the “unless” acts directly upon “born again” and only indirectly upon “water” and “Holy Ghost.”

Indeed, Fr. Laisney relies heavily on the argument that ‘the grace of baptism’ (the new birth) – which he declares to be absolutely necessary – is granted by BOD.  That’s the essence of his exegesis of John chapter 3.  That’s how he and others attempt to explain away Jesus’ solemn proclamation on the absolute necessity of being ‘born again’, which Jesus defines as being ‘born again of water and the Spirit’ (John 3:5), to enter Heaven.

You must be ‘born again,’ Laisney and others proclaim, "but Laisney adds "not necessarily born again of water.  Jesus’ declaration about the necessity to be ‘born again’ admits of no exceptions,  but BOD’ provides that indispensable rebirth without water".  

Actually, no, it doesn’t Fr. Laisney, as Alphonsus’ own passage proves.
For if the Church teaches that being ‘born again’ is an absolute necessity with which God cannot dispense, then the definition of BOD, furnished by the very authorities they cite for it (e.g., St. Alphonsus), is false.  As shown above, St. Alphonsus teaches that ‘BOD’ doesn’t give you the grace of being ‘born again.’
So, without even delving into the many other aspects of dogmatic teaching which contradict ‘BOD,’ these few pronouncements prove very clearly that the theory is incompatible with dogma.  The reason the arguments advanced for it are so inconsistent, contradictory and ever-changing is because the theory is not true.  It’s a false theory of man that was never taught by the Church.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Does anyone have a count on how many times Jesus stresses water compared to how many times He stresses believing without mentioning the necessity of water.  There is one famous time where He mentions water and obviously water is implied at the final commission where He commands His disciples, but how many times when speaking about what is necessary to be saved does He avoid the mention of water but rather stresses the need to believe, conversion of heart, being like little children, loving God and neighbor etc?  I'd be curious to know.

I know the Protestants are found of taking one verse and pitting it against countless others that disagree with their interpretation of that one verse.  The Feeneyites obviously do the same thing.  But I am interested in an actual statistic pertaining to Gospel verses on what is necessary for salvation.  

Additionally to the good willed people of the Feeneyite persuasion I would be curious to know if you:

a:  Believe Jesus condemns to Hell some for sins they are not culpable of

b:  If Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard, Aquinas, Trent, Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius IX, Pius XII, etc. misunderstood John 3:5.

If so, who can we look to?

If not, where does that leave us?

Again this is addressed to the honest and good-willed.  I am not really looking for responses that ignore the questions and or refrains from answering them honestly, dispassionately and objectively.  

Does he have orthodox theologians and the 1917 code of canon law on his side?