Author Topic: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism" (Read 39320 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #170 on:** **Today** at 07:57:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 11, 2026, 11:01:37 AM

Modern BoDers will quote Bellarmine, but then ignore the fact that he limited BoD strictly to the case of catechumens. I disagree with him, but the BoDers try to hit you over the head with his authority conveniently ignore that fact. See, the modern BoDers could hardly care less about the exceedingly rare case of a catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his scheduled baptism ... but about getting non-Catholics saved. That's what it's really about for them.

And do yo know what St. Robert Bellarmine's reasoning for BoD was? ... that "it would seem too harsh". When I read that in the Latin of that, my jaw dropped nearly to the floor, since St. Robert was not generally known for sentimental "theology".

In any case, how many of those (especially the Trad clergy) who tout Bellarmine also hold that heliocentrism is heretical and that it's proximate to heresy to not be a geocentrist.

That's always what exposes the dishonest BoDers, where they will cite one authority, but ignore the rest who say the opposite, or puff up the authority of one source on the matter of BoD, while ignoring that same authority on other matters that they disagree with.

Again ...

Melchior Cano, OP -- theologian at Trent, writing after Trent, held that infidels could be justified but not saved

St. Peter Canisius -- theologian at Trent, writing his Catechism after Trent, made footnotes to this passage in Trent to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, and both of the referenced passage explicitly cite that "even good catechumens can't be saved without the Sacrament".

But the BoDers simply ignore this and "muh Bellarmine".

This is ironic, and interesting. I'm the one quoting Bellarmine in this thread, so, in context, this refers to me, which is rather amusing. But it reveals a lot about the tactics of extreme Feenyites, which embraces distortion, truthful statements not relevant to the point to deflect, ad hominum, etc. Whatever it takes to maintain - at least internally for their own equilibrium - the appearance of being on the side of truth and in the right.

I have a thread with almost 400,000 hits about the "Catholic doctrine" of Predestination. In that thread, I write things like this:

Quote

On the other hand, if you believe it is a truth (that is actually applied in the real world) that God wills that there is no salvation outside the Church or without a supernatural faith (that must of course, being a true faith, accord with the truth - He is Triune, He became man, He suffered and rose for our justification - not deny it), and properly understand that God predestines men (determines their "external career" and "decrees" their eternal happiness), you could not rationally reach the conclusion in the CE of the salvation of those "outside the pale of the Church" or who actually deny a truth of the faith (a denial is a denial, putting culpability aside).

Thinking coherently about Predestination necessarily disabuses one of many errors, and that's the purpose of this thread.

. . .

God has determined to save men under the New Covenant by the Catholic faith, and there is no salvation outside the Church; these are truths of the faith that cannot be denied. Why one man hears the Gospel and comes to that faith in the first place, and then why another perseveres in it and dies in a state of grace, is freely and gratuitously determined by God.

And the free choice of God of how a man is saved - by being baptized and persevering in the Catholic faith - is no more "unjust" than His free determination of which man to save.

If the latter truth as to who is saved (and the manner - God's gratuitous choice) doesn't offend "justice," and it doesn't - see St. Thomas, St. Augustine, Haydock etc. (cited in this thread) - neither does God's free and gratuitous choice of the how (via the Catholic faith).

. . .

And it has also been my position, and my argument in this thread, that the classical and ancient position of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, reflected also in the Haydock Bible annotations posted in this thread, on Predestination presents a seamless garment that flows without rent and explains the seeming "harshness" of the dogmas of No Salvation Outside the Church, no salvation without possession of the Catholic faith or the sacrament of baptism (or at least the explicit desire for it, and the actual receipt of the sacrament as to infants).

. . .

The Satanic expansion of salvation to non-Catholics and non-Christians (the infernal campaign inaugurated in Genesis 3 transformed into an attack on God's plan of correction and redemption after the Fall, so that now the false counter Church that Bishop Sheen said would "ape" the true religion proclaims the false gospel that "all men" could possess immortal life and beatific bliss, becoming "as God") necessitated an attack on the Catholic dogma of the predestination of the saints in the Church and while holding the Catholic faith, lest one actually stumble upon the dogma (despite the silence that it is generally wrapped in to hide it) and realize its significance and implication regarding those twin necessities of being Catholic and possessing the Catholic faith, which then make absolute sense as the unique and only means of salvation employed by a God who sovereignly determines who and how men are saved.

. . .

But if you recognize that God has elected those predestined to salvation, the objection to them all being Catholic evaporates. There is no basis for accusations of injustice if the ultimate determinate is not man's choice, his free will. If it is, as Pax maintains, then of course one can question how it's "fair" for a Mayan, or Incan, etc. who has never heard of Christ to go to hell - what choice did they have if they didn't reject Christ, but never even heard of him? Or someone, as JPII says in one of his encyclicals, whose cultural upbringing and circuмstances "prevent" them from formally converting to Christ, etc.

If God determines the person and the means, ther is simply no rational objection for His choice that it be via the Catholic Church, baptism, etc. - the choice, after all, being His, and at His own discretion.

. . .

As I pointed out in this discussion, there is a group of men who can't be saved: infants who died in infancy during a time or in a place where baptism was not available to them. This is a necessary conclusion from Church dogma that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for a child or infant who does not reach maturity or the "age of reason" for salvation. It would seem to me that salvation would also be impossible for adults in the same time and place, though I know St. Thomas argues for the possibility of an "angel" being sent to them internally or spiritually so that the requisite faith in Christ and desire for the sacrament can be received . . . I am dubious of that. I do not see any clear Magisterial decision in that regard, and see that as an open question. In any event, there is clearly a group (the infants) for whom salvation appears closed - if you take with sufficient respect to what is reasonable the dogmas about baptism and the necessity of the sacraments and their necessary or at least only reasonable (in my view) inferences.

. . .

I have also repeatedly said here that I limit the possibility of BoD to those who explicitly desire it, e.g. the catechumen.

But it is my citing of Bellarmine and argument in support of the authoritative Church’s definitive if limited teaching on BoD - the possibility of justification via a desire for the sacrament and its “availing to righteousness,” i.e. being salvific, if one were to die with that disposition (and perfect contrition) prior to receiving the sacrament - that calls forth this little diversion by Ladislaus of BoDers who care only about “getting non-Catholics saved.”

My strict view of Predestination - shared by St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine - about God determining whom and how He saves (via the Catholic faith, the sacraments, the Church) precludes any nonsense about "getting non-Catholics saved," as Ladislaus writes about "BoDers." But you wouldn’t know just reading Ladislaus’s bit about BoDers, like me, who cite Bellarmine.

I allow the possibility of a BoD for catechumens because the authoritative Magisterium of the true Church before the Great Apostasy taught it. All her great doctors taught it; it's in virtually every catechism since the Catechism of Trent, and it is taught in the Catechism of Trent, as even the extreme Feeneyists, the Dimonds, recognize - and everyone else, but the even more extreme Feenyites, some of whom appear on this forum.

Whether such happens - someone being saved by an explicit desire for baptism while being prevented for some reason from getting the sacrament - is only known by God.

And yes, extreme Feenyites, I agree that it makes no sense that God would save some without a sacrament He has made necessary and essential.

But listen, if reason hasn’t totally left your upper story, what makes "sense" to you and I is not determinative of truth. The non-Apostate Church of the centuries, the one that taught BoD in its authoritative teachings, determined and declared truth. And it taught BoD. It made doctors of its doctrine those who taught BoD after it pronounced on Bod at Trent.

Reason tells me, and would anyone who was not an extreme Feeneyite, that the Church would not elevate to the status of doctor of its doctrine one who taught "heresy" or at least a grave error and fundamentally false teaching about such an absolute fundamental of the faith as how the Blood and merits of Christ sufficient for justification are applied so as to effect the transition from a child of Adam to a son of God, as Trent tells us justification does.

Reason would also tell one that it does not make any sense that he would read more accurately the Latin of the Council of Trent than St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, the authors of the Catechism of Trent, etc.

But reason does not work with extreme Feeneyites, but as a tool to try to find arguments and justifications for their beloved and cherished belief. So when I cite the interpretation of Trent by St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, and everyone else against their reading, you get someone like Stubborn saying, the doctors are not infallible, which is true, but their infallibility vel non is not relevant to the point: in other words, Stubborn, you can read the Latin of Trent better and more clearly than St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, etc.?

Or when Ladislaus encounters someone with my views of EENS and the necessity of the Catholic faith citing St. Robert's understanding of Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV, and defending the authoritative Magisterium's position on BoD, he cites the heresy of other (and regrettably most) BoDers in extending it to non-Catholics, which, again, is true, but hardly relevant to the context - this "BoDer" and his defense of what is taught in the Catechism of Trent, by St. Robert, etc.

It’s a diversionary tactic to distract the focus that would snap the reasonable picture.

With you, extreme Feeneyits, I believe that God will save all His elect via the Catholic faith and that the sacraments He has instituted are necessary, but as the authoritative Magisterium of the Church has taught them to be necessary:

Quote

Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon IV

Canon 4.If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

But extreme Feeneyites will only be rationale so far as reason can be employed to defend their extreme Feeneyism. Once reason exposes it, they cease to listen to it, and cannot hear it.

As a former Feeneyite who has always defended Father Feeney and who sympathizers with them and considers them brethren (especially in their opposition to the heresy of Modernism and the Conciliar Apostasy), it's tragic (and ironic) that the words of Christ apply to them in respect of this BoD issue:

Quote

John 5:43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.

But this post will not do what the others have not done. Reason has broken down, and they cannot hear.

And we await the next diversion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #171 on:** **Today** at 08:09:24 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 07:57:15 AM

This is ironic, and interesting. I'm the one quoting Bellarmine in this thread, so, in context, this refers to me, which is rather amusing. But it reveals a lot about the tactics of extreme Feenyites, which embraces distortion, truthful statements not relevant to the point to deflect, ad hominum, etc. Whatever it takes to maintain - at least internally for their own equilibrium - the appearance of being on the side of truth and in the right.

Congratulations if you're an exception, but the text you quoted from me was not directed at you, but was effectively seconding the comment that Pax had made right before this. You'll admit that 95%+ of "Modern BoDers" expand BoD well beyond those who explicitly intend to receive it? If you limit BoD to explicit, then you are one of two posters on CI here who have ever done so.

My issues with you were elsewhere, where you articulated a justification/salvation by faith that would then subsequently need to be confirmed or followed up by Baptism, where you reduced the Sacrament to necesary by necessity of precept and gave it no role whatsoever in the justification process itself.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #172 on:** **Today** at 08:19:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 08:09:24 AM

My issues with you were elsewhere, where you articulated a justification/salvation by faith that would then subsequently need to be confirmed or followed up by Baptism, where you reduced the Sacrament to necesary by necessity of precept and gave it no role whatsoever in the justification process itself.

That's nonsense, and you should know it, as I shot that accusation down in this very thread, the first few pages.

If you want to continue that discussion as rational men without invective and your usual modus operandi, feel free.

But, fallaciousness of the accusation aside, was St. Bonaventure a heretic?

Quote

Reply Obj. 4. The last objection has already been resolved: for it is called a necessary sacrament, not because without it a man cannot be saved, but because he is bound to it if he can, and neglecting it, he cannot be saved.

https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2024/01/01/st-bonaventure-on-those-who-receive-only-the-reality-of-baptism/

Ladislaus · « **Reply #173 on:** **Today** at 08:19:59 AM »

As for your denunciation of "extreme" Feeneyites, the greatest theological problem I have is that BoD theory does not account for what the character of the Sacrament does. Church Fathers referred to it as as a seal, a glory, and a crowning, all of which were synonymous with elevation to the supernatural state in the Kingdom. If you look at even modern theologians, they list the two effects of the Sacrament, forgiveness of sin and imprinting of the character of Baptism. So, what does this character do? It serves merely as a non-repeatability marker for the Sacrament? Nonsense. That's to bankrupt the character of its true ontological significance. By nature human beings lack the faculties to see God as He is, as that's a capacity beyond our nature, and it's precisely the character of Baptism that supplies this supernatural faculty, and it's also what marks us in the image an likeness of God's Son, so that we become members of the Holy Trinity by adoption, entering into the life of the Holy Trinity, into the Kingdom. BoDers claim that St. Ambrose promoted BoD in his oration for Valentinian, and even St. Benedict Center failed on this one, asserting that this apperas to be a contradiction of when St. Ambrose wrote elsewhere in "De Sacramentis" that even the best catechumens couldn't enter the Kingdom without the actual reception of Baptism. But if you read beyond the single sentence quoted out of context, St. Ambrose explains his meaning. He hopes that Valentinian could approach a state that similar to that of unbaptized martyrs, whom he characterizes as "washed but not crowned". That speaks to the TWO effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, the washing (forgiveness of sins), and the crowning (the character). So, what is the status of a washed but not crowned? Sounds to me like ... the state that infants who die without Baptism are in, with no guilt of sin imputed to them (justification) but no entry into the Kingdom (salvation).

That distinction between the natural and the supernatural aspects of eternity was first cracked open by St. Thomas (after Abelard, who was anti-BoD first challenged St. Augustine's position on the issue), where he articulated precisely how the reason unbaptized infannts do not suffer is because what they lost is so far above their nature that they don't know what they're missing and therefore don't experience loss, since loss and the suffering due to it has to do with the privation of a due good, a lack of the perfection of the creature, and elevation to the supernatural state is not a privation of nature.

Once people figure this out, it cracks open everything, makes sense of the character of Baptism, truly expresses the effect of the character of the Sacrament, etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #174 on:** **Today** at 08:21:42 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on Today at 08:19:34 AM

That's nonsense, and you should know it, as I shot that accusation down in this very thread, the first few pages.

BS ... you articulated heresy, and I've cited your passage after each denial.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism" (Read 39320 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism"

Ladislaus

Re: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism"

DecemRationis

Re: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism"

Ladislaus

Re: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism"

Ladislaus

Re: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism"