One Universal Church of the Faithful


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/

As far as I could tell, all the quotes you provided seem to restate the doctrine that "salvation" requires the Sacrament of Baptism. Is that what you are pointing me to? If so, I agree with you. But you are missing my point which is something entirely different.

The Council of Trent doctrine that I quoted from Ott DOES NOT refer to "salvation." Rather, it refers to "justification." Salvation and justification are different. The Church has always said that BoD is sufficient for "justification." The Church has never said the BoD is sufficient for "salvation."

The Church does not say that BoD produces the identical effect that the Sacrament of Baptism produces. Read the quote from Ott. It is very precise. It says,

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

A lot of the disagreement about BoD on Cathinfo seems to be exacerbated by imprecise language being used. And many of the people using the language don't even realize that they are not making the proper distinctions. I think if these distinctions were made clear, we would see that we can actually agree on what the Church teaches.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is "a distinction between justification and salvation." And, yes this distinction is formulated at the Council of Trent. The distinction is also made throughout the New Testament. I just say that so I am clear that I don't think it is some theological opinion that started with Trent.
  
To your second point, it seemed, in your first paragraph, that you were conceding Ott's BoD formulation, but restricting its efficacy to "justification" and withholding its efficacy in the context of "salvation." Is that correct? I ask because your second paragraph sounds like you are rejecting BoD, per se. Can you let me know which is the case?

If you mean the you do accept BoD in the context of "justification," as I do, then we are on the same page. That is the "settled teaching of the Church" that I was referring to, because that is how the Council of Trent (and Ott) formulate it. Whether BoD has any efficacy in the context of "salvation" is another matter entirely.

Speaking of justification, the sacrament of baptism or the desire thereof, Trent says:

 "...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

From this we know with dogmatic certainty:
1) Justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, or by the desire for the sacrament.
2) That we must receive the sacrament of baptism, if not, we cannot to enter into the kingdom of God.

This is Trent's infallible teaching on a BOD.

Speaking of justification, the sacrament of baptism or the desire thereof, Trent says:

"...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God".

From this we know with dogmatic certainty:
1) Justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, or by the desire for the sacrament.
2) That we must receive the sacrament of baptism, if not, we cannot to enter into the kingdom of God.

This is Trent's infallible teaching on a BOD.

Yes, the Sacrament has more power than BoD. As Ott said:

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

So clearly the Church has always taught that BoD is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Baptism. A similar distinction between different types of "cleansing" and their effects is found in the Acts of the Apostles 19:

1 And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples.  2 And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.  3 And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism.  4 Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.  5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  6 And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.  7 And all the men were about twelve.

Limbo of the infants is in hell, an earthly like paradise in hell. Hell is not one amorphous mass of equal punishments, Limbo is its paradise. Why can't there be other areas with, comparatively speaking, milder sufferings than the deeper pits of hell, with earthly like sufferings, like say a Panama in the summer with no air conditioning or DDT, like in the 1800's? What Ladislaus is describing does not have to be another limbo of the infants but can be lessor punishments areas in hell. 

Right.  I think there are slightly varying definitions of Hell, with some saying Limbo is in Hell, others not.  When you define Hell as anywhere outside of Heaven and the Beatific Vision, such as in the Creed, where it says that Christ descended into Hell (the nether regions, inferos) ... He really was in the Limbo of the Fathers.

One of the EENS dogmatic definitions states that the sufferings in Hell vary according to your sin.  I also believe that the case of an unbaptized martyr, they would be in the same state of natural happiness that an infant would be, perhaps with even greater happiness than those infants due to the natural virtue of the martyrdom.  We can read a lot into the Church's practice of insisting on early Baptism of catechumens during times of persecution.  If there were some dogma that a BoB would take you straight to heaven without Baptism, then this would have been entirely unnecessary.

This misconception about Hell is in fact at the root of why so many people have an animus against EENS doctrine, where they envision some naturally virtuous people who died without the Sacrament being in the same state as Joe Stalin and Judas after death.  That is not the case.

Yes, for example: You have a Catholic and then you have a guy from Africa who has never heard of Christ. Both commit the same mortal sin. Who goes further into Hell? The Catholic does because he knew it was a sin, had the graces of Confession and knew the truth

"To whom much is given, much will be expected"

One can only be a martyr for Christ by the grace of God. I do not see how there could be such a person that God could not have procured baptism for him too. Nothing happens by chance. Baptism is one of the easiest things to accomplish, anyone can do it to a person from the time they are born till a few seconds before God takes them. God takes no coffee breaks or naps.

Well, the Beatific Vision is a completely free gift, and nothing one does on earth can merit it.  Perhaps God would not allow anyone to die for Him without the Sacrament, but if He did, I believe they'd go to Limbo.  It's all speculation ... just like BoD, that has suddenly gone from speculation to dogma, even though there's zero evidence of its having been revealed.  Recall how Florence taught that even those who are martyred, if they are outside the Church, cannot be saved.

So, Ladislaus, a few posts above when you responded directly to me, you made the following comment regarding BoD:


But your latest post seems to ACCEPT the doctrine of BoD, along with Ott's caveat that it is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Baptism. Is that your position? If so, we agree, and this is what Ott claims has always been the perennial teaching of the Church, meaning IT IS "settled doctrine." Do you still think it is not "settled doctrine?"

I think if we can come to an agreement about what BoD is and is not and what the Church teaching is and has always been, then the apparent disagreements that we find here on Cathinfo about the BoD will disappear. On Cathinfo, much of the discussion about BoD assumes that BoD an attack on the Sacrament, a tactic of Modernists, and must be purged from the lexicon of Traditional Catholicism. But that view is false and heretical according to the traditional texts on dogmatic theology.

I believe that there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin, but it does not suffice for salvation.  St. Ambrose spoke of martyrs being washed but not crowned.  In another place, he clearly states that the uninitiated cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven under any circuмstances.  People have considered that to be a contradiction, but it makes perfect sense given this key to understanding it.

In his famous Oration on Valentinian, people tend to leave out a crucial part:

Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

NOT EVEN THE MARTYRS ARE CROWNED if they are catechumens.  That's a reference to the Kingdom of Heaven, the Beatific Vision.  But he says that martyrs are "washed in their own blood" and hopes in the case of Valentinian that "his desire have washed him, also".  So he's hoping that the desire might have a similar efficacy to the washing of martyrdom.

St. Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy

for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.

For St. Ambrose, and other Church Fathers, the crowning of the Sacrament (the Sacramental character) was essential for entering the Kingdom.  Crown / Kingdom, see?

But he felt that there could be some kind of washing (but not crowning) through martyrdom or, possibly, through desire.

This distinction reconciles what many on both sides have referred to as a contradiction.  It's only a contradiction if one doesn't distinguish between the different effects of the Sacrament, between the washing and the crowning.

So, what I reject is the notion of Baptism of Desire as being sufficient for salvation and the Beatific Vision.

This is basically what Father Feeney held, correct?