Baptism of Desire is not de fide and certainly the Council of Trent did not teach it. The theories of Baptism by blood or desire are just that: theories. Even though some Saints and tehologians have believed in them does not alter the fact that they have not been defined infallibly. We can discuss these speculations, we can study them with great care but we cannot make them infallible, and, so, we cannot teach them as fact. Only Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is a true Sacrament, infallibly defined.
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Baptism of Desire was clearly and explicitly taught by the Council of Trent. Your denial does not make it true.
Are you aware that Doctors of the Church and countless dogmatic theologians with an immeasurably better understanding of theology than you all knew and taught that Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Why don't you just realize your place and learn from your betters?
Ambrose:
You are correct that "Baptism of Desire" was taught at Trent but certainly not in the sense that you and Fr. Kramer understand it. Trent taught that the "votum," to receive the sacrament, which is necessarily explicit because a "votum" requires a known object, can produce a state of justification. But in the dogmatic infallible canons, the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, Trent defined that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. The word "sacrament" in the canon is the form and matter by definition.
Fr. Kramer follows St. Alphonsus' mistaken understanding that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" de fide. In this St. Alphonsus erred and the source of his error is easy to see. In his book on Moral Theology, he references Trent as the authority on "Baptism of Desire" by quoting from the Decree on Justification. He then misquotes the Decree when he said,
"no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" The Decree on Justification from Trent says,
"This translation (to a state of justification) however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it." St. Alphonsus takes only part of the sentence and then inserts the word,
"saved" while the Decree is referring to
"justification." The difference is between being "saved" and being "regenerated" (justified). All who are saved are justified, but not all those who are justified are saved. By failing to make a theological distinction between salvation and justification the actual teaching of Trent is, in fact, corrupted. The evidence offered by St. Alphonsus for his claim that the doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" is
de fide is a misquotation.
Canon 4 on the sacraments contains two categorical propositions that are infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. This canon distinguishes between justification and salvation. It explicitly state that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that they are necessary in re or in votum for justification.
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.
Fr. Kramer believes in a doctrine that I call "salvation by justification alone." By this I mean that he holds that no external sign of justification, such as the sacraments, are necessary for salvation. He takes this doctrine from the Decree of Justification from Trent by extracting a single sentence from the last paragraph which he takes entirely out of the context of the narrative. The sentence is even out of the context of the very paragraph in which it is found. He then proceeds to apply his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" to re-interpret the dogmatic canons of Trent. When Fr. Kramer is done re-interpreting the canons from Trent they have a completely different meaning than what they literally say. If you are interested, I will explain in detail exactly how Fr. Kramer corrupts this particular canon.
It is really unfortunate to see a priest like Fr. Kramer corrupt a dogmatic canon. In his book,
The Devils Final Battle, Fr. Kramer gives an excellent exposition on dogma and its nature that is one of the best. His book,
The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy, is entirely built upon the dogmatic canons that pertain to the liturgy. In his accusation against Fr. Feeney of "heresy," he has completely abandoned the authority of dogma that he had previously defended. It is in fact bizarre to see him use the doctrinal narrative from Trent to interpret a dogmatic canon in a non-literal sense. The dogmatic canon has far greater authority than the doctrinal narrative because the canon is literally divine revelation. If there is any question of conflict or misunderstanding between the narrative and the canon, it is the canon that resolves the conflict and determines the proper understanding.
If the teaching "Baptism of Desire," which has never been explicitly defined, was a teaching
de fide of the extra-ordinary Magisteium from Trent or ordinary and universal Magisterium, Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not. He was reconciled to the Church without an adjuration of heresy. The communities he founded and who teach and defend his teaching are in communion with their local ordinaries.
It is a common theological opinion. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches "Baptism of Desire" and has an authority equivalent to any other catechism says,
"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'" Fr. Feeney was a lot smarter than Fr. Kramer, and in my opinion, more virtuous. He was a faithful Catholic priest who fought the good fight to defend the faith when few even recognized that it was being attacked.
He was censored for defending the dogma Extra-Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) by the 1949 Holy Office Letter which had nothing to do with baptism either in "votum" or in "re". Those who consider Fr. Feeney a "heretic" can only do so by defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter and that includes Fr. Kramer. We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better.
Drew
Topic: ON THE FEENEYITE HERESY (Read 57836 times)