Cantarella said:
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.  

Ambrose said:
 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?

This is a problem today!  Women don't know their place!  We have to be more like Our Lady!  She knew everything promulgated by her Divine Son!  However, she did not speak publically, but left the teaching to the Apostles, the MEN of the Church!  Whomever you may cite Cantrella, and there were brave women in the history of the Church,  theology and its interpretation is the duty of PRIESTS and BISHOPS.  I t is not the duty of women to expound on theological matters!   Ask any trad priest about this!

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

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.

Quote from: Canon 4, On the Sacraments

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

Are you saying that one who dies in the state of justification does not, by this fact, attain salvation?  That there are those who die justified and perish eternally?

Drew wrote:

We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better

No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters."  Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.

I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.  

Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.  

Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....

And on and on the list goes.

They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better.  You don't.  

Drew wrote:

Quote

We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better

No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters."  Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.

I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.  

Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.  

Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....

And on and on the list goes.

They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better.  You don't.  

Ambrose:

I have only begun to address this subject.  If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument.  All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'  

You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide.  His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion.  St. Alphonsus made a mistake.  Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made.  If you make the same mistake there is no excuse.  It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.  

Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith.  Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent.  If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded.  If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin.  When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident.  By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney.  Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.

Drew

Quote from: Ambrose

Drew wrote:

Quote

We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better

No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters."  Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.

I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.  

Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.  

Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....

And on and on the list goes.

They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better.  You don't.  

Ambrose:

I have only begun to address this subject.  If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument.  All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'  

You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide.  His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion.  St. Alphonsus made a mistake.  Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made.  If you make the same mistake there is no excuse.  It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.  

Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith.  Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent.  If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded.  If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin.  When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident.  By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney.  Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.

Drew

Drew, St. Alphonsus isn't wrong, you are. Only an arrogant ignoramus would think otherwise.

A catechumen has Faith, yet isn't baptized. He doesn't lack the formal object of Faith, he lacks the actual Sacrament of Baptism.

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Ambrose

Drew wrote:

Quote

We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better

No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters."  Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.

I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.  

Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.  

Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....

And on and on the list goes.

They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better.  You don't.  

Ambrose:

I have only begun to address this subject.  If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument.  All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'  

You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide.  His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion.  St. Alphonsus made a mistake.  Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made.  If you make the same mistake there is no excuse.  It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.  

Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith.  Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent.  If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded.  If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin.  When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident.  By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney.  Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.

Drew

Drew, St. Alphonsus isn't wrong, you are. Only an arrogant ignoramus would think otherwise.

A catechumen has Faith, yet isn't baptized. He doesn't lack the formal object of Faith, he lacks the actual Sacrament of Baptism.

Yes, and if such a one is predestined unto salvation, as one of Christ's elect, he will receive it.

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Ambrose

Drew wrote:

Quote

We must all "realize (our) place and learn from your betters" but in this argument, Fr. Kramer is not the better

No, I was not referring to anyone alive on earth right now when I said to 'know your place and learn from your betters."  Your "betters" are those great a doctors of the Church and the Church's dogmatic theologians trained and commissioned to explain the Faith.

I was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St Bernard of Clairvoux, St. Charles Borromeo, Pope St Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, etc.  

Also, so many dogmatic theologians, that it would take time to list them all.  

Also, all of the writers of countless catechisms, and the numerous bishops that approved those catechisms....

And on and on the list goes.

They are your betters, and you should humble yourself and learn from them them rather than thinking you know better.  You don't.  

Ambrose:

I have only begun to address this subject.  If you want to reply, reply with an intelligible argument.  All the great doctors of the Church are nothing compared to one infallible dogma revealed by God that form the formal object of divine and Catholic faith 'without which it is impossible to please God.'  

You again cite St. Alphonsus who held that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire" was de fide.  His referenced quotation in his book, Moral Theology, is wrong and it is from this erroneous quotation he draws his conclusion.  St. Alphonsus made a mistake.  Fr. Kramer has followed the same mistake that St. Alphonsus made.  If you make the same mistake there is no excuse.  It is dogma that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and it is the denial of dogma that makes one a heretic.  

Fr. Feeney was censored in his defense of the dogma EENS by the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  This Letter was held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and now Bishop Fellay, as being an orthodox expression and defense of the Catholic faith.  Fr. Joseph Fenton even considers this Letter a "magisterial" docuмent.  If is from this Letter that the accusations of heresy against Fr. Feeney are grounded.  If you want to accuse the good Fr. Feeney of "heresy" this is the proper place to begin.  When you get to root of the problem the corruption is so much more evident.  By the way, the New Ecclesiology is grounded upon the doctrine of soteriology taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter against Fr. Feeney.  Not the other way around as you said in an earlier post and this is easy to prove.

Drew

Drew, St. Alphonsus isn't wrong, you are. Only an arrogant ignoramus would think otherwise.

A catechumen has Faith, yet isn't baptized. He doesn't lack the formal object of Faith, he lacks the actual Sacrament of Baptism.

SJB:

I am a Catholic not a Liguorist. I have provided the evidence with the references to docuмent the error that St. Alphonsus made.  You need to address the evidence before you declare that "St. Alphonsus isn't wrong."  The Decree on Justification says nothing about "Baptism of Desire" having as its end being "saved."  The end of "Baptism of Desire" in the Decree is justification, nothing more.  It is unfortunate that Fr. Kramer has blindly copied this mistake.  But it follows from another mistake of Fr. Kramer's.  Fr. Kramer believes that when the Church declares anyone a "doctor" they are affirming that their teaching is without doctrinal or moral error.  That, of course, is nonsense.

The Church honors its doctors for their exposition of Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching but there is no guarantee of infallibility with any doctor of the Church.

"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth.  The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred tradition living with her, the Church Alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth."

Most Catholics know that St. Thomas' teaching on the Immaculate Conception is not in accord with Catholic dogma.  Another recent error that I found concerns the great St. Robert Bellarmine from his book, De Ecclesia Militante, that was referenced in an article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review.  Do you know that St. Robert taught that if a non-baptized person, such as a Jew or Muslim, pretended to be a Catholic, lived in a Catholic society and was accepted by that society as being Catholic, even if only for the purpose of committing crimes against that Catholic society, he would thereby become a member of the Catholic Church.  That is a bizarre version of "Baptism of Desire." and it was taught by this Doctor of the Universal Church.  Are you also a Bellarminite?

Another big believer in "Baptism of Desire" was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, and Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."

This opinion of Archbishop Lefebvre is taken directly from the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney.  Is this the version of "Baptism of Desire" that you hold or is it more like St. Robert's or more like St. Alphonsus'?  

Anyone who wants to call Fr. Feeney a heretic must begin with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored his teaching on the Catholic dogma EENS.  Do you hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter, like Archbishop Lefebvre, to be an orthodox expression of Catholic faith?  I expect the same from you, and Ambrose, and Lover of Truth and anyone else who believes that they can infallibly spot a "heretic" when they see one.  Anything less than addressing the 1949 Holy Office Letter is just begging the question on the doctrinal rectitude of Fr. Feeney.

Drew

Ambrose,

The new ecclesiology of Vatican II has absolutely nothing to do with the 1949 Holy Office letter.