Chapter 30.— Why One is Baptized and Another Not, Not Otherwise Inscrutable.

Now those very persons, who think it unjust that infants which depart this life without the grace of Christ should be deprived not only of the kingdom of God, into which they themselves admit that none but such as are regenerated through baptism can enter, but also of eternal life and salvation — when they ask how it can be just that one man should be freed from original sin and another not, although the condition of both of them is the same, might answer their own question, in accordance with their own opinion of how it can be so frequently just and right that one should have baptism administered to him whereby to enter into the kingdom of God, and another not be so favoured, although the case of both is alike. For if the question disturbs him, why, of the two persons, who are both equally sinners by nature, the one is loosed from that bond, on whom baptism is conferred, and the other is not released, on whom such grace is not bestowed; why is he not similarly disturbed by the fact that of two persons, innocent by nature, one receives baptism, whereby he is able to enter into the kingdom of God, and the other does not receive it, so that he is incapable of approaching the kingdom of God? Now in both cases one recurs to the apostle's outburst of wonder O the depth of the riches! Again, let me be informed, why out of the body of baptized infants themselves, one is taken away, so that his understanding undergoes no change from a wicked life, Wisdom 4:11 and the other survives, destined to become an impious man? Suppose both were carried off, would not both enter the kingdom of heaven? And yet there is no unrighteousness with God. Romans 9:14 How is it that no one is moved, no one is driven to the expression of wonder amidst such depths, by the circuмstance that some children are vexed by the unclean spirit, while others experience no such pollution, and others again, as Jeremiah, are sanctified even in their mother's womb; Jeremiah 1:5 whereas all men, if there is original sin, are equally guilty; or else equally innocent if there is original sin? Whence this great diversity, except in the fact that God's judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out?

But just the same it is certain that Catechumens are not in the Church properly and by act, but only in potency, just as in the way a man being conceived but not yet formed and born is not called a man, except in potency.

(. . .)

Now it is important to know if grace is poured out more fully and more manifestly at certain moments of time or at the celebration of the sacraments. For catechumens do not lack belief, if they do, then Cornelius, to whom an angel was sent, did not believe in God when he was making himself worthy through his alms giving and prayers.19 But in no way would he have done these things unless he had believed beforehand; in no way would he have believed, however, unless he had been called by secret urgings that his mind or spirit could perceive or by more evident ones coming to him through his bodily senses. 20 But in certain persons, like catechumens and like Cornelius himself, before he was incorporated into the Church by participating in the sacraments, the grace of faith, as great as it is, is insufficient to attain to the kingdom of heaven;21 but in others it so great that they are already counted as belonging to the body of Christ and to the holy temple of God. For the temple of God is holy [the Apostle] says, which you are (1 Cor 3:17). And the Lord himself says, Unless a person has been born of water and the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (Jn 3:5). Certain beginnings of faith, therefore, are like conceptions. Yet, in order to arrive at eternal life, one must not only be conceived but also be born. But none of this is without the grace of God's mercy, because even if works that are good follow that grace, as they say, they do not precede it.

19. See Acts 10:1-4
20. See Rom 10:14

St. Augustine's teaching appears to be: The Grace of Justification (and so supernatural faith and charity) can be obtained by Catechumens before Baptism. Yet, it is only in Baptism that they attain complete regeneration, and this is comparable to being born. And it is only after being born that they attain eternal life. Could it be that those in limbo were awaiting the seal of Christ's Baptism?

Second, the Doctor elsewhere speaks of the Grace of Perseverance. All Catholics know the grace of justification is necessary but not sufficient for salvation. An additional gratuitous grace called final perseverance is needed. God may give this or choose not to. Though He will always give it, to someone who seeks it sincerely, and makes use of the means He has given for it to be attained.

Thanks, Trad 123. From On the Predestination of the Saints, Book II, Chapter 46. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm

"Chapter 46.— A Man Who Does Not Persevere Fails by His Own Fault.

But it is said, It is by his own fault that any one deserts the faith, when he yields and consents to the temptation which is the cause of his desertion of the faith. Who denies it? But because of this, perseverance in the faith is not to be said not to be a gift of God. For it is this that a man daily asks for when he says, Lead us not into temptation; Matthew 6:13 and if he is heard, it is this that he receives. And thus as he daily asks for perseverance, he assuredly places the hope of his perseverance not in himself, but in God."

St. Augustine's authority is the main reason I rethought my former position: I believe St. Augustine's teaching is most likely true. Justification often before Baptism, but salvation after receiving the Sacrament, which God will Provide, seems a quite solid teaching.

My earlier position was similar to that of St. Thomas, St. Robert and St. Alphonsus. It seems St. Alphonsus and St. Robert may not have disagreed with St. Augustine, if the precise manner in which the Doctor of Hippo laid out his position had been raised to them.

St. Robert admits it is a difficulty to explain how catechumens are saved. It seems best to say catechumens will be saved after Baptism. Because they desired it, God provided it, and thus they were saved, not only upon being conceived, per the example, but actually born. That seems to be the position of the Monks and Nuns at St. Benedict's Centre as well.

One of St. Augustine's other statements, "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death precludes" doesn't preclude that Baptism could be administered to that person invisibly in some extraordinary way, it is quite consistent with it.

In your previous messages, and in the general discussion out there in computer-land of this issue, I think it would be fair to say that, when Fr. Feeney is accused of denying Baptism of desire, the meaning conveyed is that Fr. Feeney said: "There is no such thing as Baptism of desire." That is what the words mean taken simply, or at any rate, it is how they will be and are understood by probably the great majority of those who read or hear them.

But now, it is a different story. You are saying not that Fr. Feeney denied Baptism of water tout court, but only in a qualified sense hitherto known only to yourself.

This is a proceeding which I cannot allow to go by without strong objections. In fact, in think it would be fairly characterized as backing down. So here is your gun spiked by yourself. If you don't think so, I would ask you to say so, and I will go into the rules of logic and rhetoric which apply here. Meanwhile, I would wish this kept in mind by the reader while I examine what remains of your assertion.

Quote

Quote:
The relevant portions are as follows:

"Q. What. does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.

Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.

Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.

Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.

Let's read that again: "It could" possibly suffice for one to pass into a state of justification.

In plain words, Fr. Feeney has affirmed Baptism of desire, not denied it.

Might I say, here is another of your big guns spiked by your own evidence?

Quote

Quote:
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."

I realize this is the part of the quote you are relying on to prove your point. In your new, qualified sense of denying Baptism of desire, it does prove it; though the very most you can honestly assert on this basis is to say, "In one sense he denied it, and in another sense he did not." I doubt that that, however accurate, would forward the discussion much, at least if your only intention is to attack Fr. Feeney. Even in this limited sense, your assertion does not stand up to theological analysis, as I will attempt to show.

Now let us get to the theological issues involved here. You either are not aware of them, or you are deliberately ignoring them. Since Fr. Feeney made these issues quite clear for the layman's understanding, in the work you are citing, it could reasonably be assumed that you are aware of them. I believe a careful consideration would show any Catholic that Fr. Feeney's position had a firm theological base, however much the liberals objected to it.

Fr. Feeney makes the simple distinction, which he explains in other passages in the book, between justification and salvation. Justification is the passing of the soul from a state of sin to a state of grace. Salvation is the passing of the soul from this life into Heaven, or as a preliminary into Purgatory. Simple? Of course. (Let me point out in passing that Protestants rejected Catholic teaching on justification, while Catholics have been confused on the issue particularly since Vatican II, by the virtual equating of justification with salvation. Catholics, in fact, aren't even taught the term justification, in my experience. I completed high school before Vatican II began, and I don't recall ever learning this term, though certainly the distinction was less clearly conveyed by use of the term "state of grace.")

Now, Baptism is the sacrament of salvation. But is one saved by Baptism alone? Not at all.

But, if Baptism alone does not save, why would Baptism of desire, alone, save?

It's perfectly clear that after Baptism, many things are required prior to the attainment of salvation. These may be summed up for the moment by the word "perseverance."

In Catholic dogma, perseverance, in addition to being a straightforward commonsense concept, is a privileged one. It is de fide that the grace of final perseverance, absolutely necessary to salvation, is a separate and distinct grace, not granted to all, and which God owes to no one.

So, in this context, it is highly misleading, if not downright false, to say that even sacramental Baptism (much less Baptism of desire), or the state of grace, or anything else, is sufficient -- by itself-- for salvation.

This is Fr. Feeney's point, though the above quote, taken out of context, and given Fr. Feeney's rhetorical style (aimed at minds dulled by liberalism and lousy catechetical formation) can give the impression that Fr. Feeney is somehow denying the efficacy of Baptism of desire-- the efficacy which in the very same passage he admits.

Now, Mike may be well enough informed to protest at this point that this isn't the whole story. No, it isn't the whole story; but it's a lot more of the story than Mike has given us up to now. (And if he hasn't agreed with my presentation up to this point, let him say so, say why, and cite some Catholic theologians to back him up.)

OK, so the rest of the story, briefly put, would go like this: Fr. Feeney, legitimately concerned at the distortion of the doctrine of Baptism of desire, which had been repaved by liberals into a 16-lane freeway into Heaven for all unbelievers, turned his highly trained theological mind to finding the exact point where the error entered into this subtle and complex doctrine. (Errors tend to begin small, grow large.) He found it, or considered that he found it, in the rejection of the necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation--a necessity which is, without doubt, de fide.

There are two elements to consider here-- justification, and salvation. Both are necessary. Between the two, some time intervenes. During that time, many things are possible. One (at least) is necessary for salvation: the grace of final perseverance. Fr. Feeney probably considered that one way to scotch the liberal attempt to admit, not only heretics and schismatics ("in good faith") into Heaven, but also all the unbaptized, was to insist on the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation. He did not invent the situation, it is given in Catholic theology (i.e. Tradition). There is, as in other areas of dogma, a certain apparent inconsistency between the doctrines of the necessity of Baptism, and that of Baptism of desire. What Fr. Feeney did was to resolve this problem by holding that, along with the grace of final perseverance, God would provide, in case of any of the Elect not already baptized, actual sacramental baptism. Thus, all those entering Heaven after the promulgation of the Gospel (a group which does not include Dismas) would, in fact, have been baptized. Thus, Baptism of desire would suffice for justification, but not for salvation (wholly in the dispositions of God's free providence, as revealed).

This was Fr. Feeney's opinion, as I understand it. My analysis may or may not exactly correspond to his thought processes when he first excogitated it. I am not aware that he ever published it in a formal theological presentation, so the above is based on comments by his followers in their published sources, as well as my own and others' understanding of the theology involved.

I am not saying anyone is obliged to agree with this opinion. I do not incline to agree with it myself. It is a subtle, and disputed, point. I believe it was inspired at least in part by Cano's (and others') opinion on the necessity of faith for salvation: implicit faith suffices for justification, but explicit faith is necessary for salvation. This opinion, along with countless other theological opinions, may not have faired well, it may be wrong, but it has never been condemned. Nor has Fr. Feeney's.

If you are determined to call Fr. Feeney a heretic on this basis, you are going to have to call all those other authors of those countless opinions heretics, too. You may start with St. Cyprian, and it would not be hard to add to the list of canonized saints and doctors of the Church.

The Council of Trent did not affirm Baptism of desire at all, in the sense in which you say Fr. Feeney denied it--that is, in regard to salvation. The texts refer to justification, not salvation. Nor are they definitions in any event but rather obiter dicta. In any case, Fr. Feeney did not contradict them.

To return to your point: you are claiming that Fr. Feeney can be accused of heresy because he denied "that one who died prior to sacramental baptism could be saved through Baptism of Desire."

If we turn that around, you are asserting "that one who dies prior to sacramental baptism can be saved through Baptism of Desire."

This can be understood in two ways: 1) such a person can be saved through Baptism of desire alone; or 2) Such a one can be saved through Baptism of desire and something else.

I have shown, I hope adequately, that 1) is false. If you intend to assert this, then we could accuse you of heresy for denying, perhaps among other things, the necessity of the grace of final perseverance.

As for 2), it is true that Fr. Feeney denied it. However, there is more to it. He pointed out that the statement involves an implicit hypothetical. ("If one dies in such a state, such-and-such results.") But a contingent, hypothetical situation may or may not ever take place in reality. It is entirely a matter of God's free choice. If, in the law of God's general providence, He has decreed certain requirements and contingencies and not others, those are the only ones that will eventuate. Catholic theology deals primarily with facts, not with hypotheses. The facts are known through Revelation. A hypothesis that is inconsistent with the facts of Revelation cannot be entertained by Catholic theologians, however logical or simple it may seem. If He has decreed that all the Elect will receive sacramental Baptism (as He has decreed that they will receive the grace of final perseverance), then the hypothesis in this statement is ruled out. So it is not so much the truth involved in the "if-then" of the hypothesis as posed, but of the very possibility of the situation arising at all. And that is why I say that even your qualified claim does not stand up theologically, without a good deal more qualification and consideration than you have so far given it. Fr. Feeney, of course, must answer for his rhetoric; but what he is really saying is that as a hypothesis (that is, a pure possibility) one can be saved without Baptism, but in the existential order, the situation will not happen. In that sense, it is impossible. But this sense of impossibility is quite distinct from that of a logical or metaphysical, or perhaps even a theological, impossibility.

Also, in this light, the practice of Fr. Feeney's enemies of quoting his statements out of context to make it appear that he believed that a person dying in the state of grace might lose his soul can be seen for what it is--deceptive, mendacious, and entirely typical of heretics. I am merely trying to rectify this in accordance with the facts.

It's open to you or anyone to take issue with Fr. Feeney's opinion, within the parameters of Catholic dogma (some of which have been set out above). But to claim, on this basis, that Fr. Feeney denied Baptism of desire without further qualification, is so misleading as to amount to a falsehood.

If you want to accuse Fr. Feeney of heresy, perhaps that's your right as well--as long as you don't involve yourself in other heresies. But as things stand, the very authorities of the Church you invoke never mentioned the word heresy at all--either in regard to Fr. Feeney, or those he was (rightly) denouncing. They are your heroes--so what does that do for the credibility of your accusations? Shouldn't you give this thought a little more consideration as well?

And one other thing. Pursuant to your position as I summarized it in a previous post, along with the constant invocation of the supposed Holy Office letter as the final court of appeal in the "Fr. Feeney heresy case", any innocent bystander of a reader might think that the letter has something to say about Baptism of desire. Yet, there is not a single word on the subject of Baptism in it at all.

James Larrabee

A.M.D.G.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?p=3241#p3241

Which saint is that from?