CathInfo.com

And even if Trent did teach BofD as salvific, then why cannot the other sacraments be had by desire?  Confirmation by desire, Marriage by desire, Priesthood by desire.  Were the fathers at Trent being biased by picking out Baptism among the other sacraments? I often hear "God is not bound by the sacraments," but understood rightly, He is bound to the sacraments.  Two men cannot marry, an Oreo cookie cannot be consecrated, ad naseam.  Or is it really, that because I am so liberal, I need to find some way to get that poor ignorant native who lives next door to me, with his internet and Hot Pockets, into heaven?

I agree, especially about hot pockets.    It's too bad I can't "wish upon a star" and get a free one.

Sadly, the apparent defenders of Fr. Feeney in this thread do not seem to really understand the nuances of Fr. Feeney's teaching.

For example, he did acknowledge what Trent says in Session 6, chapter 4, that "justification" can come from something other than the Sacrament of Baptism (namely, from "the desire for the [laver of regeneration"]). Here is a quote from one of Feeney's followers "Brother Michael":

----------

"Next, you supply your readers with a very excellent choice of quotations from Saint Thomas, Holy Scripture, and the Council of Trent, giving the impression that Father Feeney taught something different from these authorities. And I must repeat again that Father Feeney did not teach that “ONLY” the character of Baptism wipes away original sin. You will not find this anywhere in his writings. The quote from Bread of Life , which you provided your readers with at the start, reads that a man cannot “in the true and full sense” be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God. It does not say that a man cannot in any way be said to be freed from original sin. Original sin has other effects besides the aspect of guilt (or contamination) which makes one an enemy of God. And these aspects are not removed by the state of justification alone. They are the fomes peccati (the “kindling wood” of concupiscence), all our physical ills (including our mortality), and the banishment from the kingdom of heaven. If immortality and the consummated beatific life with God are restored by the state of grace alone, then why were not the holy souls of the Old Testament permitted to enter heaven after death? This is the point you overlook in your choice of quotes from Father’s book. The original sin will not be totally defeated until we are sealed with the character Baptism and fed with the Body of Christ.

This does not mean that justified, but unbaptized, catechumens are not children of God. They are. But they have not yet been “born of God” fully. (John 1:14) Why not? Because the “power,” which has been given them in “receiving Christ” to be made “the sons of God” (John 1:12) has to be fully actualized in the laver of regeneration. They are in grace, but not yet sealed as “sons” and “heirs.” If I am adopted by a human father, he may treat me beforehand as a son, bestowing upon me his paternal affection, but until I enter his house and am admitted into his very life, I am only inchoatively his son. I am not a member of the family until I am sealed as such. So too, a justified catechumen (say Saint Ambrose, Saint Robert Bellarmine and all saintly theologians) is not yet a member of the family of the Church until he is baptized. It is after coming up from this sacred font, a visible font, that one is made worthy of the promise and invited to even more complete and vital membership by means of the Eucharistic Food. This further effacement of the effect of original sin is only granted to those who have the right to the Eucharist, that is, to those sealed with the character of the sacrament as conferred by water and the word. These are those who have truly, “in the full sense,” entered into the inchoative stage of eternal life on earth. Then, after death, for those who have persevered in and were sealed in the new life they had begun as members of Christ, eternal life will be possessed in vision, while still awaiting its final consummation in the fully restored perfection of body and soul after the general resurrection. At that time, all the saved will partake of the ”fruit of the vine” non-sacramentally as Holy Communion, in the House of God and the victory over Satan will be complete. (Matt. 26:29)"

https://catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html

-------

That quote is from The Saint Benedict Center's "Brother Michael," defending Fr. Feeney against the misunderstandings of (then) Fr. Richard Williamson, FSSPX. It is a long article. But if you read it, you will understand that the matter is much more complicated than most of the commenters on this thread seem to understand.

Trent Session 6, chapter 4 leaves open the possibility of "justification" coming from the "desire for the [laver of regeneration], but, at the same time, Trent says that "salvation" requires "the Sacrament of Baptism," which it defines as requiring "water."

So there is a possible in-between state open for theological discussion (meaning not heretical): it is a state where the soul is "justified" by something other than the Sacrament but is not prepared for "salvation" because the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for "salvation." This is a very narrow window and depends on what exactly the words "justification" and "salvation" mean.

Fr. Feeney was definitely correct that "salvation" is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism. But he was not saying that "justification" is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism, which is what I have argued in this thread. In other words, a soul in that state, if there are such souls, would be in a kind of "limbo." And it just so happens that the Bible talks about such a "limbo." It was called the "limbo of the just" aka "the bosom of Abraham. And that situation required at a extraordinary, supernatural act of Jesus descending into Hell to free the "just" from "limbo" and bring them to "salvation."

That quote is from The Saint Benedict Center's "Brother Michael," defending Fr. Feeney against the misunderstandings of (then) Fr. Richard Williamson, FSSPX. It is a long article. But if you read it, you will understand that the matter is much more complicated than most of the commenters on this thread seem to understand.

Oh, suuure.  Most of the commentators besides you, who of course understand everything perfectly when you don't even know what salvation means.  Some of these posters have been studying this issue far longer than you have.  You just cherrypick stuff and uses ellipses to promote your agenda.