Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Augustinus on November 22, 2017, 12:03:35 AM
-
"If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."
There are few arguments that could become more bitter than the arguments either for or against baptism of desire.
However, it seems to me that many of the arguments both for and against have been exaggerated and made with a surprising lack of caution.
In many cases, those who have argued for baptism of desire seem ignorant of the fact that it was a virtually untouched topic in the first thousand years of the Church's life.
And those who argue against it often seem to ignore the fact that Catholics are not bound only to ex cathedra statements, but also to the unanimous consensus of theologians that a teaching is to be believed as certain.
So, what to do? What can a 35 year old white American male, lower middle class add to these interminable discussions?
Well, if I could add one single thing, it would be this- That although I love and respect Fr. Feeney and detest liberal Catholics, I would say he was wrong to consider Baptism of Desire, as understood by the Theologians and strictly, as a loophole.
Please allow me to explain.
When we consider Baptism of Desire, what is the traditional understanding of it, unanimously espoused by the theologians? That a catechumen, who explicitly intends to receive baptism with a firm and steady resolve, should he meet an untimely death, would be saved- all other conditions presumed as present (faith, hope and charity being present, a life of following the commandments, etc.).
But consider, this resolve in itself is an admission by the catechumen that he has no other means of salvation. This is no seeking of an option other than baptism. This is the admission of every dogma, every father, every decree declaring that without baptism, we cannot be saved. For the catechumen, to grasp to the exception is to be damned. To hang onto the hope of salvation apart from the sacrament is already wicked presumption. To consciously defer day to day the possibility of rebirth and gamble with uncertainty is to despise the gracious hand of God offering us a way out of Hell.
There is absolutely nothing optional about baptism. And the one who is saved by baptism of desire is proof of that. For it is only in the acknowledgment of his utter dependence upon God and the necessary means of salvation he established that the possibility of any exception at all is opened to him.
Which is precisely why it can never be actively taught. It can never be used as a tool of evangelization. It can never be a motive to come to Christ.
It can only be known post-facto, that God would have had mercy on the one who set out from the City of Man and died on the porch of the City of God. Acknowledging his want, confessing his sinfulness, following the path of Christ and yet perishing while rapping on the gate- Will we not confess that such a one sought and found the visible body of the Church of Christ? Will he not be brought into the gates and buried within the city?
And if not, why not?
Here, I see no loophole. I see only the affirmation of the truth- that all men are obligated to receive sacramental water baptism to be saved. And the only exception is granted to those who die in search of those waters.
BUT do such people exist? Are there people who die frustrated by their repeated attempts to be baptized, in good faith, who never make it in? Would he who began a good work fail to bring it to completion?
I cannot say that much. But I suspect not.
-
In many cases, those who have argued for baptism of desire seem ignorant of the fact that it was a virtually untouched topic in the first thousand years of the Church's life.
Oh, on the contrary, most proponents of BoD falsely claim that there was unanimous consensus among the Church Fathers in favor of BoD. Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Augustine floated the idea as a speculation ... and then forcefully retracted it. Towards the beginning of the scholastic era, there was an Augustinian revival and so the scholastics picked up on Augustine's original speculation ... but evidently didn't have knowledge of his later retraction. Once St. Thomas picked it up, it went viral.
At the end of the day, there's ZERO evidence that Baptism of Desire has been divinely revealed ... whereas the necessity of Baptism is in fact divinely revealed. And I have NEVER SEEN an argument made by anyone that proves that Baptism of Desire derives necessarily from other revealed truth. Theologians mere state, gratuitously, that it exists ... almost invariably tying it back to the "authority" of St. Augustine. Consequently BoD can never be defined as dogma.
-
Indeed, there's no such thing as an untimely death in the providence of God. If Baptism is necessary and BoD impossible, then God will simply make sure that His elect receive Baptism. Simple. There's no such thing as "impossibility" with God. But the speculation on BoD derives from this false man-made notion that it would be unfair if a catechumen died without Baptism. Only God knows why He would allow that ... just as only God knows why He allows some infants to die before receiving Baptism. But nothing that God does is unfair or unmerciful.
St. Augustine came to this realization himself when he retracted his speculation about BoD.
Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator. (Saint Augustine)
-
But, yes, the necessity of Baptism can be preserved even in Baptism of Desire so long as one properly articulates it; Baptism remains necessary as the object of one's desire and remains the instrumental cause of justification. Note that, in order to avoid Pelagianism, you have to state that it is not the desire itself that's salvific but the Sacrament of Baptism operating through the desire that is the cause of justification. People saved by Baptism of Desire would receive the Sacrament in voto rather than be saved without it as some "exception" to the rule, for exceptions destroy the notion that Baptism is necessary by necessity of means. Proponents of BoD invariably fall into one or another grave error or heresy when articulating the concept.
-
Yes, the same could be said of implicit faith. Speculation begins in the 16th century as a minority opinion, and fast forward to this moment, and it is now the majority opinion.
And passed off like Church teaching.
Implicit faith is even worse because the Church Fathers UNANIMOUSLY taught that knowledge of and faith in Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation. And the Athanasian Creed appears to teach the same thing. And for 1600 years explicit faith was taught by everyone everywhere. If anything can be said to be an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Unviersal Magisterium, this is it. When St. Alphonsus simply called implicit faith a less probable opinion, he opened the floodgates to tolerance for it. Unfortunately, at the time, the notion of Ordinary Universal Magisterium had not been defined and was not really taken into consideration by the theologians. It should have been rejected right out of the gate and recognized for the Jesuitical heresy that it was.
-
Why did the Church insist on catechumens receiving instruction before the sacrament? Why not baptize as soon as they have expressed a desire to submit to the Church’s doctrine? It seems to me to be a tacit admission that a catechumen is already under the Church’s protection. If I were a catechumen wouldn’t I have a good case to argue that it is an injustice to risk my eternal salvation in order to prove my good faith? What percentage of catechumens fall away before baptism and what percentage fall after? My guess is that the greater number fall after. So why not baptize after a simple profession of faith? That certainly would have resulted in more souls being saved during times of persecution. How would we condemn a catechumen for having a friend baptize him before the instruction? There seems to be a conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the society as a whole there and I don’t see how that could be.
-
What can a 35 year old white American male, lower middle class add to these interminable discussions?
.
His demography, apparently.
-
Why did the Church insist on catechumens receiving instruction before the sacrament? Why not baptize as soon as they have expressed a desire to submit to the Church’s doctrine? It seems to me to be a tacit admission that a catechumen is already under the Church’s protection. If I were a catechumen wouldn’t I have a good case to argue that it is an injustice to risk my eternal salvation in order to prove my good faith?
Uhm, it was because the Church never administered the Sacrament of Baptism lightly but only after a period of testing to make sure the person was sincere and convinced. And, also, unlike yourself, the Church believes that God will preserve a Catechumen who's in good faith and destined to receive Baptism ... until such a time as he actually receives Baptism.
-
Why did the Church insist on catechumens receiving instruction before the sacrament? Why not baptize as soon as they have expressed a desire to submit to the Church’s doctrine? It seems to me to be a tacit admission that a catechumen is already under the Church’s protection. If I were a catechumen wouldn’t I have a good case to argue that it is an injustice to risk my eternal salvation in order to prove my good faith? What percentage of catechumens fall away before baptism and what percentage fall after? My guess is that the greater number fall after. So why not baptize after a simple profession of faith? That certainly would have resulted in more souls being saved during times of persecution. How would we condemn a catechumen for having a friend baptize him before the instruction? There seems to be a conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the society as a whole there and I don’t see how that could be.
And, just as with the origins of BoD itself, this is nothing but speculation on your part and based on a number of assumptions ... that it would be "an injustice". Cries of "unfair" and "unmerciful" -- presumptions all against the goodness of God -- are what's behind BoD. There's NO ACTUAL THEOLOGY BEHIND IT ... just emotional "reasoning" such as in your post here.
-
But, yes, the necessity of Baptism can be preserved even in Baptism of Desire so long as one properly articulates it; Baptism remains necessary as the object of one's desire and remains the instrumental cause of justification. People saved by Baptism of Desire would receive the Sacrament in voto rather than be saved without it as some "exception" to the rule,
If that it correct, then it would have been defined by the Church as such by now and would have been called the sacrament of baptism by desire.
Besides, I have only met one person in my life that truly limited BOD to the catechumen. The chances of finding one who believes BOD of the catechumen exactly as you detail are slim and none. This is like debating over how many angels fit on top of a pin head.
-
Who actually articulates it the way you have described?
Those theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine who speak of an in voto reception of the Sacrament.
-
If that it correct, then it would have been defined by the Church as such by now and would have been called the sacrament of baptism by desire.
Besides, I have only met one person in my life that truly limited BOD to the catechumen. The chances of finding one who believes BOD of the catechumen exactly as you detail are slim and none. This is like debating over how many angels fit on top of a pin head.
I just explained why the Church cannot define BoD, nor would any hypothetical definition refer to it as "the sacrament of baptism by desire".
Yes, it is true that the number of BoD proponents who do not in their articulation of BoD slip into one heresy or another can probably be counted on your fingers. But the point is that the position CAN be held without heresy, and people would not be heretics for believing in a BoD per se, but rather for the other actual heresies they have embraced.
-
The proposition of untimely deaths, unforeseen accidents are by products of the school of Molinism. In the school of Molinism, God is a spectator in the universe basically waiting to see if His graces are made efficacious or not by the individuals free will, therefore the untimely death, unforeseen accidents... I understand this position has not been condemned, however the natural trajectory ends up in Pelagianism, where we are today.
You're absolutely right. Molinism and BoD have led to the modern Pelagianism.
-
The only way for BOD to really exist is for God to positively will for people to die before receiving the sacrament. We can only speculate why:
The person would have ended in hell later in life (God foreknew that the person was not of the predestined) and God had mercy on him, as sacramentally baptized Catholics suffer the greatest torments of all humanity in hell.
Receiving baptism of desire sends a person to the higher reaches of hell of the least torments, almost like a bad limbo of the patriarchs. There are different degrees of torments in Hell.
Note the two extremes of Hell, the worst torments for baptized Catholics and the least could be like a bad Limbo of the Patriarchs.
From Mystical City of God , by Sister Mary of Agreda.
537. Seeing him (Judas) thus beside himself Lucifer inspired him with the thought of hunting up the priests, returning to them the money and confessing his sin. This Judas hastened to do, and he loudly shouted at them those words: "I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!" (Matth. 27, 4). But they, not less hardened, answered that he should have seen to that before. The intention of the demon was to hinder the death of Christ if possible, for reasons already given and yet to be given (No. 419). This repulse of the priests, so full of impious cruelty, took away all hope from Judas and he persuaded himself that it was impossible to hinder the death of his Master. So thought also the demon, although later on he made more efforts to forestall it through Pilate. But as Judas could be of no more use to him for his purpose, he augmented his distress and despair, persuading him that in order to avoid severer punishments he must end his life. Judas yielded to this terrible deceit, and rushing forth from the city, hung himself on a dried-out figtree (Matth. 27, 5). Thus he that was the murderer of his Creator, became also his own murderer. This happened on Friday at twelve o'clock, three hours before our Savior died. It was not becoming that his death and the consummation of our Redemption should coincide too closely with the execrable end of the traitorous disciple, who hated him with fiercest malice.
538. The demons at once took possession of the soul of Judas and brought it down to hell. His entrails burst from the body hanging upon the tree (Acts 1, 18). All that saw this stupendous pimishment of the perfidious and malicious disciple for his treason, were filled with astonishment and dread. The body remained hanging by the neck for three days, exposed to the view of the public. During that time the Jєωs attempted to take it down f rom the tree and to bury it in secret, for it was a sight apt to cause great confusion to the pharisees and priests, who could not refute such a testimony of his wickedness. But no efforts of theirs sufficed to drag or separate the body from its position on the tree until three days had passed, when, according to the dispensation of divine justice, the demons themselves snatched the body from the tree and brought it to his soul, in order that both might suffer eternal punishment in the profoundest abyss of hell. Since what I have been made to know of the pains and chastisements of Judas, is worthy of fear-inspiring attention, I will according to command reveal what has been shown me concerning it. Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.
539. This mystery I was commanded to reveal more particularly for a dreadful warning to all Christians, and especially to the priests, prelates and religious, who are accustomed to treat with more familiarity the body and blood of Christ our Lord, and who, by their office and state are his closer friends. In order to avoid blame I would like to find words and expressions sufficiently strong to make an impression on our unfeeling obduracy, so that we all may take a salutary warning and be filled with the fear of the punishments awaiting all bad Christians according to the station each one of us occupies. The demons torment Judas with inexpressible cruelty, because he persisted in the betrayal of his Master, by whose Passion and Death they were vanquished and despoiled of the possession of the world. The wrath which they had conceived against the Savior and his blessed Mother, they wreck, as far as is allowed them, on all those who imitate the traitorous disciple and who follow him in his contempt of the evangelical law, of the Sacraments and of the fruits of the Redemption. And in this the demons are but executing just punishment on those members of the mystical body of Christ, who have severed their connection with its head Christ, and who have voluntarily drifted away and delivered themselves over to the accursed hate and implacable fury of his enemies. As the instruments of divine justice they chastise the redeemed for their ingratitude toward their Redeemer. Let the children of the Church consider well this truth, for it cannot fail to move their hearts and induce them to evade such a lamentable fate.
-
The only way for BOD to really exist is for God to positively will for people to die before receiving the sacrament. We can only speculate why:
The person would have ended in hell later in life (God foreknew that the person was not of the predestined) and God had mercy on him, as sacramentally baptized Catholics suffer the greatest torments of all humanity in hell.
Receiving baptism of desire sends a person to the higher reaches of hell of the least torments, almost like a bad limbo of the patriarchs. There are different degrees of torments in Hell.
Note the two extremes of Hell, the worst torments for baptized Catholics and the least could be like a bad Limbo of the Patriarchs.
Yes, indeed. I pointed this out to LoT once, that God must positively will for people to be saved via BoD rather than by receiving the Sacrament. LoT conceded this. So I asked him why God would will that. He responded something about how God must want them to receive some temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory (pushing that faulty St. Alphonsus theory).
And, yes, the emotional aversion people have to "nice people" or "sincere people" not being saved is that they would go to hell -- and they have a very monolithic idea of hell where everybody is tossed indiscriminately into a burning furnace, with a kindly old Jєωιѕн grandmother who gave her life for her children right next to Joe Stalin, suffering the same torments. But one of the EENS definitions points out that the torments are of varying degrees. And I too believe that there are many in hell who suffer very little. And I believe that a BoD would remit a great deal of the suffering they would experience, while a BoB would eliminate nearly all of it ... putting people into a near-limbo state. But the superntural gift of the beatific vision is owed to no one; it is above our nature and is not even required for our perfect natural happiness. Beatific vision is a free gift of God and He gives it to whomever He chooses.
-
Why did the Church insist on catechumens receiving instruction before the sacrament? Why not baptize as soon as they have expressed a desire to submit to the Church’s doctrine? It seems to me to be a tacit admission that a catechumen is already under the Church’s protection. If I were a catechumen wouldn’t I have a good case to argue that it is an injustice to risk my eternal salvation in order to prove my good faith? What percentage of catechumens fall away before baptism and what percentage fall after? My guess is that the greater number fall after. So why not baptize after a simple profession of faith? That certainly would have resulted in more souls being saved during times of persecution. How would we condemn a catechumen for having a friend baptize him before the instruction? There seems to be a conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the society as a whole there and I don’t see how that could be.
Clemens: I would argue that all of the sacraments are contracts, in the sense that God promises to give me what I want if I promise to do/believe what He requires. But how can I say that I believe/accept the Faith if I don't know the Faith? Hence the instruction period.
-
Here St. Robert, in his formula, is saying that true conversion supplies for the Sacrament, therefore making the Sacrament not necessary. It's true that he said it's necessary in re vel in voto later on, but he contradicted himself earlier when he denied the necessity of it.
No, it's not a contradiction. He's saying that the Sacrament is necessary in voto ... like the way Trent says that Confession is necessary saltem in voto. I don't agree, but the way he articulates it clearly avoids heresy.
-
Yes, indeed. I pointed this out to LoT once, that God must positively will for people to be saved via BoD rather than by receiving the Sacrament. LoT conceded this. So I asked him why God would will that. He responded something about how God must want them to receive some temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory (pushing that faulty St. Alphonsus theory).
And, yes, the emotional aversion people have to "nice people" or "sincere people" not being saved is that they would go to hell -- and they have a very monolithic idea of hell where everybody is tossed indiscriminately into a burning furnace, with a kindly old Jєωιѕн grandmother who gave her life for her children right next to Joe Stalin, suffering the same torments. But one of the EENS definitions points out that the torments are of varying degrees. And I too believe that there are many in hell who suffer very little. And I believe that a BoD would remit a great deal of the suffering they would experience, while a BoB would eliminate nearly all of it ... putting people into a near-limbo state. But the superntural gift of the beatific vision is owed to no one; it is above our nature and is not even required for our perfect natural happiness. Beatific vision is a free gift of God and He gives it to whomever He chooses.
And this^ makes me remember Father Wathen's chilling observation that "one doesn't go to hell because he's so bad, he just doesn't go to heaven because he's not good enough".
-
So when he says that true conversion supplies for the Sacrament, you don't see that as meaning "in lieu of"? As in, if the Sacrament cannot be had, true conversion will suffice. Not to mention the error that some "necessity" may prevent the reception of the Sacrament.
The brings me to another point. What about the others who clearly claimed that the Sacrament is not necessary and it's effects may be attained through Baptism of Blood or Desire, or the teaching that Infants don't need Baptism? You seem to be quite afraid to call this error what it is. Wouldn't you agree that the necessity of infant Baptism had been defined way before some taught that it isn't necessary? Wouldn't you agree that saying that the temporal punishment is not taken away clearly indicates it is not the Sacrament which is received, even in voto, thereby making the Sacrament not necessary?
St. Robert says that true conversion supplies for the Baptism OF WATER. He's distinguishing it from Baptism of Desire. If you believe in BoD in the first place, then it's possible that a necessity might prevent the reception of the Sacrament in re. That simply cannot be used as a premise or argument in favor of BoD.
Those who say that the Sacrament is not necessary or that infant Baptism is not necessary simpliciter are heretics; those who say that it's necessary saltem in voto are not.
I told you that I reject the temporal punishment position.
-
Wow. Baptism of water is the Sacrament of Baptism yes or no?
If it is, which it is, then he is definitely saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and true conversion provides what is lacking from not receiving the Sacrament.
It is an error and if held obstinately, after the definitions of Vatican 1, is a heresy. No matter how you try to justify it, they are saying that the Sacrament is not necessary.
Then we have St. Alphonsus who says: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."
He says it is comparable to true Baptism because it is not Baptism, the Sacrament. Therefore, he is saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and that infants may be saved if they are killed for the faith, and even teaches that to oppose this is temerarious. This is another direct contradiction to Dogma as a result.
Is this statement heretical-
“The only people who could be saved without sacramental water baptism are those who profess they have no other means of salvation.”
Where is the denial of necessity?
-
And, just as with the origins of BoD itself, this is nothing but speculation on your part and based on a number of assumptions ... that it would be "an injustice". Cries of "unfair" and "unmerciful" -- presumptions all against the goodness of God -- are what's behind BoD. There's NO ACTUAL THEOLOGY BEHIND IT ... just emotional "reasoning" such as in your post here.
I momentarily forgot the history of this debate so let me clarify. I'm not talking about some falsely imagined injustice of God. I'm talking about the bishop (or priest). Our Lord commanded the bishops to go forth and baptise. So they have an obligation to save souls by baptising them. They can't validly baptise anyone unless the one to be baptised assents beforehand. But someone who requests entrance into the catechumenate has already expressed a desire and consent (at least implicitly) for baptism. So why wait for months of instruction? The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised after less than a day of instruction. Someone who requests entrance into the catechumenate presumably already has some knowledge about what he is getting into. And it wouldn't take long to find out. So why insist on months of instruction unnecessarily putting the salvation of the soul at risk? Wouldn't it also be presumption to assume that God will preserve a soul from death just so you (the bishop or priest) could be satisfied that they know the faith in great detail? God permits murder too but the murderer is condemned. So why would the bishop make catechumens study for months before baptism? And if God will preserve the elect from death before baptism, why baptise a catechumen who is in imminent danger of death? Why not just trust that God will preserve them? (That would be presumption, right?) After all, it is more important that they be instructed before baptism than that they survive long enough to be baptised. Right?
Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
Is that heretical? Did the pope approve a heretical law to be imposed on the entire Church? Or is it simply supposed that the death of the catechumen is prima facie evidence that they were culpable for not having received baptism? If that's the case, then every catechumen has a duty to get baptised immediately without delay the moment they realize they cannot be saved without baptism. The law requiring reception of instruction cannot bind in this case.
My conclusion is that a centuries-old practice of the Church indicates that it was understood that a catechumen had the same protection that any other member of the Church has with regard to their salvation. No catechumen will be damned unless they were culpable of some grave sin. As to whether that is because God will make sure they are baptised with water or in voto, that seems less important to me than the principle that "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 10:32
-
If you will look above at what I highlighted in your statement you'll see that this part implies that there is salvation without the prerequisite Sacramental Water Baptism. Yes, it is erroneous. If held to obstinately, it is heresy.
How about this comparable statement: "The only people who could be saved outside the Church are those who profess that they have no other means of salvation". It automatically assumes salvation outside the Church. Therefore, it contradicts Dogma.
I think you’re missing the point- The efficacy for their salvation lies precisely in the affirmation of Dogmatic Truth- the acknowledging that for them, they have and desire no other option.
Everyone admits that a catechumen leaning on BoD would be damned for presumption. So really it is only effective if treated as non-existent.
Therefore, there is no heresy because there is a positive denial that baptism could be optional for them. That’s the way this one exception would prove the rule, the exception can only exist through affirming the rule.
This is St. Bellarmines argument, that Catechumens ARE saved in the Visible Church, but in the vestibule as it were. Clinging to the Ark that is tossed in the waves as opposed to being brought inside.
-
Yes, indeed. I pointed this out to LoT once, that God must positively will for people to be saved via BoD rather than by receiving the Sacrament. LoT conceded this. So I asked him why God would will that. He responded something about how God must want them to receive some temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory (pushing that faulty St. Alphonsus theory).
And, yes, the emotional aversion people have to "nice people" or "sincere people" not being saved is that they would go to hell -- and they have a very monolithic idea of hell where everybody is tossed indiscriminately into a burning furnace, with a kindly old Jєωιѕн grandmother who gave her life for her children right next to Joe Stalin, suffering the same torments. But one of the EENS definitions points out that the torments are of varying degrees. And I too believe that there are many in hell who suffer very little. And I believe that a BoD would remit a great deal of the suffering they would experience, while a BoB would eliminate nearly all of it ... putting people into a near-limbo state. But the superntural gift of the beatific vision is owed to no one; it is above our nature and is not even required for our perfect natural happiness. Beatific vision is a free gift of God and He gives it to whomever He chooses.
Then a priest should not baptise someone who is in imminent danger of death. They should be given months of instruction before baptism so as to make sure that they are more likely to remain in a state of grace until death. Baptising someone who requests it without instruction would be too risky because they might culpably doubt a doctrine or entertain an unnatural thought in the moments between their baptism and their death. That would cause them to be plunged into the deepest depths of hell. Therefore we should not risk it. We should just let them go to the higher parts of hell where they won't suffer as much.
-
Again, I understand why you would say it is an error, and I am sympathetic to that. But, as stated in the thread on Theologians, it is a fact the Church’s approves theologians, whom Pope Pius IX teaches we are to adhere to, have, since the time of Hugh of St. Victor, Chosen to admit the single exception for catechumens, and they say that this exception is made because Christ said, no less absolutely than his requirement of baptism, “Whoever confesses me I will confess before my father.”
Now if some posit an individual who professes Christ, but dies without baptism through no fault of his own, and that such a person could not be saved, do they make Christ a liar?
I am trying to work it out, because I want to be faithful to all the Church requires all around and certainly don’t want to commit any sins of temererity in confessing the truth.
But it does strike me, we cannot extend the arguments that God would go to extraordinary means to provide people with faith to baptism. This is because faith is more necessary than baptism, because the object of baptism is the grace received, which can never be received without faith. But baptism, being merely an INSTRUMENTAL cause of grace, could be set aside in favor of another instrument.
-
Then a priest should not baptise someone who is in imminent danger of death. They should be given months of instruction before baptism so as to make sure that they are more likely to remain in a state of grace until death. Baptising someone who requests it without instruction would be too risky because they might culpably doubt a doctrine or entertain an unnatural thought in the moments between their baptism and their death. That would cause them to be plunged into the deepest depths of hell. Therefore we should not risk it. We should just let them go to the higher parts of hell where they won't suffer as much.
That's just stupid, and you know it. Church has always hastened the Baptism of catechumens in danger of death, in particular during times of persecution. Why if there is such a thing as BoD?
-
and they say that this exception is made because Christ said, no less absolutely than his requirement of baptism, “Whoever confesses me I will confess before my father.”
Now if some posit an individual who professes Christ, but dies without baptism through no fault of his own, and that such a person could not be saved, do they make Christ a liar?
No such conclusion necessarily follows from the Scripture quote. Even if Our Lord confesses someone before the Father, does that necessarily equate to the beatific vision? No, it doesn't -- it could refer to any kind of favorable treatment in their final eternal disposition (e.g. less or no suffering in hell).
-
But it does strike me, we cannot extend the arguments that God would go to extraordinary means to provide people with faith to baptism. This is because faith is more necessary than baptism, because the object of baptism is the grace received, which can never be received without faith. But baptism, being merely an INSTRUMENTAL cause of grace, could be set aside in favor of another instrument.
God has OFTEN used extraordinary means to get Baptism to His elect. Read the lives of the saints who raised people from the dead just long enough to baptize them. But God never HAS to use extraordinary means. God can simply arrange circuмstances in such a way as to ensure that His elect receive Baptism. In these examples from the saints, God used extraordinary means precisely to show dramatically the NECESSITY of Baptism for salvation.
Baptism, albeit an instrumental cause, is still necessary by necessity of means for salvation; what type of cause it is makes no difference in terms of its necessity. You appear to be saying that faith alone saves without the Sacrament and that the grace of the Sacrament can be received WITHOUT the Sacrament. That's venturing into heretical territory.
-
Is this statement heretical-
“The only people who could be saved without sacramental water baptism are those who profess they have no other means of salvation.”
Where is the denial of necessity?
Father Feeney pointed out a great irony in the promotion of BoD. Can you get to a point where you no longer ardently desire Baptism because you believe that you can be saved without it through Baptism of Desire? Yes, I believe so. I desire the desire of Baptism now (since it will save me) and no longer desire Baptism itself. +Lefebvre reported the story of a native in Africa who implored him to baptize him, worried that he might die before he came back again to baptize him. +Lefebvre told him not to worry because he had Baptism of Desire. Didn't that just UNDERMINE this person's ardent desire for Baptism?
-
Everyone admits that a catechumen leaning on BoD would be damned for presumption. So really it is only effective if treated as non-existent.
Ah the irony. See my previous post about +Lefebvre.
-
But someone who requests entrance into the catechumenate has already expressed a desire and consent (at least implicitly) for baptism. So why wait for months of instruction? The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised after less than a day of instruction.
That's a prudential judgment. I've known priests who baptized people within days after they presented themselves because they were convinced regarding their sincerity. But their sincerity and their proper dispositions are not always readily known without a period of testing. So, for instance, I know of a couple "mixed marriage" situations where the potential converts (converting at the insistence of their Catholic prospective spouses) outwardly expressed their assent to Church teaching. They said and did "all the right things". Then they were baptized. Then later the couple separated, and the "convert" AT ONCE stopped practicing the Catholic faith (stopped going to Mass, etc.) Did they ever truly have the proper dispositions? Unlikely. I know of TWO such incidents. So the Church has deemed it prudent to test the dispositions of catechumens.
-
Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
Is that heretical? Did the pope approve a heretical law to be imposed on the entire Church?
No, I've never said that BoD is heretical. What this simply means is that the Church has left OPEN the possibility that such a one might be saved. Just because someone receives Christian burial, it doesn't mean that there's any certainty regarding their salvation. Nor is this any kind of doctrinal statement but merely a pastoral law. Nor does this law, as is roundly misinterpreted, mean that they WERE to be counted among the baptized absolutely speaking. Obviously. Otherwise catechumens could receive the Sacraments. Look at the context of the law. FIRST PART: Law ... only the baptized can be given ecclesiastical burial. SECOND PART: [for the purposes of this law, catechumens are considered baptized] i.e. a fancy legalistic way of saying that catechumens may receive ecclesiastical burial. In other words, first the general principle, then a statement that it applies also to catechumens and is not considered an exception to the principle. It's just legal language and it does not say that catechumens are just like the baptized absolutely speaking.
-
That's just stupid, and you know it. Church has always hastened the Baptism of catechumens in danger of death, in particular during times of persecution. Why if there is such a thing as BoD?
Yes, that is exactly my point. I know it is stupid and I don't believe it. So how would you explain the Church's various practices regarding this point?
1. Church requires catechumens to undergo months of testing/instruction before reception of baptism.
2. Church baptises catechumens who are in imminent danger of death regardless of how well-instructed they are.
3. Church promulgates a law: Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
How do you explain all of the above in a consistent and logical manner? The only way I can explain it is that catechumens are guaranteed to receive the same benefits as members of the Church. If a priest/minister can't baptise you before death then God will baptise you before death. If you are an unrepentent sinner, you will be punished as an unrepentent sinner. To me there is an essential difference between someone who visibly associates himself with the Catholic Church (the catechumen) and one who secretly desires to enter the Church. I think one has a claim on the benefits of membership in the Church and the other does not. And the above 3 practices seem to confirm that.
-
Augustinus,
The problem in rejecting BOD for me isn't the theologians, whose speculation the Church may simply tolerate for various reasons.
The problem for me is that those who reject BOD read Trent as indicating that there is no justification without the receipt of water baptism, and anathematizing anyone who says otherwise - e.g., BOD. We've discussed that recently here; the thread should be in this forum near the top I believe.
Then the Church goes and makes doctors men who did just that, say otherwise, and publicly taught what the Church had recently (very recently with regard to St. Robert) anathematized, BOD - St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, for example.
St. Alphonsus actually said the opposite of what Feeneyites say Trent said by saying BOD was "de fide" - which would be unquestionably heretical teaching, and yet he's made a doctor.
I no longer find the Feeneyite view of Trent credible in light of this.
Those radicals who condemn BoD as heretical are actually in the minority of Feeneyites. In fact, most are Dimondites ... who actually reject a lot of what Father Feeney held and would repudiate being called Feeneyites. As you know, I battled against these guys myself on that other thread ... and I don't believe in BoD. So you're wrongly throwing the Feeneyite view out the window because of the radical Dimondite view that's in the minority. Father Feeney himself considered his view on BoD an OPINION and stood ready to be corrected by the Church on the matter. His major battle was with those who used BoD to undermine EENS and establish a heretical new ecclesiology. An analogy would be regular sedevacantists vs. dogmatic sedevacantists. I don't dismiss sedevacantism simply because the dogmatic sedevacantists are overstating their case.
I do, however, appreciate your honesty in the bolded section above. I sense in you someone who's actually honestly seeking the truth on this matter ... and that's rare on both sides of this issue. And I even appreciate the honesty of Karl Rahner who, while personally promoting Anonymous Christianity, admits in intellectual honesty that there was little or no support for the salvation of anyone who wasn't a member of the visible Church among the Church Fathers ... vs. the modern dishonest BoDers who pretend and falsely claim that there was a unanimous consensus among the Fathers in favor of BoD. Rahner would have loved to find such evidence among the Fathers ... but he was honest and admitted that he did not. And, honestly, I'm neither here nor there on the catechumen + explicit faith issue. One can uphold that while still maintaining the necessity of the Sacraments and without compromising Tridentine ecclesiology ... that the Church is a visible society whose members are known (vs. V2 ecclesiology where the Church has a lot of unknown and invisible participants).
-
I think one has a claim on the benefits of membership in the Church and the other does not.
Let's start here. I have no problem at all with this position, and I'm not going to spend TOO much time arguing with you. Indeed, in the case of a catechumen, one can make a case for an imperfect (yet quite visible) membership in the Church due to their profession of the faith. That does NOT compromise Tridentine ecclesiology. What DOES undermine Traditional ecclesiology is the "Anonymous Catholic" garbage. If you accept that, then there's ZERO point in being a Traditional Catholic because that is nothing other than V2 ecclesiology. If with all the posts I make, I can help open people's eyes to this fact, then I have no issues with you and would leave you in complete peace on the BoD question. BoD is not THE battle. Unfortunately the radical Dimondites spend so much of their time battling St. Thomas et al. that they allow a distraction from the MORE FUNDAMENTAL problem ... not to mention discrediting themselves by taking on St. Thomas as a proponent of "heresy". Indeed, if you wanted to side with St. Thomas against the likes of myself, I can't fault you for that.
On the other side, conversely, many of the BoDers are proponents of this heretical ecclesiology and Pelagianism. Then they quote St. Thomas on BoD and pretend that BoD inherently backs up their heresies. So it goes both ways here. I always tried to flush them out from hiding behind St. Thomas, exposing the fact that while St. Thomas believed in BoD he did NOT thereby endorse their actual heresies.
-
Yes, that is exactly my point. I know it is stupid and I don't believe it. So how would you explain the Church's various practices regarding this point?
1. Church requires catechumens to undergo months of testing/instruction before reception of baptism.
2. Church baptises catechumens who are in imminent danger of death regardless of how well-instructed they are.
3. Church promulgates a law: Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”
How do you explain all of the above in a consistent and logical manner? The only way I can explain it is that catechumens are guaranteed to receive the same benefits as members of the Church. If a priest/minister can't baptise you before death then God will baptise you before death. If you are an unrepentent sinner, you will be punished as an unrepentent sinner. To me there is an essential difference between someone who visibly associates himself with the Catholic Church (the catechumen) and one who secretly desires to enter the Church. I think one has a claim on the benefits of membership in the Church and the other does not. And the above 3 practices seem to confirm that.
Well, there's absolutely NO "guarantee to receive the same benefits as members". That's clearly overstating the case. What's true is that the Church has left it open that they MIGHT. When the Church baptizes catechumens in imminent danger of death, the Church CLEARLY understands that there's NO GUARANTEE of a BoD. I addressed the Canon Law earlier, with the Church leaving open the POSSIBILITY of their salvation. Prior Church discipline was the OPPOSITE. When the Church requires lengthy instruction, it's because the Church understands that God's providence will keep those destined for Baptism alive until they receive it ... unless He doesn't will that they receive it. So I don't see the problem you're trying to present.
So if catechumens are guaranteed the same benefits as members, why can't they receive the other Sacraments before Baptism?
-
Well, there's absolutely NO "guarantee to receive the same benefits as members". That's clearly overstating the case. What's true is that the Church has left it open that they MIGHT. When the Church baptizes catechumens in imminent danger of death, the Church CLEARLY understands that there's NO GUARANTEE of a BoD. I addressed the Canon Law earlier, with the Church leaving open the POSSIBILITY of their salvation. Prior Church discipline was the OPPOSITE. When the Church requires lengthy instruction, it's because the Church understands that God's providence will keep those destined for Baptism alive until they receive it ... unless He doesn't will that they receive it. So I don't see the problem you're trying to present.
So if catechumens are guaranteed the same benefits as members, why can't they receive the other Sacraments before Baptism?
To answer your final question, because they have to receive Baptism before they can receive any of the other sacraments. Having a guarantee of some future benefit doesn't mean you have already received it.
So if there is no guarantee then it makes perfect sense for a catechumen to insist on being baptised immediately. In fact it would be unjust for a priest/minister to refuse it. An unjust law is no law at all. And since it is legal to baptise a catechumen who is in imminent danger of death then it is not intrinsically evil to baptise a catechumen who hasn't received instruction. But the Church doesn't do that. The rule is that they must receive instruction first.
Also, I don't want to defend +Lefebvre's idea of BOD because I don't agree with it. However, the story about him telling a catechumen not to worry about not having baptism doesn't prove anything. I've never heard of anyone settling for BOD. The most popular definitions of BOD say that it doesn't impart the character of the sacrament. Who would want that? Who upon hearing about BOD would cease to desire the Sacrament of Baptism? Who would forgo the other sacraments for a lifetime because they felt secure that BOD would suffice? There must have been millions of catechumens who had the same thought as the African guy in the +Lefebvre story. Why haven't we heard more about catechumens getting baptised immediately? It must be because they were reassured that they had nothing to worry about as long as they did penance for their sins and obeyed the commandments and precepts and laws of the Church. But they should worry if there is no guarantee of the reception of the sacrament. In fact, I think it would be negligent not to baptise them immediately if death would result in them being damned.
St. Ambrose sums it up pretty well for me. "Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it." But he asked for the Sacrament, so therefore he must have received the Sacrament at some point. God knows. Maybe he was not sincere and he didn't receive it. But if he was sincere...ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)
I see what you are saying about the molinism vs. Thomistic doctrine of grace. If the best theologians can't figure it out then I have no chance. And I'm sure that's why a lot of post-V2 traditionalists are perfectly satisfied with repeating what the Baltimore Catechism, Pius X Catechism, Van Noort, Spirago, Ott, Fenton, Suprema Haec Sacra, etc say. Very few people have the desire or resources to solve pre-V2 theological controversies. Most people are content to draw the line at the sacraments. Which makes sense since that is the most visible manifestation of the problem. But there definitely were pre-V2 doctrinal issues.
-
I consider Suprema Haec to be questionable in its authority and not an act of the OUM. A suspicious private letter to a bishop that was published years later in an English translation in a newspaper or periodical I believe, not in the AAS, etc. Anyway, it only speaks of an "implicit desire" to enter the Church, whatever that means.
Gary Potter wrote that Suprema Haec Sacra was excerpted in The Pilot (Boston diocesan paper, +Cushing was the publisher) in September 1949, one month after it was written. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani was still alive at the time. Three years later it was published in full in The Pilot after Cardinal M-S had passed. But my understanding is that it had no Holy Office Seal and it was never entered into the AAS. So the most likely explanation is that it is merely a private letter from the Cardinal to Archbishop Cushing that was passed off as official. Not only that but a month later Archbishop Cicognani (Apostolic Delegate to the US) said that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated. So it wasn't an official act at all. I mean how could someone be excommunicated without being notified? Pope Pius XII never elevated +Cushing to the purple (nor +Montini) who possessed a diocese that typically came with a Cardinal's hat. And then after Suprema Haec Sacra, Pope Pius XII condemned those who would reduce the dogma to a "meaningless formula" in Humani Generis (August 12, 1950). What better way to reduce it to a meaningless formula than to say that the correct interpretation is the exact opposite of what it literally says? So I don't think Pope Pius XII had anything to do with that letter and those responsible for it did not dare to attempt to actually make it an official docuмent of the Holy See. They ended up having to publish it in Denzinger in the 1960s in order to have a respectable reference for it in V2 docuмents.
-
By the way, not even Suprema Haec Sacra accused Fr. Feeney of heresy. The only people who accuse him of heresy are people who claim no authority in the Church whatsoever. Not even the Conciliar sect hierarchy officially claims he was guilty of heresy. At worst he was judged by pre-V2 authorities to be in error. The heresy word came from the secular press. They were the ones that characterized it that way. But that's not the position of the Holy Office prior to V2 much less is it the position of Pope Pius XII.
-
By the way, not even Suprema Haec Sacra accused Fr. Feeney of heresy. The only people who accuse him of heresy are people who claim no authority in the Church whatsoever. Not even the Conciliar sect hierarchy officially claims he was guilty of heresy. At worst he was judged by pre-V2 authorities to be in error. The heresy word came from the secular press. They were the ones that characterized it that way. But that's not the position of the Holy Office prior to V2 much less is it the position of Pope Pius XII.
Thank you!
-
See, I have read “bread of life”, “desire and deception”, “Loyola’s and the Cabots” and “they fought the good fight”.
All these books have one weakness. They do not address the issue of the consensus of theologians and scholastics. Where’s THAT book?
-
To answer your final question, because they have to receive Baptism before they can receive any of the other sacraments. Having a guarantee of some future benefit doesn't mean you have already received it.
Ah, but then you have JUST hit precisely on Father Feeney's distinction between justification and salvation, the distinction between the present (justification) and the future (salvation) ... with the former being no guarantee of the latter.
-
Thank you!
'
ditto that. I always appreciate intellectual honesty when I see it.
-
St. Ambrose sums it up pretty well for me. "Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it." But he asked for the Sacrament, so therefore he must have received the Sacrament at some point. God knows. Maybe he was not sincere and he didn't receive it. But if he was sincere...ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)
Yes, this is an extremely ambiguous passage. Elsewhere St. Ambrose taught that even sincere catechumens who died without Baptism could not be saved. Perhaps the idea was that they did not know all the details (before the days of Twitter) and that someone close to him could have baptized him while he lay dying. Or else he envisioned a possible BoB since he was killed for turning against Arianism. Or perhaps he received some remission of sin from his Desire and not necessarily salvation itself. We'll never know and it's a mistake to turn this into a doctrinal statement of support for BoD.
-
See, I have read “bread of life”, “desire and deception”, “Loyola’s and the Cabots” and “they fought the good fight”.
All these books have one weakness. They do not address the issue of the consensus of theologians and scholastics. Where’s THAT book?
Again, read the CE article on Limbo where there had been similar "theological consensus" ... and my comment that BoD falls in the category of the last bolded passage therein. So, for instance, if ALL theologians agree that truth x,y, or z is de fide, then that's a very strong sign that it is ... otherwise that would mean a defection of the Ecclesia Credens. But for lesser truths and speculations, it's a much weaker sign of anything; it could just be an accident of their agreement on a particular issue ... just as it was in the St. Augustine vs. Limbo situation.
-
In fact, I am comfortable with the position of Mr. Karam in his "Reply to a Liberal," which allowed for a salvific BOD where the individual has an explicit desire for baptism and to enter the Church.
Mr. Karam also mentioned four other requirements along with the explicit desire for Baptism: that the individual possesses the Catholic Faith (without which it is impossible to please God); that he must have perfect charity; as well as an explicit will to join the Catholic Church (for even Baptisms of Protestants and Orthodox do not suffice for salvation if the person - beyond the age of reason - dies outside the Church); and finally that he must be dying and this last point is important, for when has the Church granted Baptisms certificates of Desire?. If the person is not dying, then the obligation to receive the water Baptism remains.
-
BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement[]." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point.
That's the thing, though; there's no evidence that the passage in the Catechism was attempting to interpret Trent or whether it was just a general treatment on the subject. So you can't even read that as some official interpretation of Trent. If the passage in the Catechism does refer to BoD, however -- and there's room for doubt IMO as I've seen the Latin -- then it's obvious that the authors of the Catechism did not see BoD as incompatible with the teaching of Trent. But that's really as far as we can take it.
-
While I agree that there isn't heresy in the Roman Catechism, it's also clearly not infallible.
-
It didn't cite Trent so you can say there is no direct evidence. That's fine.
St. Robert cited Trent Session VI, Chapter 4 as supporting BOD. Of course, he could be wrong. He is, however, support for that view. I tend to agree with him - that's all.
There is room for discussion among Catholics in good faith, and you are an example of that, as I hope I may be.
Even if you think that Trent VI.4 is referring to BoD, the statement there falls about as far short of a definition as you can get. Trent never teaches that Desire ALONE can suffice for justification ... just that it cannot happen without it. Trent teaches that Desire is a necessary cause but falls short of declaring it a sufficient cause ... due to the "cannot happen without" language. Trent does not positively teach that justification (and then salvation) CAN happen WITH DESIRE ALONE ... as Trent does for Confession. Not to mention, Trent makes NO mention of how it works and the conditions necessary for it to work. Consequently, I've probably heard half a dozen different explanation of the requirements for BoD. That's prima facie evidence that the Church has never defined it. Really the greatest common denominator among BoDers is this notion that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
I read Trent as teaching that BOTH BAPTISM AND THE DESIRE are necessary for justification. Why? Because of the passage immediately after it, the citation from Scripture which says that one cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit. Trent was making an analogy between laver:Sacrament::desire:Holy Ghost (if you know analogy punctuation -- if not I'll explain it). So Trent is supposed to be saying, "One cannot be justified without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that water (Baptism) AND the Holy Spirit (desire) are necessary for being born again? That doesn't make sense to me. I used to believe in BoD for Catechumens ... because I thought it was in Trent ... but then I sat down and read the entire Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it jumped out at me that Trent was teaching no such thing.
Language is similar to this: "You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball." This is ambiguous on its own. It could mean that you can play if you have one or the other (BoDer interpretation of Trent) or else that you can't play with either one missing (my reading of it). But when Trent follows this up with citing as Scriptural proof "water AND the Holy Ghost" ... that immediately disambiguates it in favor of how I read it.
-
Obviously this "necessity" can be met by desire for the sacrament, since Trent affirmatively states that with regard to Penance.
Right, and that's why I argued with the Dimondites on the other thread that BoD is not a heresy which denies the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
I'll write more later as I have some errands to run.
From the language itself, there are in fact two possible readings.
WITHOUT (SACRAMENT OR DESIRE)
WITHOUT SACRAMENT OR THE DESIRE (i.e. cannot without Sacrament and cannot without desire)
Even IF you read it the first way, as the proponents of BoD do, it's STILL a statement of necessary cause and not sufficient cause. AT BEST the sufficiency of DESIRE could be read as IMPLIED by the text.
I go with the second reading because of the context and the Scriptural quote that follows. I'll write more on that later.
Let's get back to the baseball analogy:
WITHOUT (BAT OR BALL)
WITHOUT BAT OR WITHOUT BALL (i.e. cannot without bat and cannot without ball)
... just look at the Scriptural passage following "as it is written". Trent is using "water AND the Holy Spirit" as proof text for "water OR the Holy Spirit"? That's preposterous to me.