| The three errors of the Feeneyites |
Fr. Francois Laisney Originally printed in the September 1998 issue of The Angelus magazine, this article is a follow-up to Fr. Joseph Pfieffer’s article in The Angelus of March 1998 (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm). It seems that some of the followers of Fr. Feeney took objection to his convincing dissertation proving the Catholic teaching concerning "baptism of desire." In fairness, the purpose of this article by Fr. Laisney is to clarify the three principle errors of the followers of Fr. Feeney which explain why they refuse the common teaching of Catholic theologians concerning "baptism of desire." |
Error I: Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation" The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation." St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven. In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire." Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma. This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4] The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas! None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors. Error II: The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church. Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice. Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...." We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth. He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz). Error III: The Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation" Let us preface this section by saying the Council of Trent clearly teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification. The Council anathematizes anyone believing the contrary. It is very explicitly stated in Session VII, Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual; let him be anathema (The Church Teaches, 668; Dz 847). We must be wary of ambiguous translations from the original Latin. (The accuracy of Latin is supreme and must be respected.) In a recent flyer published by the Feeneyites entitled, "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent," an ambiguous translation of Session VI, Chapter 7 (Dz 799) is used: "...the instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith,’ without which no one is ever justified....". Now the Latin has: "sine qua nulli unquam contigit iustificatio." In the Latin original, therefore, the phrase "without which" (or, in the Latin original, "sine qua", is a feminine pronoun meant to agree with a feminine noun) refers to the "faith" (a feminine noun in Latin) and not to "sacrament" (a neuter noun in Latin meant to agree with a neuter pronoun). If it was "sacrament" the Council Fathers wanted to highlight "without which no one is ever justified," they would have written "sine quo." The English translation of Chapter 7 as found in The Church Teaches (TCT 563) accurately reflects the Latin (The Church Teaches, TAN Books & Publishers (http://www.tanbooks.com/)). In this edition, this important sentence is correctly translated: …The instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified." The correct translation of the original Latin expresses the Church’s traditional teaching and refutes the Feeneyite error. When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that: Quote
In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament. It is false to pretend that Canon 4 of Session VII (TCT 668) of the Council of Trent (quoted above) on the "Sacraments in General" deals with justification as opposed to salvation. Desire is explicitly mentioned in this canon, for when it uses the expression "aut eorum voto," it admits that the grace of justification can be obtained by desire of the sacraments. It is also false to say that Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session VII of the Council of Trent deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed Canon 4 (of Session VII) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation." In that context, the expression "grace of justification" appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in Session VI, Chapter 16. That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning which disregards the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire only arrives at false conclusions. That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One need not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. For instance, there are many definitions of the Church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception. This does not invalidate the Immaculate Conception! For instance Pope St. Zosimus wrote: "nullus omnino —absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin. Such a "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, that is, in this particular case, not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, but it is not necessary to expect it on every page of her teaching. Silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember so as not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites. They accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of baptism as if these quotes were against baptism of desire. The very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire! These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water. Lack of proper Thomistic theology is the root of the error of the Feeneyites To remedy the errors of Modernism, St. Pius X ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and theology. A book like Desire and Deception,[10] authored and published by Feeneyites, is very dangerous for its opposition to St. Thomas. Let us hear St. Pius X: We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us. They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.[11] In obedience, we must consider the sacramental theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He distinguishes three elements in each sacrament:
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person attached to his sin, for example, a person who has stolen and refuses to render that which he stole, places an obstacle which deprives his baptism of its ultimate effect, that is, sanctifying grace. It is a fact that one can go to hell despite having the character of baptism. Yet, we know there are saints in heaven, such as the saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) who do not have the character of baptism. But nobody, however, dying with sanctifying grace goes to hell, says the Council of Trent. Contrariwise, nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to heaven. For the third element of baptism, i.e., the infusion of sacramental grace, the necessity of baptism for salvation is absolute. This third element is found in each of the "three baptisms," and even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church. Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism[12] includes the "three baptisms." The necessity of the exterior element (#1 above) of baptism, i.e., the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element as the only means at our disposal to receive the third element, that is, living Faith. The sacrament itself is "...’the sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified," says the Council of Trent (TCT 563). See how the Council of Trent clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element, i.e., living faith, faith working through charity? One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, in St. John’s Gospel (chap. 3). That which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, that is, the infusion of new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be reborn, "born of the Spirit." The water is mentioned only once as the means for that rebirth, the only means at our disposal. This is not meant to limit God’s power. He can infuse this new life (justification) even without water, as he did to Cornelius (Acts 10). There is an appalling confusion in the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with the sacramental character and with what they refer to as "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice." Their confusion regards the second and third elements (see above) of the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church. Dare one add with St. Pius X, as the cause of their error, a certain pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the popes, fathers, doctors, and saints? Conclusion Quote
How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error concerning baptism of desire and blood, they might embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith. Their error caricatures the Catholic Faith and gives easy weapons to the enemies of dogma! Quote
We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace as inseparable from true faith, hope and charity, and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto - in reality or at least in desire" as taught by the Council of Trent. In this time of confusion in the teaching of the Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing what the Church has always believed and taught "in the same meaning and the same words," not changing one iota to the right or to the left, for falling from the Faith on one side or the other is still falling from the true Faith, "without faith no one has ever been justified" (Council of Trent, TCT 563). Let us pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ may give them the light to see and the grace to accept the age-old teaching of our holy Mother the Church by her popes, fathers, doctors and saints, and that, correcting themselves, they may serve the Church rather than change her doctrine. |
| Footnotes 1 Letter no. 73 (§21) to Jubaianus in 256. 2 Having received an invalid baptism outside the Church, and being received into the Church without being at least rebaptized under condition. It was a hypothetical case at the time of St. Cyprian (in this was he in error) but it probably happens in some cases today, due to the laxity when receiving converts. 3 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1800, Vatican I, de fide. 4 "Baptism of the Spirit" is another name for baptism of desire, by the grace of the Holy Ghost; De Baptismo, cap. 1. 5 In the very decree Cantate Domino to the Armenians so often quoted by the Feeneyites (Dz 712). 6 Mancipia, July 1998, p.3. 7 Mancipia, July 1998, p.2. 8 Session VI, Chapter 16, Dz 809. For instance, in regards of a sick person in the hospital who cannot accomplish the precept of assisting at Mass on Sundays and feast days, his will to fulfil the third commandment is sufficient (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2, ad 3). 9 Is it through ignorance, or by projecting his preconceived ideas, that the author claims that the Council of Florence "passed non-Thomist decrees" (p.47)? Now to claim, as in Desire and Deception, that the Cantate Domino rejects baptism of blood is simply to ignore that the passage in question is a quote of St. Fulgentius, who, in the very same book from which that quote is taken, explicitly teaches baptism of blood. Council Fathers never quote a Father of the Church against the mind of such holy authors. 10 Pascendi, Sept. 8, 1907. 12 As in the Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Canon 5: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema" (Dz 861, TCT 691). Canon 2 (Dz 858, TCT 688) does not deal with the necessity of baptism, but with the nature of the sacrament. It defines that real water, not symbolic, is of the nature of the sacrament: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema." Water, real water, belongs to the first element of sacrament, the exterior sign. Thus one sees clearly the sophism of the Feeneyite pamphlet where it is written: "In terms of a syllogism we have the infallible major premise: ‘baptism is necessary for salvation’ and the infallible minor premise: ‘true and natural water is necessary for baptism,’ and the infallible conclusion. ‘true and natural water is necessary for salvation.’" Here one finds a classical error of logic: the middle term "baptism" is not taken in the same acceptation in the major and the minor. The major applies absolutely to the third element of baptism, res sacramenti, the ultimate reality of the sacrament, i.e., the new birth, the new life of sanctifying grace, which is found in the "three baptisms." It applies only relatively to the first element of baptism as explained above. The minor deals only with the first element of baptism, sacramentum tantum, of which the matter is real water and not symbolic water, as some Protestants were saying. 13 The very saints the Feeneyites offer for admiration and imitation in their publications themselves taught baptism of desire! St. Alphonsus, and certainly all the holy Redemptorists after him is the most forceful in favor of baptism of desire, saying that it is de fide that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit. |
| Fr. Francois Laisney, a Frenchman, was ordained for the SSPX in 1982 at Econe by Archbishop Lefebvre. He was the USA District Superior from 1984-1990, it was then that he developed an interest in the uniquely American error of Feeneyism. He was then appointed District Bursar for the Australian District for a short time before being appointed its District Superior (1991-1994). He served as the SSPX’s General Bursar in Menzingen, Switzerland from 1994 until 2001. He is currently the District Bursar for the Australian District. |
Gee Whiz. More Catholic teaching rejected by the Feeneyites:
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.Error II:The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.
He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).
The singular most fundamental reason that anyone denies BoD is that they do not believe the Church teaches it. They do not believe that the Church teaches it because they believe that the Church only teaches the faithful at the solemn level.
Lover of Truth,
Somewhere you quoted St. Alphonsus as saying "it is de fide that men have been saved by BOD." I'll got find that, but if that's true, I think it's clear error.
This is why you have to be careful even with the doctors.
First Statement: True. I do not believe that the Church teaches BoD.Could not have been said better.
Second Statement: False. In no way do I limit Magisterium to solemn teaching. I just examine the context and the theological notes of this position on Baptism of Desire and I see it as not rising above that of a speculative opinion. Sedevacantists in particular have a problem with putting everything within the Magisterium on the same level as solemn Magisterium. SVs effectively turn every offhand comment in a lightweight papal allocution to being tantatmount to and on the same level as a solemn dogmatic definition. There are degrees of truth and certainty even within the Magisterium. And that is YOUR major error in pretending that BoD is dogma or even theologically certain.
First Statement: True. I do not believe that the Church teaches BoD.But Ladislaus, the context of solemn teaching is ordinary teaching. The context of Trent is St. Thomas' Summa, which teaches BoD, being placed on the altars next to the scriptures. The context of Trent is Trent's catechism, which teaches BoD, published by those who attended the council and approved its canons. The context of Trent is St. Alphonsus, a Doctor of the Church, saying that it teaches BoD. The context of Trent is the contemporaneous Bellarmine, arguably the greatest contra-protestant apologist ever, and the Church's principal ecclesiologist, teaching BoD. The Context of Trent is the ongoing teaching of BoD from or with the approbation of popes (Innocent III, Pius IX, Pius X's catechism, the Baltimore Catechism approved by Leo XIII), along with every consultable theologian who treats the issue since Trent. So on and so forth.
Second Statement: False. In no way do I limit Magisterium to solemn teaching. I just examine the context and the theological notes of this position on Baptism of Desire and I see it as not rising above that of a speculative opinion. Sedevacantists in particular have a problem with putting everything within the Magisterium on the same level as solemn Magisterium. SVs effectively turn every offhand comment in a lightweight papal allocution to being tantatmount to and on the same level as a solemn dogmatic definition. There are degrees of truth and certainty even within the Magisterium. And that is YOUR major error in pretending that BoD is dogma or even theologically certain.
Why is anyone carrying a conversation on baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen with this man who does not believe either one is necessary for salvation? He teaches that people can be saved without any desire whatsoever to be anything remotely resembling a Catholic, just like the Vatican II church clergy, all the Novus Ordo's.Share a quote from me that states this?
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
I know that today anything goes as far as salvation, but the Church also has not yet condemned the teaching of the Fathers and the whole Church, that one can only be saved if he is a a water baptized Catholic in a state of grace at death. Not one Father, Doctor, Saint who taught and believed that has been condemned. It is that teaching that the poster rejects and who refuses to accept.:confused: What on earth are you trying to say?
The poster condemns the teachings of the Fathers when he condemns what he calls Feeneyites.Share a quote from me that condemns the teachings of the Fathers.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
Quote from the poster: The world would be a much better place if there were no schismatics, sodomites, feeneyites, pedophiles, heretics or apostates.
Heresy is a graver sin than perversion. Still waiting for a quote that condemns what the Fathers teach on the issue of EENS and BOD. I think I'll be waiting a long time.
When the poster places "feeneyites" with sodomites and others he is condeming all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints who taught what we Catholics believe, that one must be a baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.html
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552
One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.
I totally reject the teaching that Pagans, Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus... etc. (indeed all the peoples in all false religions) can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards.:confused: What on earth are you saying. I know you are trying to make this a personal issue but how? Still don't get the point you wish people to believe about me.
The poster rejects the teaching that one can only be saved if he is a a water baptized Catholic in a state of grace at death. I have all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints who taught what I believe, he has who? Show me one theologian that rejected what I believe.
People with eyes to see will perfectly understand what I am asking. Observe how the poster avoids the issue. It is very clear what I am saying.You are a liar you won't provide a quote from me that condemns what the Fathers teach in regards to EENS and BOD. The feeneyites may want it to be obvious and pretend it is obvious but no legitimate proof will be forthcoming because you are a liar.
People with eyes to see will perfectly understand what I am asking. Observe how the poster avoids the issue. It is very clear what I am saying.Now he acts as if he doesn't know what you're talking about. :facepalm:
Now he acts as if he doesn't know what you're talking about. :facepalm:Perhaps you can tell me what he is saying. I'm not afraid to state what I believe as should be obvious I do not care about people disliking me over the truth. I enjoy it.
I always had a hard time reading what Last Tradhican had to say, because his font was the default, recommended, universally standardized size.What is the truth of his position? Is it that the Church has not condemned the Fathers yet but some day will? I want to admit to his accusation or recant it or show it is unfounded.
Now that he's enlarged it, though, I am captivated and very quickly coming to see the truth of his position!
Ladislaus,Yes. There it is. Thank you.
There it is, in this thread, Reply #9.
What is the truth of his position? Is it that the Church has not condemned the Fathers yet but some day will? I want to admit to his accusation or recant it or show it is unfounded.I was being sarcastic. You should tone it back on all the excessive formatting, too :)
To be fair to Lover of Truth, he's quoting Laisney.Thanks for being fair. That is a refreshing change. Is their anything you asked me that I have not responded to. You do not seem to be mean-spirited as the rest of the feeneyites.
Another instance of the need to be careful regarding these texts of the "opinions" of theologians, doctors, etc.
I was being sarcastic. You should tone it back on all the excessive formatting, too :)Sometimes it comes out that way when I copy and paste. But I have been trying to make a conscious effort to put the number down to 2. Thanks for the advice. I'm open to any. So have you seen me teach error?
Ladislaus,
There it is, in this thread, Reply #9.
In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.The sacrament of Baptism is also necessary with a relative necessity of means though not an intrinsic necessity i.e. salvation is impossible apart from sacramental baptism or its replacements.
Share a quote from me that condemns the teachings of the Fathers.He just gave you teaching by an undeniably authoritative Christian source. Do you deny it?
He just gave you teaching by an undeniably authoritative Christian source. Do you deny it?I'm missing something. I'm looking for where I condemned what the Fathers taught on BOD as he has claimed. Where have I done this. What source purportedly condemns something out of my mouth that an authoritative source has not taught.
What source purportedly condemns something out of my mouth that an authoritative source has not taught.
No authoritative source has taught Pelagianism.That really is the point that he will not acknowledge.
That really is the point that he will not acknowledge.No authoritative source teaches any heresy.
Thanks for being fair. That is a refreshing change. Is their anything you asked me that I have not responded to. You do not seem to be mean-spirited as the rest of the feeneyites.Mean spirited? Lover of Fenton, look at what YOU wrote below, starting with "The world..." --
Kinda like a pair of old slippers after a while. Of course if this were so sure, certain other conclusion hoppers would be vindicated as well.
Hey, I MUST be going gangbusters as well. "I'd like to thank the Academy…"
8a. When the docuмent classifies the Catholic Church as a means of salvation which is necessary only by divine institution and not by an intrinsic necessity, it likewise mentions two other realities which are also requisite for the attainment of salvation in this particular way. These are the sacraments of baptism and of penance. Both of these are necessary for salvation, and are necessary as means established by God for the attainment of this end. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
This must be distinctly understood: in any event the men and women who accept the supernatural teaching of God with the act of divine faith, and who love God with the supernatural love of friendship which we call charity, would belong to the kingdom of God on earth. These people would be, in any event, the individuals who subjected themselves to God's supernatural law, and thus would belong to His supernatural kingdom in this world. But, as a matter of fact, God has willed that His supernatural kingdom should be a fully organized society. In His mercy He has decreed that there is no other social unit which can in any way properly be called His kingdom, or His ecclesia. If a man is going to belong to God's supernatural kingdom on earth at all, he is thus going to belong in some way to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society over which the Bishop of Rome presides as the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Here, of course, we must distinguish sedulously between the order of intention and the order of mere velleity. What is required here is an effective desire, an effective act of the will, as distinct from a mere complacency or approval. A non-member of the Church can be saved if he genuinely wants or desires to enter the Church. With that genuine and active desire or intention, he will really become a member of the Church if this is at all possible. If it is not possible, then the force of his intention or desire will bring him "within" the Church in such a way that he can attain eternal salvation in this company. An inherently ineffective act of the will, a mere velleity, will definitely not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Thus, in the words of the Holy Office docuмent, "in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually (reapse) as a member, but it is required that he be united to it at least by intention and desire (voto et desiderio)". Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Furthermore, this does not by any means imply that the word "reapse" in the text of the Mystici Corporis is a mere redundancy. If this were so, words like "genuinely" and "truly" would not be part of any real vocabulary. Moreover, the word "reapse" as it is used here connects this teaching of Pope Pius XII with the traditional doctrine of the Catholic theologians who distinguished between belonging to the Church "in re," that is, as a member, and belonging to it "in voto," that is, by a desire or intention to enter it as a member. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Most of the translations of the Suprema haec sacra render "aequaliter" into "equally well". I do not consider these two expressions exactly equivalent in the context of the Holy Office letter. The Mystici Corporis teaches by clear implication and the Suprema haec sacra teaches quite explicitly that men may be saved only "within" the Catholic Church. They can be "within" this society so as to obtain salvation in it either as members of this organization or as people who seek truly, even if only implicitly, to join it. There is no other religion "within" which men may attain the Beatific Vision. It would be a gross understatement to say that men cannot be saved "equally well" in every religion. The only one within which they can attain their ultimate supernatural end is that of the Catholic Church. Thus, it would seem that the meaning of the Latin "aequaliter" in its context in the Holy Office letter, is best expressed in English by the term "equally," rather than by "equally well". Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
This charity is distinct from the supernatural affection of hope, in which man loves the Triune God as man's own ultimate Good. It is distinct from the initial love of which the Council of Trent speaks, in that this charity is a love of benevolence and of friendship, founded on a common possession. This common good is the divine nature itself, which is the Godhead, and which is shared by the person who lives the life of sanctifying grace. Fentonhttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith. Fenton
(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. Fenton on EENShttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(7) In order that a man may be saved "within" the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved. Fenton on EENShttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
(10) No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity. Fenton on EENShttps://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is “continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared.” (Definition from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951)https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
"A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918, Canon 1323, pg 327) states: "The universal and ordinary magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff". It also states, "What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
Some examples of the Ordinary Magisterium would be that of Guardian Angels, or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (before 1950). While neither were solemnly defined by the Church (before 1950), they were always universally taught and believed, and it would be considered heresy to deny them.https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-the-calumniating-detractor/msg566285/#msg566285
So in a nutshell, the Solemn Magisterium (used rarely) plus the Ordinary Magisterium (used continuously) equals the complete infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. The article "Science and the Church" from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) states it well: "The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies."And in relation to such growing heresies, the Ordinary cannot and does not contradict or undermine the Solemn.
And in relation to such growing heresies, the Ordinary cannot and does not contradict or undermine the Solemn.Right. But the Feeneyites they it does.
Right. But the Feeneyites they it does.Hethe thlurring hith text now.
Hethe thlurring hith text now.:laugh1:
I've noticed but one can't help but wonder if he would just keep spamming whether anyone was watching or not.The Observer Effect writ dumb.
I've noticed but one can't help but wonder if he would just keep spamming whether anyone was watching or not.