Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
They present it as "without baptism of water there is no salvation."
St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", in the very passage in which he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside the Church, "because outside the Church there is no salvation," therefore baptism of water outside the Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character, but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e. justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door).
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of all baptism, explicitly stating "even without the water".
And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self, were received in the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism of desire).
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
They present it as "without baptism of water there is no salvation."
St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", in the very passage in which he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside the Church, "because outside the Church there is no salvation," therefore baptism of water outside the Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character, but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e. justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door).
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of all baptism, explicitly stating "even without the water".
And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self, were received in the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism of desire).
Why not then believe the Dogma of the Church "outside the Church there is no salvation" "in the same meaning and in the same words --
in eodem sensu eademque sententia" as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three Baptism"? Why then give a new meaning, a new interpretation to the Dogma?
It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc. and unanimously all theologians (before the modernists)!
It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: "it is de fide --
that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith --
that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."
That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there is "no other remedy" : that expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa q. 68 a. 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of Florence! When one knows how much this Council espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!
Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments of the Feeneyites are of no value. But let us refute them too.
2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional
They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : "an academic difference to be settled by the Church" : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that 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 ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church. Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission. They write indeed: "this teaching [on three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium." They should add: common teaching of Popes, of Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should add that 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. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitly say: "it is de fide…"
If a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance, or one may discuss some precision within the doctrine (as to how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in order to have baptism of desire), but one is not allowed to reject the doctrine itself, simply denying baptism of desire.
The example of St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is a false one. Indeed one must note that St. Thomas accepted the highest purity he saw possible for Our Lady, accepting even the feast of the Immaculate Conception as being the day of her "sanctification." He says explicitly: "Under Christ, Who [alone] did not need to be saved, being the universal Savior, the Blessed Virgin had the highest purity." The hard question in this point of doctrine was how to reconcile the fact that she is redeemed, and that she is immaculate. The truth is that Our Lady was sanctified in the very first moment of her conception by being preserved from original sin, and not in the second moment of her life by being purified : as this distinction was simply not taught before St. Thomas Aquinas, he cannot be criticized for not holding it. There was no unanimity before him as to how to reconcile these two points of doctrine. And therefore the parallel with baptism of desire does not stand at all! Never could a Pope define a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.
And he who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church is not without sin against the virtue of Faith ("without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" ! Dz 799)
3/ Third error: The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".
The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 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." (Dz 847).
Beware of ambiguous translations! In their recent flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has "sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio" : thus the terms "without which" refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in "The Church Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified." Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?
Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "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…" 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 it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circuмstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, "God takes the will as the fact." This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.
It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation", the expression "grace of justification" in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach 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 needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino --
absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., 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, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.
The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
To remedy the errors of modernism, St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. 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."
St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the 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 who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.
One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.
Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (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 includes the three Baptisms.
The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the 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 mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
Conclusion
"Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." (Rom. 10:1-2) How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error, their refusal of the traditional teaching on the Three Baptism, they embrace the whole of Catholic Faith (not just defined Dogmas). They pretend to defend Dogma, but not with the truth! One cannot defend truth with error. Their error only gives easy weapons to the enemies of the Dogma! "Not knowing the Justice of God (interior sanctifying grace of justification by living Faith) and seeking to establish their own (exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments), [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God" (Rom. 10:3).
We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace (inseparable from the true Faith, Hope and Charity) and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto --
in reality or at least in desire" as teaches 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 which [Faith] no one ever was justified!" (Council of Trent, Dz 799).
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.
This article is from Catholic Apologetics: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/feeny.htm
www.olrl.org/doctrine/
The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church. Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission. They write indeed: "this teaching [on three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium." They should add: common teaching of Popes, of Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should add that it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church, without a single dissenting voice.
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 needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino – absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., 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, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.[/size]
There's no such thing as Baptism of Desire. Period.
You guys keep gratuitously asserting its existence in the "Deposit of Faith" just because you want it to be there. So far none of you BoDers have come up with a single proof for this. As I have explained the rudimentary Catholic theology to you before, and you continue to reject this due to bad faith, there are only two ways something can be known to be part of the Deposit.
1) if there's unanimous consensus on the matter from the Church Fathers on the matter (no such consensus exists)
2) if a doctrine derives implicitly by way of logical syllogism from other defined dogma (no demonstration has ever been attempted by any theologian -- not St. Thomas, not St. Robert Bellarmine, not St. Alphonsus)
Here's the history.
St. Augustine floated the idea in very tentative language, clearly indicating it was speculative theology ("Considering the idea over and over again, I have come to think that ...") but then later retracted it.
Not a mention of BoD again until St. Bernard several hundred years later. St. Bernard picked it up from St. Augustine, 1) not knowing that St. Augustine had retracted it, and 2) based SOLELY on the "authority" of St. Augustine by his own admission ("I would rather err with Augustine on this matter, then be right on my own.")
Scholastics picked it up based on its existence in Augustine.
Endless repetition and circular arguments from authority, with one person quoting another person quoting another person, without ANY REAL THEOLOGY behind ... just that of repetition of an idea rooted in speculative theology that others just happened to buy into ... all because they wanted to.
I'm seriously starting to question whether most of you guys are even Catholic, despite your profession of the name. Your soteriology and ecclesiology is none other than Novus Ordo soteriology and ecclesiology, a Pelagian idea that people without any supernatural material content can possess supernatural faith which can be supplied and infused even without your knowing by virtue of general niceness. It's nothing but heretical garbage.
Not to mention that you guys are all schismatics, since you reject Vatican II on the grounds of "error" but you yourselves hold the same errors that Vatican II teaches.
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
They present it as "without baptism of water there is no salvation."
St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", in the very passage in which he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside the Church, "because outside the Church there is no salvation," therefore baptism of water outside the Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character, but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e. justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door).
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of all baptism, explicitly stating "even without the water".
And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self, were received in the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism of desire).
Why not then believe the Dogma of the Church "outside the Church there is no salvation" "in the same meaning and in the same words --
in eodem sensu eademque sententia" as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three Baptism"? Why then give a new meaning, a new interpretation to the Dogma?
It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc. and unanimously all theologians (before the modernists)!
It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: "it is de fide --
that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith --
that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."
That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there is "no other remedy" : that expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa q. 68 a. 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of Florence! When one knows how much this Council espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!
Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments of the Feeneyites are of no value. But let us refute them too.
2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional
They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : "an academic difference to be settled by the Church" : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that 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 ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church. Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission. They write indeed: "this teaching [on three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium." They should add: common teaching of Popes, of Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should add that 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. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitly say: "it is de fide…"
If a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance, or one may discuss some precision within the doctrine (as to how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in order to have baptism of desire), but one is not allowed to reject the doctrine itself, simply denying baptism of desire.
The example of St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is a false one. Indeed one must note that St. Thomas accepted the highest purity he saw possible for Our Lady, accepting even the feast of the Immaculate Conception as being the day of her "sanctification." He says explicitly: "Under Christ, Who [alone] did not need to be saved, being the universal Savior, the Blessed Virgin had the highest purity." The hard question in this point of doctrine was how to reconcile the fact that she is redeemed, and that she is immaculate. The truth is that Our Lady was sanctified in the very first moment of her conception by being preserved from original sin, and not in the second moment of her life by being purified : as this distinction was simply not taught before St. Thomas Aquinas, he cannot be criticized for not holding it. There was no unanimity before him as to how to reconcile these two points of doctrine. And therefore the parallel with baptism of desire does not stand at all! Never could a Pope define a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.
And he who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church is not without sin against the virtue of Faith ("without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" ! Dz 799)
3/ Third error: The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".
The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 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." (Dz 847).
Beware of ambiguous translations! In their recent flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has "sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio" : thus the terms "without which" refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in "The Church Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified." Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?
Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "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…" 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 it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circuмstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, "God takes the will as the fact." This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.
It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation", the expression "grace of justification" in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach 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 needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino --
absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., 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, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.
The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
To remedy the errors of modernism, St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. 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."
St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the 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 who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.
One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.
Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (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 includes the three Baptisms.
The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the 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 mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
Conclusion
"Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." (Rom. 10:1-2) How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error, their refusal of the traditional teaching on the Three Baptism, they embrace the whole of Catholic Faith (not just defined Dogmas). They pretend to defend Dogma, but not with the truth! One cannot defend truth with error. Their error only gives easy weapons to the enemies of the Dogma! "Not knowing the Justice of God (interior sanctifying grace of justification by living Faith) and seeking to establish their own (exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments), [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God" (Rom. 10:3).
We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace (inseparable from the true Faith, Hope and Charity) and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto --
in reality or at least in desire" as teaches 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 which [Faith] no one ever was justified!" (Council of Trent, Dz 799).
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.
This article is from Catholic Apologetics: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/feeny.htm
www.olrl.org/doctrine/
Bowler said: This is most interesting because this is what all of the defenders of Heroin BOD are essentially saying. To be "intelligent" and "not defective" and "not get thrown out of a Catholic Forum", you must accept Heroin BOD, the belief that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Quote from: AmbroseQuoteSo they won't answer the question, therefore they must be intent on hiding the truth.
We won't answer which question?
We keep answering you and those like you. But you do not want to hear.
Baptism of desire is de fide. It was taught by Trent. If you do not believe it, then you reject the teaching of Trent.
Heroin BODers are obscurist, they never speak straight, they use language to confuse rather than communicate and above is a perfect example.
Amdro says baptism of desire is de fide. However, don't forget that we are talking about Heroin BOD, therefore, Amdro is a liar hiding like a coward behind St. Alphonsus's comment that explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is defide.
Let me translate Amdro's lie, he is saying that "Heroin BOD, is defide (Infallible), that the belief that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholic, nor explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, he says is defied . All of which is a perfect example of an obscurist, who never speaks straight, and uses language to confuse rather than communicate
You are the only authority that you recognize, even though you accept certain authorities whom you've decided are correct.
How about embracing the truth instead of getting mad at it? Just a thought.
Quote from: MattoQuote from: SJBRegardless of the possible reasons behind this defect in the intellect, it is there nonetheless. I suggest Matthew ban all discussion of BOB/BOD.
Yes, our intellect must be defective because we cannot accept you Vatican II Orwellian double-think. :smoke-pot: :fryingpan:
This thread is only about Heroin BOD, it even has a Warning stating so, therefore, SJB is saying that I am defective because I refuse to believe "that anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity".
This is most interesting because this is what all of the defenders of Heroin BOD are essentially saying. To be "intelligent" and "not defective" and "not get thrown out of a Catholic Forum", you must accept Heroin BOD, the belief that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Accept it, Accept it, Accept it and be free, anyone in any false religion can be saved
(http://mentallyfine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hypnotist-with-a-fob-watc-001.jpg)
How about embracing the truth instead of getting mad at it? Just a thought.
There's no such thing as Baptism of Desire. Period.
You guys keep gratuitously asserting its existence in the "Deposit of Faith" just because you want it to be there. So far none of you BoDers have come up with a single proof for this. As I have explained the rudimentary Catholic theology to you before, and you continue to reject this due to bad faith, there are only two ways something can be known to be part of the Deposit.
1) if there's unanimous consensus on the matter from the Church Fathers on the matter (no such consensus exists)
2) if a doctrine derives implicitly by way of logical syllogism from other defined dogma (no demonstration has ever been attempted by any theologian -- not St. Thomas, not St. Robert Bellarmine, not St. Alphonsus)
Here's the history.
St. Augustine floated the idea in very tentative language, clearly indicating it was speculative theology ("Considering the idea over and over again, I have come to think that ...") but then later retracted it.
Not a mention of BoD again until St. Bernard several hundred years later. St. Bernard picked it up from St. Augustine, 1) not knowing that St. Augustine had retracted it, and 2) based SOLELY on the "authority" of St. Augustine by his own admission ("I would rather err with Augustine on this matter, then be right on my own.")
Scholastics picked it up based on its existence in Augustine.
Endless repetition and circular arguments from authority, with one person quoting another person quoting another person, without ANY REAL THEOLOGY behind ... just that of repetition of an idea rooted in speculative theology that others just happened to buy into ... all because they wanted to.
I'm seriously starting to question whether most of you guys are even Catholic,despite your profession of the name. Your soteriology and ecclesiology is none other than Novus Ordo soteriology and ecclesiology, a Pelagian idea that people without any supernatural material content can possess supernatural faith which can be supplied and infused even without your knowing by virtue of general niceness. It's nothing but heretical garbage.
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
QuoteThe confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional
3/ Third error: The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".
The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
Just yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:
Quote from: StubbornJust yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:
You've admitted in the past that BoD could be defined by the Church and that you'd accept it. Would that mean that the Church herself had come to despise her own sacraments?
Quote from: StubbornJust yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new.
:tv-disturbed:
You've admitted in the past that BoD could be defined by the Church and that you'd accept it. Would that mean that the Church herself had come to despise her own sacraments?
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;
and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/TLM-Survey-on-entrance-to-Church-and-sacraments)
I was born and raised in the anti-Church.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fixing-the-conciliar-church) If they authentically convert they can join us as laypeople but they [converts from the NO] probably should take a vow of silence and do penance for the rest of their lives refraining from all speaking and writing apart from that which is necessary, say in Confession for instance.
So far the between the three amigos, only one of them gave a half of an answer - will you answer the 2 clear questions below with a simple yes or no answer?
1 Are the sacraments necessary unto salvation? Yes or No?
2 Without the sacraments, through faith alone (aka a BOD) can man obtain justification? Yes or No? (the answers are in Trent's quote below)
Quote from: StubbornSo far the between the three amigos, only one of them gave a half of an answer - will you answer the 2 clear questions below with a simple yes or no answer?
1 Are the sacraments necessary unto salvation? Yes or No?
2 Without the sacraments, through faith alone (aka a BOD) can man obtain justification? Yes or No? (the answers are in Trent's quote below)
1. Yes.
2. Through supernatural faith, hope, charity and contrition (and with the intention of receiving the sacrament), one can be justified before being baptized.
"In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin" — Condemned (Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 43).
"Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a 'pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned' [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins" — Condemned (n. 31; see also n. 33).
"Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom" — Condemned (n. 71).
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
Major (DE FIDE): No one can be saved without being subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
Minor (DE FIDE): Those who have not received Sacramental Baptism are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
Conclusion: No one who has not received Sacramental Baptism can be saved.
Just yet another thread started by one who despises the sacraments - nothing new. :tv-disturbed:
This is most interesting because this is what all of the defenders of Heroin BOD are essentially saying. To be "intelligent" and "not defective" and "not get thrown out of a Catholic Forum", you must accept Heroin BOD, the belief that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity.
Quote from: Lover of TruthI'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
TRANSLATION=
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of my Heroin BOD will sink in for some them as it did in me, and then they can embrace my "truth" that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. Join us, Join us, Join us
(http://mentallyfine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hypnotist-with-a-fob-watc-001.jpg)
Quote from: Lover of TruthI'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
Another thing, Jehanne posted that only recently he went to his first TLM - his lex orandi lex credendi is as screwed up as yours still is from your years as a novus ordoite. Far as SJB is concerned, he must have been a NO for a very long time as well and has much to learn as regards what a Church teaching even is.
You need to learn that because of this:Quote from: Lover of TruthPost (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/TLM-Survey-on-entrance-to-Church-and-sacraments)
I was born and raised in the anti-Church.
........That you should take your own advice:Quote from: Lover of TruthPost (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fixing-the-conciliar-church) If they authentically convert they can join us as laypeople but they [converts from the NO] probably should take a vow of silence and do penance for the rest of their lives refraining from all speaking and writing apart from that which is necessary, say in Confession for instance.
BOB/D Is as traditional as the Catholic Church herself. It is Feeneyism (making God an arbitrary tyrant and holding water in higher esteem than sanctifying grace) that is novel.
Stubborn,
I thought my post made it clear that the answer to your second question is "No," as faith alone does not justify. Moreover, I do believe what the canon teaches, just not your interpretation of its meaning. Instead, I shall continue to rely upon the collective understanding of the highest-trained, papal-approved, pre-Vatican II theologians.
You should look up why the 1917 CIC allowed deceased catechumens to receive Catholic burials. A man can be justified and "saved" before receiving either the sacraments of Baptism or Penance, but he must also have the firm intention of receiving these sacraments as early as possible in order for his perfect charity and contrition to be efficacious.
Is your argument that a catechumens cannot have perfect charity, or is it that perfect charity does not remit sin? Both assertions, may I remind you, are erroneous.
BOB/D Is as traditional as the Catholic Church herself. It is Feeneyism (making God an arbitrary tyrant and holding water in higher esteem than sanctifying grace) that is novel.
You should look up why the 1917 CIC allowed deceased catechumens to receive Catholic burials.
Stubborn,
I thought my post made it clear that the answer to your second question is "No," as faith alone does not justify. Moreover, I do believe what the canon teaches, just not your interpretation of its meaning. Instead, I shall continue to rely upon the collective understanding of the highest-trained, papal-approved, pre-Vatican II theologians.
You should look up why the 1917 CIC allowed deceased catechumens to receive Catholic burials. A man can be justified and "saved" before receiving either the sacraments of Baptism or Penance, but he must also have the firm intention of receiving these sacraments as early as possible in order for his perfect charity and contrition to be efficacious.
Is your argument that a catechumens cannot have perfect charity, or is it that perfect charity does not remit sin? Both assertions, may I remind you, are erroneous.
Quote from: LadislausMajor (DE FIDE): No one can be saved without being subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
Minor (DE FIDE): Those who have not received Sacramental Baptism are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
Conclusion: No one who has not received Sacramental Baptism can be saved.
And no-one attempted to refute this... :smoke-pot:
Quote from: AlcuinQuote from: LadislausMajor (DE FIDE): No one can be saved without being subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
Minor (DE FIDE): Those who have not received Sacramental Baptism are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
Conclusion: No one who has not received Sacramental Baptism can be saved.
And no-one attempted to refute this... :smoke-pot:
No, not once, not ever. (Minor by the way is de fide from Trent). I can make two other syllogisms that argue against BoD. Don't let the BoDers be confused with actual theology. They simply make gratuitous statements about BoD being dogma (= "not optional") just because they want that to be true.
Antichrist is here where now you must believe that pagans can be saved in order to uphold the dogma EENS. Otherwise, if you deny that pagans can be saved, you're an EENS-denying heretic according to these. Dear Lord, save us.
Stubborn,
You wrote, "Trent teaches justification can sometimes occur *before* the actual reception of the sacrament, *not without it*."
Here is what Trent said: "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it" (Sess. XIV, ch. 4: Denz. 898.)
And that's what I said: "[H]e must also have the firm intention of receiving these sacraments as early as possible in order for his perfect charity and contrition to be efficacious."
Fr. Feeney errs in separating justification from salvation, for Trent teaches quite clearly, "[W]e must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace [Rev. 14:13])" (Sess. VI, ch. 16: Denz. 809).
Ch XIV As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance.......
Ch XVI Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner, [Sacrament of Penance]-whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost........... we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace:
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
In the CI thread entitled "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" ( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written ) I posted 4 pages of clear dogmatic decrees which the Orwellian double-think Heroin BODers here on CI say are not to be understood as they are written. FOUR PAGES of just quotes!
I ask, is it possible to reason with any of these people to whom words have no meaning? After all, if to them, ALL those CLEARLY WORDED DOGMATIC decrees do not mean what they say, then how can we convince them of anything? Words have no meaning to these people.
Quote from: AmbroseThree Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night!
Quote from: bowlerQuote from: AmbroseThree Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night!
Refuted by what authorities? The Dimonds? Ibranyi? Are they authorities for you?
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: bowlerQuote from: AmbroseThree Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
No author, no year. Likely an article from the 1980's, as the points brought up have been refuted by many authorities and even made fun of. Amateur night!
Refuted by what authorities? The Dimonds? Ibranyi? Are they authorities for you?
I expect my opponents to post an article with the name of the author, and the year it was written. I fully expect my opponents to hold me to the same standards.
The article is infantile, all its points can be refuted by any minor lay believer in John 3:5 as it is written. It may have been "an epiphany" to ignorant people in 1980, however, today it represents the same amateurish arguments we are forced to refute here on CI over and over by just copy and pasting the answers over and over.
I KNOW that you Heroin BODers here on CI do not have the capacity to come up with anything better, there just is not much ammunition on your side.
The article stands or falls on its merits. From my reading it has explained the matter very well. What specific point do you disagree with?
No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group.
Stubborn,
You speak of possibilities whereas Trent speaks of what "sometimes happens." And once again, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus teaches that catechumens can be justified by perfect charity before their baptism (but with the necessary intention of receiving it, cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism for confirmation of this interpretation).* You say that it cannot happen unless one is baptized, as though someone killed on the way to Church to be baptized would be stripped of his justification. (What is the cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism? )You also seem to create different categories of the justified (catechumens and the post-baptized), but I don't see a foundation for this anywhere in the history of Catholic theology.Granted, while original sin was still being debated in the Patristic era, the Western Fathers were generally harsher in their teaching on the fate of catechumens and unbaptized infants;(This comment of yours smacks of modern pride. Unless you have a dogmatic decree to the contrary, the teachings of the Fathers are the closest thing we have to revelation) are saying that this also, however, included a less than favorable understanding of the Immaculate Conception (in the West).
* Pre-Trent, we find the teachings of Popes Innocent II and III (Denz. 388, 413). And right after Trent, its Catechism teaches BoD. How could the very same Fathers misinterpret a solemn teaching from only two years prior (Trent closed in 1564, the RC was promulgated in '66)?(As proof you mention two fallible papal private letters of dubious origin and content. Then a quote from a catechism which contains two words which are never anywhere explained in the catechism to mean salvation. Meanwhile to believe BOD one has to NOT interpret all the crystal clear dogmatic decrees as they are written, 4 pages of just clear dogmatic decree quiotes ALL must not be interpreted as they are written See "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" on CI Crisis in the Church section. You expect me to put aside ALL those clear dogmatic decrees for two letters of dubious origin and content and two words from the COT? )
Stubborn,
You speak of possibilities whereas Trent speaks of what "sometimes happens." And once again, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus teaches that catechumens can be justified by perfect charity before their baptism (but with the necessary intention of receiving it, cf. nn. 31, 33: see the CE article, Baptism for confirmation of this interpretation).* You say that it cannot happen unless one is baptized, as though someone killed on the way to Church to be baptized would be stripped of his justification.
* Pre-Trent, we find the teachings of Popes Innocent II and III (Denz. 388, 413). And right after Trent, its Catechism teaches BoD. How could the very same Fathers misinterpret a solemn teaching from only two years prior (Trent closed in 1564, the RC was promulgated in '66)?
Dispositions for baptism
Intention
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
Here is Trent's catechism, please find and post where it teaches a BOD.
Catechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."
Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives
If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.
QuoteHere is Trent's catechism, please find and post where it teaches a BOD.
This is the 1923 McHugh and Callan translation.QuoteCatechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923
... will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Along with the following, which is entirely consistent with Trent's catechism!QuoteMgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931 ...
Dear Southpaw,
Here are just five infallible quotes from the 4 pages of my thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written", can you explain to me how even a catechumen can receive BOD without denying these clear few dogmas:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
[/b]
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
QuoteHere is Trent's catechism, please find and post where it teaches a BOD.
This is the 1923 McHugh and Callan translation.QuoteCatechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
You are insanely wedded to your views, which are simply not Catholic. You are not an infallible reader or hearer, and you dismiss all evidence. I just provided you with all you need to at least reexamine your position.
Matthew is derelict in his duties for not silencing you on this forum, for which he alone is responsible.
Quote from: SJBYou are insanely wedded to your views, which are simply not Catholic. You are not an infallible reader or hearer, and you dismiss all evidence. I just provided you with all you need to at least reexamine your position.
Matthew is derelict in his duties for not silencing you on this forum, for which he alone is responsible.
One response that does not agree with you and you go ballistic. The evidence against your two words is overwhelming just with me using the COT, let alone the four quotes that I posted, and the 4 pages in my thread. You interpret two words to mean something they don't say, while you misinterpret like one hundred clear dogmatic quotes.
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
They present it as "without baptism of water there is no salvation."
St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", in the very passage in which he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside the Church, "because outside the Church there is no salvation," therefore baptism of water outside the Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character, but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e. justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door).
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of all baptism, explicitly stating "even without the water".
And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self, were received in the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism of desire).
Why not then believe the Dogma of the Church "outside the Church there is no salvation" "in the same meaning and in the same words --
in eodem sensu eademque sententia" as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three Baptism"? Why then give a new meaning, a new interpretation to the Dogma?
It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc. and unanimously all theologians (before the modernists)!
It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: "it is de fide --
that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith --
that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."
That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there is "no other remedy" : that expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa q. 68 a. 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of Florence! When one knows how much this Council espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!
Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments of the Feeneyites are of no value. But let us refute them too.
2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional
They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : "an academic difference to be settled by the Church" : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that 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 ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church. Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission. They write indeed: "this teaching [on three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium." They should add: common teaching of Popes, of Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should add that 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. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitly say: "it is de fide…"
If a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance, or one may discuss some precision within the doctrine (as to how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in order to have baptism of desire), but one is not allowed to reject the doctrine itself, simply denying baptism of desire.
The example of St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is a false one. Indeed one must note that St. Thomas accepted the highest purity he saw possible for Our Lady, accepting even the feast of the Immaculate Conception as being the day of her "sanctification." He says explicitly: "Under Christ, Who [alone] did not need to be saved, being the universal Savior, the Blessed Virgin had the highest purity." The hard question in this point of doctrine was how to reconcile the fact that she is redeemed, and that she is immaculate. The truth is that Our Lady was sanctified in the very first moment of her conception by being preserved from original sin, and not in the second moment of her life by being purified : as this distinction was simply not taught before St. Thomas Aquinas, he cannot be criticized for not holding it. There was no unanimity before him as to how to reconcile these two points of doctrine. And therefore the parallel with baptism of desire does not stand at all! Never could a Pope define a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.
And he who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church is not without sin against the virtue of Faith ("without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" ! Dz 799)
3/ Third error: The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".
The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 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." (Dz 847).
Beware of ambiguous translations! In their recent flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has "sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio" : thus the terms "without which" refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in "The Church Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified." Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?
Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "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…" 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 it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circuмstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, "God takes the will as the fact." This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.
It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation", the expression "grace of justification" in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach 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 needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino --
absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., 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, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.
The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
To remedy the errors of modernism, St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. 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."
St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the 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 who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.
One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.
Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (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 includes the three Baptisms.
The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the 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 mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
Conclusion
"Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." (Rom. 10:1-2) How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error, their refusal of the traditional teaching on the Three Baptism, they embrace the whole of Catholic Faith (not just defined Dogmas). They pretend to defend Dogma, but not with the truth! One cannot defend truth with error. Their error only gives easy weapons to the enemies of the Dogma! "Not knowing the Justice of God (interior sanctifying grace of justification by living Faith) and seeking to establish their own (exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments), [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God" (Rom. 10:3).
We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace (inseparable from the true Faith, Hope and Charity) and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto --
in reality or at least in desire" as teaches 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 which [Faith] no one ever was justified!" (Council of Trent, Dz 799).
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.
This article is from Catholic Apologetics: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/feeny.htm
www.olrl.org/doctrine/
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
In the CI thread entitled "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" ( http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written ) I posted 4 pages of clear dogmatic decrees which the Orwellian double-think Heroin BODers here on CI say are not to be understood as they are written. FOUR PAGES of just quotes!
I ask, is it possible to reason with any of these people to whom words have no meaning? After all, if to them, ALL those CLEARLY WORDED DOGMATIC decrees do not mean what they say, then how can we convince them of anything? Words have no meaning to these people.
"Then Jesus said to them: 'Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you'" (St. John 6:54).
Therefore, baptized children who die before receiving Holy Communion cannot be saved. (what dogmatic decree says that? Not a one. Meanwhile, I have all those dogmatic decees that I posted an entire thread on that one must NOT interpret the way they are written, and all the while BOD even of the catechumen has not ONE dogmatic decree ever clearly teaching it.) And don't dare try to twist Our Lord's words into some kind of "relative necessity," which is nothing more than a heretical trick. ;) Our Lord's words are as plain as day: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
Check and mate. (it's not that simple)
bowler,
See Denz. 109a (Pope St. Zosimus, A.D. 418.) and Denz. 253 (Pope John IV, A.D. 641) for implicit rejections of the Immaculate Conception. Of course, you're free to claim that these docuмents are merely fallible and do not express the Church's faith at the time. The truth, however, is that the dogma was considered an "opinion" all the way through A.D. 1661 (Pope Alexander VII, Denz. 1100.). (St. Augustine and the Fathers thought it was defide that unbaptized infants suffer some punishments of hell. His view held for over 800 years).
Please see this article on the history of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: (Again, goes to show you that you can only rely on the unanimous opinions of the Fathers and clear dogmas)http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm
Bottom line: It's Stubborn, bowler and Fr. Feeney vs. 400 years' worth of post-Tridentine, Angelicuм-trained, papal-approved theologians/Pontifical university professors, two Doctors among them. Whose interpretation of the Council of Trent will you side with? Finally, if BoD is truly erroneous and/or heretical, then what does it say about the Church's indefectability that she has positively promoted error (through the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities) for several centuries? (We are talking about BOB and explicit baptism of desire only. Those teachings could last 2000 years more in the Church while doing no harm, however, those theories did not stay there during the last 100 years. They could only exist unnoticed and witout harm in really Catholic times)[/color]
Council of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST, THEY NEVER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”
Quote from: bowlerCouncil of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST, THEY NEVER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”
Soutpaw,
How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?
"The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ', heretical" (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, n. 1: Denz. 1501).
Obviously, the necessity of baptism is one of the most important truths of our religion, so go ahead and feel free to call Pope Pius VI, who defended the theologians who had taught BoD for centuries (AF was promulgated in 1794), a liar.
YOU JUST GOT DONE TELLING ME THAT YOU DO NOT REJECT EXPLICIT BoD, SO WHICH IS IT?
Quote from: SouthpawLink"The proposition which asserts ‘that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ', heretical" (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, n. 1: Denz. 1501).
Obviously, the necessity of baptism is one of the most important truths of our religion, so go ahead and feel free to call Pope Pius VI, who defended the theologians who had taught BoD for centuries (AF was promulgated in 1794), a liar.
That decree does not say anything relative to our discussion. Not one of all the decrees that I posted is indirect or unclear like this "evidence" that you are posting. One would have to NOT interpret as they are written my 4 pages in quotes, to believe BOD.
(WARNING : We are not discussing here baptism of desire of the catechumen, nor baptism of blood, nor any BOD which requires a desire to be a Catholic and belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. Be forewarned anyone that posts here in favor of BOD is talking strictly about Heroin BOD.)
It's relevant because, according to you, it means that the Church had, in practice and for over 200 years, contradicted Trent and obscured the Gospel truth on the necessity of baptism (unless you deny that the theologians taught BoD from 1564 to 1794). If you're correct, then you're forced to assert that as well.
Council of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST, THEY NEVER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”
If I answer you, then will you in turn answer me?
Yes, I am a sedevacantist, due to the post-Vatican II false teachings relating to ecclesiology (the Eastern schismatics have "true particular Churches" and "build up the Church of God" through their illicit Masses), ecuмenism (it's no longer about converting non-Catholics) and religious liberty (the Catholic State's right to repress error is no longer granted).
Now, do you accept as true the Church's teaching, through the common and constant consent of her theologians, that explicit baptism of desire is salvific?
bowler,
Have you read what the manuals state about determining a consent among the Fathers and/or Theologians? Van Noort, Tanquerey, Wilhelm and Scannell?
How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?
Applying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right? (not a direct answer once again, this explains nothing of what you believe)
Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html
Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?
Quote from: bowlerHow can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?
By faith and perfect charity...
Applying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right?
Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html
Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.
My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.
My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.
Quote from: SouthpawLinkApplying the same reasoning (lack of consent on the part of the Fathers, and of the schools in the Middle Ages), the Immaculate Conception should have never been defined, right?
Please read Sect. 25 here: http://sedevacantist.com/wilhelm_scannell_04.html
Lastly, can you show me where Fr. Cekada accepted "implicit faith"? I do not remember coming across that statement in my reading of his articles.
My answer to you is that I accept the teaching of Pope St. Pius V as found in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: explicit faith and perfect charity can make up for the moral impossibility of receiving the sacrament of Baptism.
can you give me the quote for this?
What I gave was an interpretation of prop. 31, based on the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities-approved manuals of Hervé, McAuliffe, Tanquerey, Solà, and Zubizarreta. And again, it's your private and unsupported interpretations of Sess. VI, ch. 4 against that of centuries' worth of Scholastic theologians.
In Catholic theology, necessity is distinguished between "necessity of means" and "necessity of precept," "absolute" and "relative," and "interior" and "exterior." And that's how the decrees of Trent and Baptism of Desire are reconciled. I can't answer your question, Stubborn, without making the necessary distinctions. Theology is not as black-and-white as you would have it be.
And I think this will be my last post in this thread. bowler, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on the larger passage of St. Alphonsus. Anyway, have a blessed evening, everyone.
It would appear that there is more to the passage:
Quote from: SouthpawLinkWhat I gave was an interpretation of prop. 31, based on the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities-approved manuals of Hervé, McAuliffe, Tanquerey, Solà, and Zubizarreta. And again, it's your private and unsupported interpretations of Sess. VI, ch. 4 against that of centuries' worth of Scholastic theologians.
In Catholic theology, necessity is distinguished between "necessity of means" and "necessity of precept," "absolute" and "relative," and "interior" and "exterior." And that's how the decrees of Trent and Baptism of Desire are reconciled. I can't answer your question, Stubborn, without making the necessary distinctions. Theology is not as black-and-white as you would have it be.
And I think this will be my last post in this thread. bowler, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on the larger passage of St. Alphonsus. Anyway, have a blessed evening, everyone.
of course it should be your last post, that's what they all say when they can't answer a question
Quote from: bowlerQuote from: Lover of TruthI'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of it will sink in for some them as it did for me, Jehanne and probably others. Eventually some may stop believing their own tired, worn, erroneous and many times refuted rhetoric.
TRANSLATION=
I'm glad the Feeneyites are reading the truth about salvation on this thread. Slowly but surely perhaps some of my Heroin BOD will sink in for some them as it did in me, and then they can embrace my "truth" that "anyone in any false religion can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or to be baptized, nor explicit belief in Christ and the Trinity. Join us, Join us, Join us
(http://mentallyfine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hypnotist-with-a-fob-watc-001.jpg)
:roll-laugh1: :laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
.
Quote from: goochQuote from: SouthpawLinkWhat I gave was an interpretation of prop. 31, based on the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities-approved manuals of Hervé, McAuliffe, Tanquerey, Solà, and Zubizarreta. And again, it's your private and unsupported interpretations of Sess. VI, ch. 4 against that of centuries' worth of Scholastic theologians.
In Catholic theology, necessity is distinguished between "necessity of means" and "necessity of precept," "absolute" and "relative," and "interior" and "exterior." And that's how the decrees of Trent and Baptism of Desire are reconciled. I can't answer your question, Stubborn, without making the necessary distinctions. Theology is not as black-and-white as you would have it be.
And I think this will be my last post in this thread. bowler, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on the larger passage of St. Alphonsus. Anyway, have a blessed evening, everyone.
of course it should be your last post, that's what they all say when they can't answer a question
It's also what they say when the cause is hopeless, as in "shake the dust off your feet ... "
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation."
They present it as "without baptism of water there is no salvation."
St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", in the very passage in which he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside the Church, "because outside the Church there is no salvation," therefore baptism of water outside the Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character, but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e. justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door).
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of all baptism, explicitly stating "even without the water".
And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self, were received in the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism of desire).
Why not then believe the Dogma of the Church "outside the Church there is no salvation" "in the same meaning and in the same words --
in eodem sensu eademque sententia" as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three Baptism"? Why then give a new meaning, a new interpretation to the Dogma?
It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc. and unanimously all theologians (before the modernists)!
It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: "it is de fide --
that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith --
that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."
That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there is "no other remedy" : that expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa q. 68 a. 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of Florence! When one knows how much this Council espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!
Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments of the Feeneyites are of no value. But let us refute them too.
2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional
They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : "an academic difference to be settled by the Church" : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that 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 ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church. Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission. They write indeed: "this teaching [on three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium." They should add: common teaching of Popes, of Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should add that 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. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitly say: "it is de fide…"
If a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance, or one may discuss some precision within the doctrine (as to how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in order to have baptism of desire), but one is not allowed to reject the doctrine itself, simply denying baptism of desire.
The example of St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is a false one. Indeed one must note that St. Thomas accepted the highest purity he saw possible for Our Lady, accepting even the feast of the Immaculate Conception as being the day of her "sanctification." He says explicitly: "Under Christ, Who [alone] did not need to be saved, being the universal Savior, the Blessed Virgin had the highest purity." The hard question in this point of doctrine was how to reconcile the fact that she is redeemed, and that she is immaculate. The truth is that Our Lady was sanctified in the very first moment of her conception by being preserved from original sin, and not in the second moment of her life by being purified : as this distinction was simply not taught before St. Thomas Aquinas, he cannot be criticized for not holding it. There was no unanimity before him as to how to reconcile these two points of doctrine. And therefore the parallel with baptism of desire does not stand at all! Never could a Pope define a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.
And he who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church is not without sin against the virtue of Faith ("without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" ! Dz 799)
3/ Third error: The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation".
The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 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." (Dz 847).
Beware of ambiguous translations! In their recent flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has "sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio" : thus the terms "without which" refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in "The Church Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified." Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?
Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "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…" 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 it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circuмstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, "God takes the will as the fact." This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.
It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation", the expression "grace of justification" in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach 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 needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino --
absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., 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, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.
The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology
To remedy the errors of modernism, St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. 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."
St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the 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 who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.
One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.
Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (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 includes the three Baptisms.
The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the 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 mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).
The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?
Conclusion
"Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." (Rom. 10:1-2) How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error, their refusal of the traditional teaching on the Three Baptism, they embrace the whole of Catholic Faith (not just defined Dogmas). They pretend to defend Dogma, but not with the truth! One cannot defend truth with error. Their error only gives easy weapons to the enemies of the Dogma! "Not knowing the Justice of God (interior sanctifying grace of justification by living Faith) and seeking to establish their own (exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments), [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God" (Rom. 10:3).
We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace (inseparable from the true Faith, Hope and Charity) and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto --
in reality or at least in desire" as teaches 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 which [Faith] no one ever was justified!" (Council of Trent, Dz 799).
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.
This article is from Catholic Apologetics: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/feeny.htm
www.olrl.org/doctrine/
St. Alphonsus Liguori's concept of how a person can be justified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, does not include the imprint the character of baptism, nor does this justification remit the full liability of punishment. Now, that is not being born again!
Trent declares that "So unless they are born again in Christ, they never would be justified".QuoteCouncil of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, So unless they are born again in Christ, they never would be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”
Trent also teaches that the grace of baptism, spiritual rebirth, being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.QuoteCouncil of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. for, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.”
What St. Alphonsus describes as his idea of how a person can be justified before receiving the sacrament of baptism is contrary to Trent. He says that the "justification" of baptism of desire does not provide the grace of spiritual rebirth, of being born again, while Trent clearly says that to be justified everyone must be born again, a grace which includes the remission of every temporal punishment due to sin.
Quote from: Lover of TruthBOB/D Is as traditional as the Catholic Church herself. It is Feeneyism (making God an arbitrary tyrant and holding water in higher esteem than sanctifying grace) that is novel.
There's no such thing as Feeneyism... :smoke-pot:
Three Errors of the Feeneyite Movement
From LaGrange's book Life Everlasting, under the chapter "The Number of The Elect" is the following:
..."Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even for pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace."
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
gooch,
I quoted the passages from Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus on page six of this thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29443&min=25&num=5
As noted in your quoted post above, I gave an interpretation of proposition n. 31 from several approved manuals of dogmatic theology.
"In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin" — Condemned (Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 43).
"Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a 'pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned' [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins" — Condemned (n. 31; see also n. 33).
"Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom" — Condemned (n. 71).
And here's where you can find the text of the bull: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma11.php