Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 07:26:35 AM

Title: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 07:26:35 AM
I'm going to start a new thread on this due to Xavier's obnoxious tendency to drag threads off topic.

He'll ask a specific question or pose a problem.  Others will refute his example.  Instead of rebutting these counter-points, Xavier ignores them and proceeds to spam the thread with every manner of generic pro-BoD quotation he can find.

This is absolutely obnoxious, the same behavior that Lover of Heresy used to pull.

I ask that everyone abide by my request (as the OP) to remain ON TOPIC and discuss only the episode of Cornelius.  Some forum software allows the creator of the thread to delete posts, and I wish I could delete all off-topic posts.

BTW:  this same thing happens with SVism vs. R&R, where instead of sticking to a particular topic, the threads blow up into hundreds of pages.

I've also attached a poll here so that forum members can weigh in on who has won the argument.  PLEASE do not answer this poll question until we've gone a few pages into the discussion.  I'll make a post to the effect of "PLEASE VOTE NOW."  It would also be nice to have a feature where the OP can "open" the poll for voting at a particular point.

I simply can't take any more of the 500-page thread drifts on anything related to EENS and BoD.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 07:33:44 AM
Some authorities, cited by Xavier, hold that Cornelius was justified by something akin to Baptism of Desire, but the simple fact is that there's no proof here that Cornelius could have been SAVED by Baptism of Desire.  There's the simple fact that Cornelius WAS IN FACT ACTUALLY BAPTIZED.

Baptism of Desire refers to the notion that someone can be SAVED being in a state of justification without having also received the Sacrament of Baptism?

Ergo, since Cornelius did not die without the Sacrament of Baptism, this does not prove Baptism of Desire, understood as the possibility of salvation without the Sacrament.

At best one can argue he entered a state of justification.

So here again we have the problem where Baptism of Desire can mean 50 different things.  Let us be clear.  By Baptism of Desire we mean that a souls can be SAVED in a state of justification without Baptism.

Father Feeney and most Feeneyites do not deny that people can be in a state of justification before the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.

So what are you arguing here, Xavier?

I believe that the Cornelius episode backs up the teaching of St. Augustine that God will not anyone to persevere to the end of their life without providing to them the Sacrament of Baptism.  We see this play out here where God intervenes in an extraordinary manner to send Cornelius to St. Peter in order to be baptized.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 07:35:42 AM
Also, I do not believe it certain that Cornelius was justified.  All Sacred Scripture says is that the Holy Spirit was present.  But the activity of the Holy Spirit is there in all of the actual graces that ultimately lead to justification, as taught by Trent.  I believe that some of these authors are eisegetically interpreting this passage and injecting their own notion of BoD into it, where the text itself nowhere demonstrates this.  Is it possible that Cornelius was justified?  Yes, of course.  But it's not entirely certain from this passage itself.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 07:36:44 AM
I await any counter-points from those who hold that the episode of Cornelius proves Baptism of Desire.  Please refrain from posting anything that doesn't directly pertain to the Cornelius incident.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 19, 2021, 08:31:18 AM
The Cornelius incident proves (1) the Dimonds are wrong that Trent "rejected" Baptism of Desire. (2) BOD certainly exists and justifies.

I'm content with proving those two things to begin with. Trent says (3) those who now die in justifying grace will be saved, but that's different. Also I didn't derail the thread. I answered the questions posed to me, after asking others to limit discussion to one subject.

We'll start with Fr. Haydock, an authoritative Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, and the Council of Orange. Please give your view on them.

1. Fr. Haydock: "Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament." https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml)

Comment: So here at St. Peter's preaching, Fr. Haydock says, because of the Grace of God toward Cornelius, and his great charity and contrition, he received remission, justification and sanctification before any external Sacrament. This shows BOD justifies at least.

2. Council of Orange: "According to the Catholic Faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness." https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/orange.txt (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/orange.txt)

Comment: So the Council of Orange says we must certainly believe that the faith of the Good Thief, and of Cornelius post-Resurrection, was not a natural endowment, but a Gift of God's Kindness/Grace=Supernatural Faith. Hence, Cornelius was clearly in a State of Grace.

Quote
Baptism of Desire refers to the notion that someone can be SAVED being in a state of justification without having also received the Sacrament of Baptism?
The two are separate. Baptism of Desire at least justifies. It actually may still a disputable question whether it saves or not, although I've not seen any reference to a Church Doctor in the last millenium or post-Trent theology manual that says it still is. But I'm open to it.

I'll cite Fr. Laisney's words on the Council of Trent later on. Fr. Laisney showed imo that those who die in grace, now in the NT, will certainly be saved.

Quote
At best one can argue he entered a state of justification.

Yes. That's all that's being argued here at the moment. The related question, whether Trent said nothing else is required for the justified to be saved, to have fully satisfied the divine law, and truly merited heaven by their works done in God, than to die in grace, can be discussed next.

You say you are not personally convinced Cornelius definitely received BOD, but that it is plausible. Is that a fair summary of your position?
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: XavierSem on February 19, 2021, 08:31:18 AM
The Cornelius incident proves (1) the Dimonds are wrong that Trent "rejected" Baptism of Desire. (2) BOD certainly exists and justifies.

#1 is off topic and has nothing to do with this question.  I do not agree that Trent rejected Baptism of Desire ... though I don't believe that it taught it either.  But enough of that since it's off topic.

For #2, you appear to be redefining Baptism of Desire to mean justification before or outside the Sacrament of Baptism.  If that's what you're talking about, then what is your quarrel with the Feeneyites?  Fr. Feeney believed that justification can happen before reception of the Sacrament.

Let's be clear here and not slippery with an equivocal use of terms.  Your disagreement with the Feeneyites is your belief that people can be ultimately saved by persevering until the end of their life in a state of pre-Baptismal justification.

Your argument is invalid, because you're using the term "BoD" equivocally.  You're attempting to prove pre-Baptismal justification, and by proving this you somehow believe that you are disproving the main Feeneyite (and Augustinian) assertion that there's no such thing as SALVATION without the Sacrament.

Since Cornelius was eventually baptized, this episode in NO WAY proves your position.  All it demonstrates (arguably) is pre-Baptismal justification ... which Feeneyites do not deny.

See, you keep attacking Feeneyites in a duplicitious way by setting them up as straw men of the Dimond position.  You need to be clear that you're attacking the Dimondist position rather than the Feeneyite position.

Feeneyites in no way reject the assertion that justification is possible prior to the Sacrament of Baptism.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 09:16:15 AM
Quote from: XavierSem on February 19, 2021, 08:31:18 AM
The Cornelius incident proves (1) the Dimonds are wrong that Trent "rejected" Baptism of Desire. (2) BOD certainly exists and justifies.

This harkens back to my earlier point that "BoD" means different things to different people.  Here you are using it to refer to pre-Baptismal justification.  Feeneyites do not deny pre-Baptismal justification.  That is more proof that the term BoD is not defined.  Others apply "BoD" to baptized Protestants, for crying out loud.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 09:20:07 AM
JOD (Justification of Desire) in no way proves BOD (Baptism of Desire) without begging the question of whether someone who is justified can persevere to the end without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.  In other words, it's an implicit rejection of the teaching of St. Augustine that it's not possible.

Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 19, 2021, 10:05:20 AM
I'm going to number my questions going forward for easier reference. You can do the same if you wish, Ladislaus.

(1) Please explain your view of what Fr. Haydock said. Fr. Haydock gives a good explanation of how perfect contrition can obtain the remission of sins and the infusion of the Holy Ghost. Do you disagree with him? Do you have a different source on Acts 10:44-48?

(2) What about the Council of Orange? It said God inspires us to faith in Him and love for Him by His Grace, before we can do meritorious works. And thus we must believe Cornelius received not a natural endowment but the supernatural grace of faith, and thus he was in sanctifying grace i.e. justified. Do you disagree with the Council of Orange? Or have any other ancient Council on Cornelius?

Quote
You need to be clear that you're attacking the Dimondist position rather than the Feeneyite position.
I was. In that thread, I said I was speaking of Last Trad's opinion that "he did not believe in Baptism of Desire, even of the catechumen. He believes therefore that BOD neither exists nor justifies ... If Cornelius received justification by Baptism of Desire, BOD exists and the Dimonds who deny BOD are wrong on Trent."

About Fr. Feeney's postion as held by SBC, I said: "I have no objection to St. Augustine's position, especially as formulated by SBC in an article I cited earlier. It could be called the Augustinian position after St. Augustine. (1) St. Augustine admits BOD justifies. (2) Those who die in Sanctifying Grace will be saved. (3) He believes those who receive justification by BOD will also receive Water Baptism. That's fine, and it's not the position of the Dimonds which I'm arguing against in this thread. Do you believe BOD at least justifies? or do you deny BOD?"

You ask for a definition of BOD. The CE said the Council of Trent means not a natural desire for the Sacrament, but a Supernatural Desire for Baptism animated by Charity or Contrition. Pope St. Pius X and St. Alphonsus speak of BOD in the same way, love of God or contrition along with explicit or implicit desire for Baptism of Water.

Quote
Feeneyites in no way reject the assertion that justification is possible prior to the Sacrament of Baptism.

Ok. That's fine. I admit that. I would ask Feeneyites proper to explain what Fr. Laisney cited from the Council of Trent. I cited this elsewhere,

"See: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm) by Rev. Fr. Francois Laisney.

"When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
Quote
Quote
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809]."
Do you believe this? That the justified have completely satisfied the divine law, by their meritorious works performed in Grace, and have truly merited eternal life itself, that they will certainly attain in due time, if they but die in the State of Grace.

My view is the opinion that someone dies in the State of Grace, today in the New Covenant, and does not ultimately go to Heaven, is heretical. And SBC seems to agree: "Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith."

which is why I don't object to SBC's position. (3) Do you believe the same as St. Benedict's Centre does on this point?

God Bless.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 10:46:12 AM
I started writing a response but then changed mind because it was dragging the thread off topic.

Your assertion that Cornelius received "Baptism of Desire" is predicated on your definition of "Baptism of Desire" as pre-Baptismal justification.  No true Feeneyite rejects the possibility of pre-Baptismal justification.

To make it clear what I mean by Baptism of Desire, I worded the thread title as "Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?"

We're not discussing here the hypothetical of what would have happened to Cornelius had he dropped dead on the journey to St. Peter.  That is a totally separate question and is therefore off topic.  I want to be strict about what we discuss in what thread to prevent 100-page threads.

This episode, at best, demonstrates a case of pre-Baptismal justification, and, as such, it's irrelevant to the Feeneyite debate.  It totally misses the mark, logically, in terms of attacking the Feeneyite position.

I'll start a poll question asking whether people believe in the possibility of pre-Baptismal justification ... to find out whether you're completely wasting your time.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 19, 2021, 11:00:49 AM
Not at all. Even BAPTISM ITSELF does not confer salvation, otherwise all the baptized are saved. Baptism only confers Justification, just like Baptism of Desire. Baptism, or its Desire, confers justification. That is the Catholic Doctrine I'm defending.

And here I have to question whether, in your own words, you are "a true Feeneyite". Why? Because no true Feeneyite has any objection e.g. to the Catechisms that teach BOD. They teach that Baptism of Desire can secure the remission of sins. And the Feeneyite agrees. The Dimondite doesn't agree, and thus has to attack the Catechisms. The Feeneyite does not. 

I've said I'm open to Fr. Feeney's position, as articulated by SBC. (1) BOD certainly exists and justifies. (2) Those who die in justifying grace are certainly - and dogmatically - saved. (3) It is permitted to hold all who receive BOD will also receive Water Baptism.

I've only used the Cornelius incident as proof of (1). As proof of (2), in case someone denies it, I would use the passage in the Council of Trent cited by Fr. Laisney. But SBC does not deny it. As for (3) I'd still like to see the pre-Vatican II manual, but I'm ok with it.

As Clemens Maria posted in another thread, the Church does now say that Feeneyism as held by SBC is an acceptable Catholic position. I am yet to see a pre-Vatican II, post Trent source for it, though. But I'm not objecting to that.

The Cornelius incident, again, certainly proves Baptism of Desire exists and justifies. If you want to debate whether it saves, that would require a more detailed discussion. Salvation=Justification+Perseverance in Grace only. 

We'd have to go into Trent and other things. I'm fine with the assertion that Cornelius does not disprove Feeneyism proper. I don't claim it does. But the case of Cornelius, plus the Council of Trent, poses some problems for it.

I've seen some Feeneyites deny that a person dying in Grace will be saved. That's completely wrong imo. But I have no problem with Br. Andre's formulation of it, who says he submits as to a dogma that someone who now dies in grace will be saved.

God Bless.
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 19, 2021, 11:07:29 AM
Watch this video.  It is only 1 hour long.  It is a tour de force.  It proves from Sacred Scripture, the popes and the fathers of the Church that not only was Cornelius not justified before the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism but that it is impossible to be justified before the reception of the Sacrament.

Cornelius, The Gift Of Languages & The Necessity Of Baptism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztqdmCIGSDY&feature=emb_title)
Title: Re: Was Cornelius saved by Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Caraffa on February 19, 2021, 06:52:28 PM
I vote no, but hold that it is likely that Cornelius the Centurion was justified before baptism. Even though I am not a Feeneyite, defenders of BOD should not use him as an example. It is usually said that St. Cornelius is Roman or Italian and therefore it is assumed that he was a pagan. He was not, he and his household were God-fearers. God-fearers were Gentile followers of Judaism, a kind of quasi-convert, but who stopped short of becoming full converts because of things like circuŠ¼cision. He therefore already believed and worshipped the true God.