Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Stubborn on April 17, 2019, 06:14:48 AM
-
From here. (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-voris-on-fr-feeney/msg650034/#msg650034)
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 15, 2019, 07:22:35 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-voris-on-fr-feeney/msg649904/#msg649904)
BoD theology is complete garbage that's predicated on one false premise after another, and it makes a mockery of God's providence. That's how faulty is the "reasoning" behind it. It's not theological reasoning at all, but emoting, emoting in the same category as those who shake their fists at God for being unmerciful when some tragedy befalls them. We most certainly believe that God is Merciful; we just disagree on how His Mercy works in the hearts of men.
Quote from: Your Friend Colin on Yesterday at 06:34:01 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-voris-on-fr-feeney/msg650034/#msg650034)
So then what is Baptism of Desire? What did the Council of Trent, the Saints, and Doctors mean when they spoke of BoD?
Genuinely curious about this doctrine.
A BOD is not a doctrine of the Church and it has no definition at all, in fact, it has 100s of different definitions, depending on who you ask.
What one of the many different ideas of it is, is an idea that man can save himself, that before his death, some impossible-for-God situation occurs that prevented God from providing the person the sacrament of baptism, even though the person presumably desired to receive it as much as God surely desired to provide it. The person is said to have died without ever having received the sacrament of baptism, albeit desiring the sacrament, and on that account was saved by that desire. In all cases of a BOD, the recipient of a BOD is saved never having been sacramentally baptized and by some desire, in the case of all BOD recipients, the road to heaven is paved with a good intention.
-
Does BOD somehow make use of the H20 which is naturally occurring in the air?
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.treehugger.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F2011%2F10%2Fwater-vapor.jpg&f=1)
Some mornings, my Hampshires are totally wet from the fog near that rolls in near their pen :farmer:
-
BOD is an inherent deistic belief. Deists believe that God does not interfere in the world, and that's what BODders must also believe if they think God was somehow unwilling to grant Baptism to someone who desired it.
-
Why is the OP phrased "What is a BOD?"
Like why are we asking what "a" BOD is?
-
Why is the OP phrased "What is a BOD?"
Like why are we asking what "a" BOD is?
A Baptism of Water
A Baptism of Blood
A Baptism of Desire
It did sound a bit odd when I first read. I think Stubborn might be mocking it a bit by adding "a".
-
A Baptism of Water
A Baptism of Blood
A Baptism of Desire
It did sound a bit odd when I first read. I think Stubborn might be mocking it a bit by adding "a".
Makes sense.
What did Thomas Aquinas say about this exactly? I realize he wasn't infallible, but if I understand correctly, he taught Baptism of Desire, and it would seem his views should be respected by Catholics even if/though they aren't infallible.
-
Makes sense.
What did Thomas Aquinas say about this exactly? I realize he wasn't infallible, but if I understand correctly, he taught Baptism of Desire, and it would seem his views should be respected by Catholics even if/though they aren't infallible.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). And such a man can obtain salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) without being actually baptized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), on account of his desire for Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), which desire is the outcome of "faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) that worketh by charity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)," whereby God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), sanctifies man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) inwardly. Hence Ambrose (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm) says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm): "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) he prayed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) for."
No man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) obtains eternal life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm) unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm) is given when a man receives Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), or suffers martyrdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm): for which reason is it stated that martyrdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) "contains all the sacramental virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm) of Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm)," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm) to have the desire for Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) (else he could not be said to die in his good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm) works, which cannot be without "faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) that worketh by charity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm), but would suffer punishment for his past sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co003.htm#verse15).
The sacrament of Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is said to be necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) for salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) in so far as man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of desire; "which, with God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), counts for the deed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01115a.htm)" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Sorry for the fomatting. I just copied and pasted.
-
Makes sense.
What did Thomas Aquinas say about this exactly? I realize he wasn't infallible, but if I understand correctly, he taught Baptism of Desire, and it would seem his views should be respected by Catholics even if/though they aren't infallible.
Found this on the internet:
As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly [there are the key words]; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.”
STh III, q. 69, a. 4.
The perplexing thing is that Saint Thomas Aquinas believes that baptism by desire only remits eternal punishment and not the temporal punishment due to sins. In other words, the believer without sacramental baptism would still endure the “salvation through fire” of 1 Corinthians 3:15, i.e. purgatory. We find more information about this in Summa theologiae III 68 a. 2 ad 2:
No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Saint Thomas Aquinas further describes the distinction between in explicit and implicit faith in his Treatise on Faith found in II-II:
If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.”
STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3 – emphasis mine.
I probably shouldn’t be amazed, but I’m rather shocked that Saint Thomas Aquinas had explored these regions of soteriology. Especially in the last quote (from II-II), one can see that this sort of reasoning is the basis of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 16 which reads:
Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too many achieve eternal salvation.
-
Why is the OP phrased "What is a BOD?"
Like why are we asking what "a" BOD is?
Quite perceptive of you ByzCat3000. I mainly put it that way because there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of different, often contradictory ideas of what a BOD even is.
To ask: "What is BOD?" is to start off admitting that such a thing as BOD, as commonly understood, is actually possible and that it actually exists.
I do not admit that it exits at all, I admit that there is no such thing and that it contradicts all of the teachings of the Church with regards to the necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation, and because in all cases of BOD, there is the absolute necessity of rejecting the Providence of God, which makes the whole idea a very grave insult to God. Also inherent and explicit in all cases of a BOD, is that the person's untimely death was just as big of a surprise to God, as it was to the person who died unexpectedly.
So while different ideas of what BOD do exist, it is obviously not a doctrine of God, rather, it is a doctrine of man about God, or about something else, which in the end, always amounts to the idea that runs contrary to defined dogma and all the teachings of the Church, that there actually is salvation outside the Church.
Scripture and defined dogma is simply written in apodictic terms, which quite obviously dictates that there is no salvation without the sacrament - and a BOD, regardless of which idea of it one subscribes too, is no sacrament.
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." - Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church
Even the great saint admitted he was teaching "his views" on the sacrament of baptism and that they could well be erroneous.
Some 300 years after St. Thomas died, the infallible judgement of the Church declared that the sacrament was necessary for salvation. I think it is safe to say that St. Thomas would have done as he said and submitted to this judgement of the Church, as should we all.
-
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." - Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church
Even the great saint admitted he was teaching "his views" on the sacrament of baptism and that they could well be erroneous.
Some 300 years after St. Thomas died, the infallible judgement of the Church declared that the sacrament was necessary for salvation. I think it is safe to say that St. Thomas would have done as he said and submitted to this judgement of the Church, as should we all.
To be clear, my argument was just that it seems like St Thomas' views should be respected, not that they should automatically be endorsed.
Didn't St Alphonsus also hold to BOD after Trent? Which would mean, at the least, he didn't see a conflict between Trent and BOD?
-
To be clear, my argument was just that it seems like St Thomas' views should be respected, not that they should automatically be endorsed.
Didn't St Alphonsus also hold to BOD after Trent? Which would mean, at the least, he didn't see a conflict between Trent and BOD?
It is not a matter of respecting or disrespecting the greatest theologian's views, it is a matter of us submitting to the judgement of the Church after his example - as he vowed to do. If we are to respect him, we must make that same vow.
The BODers love to quote the saints and fathers who at one time or another and for whatever reason, contrary to Scripture and defined dogma, taught that salvation was attainable without the sacrament. I like to think that like St. Augustine, who in his book of Retractions, retracted his view favoring a BOD, St. Alphonsus also did the same.
Because contrary to what he is quoted to have taught regarding a BOD, he teaches in his commentary on the Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon IV he teaches:
The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto).
Taken from: (An Exposition and Defense of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)
-
It is not a matter of respecting or disrespecting the greatest theologian's views, it is a matter of us submitting to the judgement of the Church after his example - as he vowed to do. If we are to respect him, we must make that same vow.
The BODers love to quote the saints and fathers who at one time or another and for whatever reason, contrary to Scripture and defined dogma, taught that salvation was attainable without the sacrament. I like to think that like St. Augustine, who in his book of Retractions, retracted his view favoring a BOD, St. Alphonsus also did the same.
Because contrary to what he is quoted to have taught regarding a BOD, he teaches in his commentary on the Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon IV he teaches:
Taken from: (An Exposition and Defense of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)
Why can a soul be saved with only desire for the Eucharist, but not only by desire for baptism?
Sacred Scripture as far as I know describes both in similar terms. I get that if the Church teaches it, its right, but I'm still trying to understand why in this case.
-
Why can a soul be saved with only desire for the Eucharist, but not only by desire for baptism?
Sacred Scripture as far as I know describes both in similar terms. I get that if the Church teaches it, its right, but I'm still trying to understand why in this case.
Yeah, it's a bit confusing why the "Providence of God" argument can't be used in the same way regarding desire for Eucharist as it is regarding desire for Baptism. Why don't we say "If someone truly wanted the Eucharist yada yada, God would've given it to them" the same way we do for Baptism?
Clearly there must be a reason behind the distinction made here, otherwise I can't imagine it being made, but I can't find it.
-
Why can a soul be saved with only desire for the Eucharist, but not only by desire for baptism?
That's not what Trent is saying. Trent is saying that 1) baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, 2) Penance is necessary for those who need it, 3) the Eucharist is necessary for those who are able to receive it (thus desire suffices, in some cases). But one cannot properly desire the Eucharist who is not a Catholic, being that Baptism makes one a child of God and gives sanctifying grace. A non-baptized person cannot desire the Eucharist with the proper spiritual intent, because their soul is in darkness due to Original Sin.
-
That's not what Trent is saying. Trent is saying that 1) baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, 2) Penance is necessary for those who need it, 3) the Eucharist is necessary for those who are able to receive it (thus desire suffices, in some cases). But one cannot properly desire the Eucharist who is not a Catholic, being that Baptism makes one a child of God and gives sanctifying grace. A non-baptized person cannot desire the Eucharist with the proper spiritual intent, because their soul is in darkness due to Original Sin.
Yeah sorry my thoughts got muddled there, I didn't mean that the Eucharist saves. What I meant is: When we speak of BOD, we say that God would give Baptism to anyone who earnestly sought it and that BOD is a rejection of God's Providence. Why don't we extend that principle of God's Providence to the Eucharist? Why don't we likewise say that God would grant the Eucharist to anyone who sought it, and therefore reject Eucharist of Desire?
I'll reiterate what ByzCat said, I'm not denying or doubting what Trent teaches here, just I can't see the distinction in why we reject BOD due to God's Providence but not "EOD".
-
Yeah sorry my thoughts got muddled there, I didn't mean that the Eucharist saves. What I meant is: When we speak of BOD, we say that God would give Baptism to anyone who earnestly sought it and that BOD is a rejection of God's Providence. Why don't we extend that principle of God's Providence to the Eucharist? Why don't we likewise say that God would grant the Eucharist to anyone who sought it, and therefore reject Eucharist of Desire?
I'll reiterate what ByzCat said, I'm not denying or doubting what Trent teaches here, just I can't see the distinction in why we reject BOD due to God's Providence but not "EOD".
Here is (https://catholicism.org/from-baptism-of-desire-to-kaspers-communion-of-desire.html)a good article about it.
Father Feeney expressed concern in his lectures about the abuse of the idea of spiritual communions. Not that he was opposed to the devotion as it was promoted by many saints for those who, in past times, were not permitted to receive every day. But he was worried over the fact that liberals were equating spiritual communion with Real Eucharistic Communion, as if the former could effect the same grace as the latter. Father, no doubt, counseled those who were reluctant to receive because of some uncertainty in their mind as to their state of grace to make a spiritual communion, but he did not want them to make a habit of it. It was a good thing to do, but it was not a Eucharistic thing to do. Eucharist means “good thanks” and the best way to thank God at Mass is to accept His invitation to Holy Communion.
In Holy Communion, Jesus assimilates us into Himself in an utterly unique way. The full effect of this cannot be accomplished by a mere spiritual communion. Father’s chapter on the “Great Gift of God” (https://catholicism.org/bread-of-life.html/5) in his book Bread of Life (https://catholicism.org/bread-of-life.html) is all about this. “Christianity is a concorporeal spiritual life!” Father writes, and “The same cowards who make the Church an invisible society, have tried to make the Blessed Eucharist a purely spiritual communion, with nothing to do with our body. The priest says in the Mass: ‘Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis . . .— ‘May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my entrails . . . .’ May we be formed and fashioned out of the same substance, concorporeally united, so that we may become other Christs.” If you have not read Bread of Life you are missing out on a theological and devotional masterpiece.
Cardinal Walter Kasper has taken spiritual communion, or what he calls a “sacrament of desire,” to a new level of equivocal abuse. In his interview with EWTN journalist Raymond Arroyo he expressed his position by referring to none other than Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). Monica Migliorino Miller, writing for Crisis Magazine, offers an excellent commentary: “In 1994 the then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to bishops affirming that divorced and remarried Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist, yet they may avail themselves of “spiritual communion.” Kasper seizes on this point and argues that by spiritual communion the person is “united with Christ he cannot live in grave sin, this would be a contradiction.” He believes if the divorced and remarried can receive the spiritual benefits of Holy Communion through “spiritual communion” (through sacrament of desire) it is illogical to forbid them to actually receive the Eucharist.” You can read her timely and insightful article here (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/kaspers-flawed-path-to-mercy-for-divorced-and-remarried).
-
Here is (https://catholicism.org/from-baptism-of-desire-to-kaspers-communion-of-desire.html)a good article about it.
Father Feeney expressed concern in his lectures about the abuse of the idea of spiritual communions. Not that he was opposed to the devotion as it was promoted by many saints for those who, in past times, were not permitted to receive every day. But he was worried over the fact that liberals were equating spiritual communion with Real Eucharistic Communion, as if the former could effect the same grace as the latter. Father, no doubt, counseled those who were reluctant to receive because of some uncertainty in their mind as to their state of grace to make a spiritual communion, but he did not want them to make a habit of it. It was a good thing to do, but it was not a Eucharistic thing to do. Eucharist means “good thanks” and the best way to thank God at Mass is to accept His invitation to Holy Communion.
In Holy Communion, Jesus assimilates us into Himself in an utterly unique way. The full effect of this cannot be accomplished by a mere spiritual communion. Father’s chapter on the “Great Gift of God” (https://catholicism.org/bread-of-life.html/5) in his book Bread of Life (https://catholicism.org/bread-of-life.html) is all about this. “Christianity is a concorporeal spiritual life!” Father writes, and “The same cowards who make the Church an invisible society, have tried to make the Blessed Eucharist a purely spiritual communion, with nothing to do with our body. The priest says in the Mass: ‘Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis . . .— ‘May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my entrails . . . .’ May we be formed and fashioned out of the same substance, concorporeally united, so that we may become other Christs.” If you have not read Bread of Life you are missing out on a theological and devotional masterpiece.
Cardinal Walter Kasper has taken spiritual communion, or what he calls a “sacrament of desire,” to a new level of equivocal abuse. In his interview with EWTN journalist Raymond Arroyo he expressed his position by referring to none other than Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). Monica Migliorino Miller, writing for Crisis Magazine, offers an excellent commentary: “In 1994 the then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to bishops affirming that divorced and remarried Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist, yet they may avail themselves of “spiritual communion.” Kasper seizes on this point and argues that by spiritual communion the person is “united with Christ he cannot live in grave sin, this would be a contradiction.” He believes if the divorced and remarried can receive the spiritual benefits of Holy Communion through “spiritual communion” (through sacrament of desire) it is illogical to forbid them to actually receive the Eucharist.” You can read her timely and insightful article here (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/kaspers-flawed-path-to-mercy-for-divorced-and-remarried).
Thank you for this Stubborn. The link cited takes us to 'The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary'. Would they be in the same boat as the neo-SSPX with Papal approval for the Sacraments of Marriage and Baptism?
..
-
Thank you for this Stubborn. The link cited takes us to 'The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary'. Would they be in the same boat as the neo-SSPX with Papal approval for the Sacraments of Marriage and Baptism?
..
They are not priests. It is a religious congregation of brothers and sisters. They have Papal approval so I imagine the accept V2 and the New Mass. They rely on the new rite bishops and priests. But recently they've been deprived of a priest providing Mass and confession for them. Goes to show you the Conciliar hierarchy can not be relied upon.
-
Thank you for this Stubborn. The link cited takes us to 'The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary'. Would they be in the same boat as the neo-SSPX with Papal approval for the Sacraments of Marriage and Baptism?
What Colin said and yes, I believe they are in a worse boat than the SSPX because they bowed to the conciliar authorities a long time ago, like maybe a decade or more ago I think. SSPX will certainly meet a similar fate if they don't stop the sell out asap, it's just a matter of when.
I have not kept up with the Slaves since even before they split up because something is not right there. I think they splintered into at least three different groups and although they all preach the true faith, their reliance on the conciliar authorities leaves me scratching my head. Maybe they're more like the FSSP, except they insist on having a big mouth about EENS, which is definitely *not* part of the conciliarist program. Their situation is crazy imo.
-
Appreciate both these replies. Thank you.
-
I have spent a few years reading Stubborn's and Ladislaus' posts on BOD and they, along with others, convinced me that BOD is a novelty. There is just way too much evidence to the contrary to take it seriously.
The issues that made me vacillate were the catechisms from the 1800's forward that all taught BOD. I spent the $$$ and acquired them, from about 1880's forward and they all taught it. But then I realized that some of the catechisms prior to Vatican I taught against papal infallibility, so it shows that even catechisms can err.
-
Why don't we likewise say that God would grant the Eucharist to anyone who sought it, and therefore reject Eucharist of Desire?
Because the sacrament of the Eucharist requires preparation and learning from the Catholic. One can desire to receive Holy Communion but have to wait, as does a newly baptized catholic. Baptism is necessary for salvation; the Eucharist is a normal progression of the spiritual life in the Church, but not necessary to the same degree. One who receives Baptism but never completes his Faith by receiving Christ is guilty of a sin of omission, in a sense. (This assumes the person does not have extenuating circuмstances which prevents them from receiving the sacrament (i.e. persecution, death, health issues, etc)).
-
Because the sacrament of the Eucharist requires preparation and learning from the Catholic. One can desire to receive Holy Communion but have to wait, as does a newly baptized catholic. Baptism is necessary for salvation; the Eucharist is a normal progression of the spiritual life in the Church, but not necessary to the same degree. One who receives Baptism but never completes his Faith by receiving Christ is guilty of a sin of omission, in a sense. (This assumes the person does not have extenuating circuмstances which prevents them from receiving the sacrament (i.e. persecution, death, health issues, etc)).
Makes sense, thank you.
With regards to the last bracketed sentence of your post, does it mean that martyred unbaptised catechumens are saved? I believe I've heard some Saints say so, but I've read others here argue against it too.
-
(This assumes the person does not have extenuating circuмstances which prevents them from receiving the sacrament (i.e. persecution, death, health issues, etc)
I was referring to a baptized catholic who was prevented from receiving Holy Communion. For example, many of the early catechumens were baptized while they were in prison, and then died shortly thereafter. They obviously couldn't be prepared, nor did they have the opportunity, to receive the Holy Eucharist.
-
Fr. Stehlin gave a wonderful sermon for Corpus Christi last year on Eucharistic Miracles, Spiritual Communions, everything related to the Bread of Life and its Supreme Importance. I was visiting the priory at the time. Fr. S is very holy imho. Father said, we are encouraged by Mother Church to make many acts of Spiritual Communion throughout the day, beside the Sacramental Communion we receive once. And - which surprised me at the time, but which on further reading turned out to be well docuмented in traditional authors - by Spiritual Communion, we can often receive graces comparable to actual Sacramental Communion. Writing in the 19th century, Fr. Mueller said we can even sometimes gain greater graces by Spiritual Communion than someone else, without fervency and devotion, gains in reception of the actual Sacrament. See below for more on that.
There is no doubt Baptism of Desire exists, and that we may obtain justification by it; Baptism of Desire is nothing other than an Act of Contrition or Perfect Love of God united to the Desire of receiving the Sacraments; this is taught by St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Pius X.
In the Bible, as Fr. Haydock explains, we see Cornelius, for e.g. receive justification before receiving Baptism, through contrition and desire. Fr. Feeney never denied that the grace of justification could be obtained by BOD, but held the grace of final perseverance would be bestowed on the faithful soul after the reception of the Sacrament. It appears St. Augustine taught something similar to Fr. Feeney.
Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? Wi. — 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. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. S. Aug. sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4. Taken from: https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml (https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment105.shtml)
"This devotion [Spiritual Communion] is so full of grace and consolation that it is of the greatest importance that everyone should know how to practice it. I will therefore say a word in explanation of it.
Spiritual Communion, according to St. Thomas, consists in an ardent desire to receive our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament. It is performed by making an act of faith in the presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and then an act of love, and an act of contrition for having offended Him. The soul then invites Him to come and unite Himself to her and make her entirely His own; and lastly, she thanks Him as if she had really received Him sacramentally.
The Spiritual Communion may be made in the following manner: "O my Jesus, I firmly believe that Thou art truly and really present in the Most Holy Sacrament. I love Thee with my whole heart, and because I love Thee, I am sorry for having offended Thee. I long to possess Thee within my soul, but as I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, come at least in spirit into my heart. I unite myself to Thee as if Thou wert already there; never let me be separated from Thee."
The graces which are bestowed in this way are so great that they may be likened to those which are imparted by an actual reception of the Sacrament.
One day Our Lord Himself told St. Jane of the Cross that as often as she communicated spiritually she received a grace similar to that which she received from her Sacramental Communions. He also appeared to Sister Paula Maresca, foundress of the Convent of St. Catherine of Siena at Naples, with two vessels, one of gold and the other of silver, and told her that in the golden vessel He preserved her Sacramental Communions and in the silver vessel her spiritual Communions. The Fathers of the Church go so far as to say that one who has a very great desire for Communion, accompanied with great reverence and humility, may sometimes receive even more graces than another who, without these dispositions, should actually receive Our Lord in the Sacramental species; for as the Psalmist says: "The Lord hears the desire of the poor, and fills their hearts with good things."
-
There is no doubt Baptism of Desire exists, and that we may obtain justification by it; ...
False, there's plenty of doubt. Its theological origins are in pure speculation, and it has never been demonstrated to either have been revealed or to be necessarily derived implicitly from explicitly revealed truth. Consequently, it can never be the object of divine faith.
Spiritual Communion has nothing to do with this topic. If you think that it does, then it's clear that you haven't any proper theological foundation regarding the ex opere operato effect of the Sacraments.
-
Proponents of BoD regularly contradict one another and themselves.
So, for instance, one of the Pope Innocent quotations in favor of BoD states that those who die immediately after justification by BoD go immediately to heaven. Yet St. Alphonsus states that this is not true, that the temporal punishment due to their sins is not entirely remitted. Now, this letter from Innocent has the same authority as another letter cited by St. Alphonsus as allegedly making it de fide. So by his own standards this would make St. Alphonsus a heretic (objectively speaking) for claiming that temporal punishment is not remitted.
It's the clear dogmatic teaching of the Church (in Trent) that this state of initial justification (vs. re-justification after Confession for instance) entails a complete rebirth after which no stain of sin can remain.
Various proponents of BoD (including top-tier theologians) cite the Holy Innocents as examples for BoB and the Good Thief for BoD ... without realizing that neither of these has any probative value because Baptism had not been made mandatory yet and the mode of justification in force was still that of the Old Dispensation.
BoD is shrouded with mirk and mess, and it's caused nothing but confusion ... especially after it got later extended from the original application to Catechumens all the way down to infidels who merely follow the natural law.
In fact, the very origins of the new Vatican II ecclesiology derive from BoD theory. So all the modern errors ultimately go back to that. If I believed in implicit BoD, I would immediately drop any objection to Vatican II ... since it all follows from that.
-
Proponents of BoD regularly contradict one another and themselves.
So, for instance, one of the Pope Innocent quotations in favor of BoD states that those who die immediately after justification by BoD go immediately to heaven. Yet St. Alphonsus states that this is not true, that the temporal punishment due to their sins is not entirely remitted. Now, this letter from Innocent has the same authority as another letter cited by St. Alphonsus as allegedly making it de fide. So by his own standards this would make St. Alphonsus a heretic (objectively speaking) for claiming that temporal punishment is not remitted.
It's the clear dogmatic teaching of the Church (in Trent) that this state of initial justification (vs. re-justification after Confession for instance) entails a complete rebirth after which no stain of sin can remain.
Various proponents of BoD (including top-tier theologians) cite the Holy Innocents as examples for BoB and the Good Thief for BoD ... without realizing that neither of these has any probative value because Baptism had not been made mandatory yet and the mode of justification in force was still that of the Old Dispensation.
BoD is shrouded with mirk and mess, and it's caused nothing but confusion ... especially after it got later extended from the original application to Catechumens all the way down to infidels who merely follow the natural law.
In fact, the very origins of the new Vatican II ecclesiology derive from BoD theory. So all the modern errors ultimately go back to that. If I believed in implicit BoD, I would immediately drop any objection to Vatican II ... since it all follows from that.
On the assumption that implicit BOD exists (I realize you disagree with this) I still have three major concerns with Vatican II.
1: the language on salvation outside the visible bounds of the Church is extremely vague, such that someone could read it as being in agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre (I realize you still don't agree with Lefebvre) on the issue, and someone else could read it as supporting one step shy of universalism like Bishop Barron does. I believe Unitatis Redintegratio says that Protestant communities "Are not deprived of significance in the mystery of salvation" or something like that. That could mean as little as their baptisms being valid, that their little children who die before the age of reason are saved, and that in some cases someone's time in Protestantism might be their first step toward ultimately finding Catholicism. You could theoretically say nobody who dies in a Protestant community after the age of reason is saved, and still technically affirm that wording. On the flip side, you could be a universalist, think Protestants have no need to convert, and also affirm it.
2: Ecuмenism. While its arguable that this is a strategic issue and not dogmatic, there is a leap between "Some people might be saved in X condition" and "we should be ecuмenical with X group."
3: Religious liberty. Same deal. False religion is still harmful to souls, even if some souls might be saved *despite* said religions via baptism of desire. Vatican II at least seems to suggest that religious liberty is a human right. TBH this is the only thing in Vatican II that I'm aware of that I can't think of a good explanation for how it would fit with what was taught in the past. The rest of it, it seems, *can* be read in an orthodox way, but is extremely easy to read in a heretical way.
I'm not arguing here against you that BOD exists, because I don't know nearly enough to have that debate, but I'm curious why, if it does, the above wouldn't still be legitimate objections to Vatican II.
-
False, there's plenty of doubt.
:facepalm: Looks like someone has fallen into BOD-doubtism now. Say, Ladislaus, when are you gonna actually start learning your Faith from the Catholic Church, and not from the Dimon Brothers? ;D
St. Robert Bellarmine seems specifically to be answering you: "De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
Our Lord Jesus Himself told St. Catherine of Sienna, He poured Water and Blood from His Sacred Heart, to show us the Baptism of Love. "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed." This is what is called baptism of desire, to desire Baptism with the affection of love. But of course who is a mere St. Catherine, or even the Lord Jesus, compared to Ladislaus and Peter Dimond, right?
And this is the passage of St. Alphonsus: Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment." Perfect Contrition remits mortal sins. Venial sins remain. This is true both before and after Baptism. Even after forgiveness of mortal sin, temporal punishment for forgiven sins remain. It is part of the extraordinary effect of the Sacrament of Baptism that all mortal sin, all venial sin and all else is removed.
St. Alphonsus says there's no doubt about BOD mainly because of the Council of Trent, which is a dogmatic Council; the letters of Pope Innocent, which you misrepresent and misunderstand completely, are authentic teaching where the Roman Pontiff purposely passes judgment on a disputed question that must therefore be adhered to with religious assent as Pope Pius XII taught.
"if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Humani Generis, p.20)
So by his own standards this would make St. Alphonsus a heretic (objectively speaking) for claiming that temporal punishment is not remitted.
No, o erring man of great temerity, you have fallen into heresy, and you need to reflect on the state of your soul. You need to question why Doctors of the highest learning and of the greatest sanctity disagree with you. But you are a Dimond disciple and they have confused you. Unlike Catholics, you don't get your understanding of Scripture from Church-Approved Catholic Commentaries.
Fr. Haydock tells you Cornelius was justified as a Catechumen. A sensible Catholic would therefore not doubt that BOD is divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture, by the Holy Ghost through the first Pope St. Peter himself, "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."
-
St. Robert Bellarmine seems specifically to be answering you: "De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.
St Robert Bellarmine echos what St Thomas thought, which is (partially) confirmed by Trent - that someone who has a "true conversion" can obtain justification (i.e. state of grace). What is a "true conversion" per Trent? It applies to catechumens, who are learning the Faith, who want to become Catholics and who want to be part of the Faith...and...who know what the Faith is. This is what St Thomas says as well - that BOD would ONLY apply to a formal catechumen who knows of the Faith, desires the Faith and desires to enter the Church. This is the ONLY and STRICT definition that BOD can have.
The problem is that, (at least in America) since the mid 1800s, the Baltimore Catechism introduced a watered-down idea of BOD, whereby it could apply to non-catechumens and, basically anyone who "desired God" (whatever than means). This is NOT what St Thomas taught, nor +Bellarmine, nor St Alphonsus, nor Trent. This modernized, feel-good, baptism of desire for most anyone is what Fr Feeney was arguing against in the 40s and 50s. This corrupted-BOD is, in essence, a kind of universal salvation precursor, which lead to the full-blown heresy in V2.
As an aside, it should not surprise anyone that the Baltimore Catechism is partially wrong, or that error had crept in, being that the 1800s in America was rife with error. If you've never heard of the term "Americanism" in reference to catholic errors of this time, you should reserach that Rome and Europe had a identified 4-5 major, borderline-heresies which affected American bishops and Cardinals. That such bad thinking made its way into the Baltimore catechism is not surprising. A catechism, especially one produced by a specific country, is not infallible in any sense.
-
St Robert Bellarmine echos what St Thomas thought, which is (partially) confirmed by Trent - that someone who has a "true conversion" can obtain justification (i.e. state of grace). What is a "true conversion" per Trent? It applies to catechumens, who are learning the Faith, who want to become Catholics
Yes, and it also applies to those who, unknown to us, may have become Catholic for death. I have posted a traditional Catechism, approved by the Roman Congregation for the Propagation for the Faith here before, that has explained this point.
Mother Church prays for dying souls daily because like Her Divine Saviour, She loves us all and wants to save all souls whom it is possible to save. She commands Her Priests and many of Her Faithful children to do the same. There are confraternities dedicated specially to it. So, it is certainly possible some people may be converted near death, and sometimes God has made this known through His Saints at later periods of time; if we have the genuine and true Catholic Spirit, we should rejoice whenever a Soul is saved. And we should always believe and preach that all need to become Catholic before death to be saved. I agree partially with what you said, it is true, for e.g. that the "salvation by implicit faith" issue confused the matter. St. Thomas taught BOD and taught salvation comes only with knowledge and love of Christ, which could, the Angelic Doctor taught, be provided by an Angel or by an interior illumination to a pagan of good will who was sincerely seeking the Truth, Who is Christ.
As long as the teaching of St. Thomas reigned in the Universities, the Church's Mission continued onward spectacularly. St. Francis Xavier, in response to a question posed by some Japanese, answered with the teaching of St. Thomas, that if a pagan sincerely followed the natural law, and desired to know the Truth he needed to know to be saved, God would provide it. But if instead he sinned grievously and repeatedly in other ways and despised the lights he had to come to it, then he would deservedly die in his error and be lost.
Recently, there has been false speculation that non-Christians can be saved; some even openly say that atheists can be saved. All these are terrible errors and Catholics are right to be concerned about them. The best way to solve the problem would be a dogmatic re-affirmation of the Athanasian Creed. EENS means you have to be Catholic before death to be saved. That's all. The Creed says whoever desires to be saved needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith, and then it begins to explain what the Catholic Faith is. That's how the Faith was believed and preached for centuries. I'm not American, but I can give you examples of good missionary Catholic Priests in America who traditionally preached EENS in this way, and also believed in BOD, and had wondrous fruits in their apostolate; making 10s of thousands of converts, usually from Protestantism. Fr. Arnold Damen and Fr. Michael Mueller are a few of them. See this https://olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml (https://olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml) on Fr. Damen. Good Priests like that are necessary, who really love souls with a Father's Heart and a Shepherd's Care, and wish and desire to save the souls entrusted to them. And Good Faithful who support them as well. But saying BOD doesn't exist is not correct. These Priests simply taught all they encountered they had to be Catholic to be saved.
Edit: If following the Dimonds produces good fruits, then why do some who do that call Sainted Doctors of the Church objective heretics, or whatever it is? Honestly, I don't want to fight, and I wish we would discuss these legitimate issues in an irenic manner. But I feel obliged to warn some of you that what you are doing is only one step away from that faithless reprobate, that impious infidel, named Richard Ibranyi, who calls St. Alphonsus "a salvation heretic". That's not Catholic at all. You've lost the Faith if you do what Ibranyi does, and it's the bad fruits sedevacantism and imitating the Dimonds more or less produced in Ibranyi. Please steer clear of such dangerous errors, dear friends, for the sake of your soul that God Loves. Be simple Faithful Traditional Catholics. God bless.
-
St. Thomas taught BOD and taught salvation comes only with knowledge and love of Christ, which could, the Angelic Doctor taught, be provided by an Angel or by an interior illumination to a pagan of good will who was sincerely seeking the Truth, Who is Christ.
No, that's not what St Thomas taught, nor did Trent, nor Bellarmine. They taught, specifically, that you must seek not only Christ but the Church. "Seeking Christ" is not sufficient, except at the beginning. How many protestants seek a false Christ, with a false idea of Christianity and who therefore, reject the Church which Christ founded? Most.
.
The Church is Christ's, therefore when you seek the Truth and Christ, you necessarily seek the Church, which is the ONLY WAY to Christ. This is why the Christ said that water Baptism is necessary for salvation - because it is only through the sacrament that you enter the Church. It is only through the Church that you can RECEIVE Christ in the Eucharist...which is, let's not forget, also a requirement for salvation (under normal circuмstances). How many Protestants "seek Christ" in their false churches, but end up rejecting the Holy Eucharist just like the jews in John 6 sought Christ but left Him when He said "I am the Bread of Life"? Most protestants are damned for this rejection.
.
I agree with you that God will provide the Truth to ANYONE who desires it, just like we have evidence that many natives in various places were miraculously visited by saints who taught them the Faith, just like the Apostles worked miracles to find people who would accept the Truth. But we cannot separate Christ from the Church. "Seeking Christ" is not sufficient for salvation unless one ends up accepting the Church and all Her teachings. This is why ONLY those who are FORMAL catechumens were said to be able to receive justification - because they were FORMALLY accepting the Church by humbly taking classes and asking the priest for instructions. Any other situation outside of a catechumen, has not been confirmed by any saint or Trent, so such situations cannot be put forth as catholic thinking. They water down church doctrine on the matter.
-
No, that's not what St Thomas taught, nor did Trent, nor Bellarmine. They taught, specifically, that you must seek not only Christ but the Church. "Seeking Christ" is not sufficient, except at the beginning. How many protestants seek a false Christ, with a false idea of Christianity and who therefore, reject the Church which Christ founded? Most.
.
The Church is Christ's, therefore when you seek the Truth and Christ, you necessarily seek the Church, which is the ONLY WAY to Christ. This is why the Christ said that water Baptism is necessary for salvation - because it is only through the sacrament that you enter the Church. It is only through the Church that you can RECEIVE Christ in the Eucharist...which is, let's not forget, also a requirement for salvation (under normal circuмstances). How many Protestants "seek Christ" in their false churches, but end up rejecting the Holy Eucharist just like the jews in John 6 sought Christ but left Him when He said "I am the Bread of Life"? Most protestants are damned for this rejection.
.
I agree with you that God will provide the Truth to ANYONE who desires it, just like we have evidence that many natives in various places were miraculously visited by saints who taught them the Faith, just like the Apostles worked miracles to find people who would accept the Truth. But we cannot separate Christ from the Church. "Seeking Christ" is not sufficient for salvation unless one ends up accepting the Church and all Her teachings. This is why ONLY those who are FORMAL catechumens were said to be able to receive justification - because they were FORMALLY accepting the Church by humbly taking classes and asking the priest for instructions. Any other situation outside of a catechumen, has not been confirmed by any saint or Trent, so such situations cannot be put forth as catholic thinking. They water down church doctrine on the matter.
Didn't Fr. Feeney deny the kind of baptism of desire you describe here as well?