As even the Dimonds note,  Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:

Before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of course, baptism of desire was taught and believed throughout the Church. It was clearly taught in the Summa of St. Thomas, and it was thought that St. Augustine also taught it (for example, St. Thomas asserts  that he did). I say that it was "thought" that St. Augustine taught it to prescind from the claim by Feeneyites that say he didn't; it was accepted until the Feeneyite controversy that St. Augustine did.

Yet it is said that Peter Canisius published a catechism in 1566 that rejected BoD on the basis that he asserts the necessity of baptism and quotes John 3:5. Well, St. Thomas asserted the necessity of baptism and cited John 3:5 (Summa, Third part, Q. 68, Art. 1:


Yet St.Thomas also recognized BoD. So you have a similar statement by him on the absolute necessity for baptism, yet he at the same time acknowledged BoD.

So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does.

But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard.

What you will not see in Canisius is a direct reject of BoD, which, again, was an established teaching per the great doctors of the Church, Sts. Anselm, Augustine and Thomas. Very odd. Then you have the major Catechism of Trent coming after Canisius's catechism, and Canisius never objects, makes a statement contrary to it, etc.

In almost, nay, in every case where something is cited against BoD, it's a sub silentio "denial" of the BoD exception to sacramental baptism otherwise universally recognized necessity by all doctors and saints who recognize BoD while also making similar statements as Canisius. Despite the "wanderings" away from the "truth" of the sacraments absolute "necessity" per Feeneyites, nobody comes forward and says, "no, there is no exceptions for BoD." Nobody.

I said this elsewhere, regarding St. Dismas and the assertion that he couldn't have gone to heaven because the "gates" weren't open until Jesus's Ascenion, or is it Resurrection - they can't get that straight: the pro-Feeney group seemingly peruse statements for a possible "gotcha" use to deny BoD. They should rather spend their time thinking about what would be contradictions between the great doctors on BoD if they were right about no justification or salvation without the sacrament and how it is indeed possible to reconcile sacramental necessity and a universe were BoD could coexist.

But, nay, it's more fun to indulge in the fire of being a Feeneyite, and blow up rhetorical dynamite on Catholic forums . . . .

I know because I was one, and it was a helluva lot of fun.

DR

As even the Dimonds note,  Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:

And didn't Fr. Feeney start his arguments with ad hominem.  What about the good name of Cardinal Gibbons smeared by Feeney?

Father Feeney holds that there's justification by votum.  Explain, o anonymous windbag, how this isn't what Trent is teaching.

As even the Dimonds note,  Canisius published his catechism in 1555. In 1566, 10 years later, the official Catechism of the Council of Trent was published. You should read the preface to it in the attached link for its authority and influence. As most of us know, the Catechism said this:

Before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, of course, baptism of desire was taught and believed throughout the Church. It was clearly taught in the Summa of St. Thomas, and it was thought that St. Augustine also taught it (for example, St. Thomas asserts  that he did). I say that it was "thought" that St. Augustine taught it to prescind from the claim by Feeneyites that say he didn't; it was accepted until the Feeneyite controversy that St. Augustine did.

Yet it is said that Peter Canisius published a catechism in 1566 that rejected BoD on the basis that he asserts the necessity of baptism and quotes John 3:5. Well, St. Thomas asserted the necessity of baptism and cited John 3:5 (Summa, Third part, Q. 68, Art. 1:


Yet St.Thomas also recognized BoD. So you have a similar statement by him on the absolute necessity for baptism, yet he at the same time acknowledged BoD.

So the language in Canisius's catechism asserting the necessity of baptism doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the possibility of a BoD under an exceptional case anymore than St. Thomas does.

But it is said that Canisius cited statements by the fathers which assert that even catechumen can't be saved without receiving the sacrament, and Augustine and Ambrose are cited. Ambrose, like Augustine, also was understood to teach baptism of desire (e.g., the Funeral Oration of Valentinian) and both were cited by St. Thomas in that regard.

What you will not see in Canisius is a direct reject of BoD, which, again, was an established teaching per the great doctors of the Church, Sts. Anselm, Augustine and Thomas. Very odd. Then you have the major Catechism of Trent coming after Canisius's catechism, and Canisius never objects, makes a statement contrary to it, etc.

In almost, nay, in every case where something is cited against BoD, it's a sub silentio "denial" of the BoD exception to sacramental baptism otherwise universally recognized necessity by all doctors and saints who recognize BoD while also making similar statements to Canisius. Despite the "wanderings" away from the "truth" of the sacraments absolute "necessity" per Feeneyites, nobody comes forward and says, "no, there is no exceptions for BoD." Nobody.

I said this elsewhere, regarding St. Dismas and the assertion that he couldn't have gone to heaven because the "gates" weren't open until Jesus's Ascenion, or is it Resurrection - they can't get that straight: the pro-Feeney group seemingly peruse statements for a possible "gotcha" use to deny BoD. They should rather spend their time thinking about what would be contradictions between the great doctors on BoD if they were right about no justification or salvation without the sacrament and how it is indeed possible to reconcile sacramental necessity and a universe were BoD could coexist.

But, nay, it's more fun to indulge in the fire of being a Feeneyite, and blow up rhetorical dynamite on Catholic forums . . . .

I know because I was one, and it was a helluva lot of fun.

DR

Not really, just avoiding abuse of Ad hominem.  Stick to proofs.  If you focus on yhe truth, you might find your way out of this.