Pope Leo XIII addressed Testem Benevolentiae primarily to Gibbons, who then simply blew it off and claimed that they believed no such things ... which was demonstrably false.

Whilst Americanism spread across the Atlantic, ripping through the Ralliement clergy of France who called themselves "abbés democrates". The whole French Church was cast into turmoil.

And the whole time Gibbons denied his or any American clerics holding to or practicing the latitudinarian and activist errors that were, in fact, born from the bosom of American Paulist Rev. Isaac Hecker under the banner of the Stars and Stripes.

Look at the language, doctrine, and art work from books, pamphlets, and photographs produced by American Catholicism in the period folliwing the War Between the States and leading up to the Cold War. What you will view is docuмentary Americanism.

Further, the influence of Americanism under the leadership of Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop John Ireland was dirdctly responsible for the schism of tens of thousands of European immigrant Catholics in these USA who found no loving Mother in thd American Church. Germans, Austrians, and Bohemians avoided the schism because of the work the missionary Raphaelsverein amongst their populations which found support from the German-born bishops of the Midwest. Elsewhere in these USA, however, the lasting "forced schism" of Poles can be witnessed in the continued existence of the Polish National Catholic Church, certain Old Roman Catholic communities (these are not the same as Old Catholics), and the Carpatho-Russian Greek Orthodox Catholic Church made up of former Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics. All this as fruits of thr Americanist program during Gibbons' archprelacy as the de facto primate of the US Church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Yet another source showing these characters make up their own theology and misread Trent. All commentators on Trent with good reading comprehension know it teaches Baptism of Desire. If they had any theologian since Trent who read it in their twisted and perverse way they would be quoting this writing non stop. They have nothing except their arrogant twisting of Trent.  

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]"The baptism of desire ([/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]baptismus flaminis[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]) is a perfect [/color]contrition[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure [/color]love[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of [/color]God[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] which contains, at least implicitly, a desire ([/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]votum[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]) of baptism. The Latin word [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]flamen[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is used because [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Flamen[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is a name for the [/color]Holy Ghost[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], Whose special office it is to move the heart to [/color]love[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]God[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] and to conceive penitence for [/color]sin[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. The "baptism of the [/color]Holy Ghost[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is [/color]proved[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] from the words of [/color]Christ[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. After He had declared the [/color]necessity[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of baptism ([/color]John 3[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]), He [/color]promised[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]justifying grace[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] for acts of charity or perfect [/color]contrition[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] ([/color]John 14[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]): "He that [/color]loveth[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] Me, shall be [/color]loved[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of my Father: and I will [/color]love[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one [/color]love[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] me, he will keep my word, and my Father will [/color]love[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that [/color]justifying grace[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or [/color]contrition[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of [/color]sins[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. This [/color]doctrine[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is set forth clearly by the [/color]Council of Trent[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that [/color]contrition[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles [/color]man[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] to [/color]God[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], before the [/color]Sacrament of Penance[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the [/color]necessity[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] of baptism, it says that [/color]men[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of [/color]regeneration[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] or its desire" ([/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]voto[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]). The same [/color]doctrine[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] is taught by [/color]Pope Innocent III[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by [/color]Popes[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]Pius V[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] and [/color]Gregory XII[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of [/color]Baius[/b][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]."[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#x[/color]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Yet another source showing these characters make up their own theology and misread Trent. All commentators on Trent with good reading comprehension know it teaches Baptism of Desire. If they had any theologian since Trent who read it in their twisted and perverse way they would be quoting this writing non stop. They have nothing except their arrogant twisting of Trent. 

The whole doctrine of "Baptism of Desire" is defined as "attaining salvation without the sacrament of baptism," and that's not in Trent.

I recall a strong anti-Feeney sentiment amongst French priests of the SSPX back in the 1980s. Yet, were one to syllogise their attitude and argument, it would run thus:

Major:  American Catholics are hopelessly infected with the Calvinistic values of the USA environment
Minor: Leonard Feeney is an American Catholic
Conclusion: Feeney's theology is Calvinistic
Corollary: Calvinism is bad, therefore Feeney is the DEVIL!

 could be justified but not saved.

 

Lad, just curious what this means? Would such a person be denied the Beatific Vision but not suffer the torments of hell?

Lad, just curious what this means? Would such a person be denied the Beatific Vision but not suffer the torments of hell?

Father Feeney answered with an "I don't know."  I speculate that there "torments of hell" are infinitely variable, to the point that some in Hell suffer very little, and there may be others who are in a state of happiness similar to Limbo for Infants (e.g. unbaptized martyrs if there are any).  There are other possibilities, such as that those who have justification but die without Baptism don't receive the gift of final perseverance and lose their justification at death, whereas for others God may send an angel to baptize them (as St. Thomas speculated about the invincibly ignorant), or perhaps even they would stay in a Limbo state and then later be baptized at the Final Resurrection.  Ultimate, with Father Feeney, we don't know but can only speculate.  But one cannot enter the Beatific Vision without the character of Baptism, which justification by votum (aka BoD) does not provide (as per its proponents).

See, the Church has defined very little about the eternal statuses.  For many centuries (through the first millennium), there were only Heaven and Hell.  Then the notion of Limbo was introduced, and the Church permitted belief in it (condemning the proposition that it's a "Pelagian fable"), and most follow St. Thomas in believing in Limbo, while others still cling to the prior Augustinian opinion.  So even Limbo isn't dogmatically set in stone.

But I think a large part of the animosity towards EENS dogma is predicated upon a monolithic view of Hell, and a strict dichotomy between eternal beatitude (beatific vision) and burning in a cauldron of fire in Hell.  I believe that there are varying degrees in between (as one of the EENS definitions says about Hell).

People see a naturally virtuous and noble individual, who perhaps lived a pure life, was selfless, possibly even gave his life to save someone else, and so they find it repugnant that such an individual would be hurled into the caldron of fire right next to the likes of Judas or Joe Stalin (if he didn't convert on his deathbed).  But what if there may be different degrees of beatitude and of suffering depending on the state of an individual's sole, somewhere between the poles of infinite suffering and infinite beatitude?  Such an intermediate place is Limbo of the Infants, which most Catholic theologians came to believe in.  Why can't there be others in Limbo or Limbo-like states with varying degrees of natural happiness or natural suffering, depending on the state of their souls at death, and yet short of the Beatific Vision, which can only be had in the Kingdom and with the character conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Is this hinted at by Our Lord when He taught that those who believe and are baptized will be saved that that those who do not believe will be condemned?  What about those who believe but are not baptized?  They fall into neither category, of saved or of condemned, based on the logic of Our Lord's teaching.

I hold / speculate that there's an infinitely-variable degree of happiness vs. suffering in eternity even short of the Beatific Vision, but that Our Lord did not reveal these things to us, knowing that if human beings knew that not everyone's fate would necessarily entail burning intensely in the fires of Hell, with their hard hearts, they would never be motivated to become good and holy, since most people begin their road to virtue primarily due to the fear of Hell.

i voted option 2