You may recall the account of Bp. Fellay giving a sermon in San Francisco in Jan 2016, where he claimed aborted babies made it into Heaven via BOB. 

Wow, yes, I had almost forgotten about that one.

On page 74 of +ABL's book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"., it reads:

"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows amongst Protestants, Muslim, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this they become part of the Church".

(Warning, this turned out pretty rambling as I talked myself through it.)

This quote shocks me but I checked and it's really there. I can't deny that implicit Baptism of Desire seems pretty sketchy to me at first glance.

I am beginning to understand why I was lost trying to follow the last post. I thought it was about Feeneyism. But this isn't a purely Feeneyite problem at all. It's a problem among people who believe in Baptism of Desire (there are two kinds, newsflash, I had only ever heard of explicit) but Feeneyism can't help getting dragged into it.

I have always firmly believed that God gives each person enough grace to save their souls.

The majority of non-Catholics have heard of the Catholic Church but for various and sundry reasons don't look into it seriously, choose not to join etc... They make their choices.

Of the minority who have not heard or had no chance to learn, can they be saved by implicit baptism of desire -- in other words had they known the Church they would have joined and are saved based on this disposition -- or does God always present those properly disposed with the opportunity for explicit baptism of desire/water even if it's in a miraculous way.

Is that the bottom line argument?

I thought people of invincible ignorance went to Limbo. Now I realize if that's the default, then that means they did not receive enough graces to save their souls. The whole point of the good-willed invincibly ignorant person is that they would have corresponded to grace had they known, so if they didn't correspond, they didn't know and didn't receive.

I don't know if I can ever believe God doesn't give each person enough grace to save their souls. It isn't just about heaven, it's also about hell. I have to believe every person who is there ultimately chose to be there. You cannot accidentally go to hell. That brings me back to the idea that each person (who reached the age of reason) has a choice. Going to Limbo implies they did not have a choice, which means they did not receive enough grace to save or lose their souls. I don't know how I went so long believing good-willed pagans go to Limbo without realizing this contradiction.

So now the question is do they save their souls through implicit baptism of desire or does Providence always send a way for them to have at least explicit baptism of desire, if not water baptism.

But at that point they are no longer invincibly ignorant, so it's back to square one and there is no such thing as a good-willed pagan saving their souls.

I see how implicit baptism of desire seems to diminish Providence. I personally have no problem believing God gives the odd, exceptional, good-willed pagan the grace to be a former good-willed pagan through miraculous interventions. But by the time I get to that point, why stop at explicit baptism of desire. Why wouldn't God just as easily provide a miraculous water baptism?

I feel like I either have to believe in implicit baptism of desire OR I am a Feeneyite. There isn't much in between that makes sense.

I don't know what to do with the other category of people, those who die before the age of reason or the unbaptized handicapped people. They seem deprived of choice but are they? Is it possible that God gives each a moment of enlightenment and will at the time of death, like the Holy Innocents? If this is the case then I stand firmly in the camp of implicit baptism of desire. If not, then I am a little at a loss. If we allow that they do not have a choice* and go to Limbo by default then I don't see how we can't allow for the invincibly ignorant, good-willed pagan to go to Limbo by default as well. Then the idea that he can save his soul by implicit baptism of desire is out the window and I'm back to Feeneyism.

Other than trusting God's perfect justice and mercy 100%, I don't know what to think. It's seems like deep down it depends on whether you believe a) God gives to each enough grace to save or damn their souls, or, b) God gives some enough grace to either save or damn their souls and to others He gives just enough not to damn themselves but not enough to save themselves. Where you stand on that is going to dictate where you stand on implicit baptism of desire.

I see where Sean's comment on God's justice came in. If you believe it's just for God to allow some to save or damn themselves while others default to Limbo, then Feeneyism works. If you think it's just for God to give each and every soul an opportunity for heaven or hell, then you will believe in implicit baptism of desire.

*this can be seen as a mercy because perhaps they would have ended up worse otherwise. Why God would give this mercy to some and not to all who would otherwise damn themselves, I don't know but again would leave in trust to God.

I have always firmly believed that God gives each person enough grace to save their souls.

"Thanks be to God, we corresponded with the grace which He gave us! God has sufficient grace waiting for every man in the world,would he but take it! Were God to see that he would take it were it offered to him, it would be given." - Fr. Feeney

The majority of non-Catholics have heard of the Catholic Church but for various and sundry reasons don't look into it seriously, choose not to join etc... They make their choices.

"Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him" Eccl. 15:15

"...Among all the mysteries that we live amongst, is that of the fact that God saves those whom He wills. And yet those who are lost are lost because they will. No one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will. At the same time almighty God has known from all eternity who would be His whom he would succeed in saving..." - Fr. Wathen (The Little Flower and other saints have said the same thing)

So now the question is do they save their souls through implicit baptism of desire or does Providence always send a way for them to have at least explicit baptism of desire, if not water baptism.

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you". - Fr. Feeney

Other than trusting God's perfect justice and mercy 100%, I don't know what to think. It's seems like deep down it depends on whether you believe a) God gives to each enough grace to save or damn their souls, or, b) God gives some enough grace to either save or damn their souls and to others He gives just enough not to damn themselves but not enough to save themselves. Where you stand on that is going to dictate where you stand on implicit baptism of desire.

Trusting in God's perfect justice and mercy is what is known as having faith in God.

We are bound to keep Holy the Sabbath by Divine Law. We are bound to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days by the Church Law. But this is conditional because if the Church does not provide the Mass for us, then we are not bound to go.

When it comes to being baptized, it is only through our faith in God that we believe that since God explicitly mandated the sacrament, there is not even any question or doubt that He will God will certainly provide it to all who sincerely desire it! Why do we believe that? Because God said: "For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened".  - John 7:8

Commentary for this verse:

Whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment. (Haydock)

To promote a BOD is to deny God's Providence.  

I believe that everyone who is as zealous as Sean is in promoting a BOD would be just as zealous in promoting the Divine Providence, they would soon find that a BOD is an insult to the Divine Providence.  

"Of this Justification the causes are these: [...] the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism" (Council of Trent)


Obviously, there is noone who dies in the state of justification and has not received the sacrament of baptism.

Fr. Feeney teaches justification without the sacrament of baptism, contradicting the true faith. Fr. Feeney does not preach the "clear truths of salvation".

Three words: Old Testament Saints. / One Scripture: Luke 18:14 / Justification is not salvation.

"Old Testament Saints" is a misnomer. They all went to hell when they died. The limbo is part of hell. Saints go to purgatory or to heaven when they die.

"Limbo of the Just".  Look it up.

"Limbo of the Just".  Look it up.

You took the words right out of my mouth, thanks Pax.

"Limbo of the Just".  Look it up.

You took the words right out of my mouth, thanks Pax.

What type of answer is that, when you both have the teaching of the infallible magisterium of the Church in front of your nose?

You don't seem to worry about the true faith and your own salvation.

You're in no way better than those you fight against. Y'all think you can use any type of source to contradict Catholic dogma. That's condemned modernism!