If the SSPX is so opposed to "Feeneyism," where are they allowing "Feeneyites" to receive the Sacraments in their chapels?

 Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc..

The above comment was posted by a BOD Hypocrite, hypocrite because he:

1) believes that any unbaptized person can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. That belief is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed.

2) He rejects the Holy Week Mass changes of Pius XII, which was approved by Pius XII directly. If LOT would have done that during the pontificate of Pius XII he would have been excommunicated in one second flat!

3) Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, and he is an insignificant figure as a source for verifying the truth, the revelation from Christ himself  that John 3:5 is to be interpreted literally exactly as it is written. Why LOT continues to focus of Fr. Feeney is beyond me. If Fr. Feeney had never existed it would have made no difference to those who believe as St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Amrose, and all of the Catholics who always believed John 3:5 literally)

We, like all the Fathers, believe John 3:5 literally, as it is written: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Lover of Truth believes believes that any unbaptized person can be saved even if the have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. That belief is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/may_01_district_superiors_letter.htm



During this holy season of the Church’s year we thank God for the grace of our sacramental baptism, through which we were buried together with Christ so that just as Christ has risen from the dead we might live in newness of life, becoming adopted children of God and heirs to heaven through the sanctifying grace that the Good Lord has deigned to bestow upon us.

However, what must we say of the lot of those who did not have the opportunity of receiving this same grace of sacramental baptism? It might seem on the surface of it to be a theological technicality. However, you need to be aware of a certain group of people, followers of Fr. Feeney, who have attempted to infiltrate the Church these past 50 years, and who continue to do so, thanks to the present-day paralysis of the Church’s authority structure. Pretending to be ultra-rigid and super-strict they deny baptism of blood and baptism of desire, despite the universal teaching of the Fathers and the Magisterium, repeated in every catechism. In fact, they are nothing other than hidden liberals, basing themselves upon the assertion that the Church’s teaching concerning baptism of blood and desire is not formally defined, and that consequently it is optional, and that one is free to believe what one wants. The total fascination that some of these Feeneyites have with "the dogma", the constant effort to proselytize for their opinion, and their refusal to accept the objective and repeated statements of the Fathers, theologians and Popes and their constant effort to infect traditional Catholics all show how dangerous and unCatholic their error really is.

It is certainly true that we Catholics must desire to defend the dogma "Outside the Church no salvation" as well as the Church’s teaching on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. Given that the liberals so easily deny these doctrines, it is certainly very easy to understand how some Catholics might overreact in their interpretation of these teachings. However, it is entirely unacceptable for a Catholic to willingly and knowingly deny the Church’s explicit teaching on the question of baptism of blood and desire. For it is not because these questions are not formally defined that they are optional extras that a person can take or leave.

There are in fact different ways in which the Church’s teaching is presented to us, of which the most solemn is the definition de fide catholica. The contrary of such a definition is a heresy. However, the Church proposes many teachings to us in a less formal manner, not as the object of a direct definition, such as is found in the constant teaching of the Fathers, Councils or the popes. Such teachings are still a part of the deposit of the Faith, although they are not yet defined, and include such things as the existence of Limbo, or that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, or such teachings as the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation before they were formally defined. These teachings always were a part of the deposit of the Faith, and before they are defined are proxima fidei, that is close to the Faith, so that those who knowingly deny them are suspect of heresy. It is in this category that can be found the Church’s teachings concerning baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Many erudite works (I recommend Father Rulleau’s book, Baptism of Desire and Father Laisney’s new book, Is Feeneyism Catholic? published by Angelus Press, which will be available by the end of May) list texts from the Fathers and theologians, who are unanimous in their teaching about the possibility of baptism of blood and desire. This one text alone of the Council of Trent should, however, suffice: "this translation (to the state of grace) after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…" (Dz 796).

The Feeneyite error is consequently a very grave one, for in denying the very possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, it denies the very possibility of God Himself exceptionally giving the grace of justification, and hence eternal salvation for those who die in the state of sanctifying grace. However, this is explicitly taught by the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (Session vi, ch. 6, Dz 798). God is not bound to the sacraments, but God who uses them as the ordinary means to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul, can Himself directly provide the grace that is normally received through the sacrament, by infusing a supernatural Faith in the Church’s teachings, a supernatural hope for God’s mercy, a supernatural charity and the perfect contrition for all sin. It is a rare grace and one that cannot be presumed upon, but he who denies the possibility, denies the power of grace, and makes God out to be an unjust monster who condemns to hell the catechumens and martyrs who deny without baptism through no fault of their own.

It cannot be denied that this apparently black and white simplification of the Church’s teaching on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and of belonging to the one true Church has an attraction for some traditionally-minded Catholics. The reason is to be found not only in the substitution of private opinion for the Church’s teaching that is typical of liberalism, but also in a narrow-minded legalism that overlooks the primacy of grace, and hence that of the interior life, making the sacramental character more important than the grace of the sacrament for which we receive the character. Sacraments are for men, and not vice versa. Their sole purpose is to make us members of the mystical body of Christ, in order to give us the sanctifying grace and actual graces needed for our salvation. The sad consequence of these attitudes is that many Feeneyites are impervious to the explanation of the Church’s teaching, that they also lack docility in many other aspects of the Catholic life, that they deliberately take isolated texts out of context to justify their false opinion, and look for legalistic arguments to discredit Father Feeney’s condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949, and excommunication in 1952.

The purpose of these few lines is to inform you of the gravity of this issue, which is not at all one open to free choice. Objectively speaking, Feeneyites commit a grave sin against the Faith, even if they are not aware of it. This is the reason why the Society of St. Pius X does not allow any proselytism of this error in or around its chapels and faithful, either by word of mouth or by written handouts. In a time of normality in the Church, Rome would continue to act authoritatively, condemning this error and possibly making a de fide definition concerning baptism of blood and desire. If it is time that Feeneyites take advantage of the confusion caused by the breakdown in the Church’s authority, we have no excuse for contributing to this confusion by weakness or lack of clarity in our exposition of the Church’s teaching, as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

May St. Joseph the Worker help us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and may the Blessed Mother place us under her mantle in a very special way during this month of grace.

Yours faithfully in Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

Fr. Peter R. Scott

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

 In the past three years, there has been increasing discussion within traditional Catholic circles concerning the issue of the three baptisms. There have been a number of works, even videos, that have come into circulation on the topic, each of which seems to uphold essentially the same view, namely:

    "unless one is baptized with the baptism of water "in re," "in actuality," that one will necessarily be damned (i.e., deprived of the beatific vision).

The proponents of this doctrine are followers of the teaching of the famous American Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney, who cites the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Outside the Church there is no salvation) against anyone who would claim the existence of three baptisms.

How necessary is the sacrament of baptism? What are the so-called "three baptisms"? Is this distinction of baptisms a novel distinction designed by the liberals to destroy in the minds of men any thought that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation? Is this distinction truly contrary to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Such questions are often posed by the followers of Fr. Feeney, questions that they claim point to only one "true" answer, summarized in the following conclusion, taken from Fr. Feeney himself in his 1952 book, Bread of Life, where he states on p.25:

    It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.

The necessity of baptism

Did not Our Lord Himself say that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [Jn. 3:5]? How necessary is it to be baptized, according to the saints and the Church’s teaching? The Council of Trent teaches in the following de fide canons:

    Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).

    Can. 5. If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Dz. 861.).

From the above teaching of Trent, which is a canonization of the teaching of St. Thomas on the necessity of baptism, it is de fide that baptism is necessary in a double way, by a necessity of precept, and more importantly, by a necessity of means. A thing is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept, when it obliges because of the command of a superior. If the command is not known, or too difficult to fulfill, one is not obliged to fulfill it. In such a way, Sunday Mass attendance is necessary for salvation. Infants are not obliged to attend Mass, and even adults, if they are ill or a great distance from Mass, are not obliged to attend.

A thing is necessary also by a necessity of means when by its own nature or by the Divine institution it is so necessary for salvation, that without it, salvation cannot be obtained, even if it is involuntarily omitted. In this manner sanctifying grace is necessary for eternal life.

Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation by the Divine institution, since it is the God-given means of entrance into the Mystical Body of Christ, in which body alone is found sanctifying life, True Faith, Divine Hope and Divine Charity. Baptism is the doorway to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which is the beginning of heaven. Is baptism necessary? Yes. It is a necessary means, a means to obtain the reality of sanctifying grace, that grace found only in Christ:

    He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself in him...we will come to him and make our abode with him. (Jn. 14:21-23)

According to Trent, baptism is so necessary that it must be had, in re aut in voto - in reality or desire, before one can be in the state of Justification, or Sanctifying Grace. The Fathers of the Council state the following in Chapter 4 of Session 6:

    In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the "adoption of sons" [Rom.8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." [Jn. 3:5]  (Dz. 796, emphasis added)

Before proceeding, please note that in this above passage, Trent interprets John (3:5) to mean that one must be baptized with water, either in reality or in desire to attain justification. All Catholics, therefore, are obliged to accept this interpretation of Trent. St. Augustine in City of God, Book 13, Ch.7, gives a similar interpretation to these words, as well as Hugh of St. Victor in his Summa Sententiarum, Tract. V. Cap. V.

Baptism of desire and blood

Since the baptism of water is so necessary as an indispensable means, what are the three baptisms? Some claim that they are a liberal phenomenon found "dogmatized" in the Baltimore Catechism and endorsed only by liberal theologians and modernists who use this distinction to take away the need for water, and the Church. The baptism of water is the first baptism. What are the other two?

Definitions

The baptism of desire (flaminis) is described by the Church Doctor St. Robert Bellarmine - in accordance with St. Thomas’s definition of the same - as follows:

    Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).

St. Alphonsus Ligouri defines the baptism of blood (sanguinis) as:

    The baptism of blood is the shedding of blood, or death suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue... this baptism... remits the fault and the punishment due sin (Theologia Moralis, Tomus III, Tract II, author’s translation).

Fr. Feeney states in Bread of Life that these two "so-called" baptisms are really but two forms of the same modern diabolical hoax of desire:

    Desire is a splendid diabolical word with which to confuse people. Up until recent times, even the most ambitious of the theologians of the Church never dared to use it in connection with baptism except in a study of the nature of justification, which still left the problem of salvation unsolved - salvation by "Baptism of Desire" (p. 39).

History

Despite the above claim of Fr. Feeney (that theologians never dared to speak of desire except as to its producing of justification), Catholic theologians, especially since the time of Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141 AD), have unanimously referred to a threefold distinction of baptisms. In the 1000 years of Church history prior to Hugh there are also to be found amongst the Fathers, including some of the Popes, explicit references to these other two baptisms. The triple distinction of baptisms is referred to in the following manner by Hugh of St. Victor himself:

    On the Triple Baptism. There is a triple baptism, the river, the flame and the blood. The river in water, the flame in penance, the blood in martyrdom [author’s translation].

Hugh wrote these words in the early 12th century and they are contained in the 177th volume of the famous Latin Patrology of J.P. Migne in the appendix of the dogmatic works of Hugh. Hugh is brief in this appendix, but in his widely read Summa Sententiarum, he devotes a chapter to proving the existence of these three baptisms from the Fathers of the Church and against the heretic Peter Abelard, who refused to believe in the baptismus flaminis referred to in English as the baptism of desire.

Hugh of St. Victor, around 1125, wrote to his friend, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and asked him to write against the teaching of those who deny the doctrine that salvation may be obtained by desire for baptism. St. Bernard obliges in his Letter 77 to Hugh of St. Victor. St. Bernard, by far the greatest Doctor of the 12th century, writes plainly and clearly, using the authority of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church to back up his belief in what is called the baptism of desire. He states at one point in his letter:

    We adduce only the opinions and words of the Fathers and not our own; for we are not wiser than our fathers... Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people can be saved by faith alone and the desire to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire (Letter 77, 1, 8).

St. Bernard continues, quoting the authority of Scripture to affirm his above assertion that Ambrose and Augustine are right in stating that desire can, in extraordinary cases, supply the want of baptism:

    Notice also that when the Savior said "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," He cautiously and alertly did not repeat the phrase "who was not baptized," but only "Whoever does not believe will be condemned" [Mk. 16:16]."

Doctrine of theologians

In the treatises on baptism in almost any theological manual of the past several hundred years, one will find the treatment of the three baptisms under the heading of the necessity of baptism. In no case does the Catholic theologian speak of baptism of desire in such a way so as to have "still left the problem of salvation unsolved - salvation by Baptism of Desire."

All of these manuals (99.9% of which are written in Latin), like St. Bernard, quote the authority of Ambrose and Augustine, both saints and Fathers of the Church. They usually quote at least several other saintly authorities, as well as a few popes of the past two millennia in defense of the doctrine that there truly is a triple distinction of baptism, that this distinction is a Catholic distinction, that it is the constant teaching of the Church. The saints and Catholic theologians of the past millennium who write on the topic of the triple baptism are in agreement with Sts. Bernard, Ambrose, Augustine, including the Angelic Doctor himself, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Common Doctor of the Church. St. Thomas (d. 1274) wrote in support of the Fathers’ and Doctors’ teaching that there are three modes of baptism, in the Tertia Pars (Q. 66, A. 11; Q. 68, A. 2) of the Summa Theologica. Concerning this great work of St. Thomas, Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris writes:

    The Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason and inspiration.

Such is the teaching of the above saints. One would think, however, from reading some of the recent works of the followers of Fr. Feeney that the doctrine of the baptism of desire was held as an obscure opinion amongst some misguided Catholic theologians and saints - saints who got it wrong in deference to St. Thomas, who believed the doctrine only in deference to St. Augustine, who held it because he once heard a sermon of St. Ambrose, "On the Death of Valentinian" in which the saint states that the unbaptized 20-year-old emperor, who was murdered in the Alps while on his way to be baptized by Ambrose, had saved his soul because of his ardent desire for baptism and his supernatural virtue. In that sermon written by St. Ambrose, he writes:

    But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).

Mr. Thomas A. Hutchinson of Charlemagne Press dismisses this teaching of St. Ambrose, and the teaching of his disciple, Augustine (City of God, Bk. 13, 7; On Baptism, Bk. 4, Ch. 22), and his disciple, St. Thomas (IIIa, Q. 66, A. 11), as a "misunderstanding" in his book Desire and Deception (1994). He states:

    But he uttered in the course of this sermon three fateful sentences, upon which a whole structure of thought has since been built up... Very many people throughout the centuries, his own disciple, St. Augustine included, have taken those three terse lines to mean that St. Ambrose believed that Valentinian had been saved without actually passing through the waters of baptism. But, in fact, this is an incorrect interpretation of his writings (p. 26) ... But this brings us to Trent, and yet another Ambrose-Augustine style misunderstanding (p. 54, emphasis added).

Are we to assume that Mr. Hutchinson and like-minded followers of Fr. Feeney have a better understanding of Ambrose than Augustine, his own disciple, who was baptized by the same Ambrose? Are we to assume that the Fathers of Trent erred in seeking their "counsel, reason and inspiration" from a St. Thomas who wasn’t able to grasp Augustine’s "misunderstanding" of Ambrose’s emotional homiletic moment? We must assume likewise that poor St. Bernard, and Hugh of St. Victor, as well as a host of other saints and Doctors before and after Aquinas, such as Sts. Bonaventure (Comment. in Libris IV Sent., Lb. IV), Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Ligouri (Theologia Moralis, Liber VI), based their belief in the salvific power of supernatural desire for baptism on that so-called fateful day of Valentinian’s funeral?

The teaching of the popes

What do the popes teach of this baptism of desire? Do they uphold, as the followers of Fr. Feeney, that baptism of desire and blood are contrary to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Innocent III, the first pope to define the dogma of Salvation only in the Church, also taught that desire for baptism supplies for the effects of baptism, in the case that water baptism cannot be received - due to impossibility, not neglect or contempt (cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Bk. IV, Ch. 22). Hence in his decree about a Jєω who, in danger of death, attempted to baptize himself, since those around his death bed refused to baptize him, he decrees:

    We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).

Pope Innocent II taught the same with regard to a priest, when after his death it was found that he had not been baptized. He writes:

    Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added).

Notice that these popes, like St. Bernard, follow the teaching of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine. Does this mean that we can hold their teaching as optional? Are we to claim that Fr. Feeney, Mr. Hutchinson and the like have a better understanding of the relationship between Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and the doctrine of the necessity of baptism? That the theologians of the past millennium and doctors of the same period, when they write of baptism of desire and blood as included in Trent’s notion of the necessity of baptism were not theologically bright enough to see the supposed "contradiction" between the Gospel of St. John (3:5) and desire and blood, between Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the same? As Catholics we submit to the unanimous teaching of our authorities.

Is baptism of desire contrary to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Bishop George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh, Scotland (d. 1811), in his excellent Catechism, The Sincere Christian, devotes a good portion of Volume II of the work to the question of salvation out of the Church. He says that it is impossible to be saved outside the Church, because the Church is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible to attain heaven. Natural good will is not enough to be saved. Anyone who dies with natural good will alone cannot be saved. However, if God gives the grace to embrace the true faith, and one accepts - that is baptism of desire - he is truly a member of the Church, and can therefore be saved inside the Church. In Volume I he explicitly affirms that baptism of desire saves souls who cannot receive baptism of water. Let us conclude this article with the teaching of this great bishop:

    In like manner, suppose a person living in a false religion dies without giving any sign of embracing the true faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say of such an one with certainty that he is lost; all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case: if he has actually died as he lived, separated from the true Church of Christ and without the true faith of Christ, he cannot be saved. But if God, of His great mercy, has given him in his last moments light and grace to see and embrace the true faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires, he will be saved....

    Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?

    A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.  (Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.).

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

The three errors of the Feeneyites

Fr. Francois Laisney

Originally printed in the September 1998 issue of The Angelus magazine, this article is a follow-up to Fr. Joseph Pfieffer’s article in The Angelus of March 1998. It seems that some of the followers of Fr. Feeney took objection to his convincing dissertation proving the Catholic teaching concerning "baptism of desire." In fairness, the purpose of this article by Fr. Laisney is to clarify the three principle errors of the followers of Fr. Feeney which explain why they refuse the common teaching of Catholic theologians concerning "baptism of desire."

Error I:

Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation"

The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."

St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.

In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."

Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.

This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]

The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!

None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.

Error II:

The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional

The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."

We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth.

He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).

Error III:

The Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation"

Let us preface this section by saying the Council of Trent clearly teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification. The Council anathematizes anyone believing the contrary. It is very explicitly stated in Session VII, Canon 4 on the sacraments in general:

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual; let him be anathema (The Church Teaches, 668; Dz 847).

We must be wary of ambiguous translations from the original Latin. (The accuracy of Latin is supreme and must be respected.) In a recent flyer published by the Feeneyites entitled, "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent," an ambiguous translation of Session VI, Chapter 7 (Dz 799) is used: "...the instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith,’ without which no one is ever justified....". Now the Latin has: "sine qua nulli unquam contigit iustificatio." In the Latin original, therefore, the phrase "without which" (or, in the Latin original, "sine qua", is a feminine pronoun meant to agree with a feminine noun) refers to the "faith" (a feminine noun in Latin) and not to "sacrament" (a neuter noun in Latin meant to agree with a neuter pronoun). If it was "sacrament" the Council Fathers wanted to highlight "without which no one is ever justified," they would have written "sine quo."

The English translation of Chapter 7 as found in The Church Teaches (TCT 563) accurately reflects the Latin (The Church Teaches, TAN Books & Publishers). In this edition, this important sentence is correctly translated: …The instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified."  The correct translation of the original Latin expresses the Church’s traditional teaching and refutes the Feeneyite error.

When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:

    ...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].

In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.

It is false to pretend that Canon 4 of Session VII (TCT 668) of the Council of Trent (quoted above) on the "Sacraments in General" deals with justification as opposed to salvation. Desire is explicitly mentioned in this canon, for when it uses the expression "aut eorum voto," it admits that the grace of justification can be obtained by desire of the sacraments. It is also false to say that Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session VII of the Council of Trent deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed Canon 4 (of Session VII) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation." In that context, the expression "grace of justification" appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in Session VI, Chapter 16. That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning which disregards the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire only arrives at false conclusions.

That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One need not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. For instance, there are many definitions of the Church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception. This does not invalidate the Immaculate Conception! For instance Pope St. Zosimus wrote: "nullus omnino  —absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin. Such a "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, that is, in this particular case, not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, but it is not necessary to expect it on every page of her teaching. Silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember so as not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites. They accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of baptism as if these quotes were against baptism of desire. The very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire! These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water.

Lack of proper Thomistic theology is the root of the error of the Feeneyites

To remedy the errors of Modernism, St. Pius X ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and theology. A book like Desire and Deception,[10] authored and published by Feeneyites, is very dangerous for its opposition to St. Thomas. Let us hear St. Pius X:

We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us. They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.[11]

In obedience, we must consider the sacramental theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He distinguishes three elements in each sacrament:

    the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum - sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament.

    An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et re - sacrament and reality, which, in the case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element.

    The ultimate reality, res sacramenti - the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e., sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as a child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.

A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person attached to his sin, for example, a person who has stolen and refuses to render that which he stole, places an obstacle which deprives his baptism of its ultimate effect, that is, sanctifying grace.

It is a fact that one can go to hell despite having the character of baptism. Yet, we know there are saints in heaven, such as the saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) who do not have the character of baptism. But nobody, however, dying with sanctifying grace goes to hell, says the Council of Trent. Contrariwise, nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to heaven.

For the third element of baptism, i.e., the infusion of sacramental grace, the necessity of baptism for salvation is absolute. This third element is found in each of the "three baptisms," and even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church. Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism[12] includes the "three baptisms."

The necessity of the exterior element (#1 above) of baptism, i.e., the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element as the only means at our disposal to receive the third element, that is, living Faith. The sacrament itself is "...’the sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified," says the Council of Trent (TCT 563). See how the Council of Trent clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element, i.e., living faith, faith working through charity? One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, in St. John’s Gospel (chap. 3). That which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, that is, the infusion of new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be reborn, "born of the Spirit." The water is mentioned only once as the means for that rebirth, the only means at our disposal. This is not meant to limit God’s power. He can infuse this new life (justification) even without water, as he did to Cornelius (Acts 10).

There is an appalling confusion in the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with the sacramental character and with what they refer to as "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice." Their confusion regards the second and third elements (see above) of the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church. Dare one add with St. Pius X, as the cause of their error, a certain pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the popes, fathers, doctors, and saints?

Conclusion

    Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God,[13] but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:1-2).

How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error concerning baptism of desire and blood, they might embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith. Their error caricatures the Catholic Faith and gives easy weapons to the enemies of dogma!

    Not knowing the justice of God [interior sanctifying grace of justification by living faith] and seeking to establish their own [exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments], [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (cf. Rom. 10:3).

We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace as inseparable from true faith, hope and charity, and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto - in reality or at least in desire" as taught by the Council of Trent.

In this time of confusion in the teaching of the Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing what the Church has always believed and taught "in the same meaning and the same words," not changing one iota to the right or to the left, for falling from the Faith on one side or the other is still falling from the true Faith, "without faith no one has ever been justified" (Council of Trent, TCT 563).

Let us pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ may give them the light to see and the grace to accept the age-old teaching of our holy Mother the Church by her popes, fathers, doctors and saints, and that, correcting themselves, they may serve the Church rather than change her doctrine.
Footnotes

1 Letter no. 73 (§21) to Jubaianus in 256.

2 Having received an invalid baptism outside the Church, and being received into the Church without being at least rebaptized under condition. It was a hypothetical case at the time of St. Cyprian (in this was he in error) but it probably happens in some cases today, due to the laxity when receiving converts.

3 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1800, Vatican I, de fide.

4 "Baptism of the Spirit" is another name for baptism of desire, by the grace of the Holy Ghost; De Baptismo, cap. 1.

5 In the very decree Cantate Domino to the Armenians so often quoted by the Feeneyites (Dz 712).

6 Mancipia, July 1998, p.3.

7 Mancipia, July 1998, p.2.

8 Session VI, Chapter 16, Dz 809.

For instance, in regards of a sick person in the hospital who cannot accomplish the precept of assisting at Mass on Sundays and feast days, his will to fulfil the third commandment is sufficient (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2, ad 3).

9 Is it through ignorance, or by projecting his preconceived ideas, that the author claims that the Council of Florence "passed non-Thomist decrees" (p.47)?  Now to claim, as in Desire and Deception, that the Cantate Domino rejects baptism of blood is simply to ignore that the passage in question is a quote of St. Fulgentius, who, in the very same book from which that quote is taken, explicitly teaches baptism of blood. Council Fathers never quote a Father of the Church against the mind of such holy authors.

10 Pascendi, Sept. 8, 1907.

12 As in the Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Canon 5: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema" (Dz 861, TCT 691).

Canon 2 (Dz 858, TCT 688) does not deal with the necessity of baptism, but with the nature of the sacrament. It defines that real water, not symbolic, is of the nature of the sacrament: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema." Water, real water, belongs to the first element of sacrament, the exterior sign.
Thus one sees clearly the sophism of the Feeneyite pamphlet where it is written: "In terms of a syllogism we have the infallible major premise: ‘baptism is necessary for salvation’ and the infallible minor premise: ‘true and natural water is necessary for baptism,’ and the infallible conclusion. ‘true and natural water is necessary for salvation.’" Here one finds a classical error of logic: the middle term "baptism" is not taken in the same acceptation in the major and the minor. The major applies absolutely to the third element of baptism, res sacramenti, the ultimate reality of the sacrament, i.e., the new birth, the new life of sanctifying grace, which is found in the "three baptisms." It applies only relatively to the first element of baptism as explained above. The minor deals only with the first element of baptism, sacramentum tantum, of which the matter is real water and not symbolic water, as some Protestants were saying.

13 The very saints the Feeneyites offer for admiration and imitation in their publications themselves taught baptism of desire! St. Alphonsus, and certainly all the holy Redemptorists after him is the most forceful in favor of baptism of desire, saying that it is de fide that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit.
Fr. Francois Laisney, a Frenchman, was ordained for the SSPX in 1982 at Econe by Archbishop Lefebvre. He was the USA District Superior from 1984-1990, it was then that he developed an interest in the uniquely American error of Feeneyism. He was then appointed District Bursar for the Australian District for a short time before being appointed its District Superior (1991-1994). He served as the SSPX’s General Bursar in Menzingen, Switzerland from 1994 until 2001. He is currently the District Bursar for the Australian District.