Author Topic: Feeneyites accept a baptism of desire (Read 2078 times)

Stubborn · « **on:** April 27, 2013, 04:49:59 AM »

I came across this while searching for a definition of "feeneyism".

What is the problem?

Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities have provided a definition of the baptism of desire so in principle they accept a baptism of desire

FR.LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITIES HAVE PROVIDED A DEFINITION OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE SO IN PRINCIPLE THEY ACCEPT A BAPTISM OF DESIRE
SSPX priests in Australia continue liberal propaganda.
The Society of St. Pius X priests Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney say they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus however they reject it when they say there are exceptions (baptism of desire etc). To reject a defined dogma with exceptions is heresy.

Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community has provided a definition of the baptism of desire so in principle they accept a baptism of desire. This has been pointed out to the SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary Australia in June 27, 2010

The SSPX priests charge that the baptism of desire is denied and so they continue their liberal propaganda on the SSPX website.

Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney will offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. While on the internet they say that Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities reject the baptism of desire. Here is the definition of the baptism of desire on the website of the St. Benedict Center(Catholicism.org). So they have not rejected the baptism of desire.

So they accept implicit baptism of desire which is known only to God.

5. Regarding baptism of desire:

• No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.

• Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?

Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956)

They affirm the dogma and also do not consider baptism of desire an exception while the SSPX priests affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and consider the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as exceptions to the dogma.

To say there are known exceptions to the dogmatic teaching is heresy.

The definition they have provided of the baptism of desire shows they have not denied it. They believe that a person can in an exceptional circuмstance receive the baptism of desire,with the right conditions,and this will be followed with the baptism of water. They would agree that these cases are implicit and known only to God and so they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So how can they be considered exceptions by the SSPX?

Why do the SSPX priests say that the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney have rejected the baptism of desire when on their website they provide a definition of implicit baptism of desire?

The community of Fr. Leonard Feeney affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirms an implicit baptism of desire which is not an exception to the dogma. This is not heresy.

When members of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities say ‘there is no baptism of desire’ they know there is no baptism of desire which can be an exception to the dogma .Since the baptism of desire is always implicit. It would have to be explicit to be an exception to the dogma.

Since the SSPX priests imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma they must assume that it is explicit and known to us. Those Catholics who attend Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney’s Mass in Australia could ask the two priests for a public clarification.

Fr. Peter Scott writes:

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.
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/fe...ors_letter.htm
Fr. Peter Scott continues:

The Feeneyite error is consequently a very grave one, for in denying the very possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire…
Fr. Peter Scott then refers to ‘Father Feeney’s condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949, and excommunication in 1952.’ The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 nowhere mentions that he was condemned. He was excommunicated for disobedience. Most important the Letter of the Holy Office referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma supports Fr. Leonard Feeney. It indicates all non Catholics need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc). It does not mention any exceptions.It does not refer to the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.

1.The SSPX website says the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney reject the baptism of desire when in reality they provide a definition of the baptism of desire.

2.The SSPX implies that the baptisms of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma. This is heresy. It is also irrational. There cannot be an explicitly known baptism of desire.

3.The SSPX indicate that the Church Fathers mention the baptism of desire etc and this is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no such text. One has to imply and assume wrongly that the Church Fathers considered it an exception.The Church Fathers have never said that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. SSPX assumes it is.

The Church Fathers in principle, de jure accepted the possibility of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in certain circuмstances. However this was not the ordinary means of salvation for them. It was the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De facto,in reality, since we cannot know any such cases they are not an exception to everyone on earth with no exception needing to enter the Church. We cannot phone or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorane. So the Church Fathers were not referring to de facto cases of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire.

4.The SSPX says Fr. Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office when the Holy Office nowhere uses the word ‘condemned’.

5,The SSPX implies that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy when Pope Pius XII supported him when the Holy Office referred to the dogma.
Those who offer the Tridentine Rite need to publicly issue a clarification regarding these five points.
-Lionel Andrades

Jehanne · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2013, 07:31:26 AM »

I know Lionel well and consider him to be a good friend. We post on a semi-regular basis together on this issue. You'll need to look for my message board; I won't post its link here but it will not take much effort to find it.

PS. The term "dogmatic Feeneyism" is an oxymoron. Calling Father Feeney "dogmatic" would be like calling Rush Limbaugh a "socialist." Father Feeney always, throughout his life, accepted that the Holy Father, Vicar of God, had the final and ultimate say on Divine Revelation.

PPS. Written agreements exist between the SSPX and certain "Feeneyites" on the use of the SSPX chapels, attendance therein, "not denying communion," "calling heretics," etc. I have gotten this information directly from those individuals who are "in the know."

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2013, 12:32:35 PM »

Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

Jehanne · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2013, 02:36:53 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

This is why I am here, in part; to dispel ignorance.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2013, 04:24:46 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Matto
Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

This is why I am here, in part; to dispel ignorance.

This looks like the best definition of BOD I've seen yet because, as he says, it is totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the popes and councils.

Quote

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956)

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2013, 07:59:17 PM »

Quote

The Church Fathers in principle, de jure accepted the possibility of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in certain circuмstances.

Can you provide the quotes to substantiate this comment, specially invincible ignorance, which I never read being used anywhere till like the late 1500's, long after all the Fathers were dead and gone.

bowler · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2013, 08:00:44 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Matto
Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

This is why I am here, in part; to dispel ignorance.

You have more "ignorance" to dispel because I don't understand what you are saying, what you believe.

Jehanne · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2013, 08:29:09 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Matto
Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

This is why I am here, in part; to dispel ignorance.

You have more "ignorance" to dispel because I don't understand what you are saying, what you believe.

It's really quite simple; Father Feeney's Bread of Life is not that long (under 100 pages) and is freely available as a PDF file online. You don't even need to read all of it to get the idea of what he was trying to say, just Chapters 7 & 8, in fact. Here's the gist:

Quote

Are there individuals, since the promulgation of the Gospel, who have ended this life without the sacramental character of Baptism?

Should we hope that there are such souls? In other words, should we hope that someone who truly desired, even implicitly, sacramental Baptism did, in fact, end this life without it? If the answer to this question is "No," what's wrong with finding truly theological reasons for the alternate hope that those who truly desired the Sacrament were, in fact, able to receive it before the end of their lives? And, what's wrong with Catholic theologians, such as Father Feeney (who was, after all, an ordained Catholic priest and schooled in theology), exploring such possibilities? Here's another:

Quote

Does the actual reception of sacramental Baptism confer graces "above and beyond" that which a person receives merely through the desire of the Sacrament?

The answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes!" In conclusion, "Feeneyism" is simply hoping for that which others have hoped, that is, that they receive the actual graces which they desired.

bowler · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2013, 01:18:24 PM »

Sorry Jehanne, but that does not explain anything. I've read Bread of Life, and I know about this subject having never learned otherwise than EENS as it is written, but your teaching here is not clear.

Saying that those who believe in EENS as it is written, accept a baptism of desire, is misleading. It sounds like the anti-abortionists calling themselves pro-life, and calling the abortionists pro-choice. It is not really being the shining light up on the hill.

What you are saying is that according to Council of Trent (Session VI Decree on Justification,Chapter IV) a person can be pre-sanctified before he is baptized, but that it does not say what happens to them if they die in that condition before they are baptized. And that the dogmas on EENS and the dogmatic decrees on baptism and elsewhere in the Council Of Trent say that to be saved, one must be a baptized member of the Church

Quote

Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Quote

Chapter VII.

What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema. This Canon is on the sacrament of baptism, that is the subject and title of the Session. It is very clear that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. BOD is not a sacrament!

--------------------------

CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

This is very clear too, and concurs with the Canon 5 above.
---------------------------------------
Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General

Canon IV. If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

This says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. It also says that not all are necessary for every individual, therefore, at least one is necessary for salvation. This one can only be the sacrament of baptism, since that's exactly what the two Canons on the sacrament of baptism say. [/quote]
-----------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, the proponents of BOD of the catechumen (see *Note below) ask the speculative question:

What happens to a catechumen:
1)who is sanctified by God before being baptized,
2)then dies unexpectedly,
3)while still in a state of grace,
4)without anyone around to baptize him?

This is total speculation, theory, supposition, and guesswork. What are the chances of such a possibility? Here's additional comments concerning points 1,2,3, and 4 above:

1) Yes, a person potentially can be sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, Trent has said so, however, how long before baptism? It maybe one second before the water hits his head. If a person is sanctified one second before baptism, that would be before.

2)3)4)- no one dies unexpectedly to God. Why would God sanctify someone, then take his life before anyone can baptize him?

The only answer to the speculative question above, that would fulfill all the requirements of Trent touched on by this question, is that, every person sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, will be baptized. They cannot die unbaptized, God, who has pre-sanctified them, would not allow them to die. No such person (who was pre-sanctified then died by "accident" without baptism) has ever existed or will ever exist. This is what St. Augustine meant by:

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

No one who is pre-sanctified will die or has ever died unbaptized. There has never been such person.

*Note - the SSPX also teaches that any person, not just a catechumen, with no desire to be baptized or desire to be Catholic can be saved by their Implicit Faith in a god that rewards. Basically, they don't follow even Trent!

bowler · « **Reply #9 on:** April 28, 2013, 01:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

Notice they say "Accept a Baptism of Desire". That means their own version of baptism of desire.

It is not speaking straight. This is Vatican II speak, politically correct speak. Someone thinks they discovered sliced bread, a new and improved way to "convince" the people.

I don't agree with it. Then again, l'm not a Slave.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2013, 03:03:47 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Matto
Feeneyites accept Baptism of Desire? That's news to me.

Notice they say "Accept a Baptism of Desire". That means their own version of baptism of desire.

It is not speaking straight. This is Vatican II speak, politically correct speak. Someone thinks they discovered sliced bread, a new and improved way to "convince" the people.

I don't agree with it. Then again, l'm not a Slave.

I understand what you are saying here bowler, but there is no such thing as "The" baptism of desire due to the fact that there are too many different theories and ideas about what it is and who achieves it, I think even those who believe in it will agree with that - - - so it is proper to say "A" baptism of desire no matter how it might sound because after all is said and done, it is just another opinion - one of many different opinions about it.

bowler · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2013, 06:58:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

there is no such thing as "The" baptism of desire due to the fact that there are too many different theories and ideas about what it is and who achieves it, I think even those who believe in it will agree with that ...

That's a planned tactic of the liberals to make a changes appear to be the same thing. To avoid that, I've been working for years telling BODers to be precise in their definitions. It is not all just different baptisms of desire. They are actually totally different animals.

The explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen is obviously not the same as the "no desire to be baptized" of implicit faith in a god that rewards. And yet, even trad priests that write against the "Feeneyites", teach both of these opposed theories as if they were one.

I'm not going to have the "Feeneyites" now invent another BOD. Let them be precise and say it the way they always did, that a justified catechumen must be baptized to be saved, that God will not allow any person that He justified, to die before they receive baptism. That is not baptism of desire.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Mortalium
Quo Vadis Petre,

You're right. I have been mistaken all along.

I had held for some time now that BOD/BOB were erroneous and that you could hold either position: water only or BOD/BOB, and that either position was alright as long as either side did not accuse one another of heresy/sin and the like.

But since you mentioned the votum part in Trent, it got me thinking. I had seen that correct translation very recently but didn't really think about it. But now i have.

I didn't really have any problems with bod/bob if they would in fact be true, and in the beginning i did believe in them, but i just thought there were some inconsistencies and contradictions, and i still think there are some, but i will no longer reject them or question them at all from now on.

I take back all that i said against them and i repent.

What i do not agree with though, is the whole "implicit faith and implicit bod" business and invincibly ignorant people being saved.

That, no Saint or Doctor ever taught. St. Thomas, St. Augustine, At. Alphonsus etc. they all taught explicit Faith and that you absolutely need to believe in and know of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and in fact they all taught against invincible ignorance.

I doubt that anyone who really knows this subject would object to my stating that there are three schools of thought on so-called baptism of desire

1) the School of St. Augustine (Augustinian) - which says that no one predestined for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.

Quote
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

2) the School of St. Thomas Aquinas (Thomists) that says that a catechumen or someone like a catechumen, someone who desires to be a Catholic, and believes at a minimum in the mysteries on the Incarnation amd the Holy Trinity, can be saved if they die before they can receive the sacrament and most important, are justified by God. That person will not go to Heaven, but to Purgatory.

Quote
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Quote
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’” (Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905)

----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection "It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation... provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him...”(Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire pg 55-56)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: "If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him."(Idem. pg 55)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 111, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: "If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."(Idem pg 55)

St. Alphonsus Ligouri was of the Thomist school. That is why he would teach that:

Quote
St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)

St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)

St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457: “Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”

O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jєωs who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

3) the School of Salamances - the theory that surfaced in the early 1600's , and went nowhere outside of the theological schools, till it resurfaced in the late 1800's, and was thereafter thrust upon the laity in the 20th century catechisms. This is what is referred to as the theory of implicit faith. It says that to be saved a person needs to have "a belief in a God that rewards", and to make an act of love which implicitly (implicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity) is equivalent to baptism of desire and there is no need to be baptized, or belong to the Catholic Church, or desire to be baptized, or to know about Jesus Christ (the Incarnation) and the Holy Trinity.

Quote
From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

END

I am an Augustinian. More importantly, I don't see the Thomists as dangerous to the faith if people really only believed in St. Thomas Aquinas's BOD, however, no one today does restrict it to STA's BOD. There are few pure Thomists left in the world. In my experience, even those that say they restrict it to STA's BOD, do not really, for you never see them strongly opposing implicit faith'ers as they do with their incessant adamant fight against strict Augustinian EENSers. In my experience that is because they really do not restrict their belief to STA's BOD, because if they really believed STA's BOD they would be more horrified by the Implicit Faith'ers. You rarely find a Thomist or any traditionalist writing against implicit faith.

Jehanne · « **Reply #12 on:** April 28, 2013, 07:08:09 PM »

Quote from: bowler

I'm not going to have the "Feeneyites" now invent another BOD. Let them be precise and say it the way they always did, that a justified catechumen must be baptized to be saved, that God will not allow any person that He justified, to die before they receive baptism.

You have two propositions at work here, both of which are theological opinions.

Quote from: bowler

That is not baptism of desire.

Of course, it is. Father Feeney taught that a catechumen could reach a state of justification before the One and Triune God via perfect charity and an explicit desire and intent to receive sacramental Baptism. But, we're back to "proving negatives" here again, for how could you ever know that someone, anyone, was ever not sacramentally baptized, if only in that person's infancy?

bowler · « **Reply #13 on:** April 28, 2013, 09:52:07 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

for how could you ever know that someone, anyone, was ever not sacramentally baptized, if only in that person's infancy?

There is no way to know, that is why we can say for any non-Catholic that if they were baptized they could have been saved. The same as we can say for a person who died a baptized Protestant, that if he repented on his heresy and schism, and done a perfect act of contrition, that he could have been saved.

Both of those speculations have always existed, for instance, for those who were martyrs, we could say that if they were secretly baptized, they would be saved.

All of that has always been known, and yet, show me one quote from a Father or any saint or council saying that that is a baptism of desire?

Quote

Father Feeney taught that a catechumen could reach a state of justification before the One and Triune God via perfect charity and an explicit desire and intent to receive sacramental Baptism.

Everyone knows that, however, that is only answering half the question, let us say, the un-important part. The important part is the question of what happens to that person who is justified before he is baptized, but who dies before he can be baptized. The answer to that question for the advocates of baptism of desire is that he is saved. The answer from Fr. Feeney was that he does not know what happens to him, and that neither do the advocates of BOD know either.

Fr. Feeney wrote:
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.

Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.

Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.

Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.

Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!

Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.

bowler · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2013, 10:06:31 PM »

Curiously the original Baltimore catechism says almost the same as Fr. Feeney:

The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
* 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

from Lesson 14: On Baptism
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

158. Q. What is Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....

160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.

Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.

161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.