Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Predestination2 on May 19, 2025, 07:45:52 AM
-
If Somebody can refute this i will reject BoD
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html
-
From the link which starts with: "If baptism by water is impossible..."
Your assignment:
Name one circuмstance that is impossible for God to provide that baptism with water for one who desires it, and which He Himself made mandatory in John 3:5.
There really is no need to post anything else until you first name such a circuмstance.
-
From the link which starts with: "If baptism by water is impossible..."
Your assignment:
Name one circuмstance that is impossible for God to provide that baptism with water for one who desires it, and which He Himself made mandatory in John 3:5.
There really is no need to post anything else until you first name such a circuмstance.
Ok but can you answer the other arguments? I’m basically convinced by “feeney ism”
-
From the link which starts with: "If baptism by water is impossible..."
Your assignment:
Name one circuмstance that is impossible for God to provide that baptism with water for one who desires it, and which He Himself made mandatory in John 3:5.
There really is no need to post anything else until you first name such a circuмstance.
I can’t. It would be against the Ominipotence of God, His Providence and the dogma of Predestination (as fr wathen so elegantly pointed out)
-
I suggest Fr. Muller, a yellow paperback book on EENS No Salvation Outside the Church. I have read about Fr. Feeney, Boston Heresy Case. He was never excommunicated and etc. With God there is nothing impossible. But I can say this, I agree with Fr. Muller
-
I suggest Fr. Muller, a yellow paperback book on EENS No Salvation Outside the Church. I have read about Fr. Feeney, Boston Heresy Case. He was never excommunicated and etc. With God there is nothing impossible. But I can say this, I agree with Fr. Muller
Fr mullers position is the position I am coming towards “feeneyism”from
-
Ok but can you answer the other arguments? I’m basically convinced by “feeney ism”
Sure, but to what end? Those who are convinced that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (neither of these titles are found anywhere in any official Church docuмents btw) are doctrines, will defend them no matter what. Period.
For whatever reason, BODers fail to accept that everyone who ever has been and ever will be baptized, that all of those billions of baptisms have been accomplished only through the Divine Providence. BODers need to remember that God, in making it a requirement for heaven, can never *not* provide the sacrament to whomever desires it no matter what the circuмstances are, and that He will do so by the very same providence with which He provides it for all who receive it. BODers necessarily must reject this Catholic doctrine.
The crazy thing imo is, in order for a BOD/B to happen, the formula necessarily and purposely completely excludes the Divine Providence from having anything to do with it. A BOD says that the unbaptized person saves themself via some internal want that allegedly surfaces and takes over their mind one nano second before they die....and that God welcomes these people into heaven without ever having known them - which is exactly contrary to Scripture.
Fr. Feeney summed it up like this:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."
-
Sure, but to what end? Those who are convinced that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (neither of these titles are found anywhere in any official Church docuмents btw) are doctrines, will defend them no matter what. Period.
For whatever reason, BODers fail to accept that everyone who ever has been and ever will be baptized, that all of those billions of baptisms have been accomplished only through the Divine Providence. BODers need to remember that God, in making it a requirement for heaven, can never *not* provide the sacrament to whomever desires it no matter what the circuмstances are, and that He will do so by the very same providence with which He provides it for all who receive it. BODers necessarily must reject this Catholic doctrine.
The crazy thing imo is, in order for a BOD/B to happen, the formula necessarily and purposely completely excludes the Divine Providence from having anything to do with it. A BOD says that the unbaptized person saves themself via some internal want that allegedly surfaces and takes over their mind one nano second before they die....and that God welcomes these people into heaven without ever having known them - which is exactly contrary to Scripture.
Fr. Feeney summed it up like this:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."
Do you know any chapels or groups which don’t deny the salvation dogma?
-
Do you know any chapels or groups which don’t deny the salvation dogma?
The Dimonds if you consider them a group. Otherwise it's just individuals.
-
The Dimonds if you consider them a group. Otherwise it's just individuals.
The Dimonds aren’t ordained though. Do you know of any priests, especially edevacantists, wasn’t there this one priest who was expelled from teh Cmri for “feeney ism”
-
Do you know any chapels or groups which don’t deny the salvation dogma?
The only one I know of is in Louisville, KY when I lived there. Our Lady of the Pillar, Fr. Gavin Bitzer.
-
The Dimonds aren’t ordained though. Do you know of any priests, especially edevacantists, wasn’t there this one priest who was expelled from teh Cmri for “feeney ism”
That may be Fr. Dominic Crawford
-
If Somebody can refute this i will reject BoD
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html
Alas, nobody has the time to refute an entire 100-page diatribe.
It's a pack of lies and deception right out of the gate.
If you're sincerely seeking the truth, the information is out there so that you can find it. If you have specific / concrete questions, go for it.
At the end of the day, however, those 95% of Anti-Feeneyites who believe that non-Catholics can be saved (vs. the tiny minority who believe that it must be someone who's at least embraced the Catholic faith and explicitly intends to be baptized) ... you're really all in schism.
If you believe non-Catholics can be saved, then, congratulations, because despite the fact that you like the Trad smells and bells (like Pervost), you're actually part of the New Religion without even reliazing it.
You're what Rahner might call "Anonymous Conciliarists".
MAJOR: No Salvation Outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Various non-Catholics (Prot heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, infidels who believe in a Rewarder God) can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Various non-Catholics (Prot heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, infidels who believe in a Rewarder God) can be in the Church.
There's no avoiding the logic other than through the cognitive dissonance of intellectual dishonesty. If non-Catholics can be saved somehow (without converting before they die of course), then those non-Catholics must be in the Church somehow.
So what does that do to your ecclesiology? Well, now your Church includes not only actual Catholics, but various non-Catholics, Prot heretics, Orthodox schismatics, Jews, Muslims, infidels etc. (basically anybody you claim can be saved without converting).
In other words, your ecclesiology is the same as that of the Conciliar Church and is fundamental to the Conciliar religion. Every error in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology (including Religious Liberty).
-
From the link which starts with: "If baptism by water is impossible..."
Your assignment:
Name one circuмstance that is impossible for God to provide that baptism with water for one who desires it, and which He Himself made mandatory in John 3:5.
There really is no need to post anything else until you first name such a circuмstance.
Yeah, the BoDers keep claiming that "Feeneyites" limit God to His Sacraments. Apart from the fact that, no it's about what we believe God SAYS that He limits Himself to and has communicate to us, it's actually the BoDers who limit God by "impossibility", heretically denying Sacred Scripture: "With God all things are possible." ... not only possible but easy.
This in a nutshell about what BoDism is all about, a blasphemous / arrogant / proud assertion that "It would be unfair if God sent [this type of individual] to Hell, since he would have had no chance."
Yeah, sure no chance. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, if someone is properly disposed, God would send an angel into the jungle if necessary to enlighten the individual with the faith that is necessary for salvation. There's no "impossibility". That same angel, by the way, could also easily baptize the person.
There's no actually theological basis for BoDism. It's all about shaking their fists at God about what would be fair and unfair for Him to do. It's just one step away from those people who reject the faith because some innocent people suffer an extreme tragedy, because "How could a loving God allow ... ?"
-
In other words, your ecclesiology is the same as that of the Conciliar Church and is fundamental to the Conciliar religion. Every error in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology (including Religious Liberty).
And this is why this issue is of such great importance. Some here (including Matthew) have blown it off as not important. Oh, I beg to differ. If anything is important, it's this question, since it's the entire foundation of the Conciliar religion.
If someone could convince me that non-Catholics could be saved, then I'd have to 100% drop all theological objections to Vatican II. Since at that point, per my prior syllogism, the Church does in fact include non-Catholics. There's no getting around that.
Now, one might make a case for somehow getting a Catechumen in the door due to, as St. Robert Bellarmine said, having one foot in the door (he used the metaphor of their being in the vestibule) ... so it's not 100% necessary to deny BoD to reject the Novus Ordo ecclesiology, but the second one starts to extend it to people who in no sense of the word could be considered Catholcs, that's where the wheels come off the wagon of the Traditional Catholic Faith and lead right into Conciliarism.
Karl Rahner (a brilliant, well-educated man even if a Modernist) later marvelled that among the group of conservative "Council" Fathers, not a single one made a peep about what he recognized correctly to be THE SINGLE MOST RADICAL ASPECT of Vatican II, namely, what he euphemistically referred to as "the increased hope of salvation for non-Catholics" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was some expression very close to this). Rathner said that they made a big deal about other details, but they somehow "missed" this being the most fundamental change or shift at Vatican II.
Well, we know why they missed it. It's because this dogma of EENS has been under assault for several hundred years, and even +Lefebvre denied EENS dogma almost verbatim. Why? It's because he was taught that by some priest(s) in seminary that he otherwise respected as orthodox, conservative, and even Traditionally-minded.
You'll see the same thing among the Conciliar conservative types such as you hear on EWTN. 95% of the time, you might think you were listening to Traditional Catholics. But then when they start talking about "separated brethren", about "Christians", and about EENS ... the wheels completely come off their wagon and they instantly wax heretical. I've heard open statements of Pelagianism (not even subtle) there, as well as a complete denial that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation (being merely helps) ... a rejection of the dogma taught at Trent.
This is in fact the foundation of the Conciliar religion, the new ecclesiology (and soteriology ... which goes hand in hand). Now, it is possible to develop an articulation of BoD that doesn't wreck Catholic ecclesiology, but such articulations among modern BoDers have been few and far between ... and, quite frankly, they're extremely weak.
-
So, after predicating the opening remarks on "impossibility", as Stubborn pointed out, he goes into a personal attack on Father Feeney.
While much of it is slander, it's 100% irrelevant, so we can pass over that as a waste of time.
So, here's the thing. As even "Cardinal" Dulles (a friend of Father Feeney who then later defended him to some extent) pointed out, approved and respected post-Tridentine theologians like the Dominical Melchior Cano made the same distinction Father Feeney does between justification and salvation. Cano held, for instance, that infidels could be justified but not saved. So Father Feeney did not make this up.
Father Feeney's detractors claim that he committed heresy in denying Trent. Did he? What does Trent say (even if you read it according to the conventional interpretation)? Trent was teaching about JUSTIFICATION, not salvation. Father Feeney believed in justification by votum. So where's the heresy exactly? You can argue against his distinction (the one shared by Cano and a couple others), but it's most definitely not heresy in any sense of the word.
-
I skimmed ahead a bit on that absurd diatribe, and it's quite honestly a sewer of bad logic and bad will.
I one paragraph I could count about a half dozen blatant logical errors.
But if there are specific angles or point that you're interested in discussing, then bring them up here, since as i said, nobody has time to go through it line by line.
-
I could make a video here similar to what Father Cekada did for Sisco & Salza, where he rips entire section out the book as irrelevant and dumps them into the trash.
I'll grab the 20 pages of often-slanderous invective against Father Feeney and toss it into the trash bin.
-
Now, it is possible to develop an articulation of BoD that doesn't wreck Catholic ecclesiology
What would such an articulation look like?
-
And this is why this issue is of such great importance. Some here (including Matthew) have blown it off as not important. Oh, I beg to differ. If anything is important, it's this question, since it's the entire foundation of the Conciliar religion.
If someone could convince me that non-Catholics could be saved, then I'd have to 100% drop all theological objections to Vatican II. Since at that point, per my prior syllogism, the Church does in fact include non-Catholics. There's no getting around that.
Now, one might make a case for somehow getting a Catechumen in the door due to, as St. Robert Bellarmine said, having one foot in the door (he used the metaphor of their being in the vestibule) ... so it's not 100% necessary to deny BoD to reject the Novus Ordo ecclesiology, but the second one starts to extend it to people who in no sense of the word could be considered Catholcs, that's where the wheels come off the wagon of the Traditional Catholic Faith and lead right into Conciliarism.
Karl Rahner (a brilliant, well-educated man even if a Modernist) later marvelled that among the group of conservative "Council" Fathers, not a single one made a peep about what he recognized correctly to be THE SINGLE MOST RADICAL ASPECT of Vatican II, namely, what he euphemistically referred to as "the increased hope of salvation for non-Catholics" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was some expression very close to this). Rathner said that they made a big deal about other details, but they somehow "missed" this being the most fundamental change or shift at Vatican II.
Well, we know why they missed it. It's because this dogma of EENS has been under assault for several hundred years, and even +Lefebvre denied EENS dogma almost verbatim. Why? It's because he was taught that by some priest(s) in seminary that he otherwise respected as orthodox, conservative, and even Traditionally-minded.
You'll see the same thing among the Conciliar conservative types such as you hear on EWTN. 95% of the time, you might think you were listening to Traditional Catholics. But then when they start talking about "separated brethren", about "Christians", and about EENS ... the wheels completely come off their wagon and they instantly wax heretical. I've heard open statements of Pelagianism (not even subtle) there, as well as a complete denial that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation (being merely helps) ... a rejection of the dogma taught at Trent.
This is in fact the foundation of the Conciliar religion, the new ecclesiology (and soteriology ... which goes hand in hand). Now, it is possible to develop an articulation of BoD that doesn't wreck Catholic ecclesiology, but such articulations among modern BoDers have been few and far between ... and, quite frankly, they're extremely weak.
If you haven't already, you should look into the case of Fr. Michael Muller CSsR, very similar to what happened to Fr. Feeney but in the late 19th century. He was attacked in the Catholic press by liberal priests (one anonymous, who was termed the most prominent theologian in the US by the priest editor of the Buffalo Catholic Union & Times) for his defense of EENS. He was eventually silenced by his superiors and not allowed to respond to the heretics who defamed him and blatantly denied Exclusive Salvation. Point being I think this has been happening for a long time, and there have been relatively few clergymen who have recognized and resisted (haha) it
-
If you haven't already, you should look into the case of Fr. Michael Muller CSsR, very similar to what happened to Fr. Feeney but in the late 19th century. He was attacked in the Catholic press by liberal priests (one anonymous, who was termed the most prominent theologian in the US by the priest editor of the Buffalo Catholic Union & Times) for his defense of EENS. He was eventually silenced by his superiors and not allowed to respond to the heretics who defamed him and blatantly denied Exclusive Salvation. Point being I think this has been happening for a long time, and there have been relatively few clergymen who have recognized and resisted (haha) it
Yes, and if you study the case of Father Feeney, he didn't initially focus on BoD at all, but was just interested in EENS dogma. If you read some of the statements made by his enemies, they're blatantly heretical. It wasn't until a few years into his battles that the subjeft of BoD emerged.
-
John 3:5
-
If Somebody can refute this i will reject BoD
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html
Consider these questions. How does believing BOD affect you? How does not believing BOD affect you? To honestly answer these questions you'll find answers. Believing that BOD exists comforts and eases. Not believing BOD exists promotes prayer and action. When anyone tells you BOD is a thing, have them prove it exists so you can relax and not worry about souls. When they can't prove it, start working harder to obtain Baptism for the salvation of souls.
-
Thank You, Worlds away, for your reply. I did not know this of Fr. Michael Muller. I like to use KAB= knowledge =attitude=behavior. I will stick to EENS. When I came across BOD is was not happy. I still see BOD as a watering down of EENS. Nothing is impossible with God, BUT I can not judge in this area of BOD at all. I believe is a person was studying catechism and died, bury them as if they are catholic. That is it, all is in God's hands.
It would not surprise me if Fr. Muller and Fr. Feeney are in heaven, but not hell. Both defended the Faith and both were in the realm of evil to gag them, like Fr. Coughlin as well.
-
What would such an articulation look like?
The Church has never said that salvation is impossible without actual reception of the sacrament of baptism. If it had, St.Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus (to pick two post-Trent saint/doctors of the Church, since Feeneyites say the Council of Trent established the necessity of water baptism for salvation) would not have stated the possibility of such and been made doctors of the Church, unless you believe the Church makes saints and even doctors of its theology men who taught contrary to the dogma of the Church.
The Church has held, however, to be dogma the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.
So, to answer your question, how can one articulate a position where BoD doesn't run afoul of Church dogma, one can by holding that at least an explicit desire for the sacrament is necessary, and that salvation may be possible without the actual receipt of the sacrament.
You would have such a case, for example, in a catechumen, who is studying Church teaching and pursuing entry into the Church via the sacrament of baptism. In fact, the Catechism of Trent refers to the possibility of salvation in such a case:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
In other words, where a desire for the actual receipt of the sacrament is required, the sacrament of baptism retains it's necessity. This should be rather obvious: if you have to have a desire for the sacrament to be saved, the sacrament is necessary. You can't have a desire for the sacrament without the sacrament. The implicit BoD people argue that one can have a desire for the sacrament without being conscious or aware of the sacrament, thus arguably maintaining the sacrament's necessity. That requires something beyond common sense and some intellectual maneuvering to maintain, and leave that to those who want to maintain that position - of whom I am not one. But clearly if you want a chocolate ice cream cone, a chocolate ice cream cone must both exist and be within your cognizance.
I believe that St. Robert Bellarmine held this position, i.e., that an explicit desire for the sacrament as in a catechumen would suffice.
You will likely hear Lad respond to this. He may call me a heretic; he has before. Despite the fact that I have never expressed an opinion beyond the sufficiency of an explicit desire for the sacrament as sufficing in certain cases, such as mentioned in the Catechism of Trent.
I have merely defended the concept as limited in the Catechism of Trent and as defended by St. Robert. I have cited what I believe to be the cogent expression of the theology or idea behind this position as expressed by Orestes Brownson:
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
Or as St. Thomas noted, quoting St. Augustine, a desire for the sacrament of baptism may be enough under circuмstances as those with the hypothetical catechumen above, for the desire, "with God, counts for the deed." In other words, the deed being receipt of the sacrament of baptism, the desire for the sacrament of baptism counts for the receipt of the sacrament.
I will continue to defend that limited concept, which I take it the Church has dogmatically affirmed in Trent, as expanded on by the Ordinary Magisterium in the Catechism of Trent. I will do so even if Lad continue to hurl his charges of heresy at me after he covers me in a BoD regalia I don't wear.
-
I suggest Fr. Muller, a yellow paperback book on EENS No Salvation Outside the Church. I have read about Fr. Feeney, Boston Heresy Case. He was never excommunicated and etc. With God there is nothing impossible. But I can say this, I agree with Fr. Muller
Fr. Muller's teaching on EENS conflicts with Fr. Feeney's. Fr. Muller taught BOD throughout many of his works, including "The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur."
-
I can’t. It would be against the Ominipotence of God, His Providence and the dogma of Predestination (as fr wathen so elegantly pointed out)
St. Bonaventure viewed this as an argument for BOD.
St. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d.4,p.2, a.I, q.I:
First, God obliges no one to do the impossible; and second, He does not deny Himself to anyone who seeks Him. So if someone who cannot be baptized turns to God, God turns to them. But this can not happen except through the communion with the Holy Spirit, and this is to be baptized with the baptism of the wind.
… However, the baptism of the river, or of water, is necessary because God instituted it, and because He instituted it under command, and since what is commanded is necessary for salvation, therefore such a baptism is necessary for salvation. But since God obliges no one to do the impossible by His command, as Jerome says, and reiterates, they who cannot do it, if they will to do it, it is considered as done, as Gregory the Great says on the Psalm: “Indeed, you work iniquities in your heart,” etc. What you cannot do, and will to do, God considers it as done. Therefore, baptism of water is not so necessary that if the will is present, and the possibility is absent, no one will be saved without it. Therefore, it is granted that the baptism of the wind suffices without the baptism of water, provided that the person has the will and is hindered from receiving it before death due to necessity, as the last reasons show.
-
Fr. Muller's teaching on EENS conflicts with Fr. Feeney's. Fr. Muller taught BOD throughout many of his works, including "The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur."
He held a strict interpretation of salvation without water baptism, like St. Thomas Aquinas' "God sending an angel to catechize if necessary". Nonetheless, he was still mercilessly attacked by heretic priests who taught that Protestants and other non Catholics can be saved, salvation through invincible ignorance, etc. and he was unjustly silenced by his superiors. Like Fr. Feeney, his persecution had nothing to do with BOD, but because he held there was no salvation outside the Church
-
There is much that could be recommended here, but it is good to start with Bro. Francis' article, "The Dogma of Faith, Outside the Church There is no Salvation, Defended Against Right Wing Liberals."Catholicity and Baptism are Necessary for Salvation by Br. Francis Maluf | Goodreads (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43838171-catholicity-and-baptism-are-necessary-for-salvation) Remember that the fight was not just Fr. Leonard Feeney. Dr. Maluf, a.k.a. Bro. Francis, was a philosopher and mathematician in his own right. He lost his college teaching position because he was preaching Extra Ecclesiam. Three books I suggest to start with are Bread of Life, Gate of Heaven, and The Loyolas and the Cabots. Here is a link to the history of the St .Benedict Center
<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/crusade-st-benedict-center" width="560" height="384" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-
St. Bonaventure viewed this as an argument for BOD.
St. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d.4,p.2, a.I, q.I:
Quote
First, God obliges no one to do the impossible; and second, He does not deny Himself to anyone who seeks Him. So if someone who cannot be baptized turns to God, God turns to them. But this can not happen except through the communion with the Holy Spirit, and this is to be baptized with the baptism of the wind.
… However, the baptism of the river, or of water, is necessary because God instituted it, and because He instituted it under command, and since what is commanded is necessary for salvation, therefore such a baptism is necessary for salvation. But since God obliges no one to do the impossible by His command, as Jerome says, and reiterates, they who cannot do it, if they will to do it, it is considered as done, as Gregory the Great says on the Psalm: “Indeed, you work iniquities in your heart,” etc. What you cannot do, and will to do, God considers it as done. Therefore, baptism of water is not so necessary that if the will is present, and the possibility is absent, no one will be saved without it. Therefore, it is granted that the baptism of the wind suffices without the baptism of water, provided that the person has the will and is hindered from receiving it before death due to necessity, as the last reasons show.
The issue I have with all the saints who have taught a BOD is that they all essentially say the same thing, that in the last moments of life, there arises some emergency or certain circuмstance that makes reception of the sacrament impossible, and on that account, they say that God accepts the desire as a substitute for the sacrament that He made mandatory.
This simply cannot be.
What God has commanded as necessary for salvation, He bound Himself to provide - and He will always provide it to one who desires it - no matter what, even if that means He does so through a miracle. After all, what is a miracle to God? Why it's nothing, nothing at all.
IMO what they should actually teach is impossible, is God *not* providing the sacrament to one about to die who sincerely desires it, because if that ever happened, then God would be guilty of breaking His commitment to provide the sacrament to one about to die without it who desired it.
-
Important note:
If I have ever slandered Fr. Feeney in calling him a heretic. I repent.
While I still don’t share his view on justification/salvation, I do realise it is a view held by many theologians and not heretical.
-
In the original article cited in the OP there is an interesting discussion between Jame Larrabee and the site host. Larrabee, for those who are not familiar with him, is a Sedevacantist, and, in my view, quite astute and worth paying attention to. I am not sure if he posts anywhere now, but I think he had some association with John Lane. At any rate, I saw posts of his on Lane's now defunct site. He has an astute observation on Sedevacantism as well that I saw there.
Here he is on the issue regarding Father Feeney and where those who accuse him of heresy go too far:
Now for Baius. Here is his thesis (condemned) as you cited it:
"Perfect and sincere charity ... can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins."
This thesis is FALSE, precisely because charity cannot exist without the remission of sins, or in other words, perfect charity is necessarily accompanied by remission of sins, and vice versa. They are inseparable. Commit a mortal sin, and lose charity, if you had it. Make an act of perfect charity, and your sins are gone.
The part "in catechumens as well as in penitents" is true, insofar as perfect charity can exist in either. Evidently, Baius did not deny this. What he denied was that perfect charity cannot be separated from the remission of sins. Thus, anyone who is justified necessarily possesses the virtue of charity, and vice versa.
IAAD thinks that Feeney's position (I refer to him this once according to IAAD's new ruling; hereafter "LEF") agrees with this thesis. He does not distinguish between "holding" a position (point A) explicitly, and holding a different, but logically implicit, position (point B), that leads to the other position (A). The former is what readers understand by "holding" an opinion; e.g. "I agree with this proposition" or "Baius was right" or just "Charity can and does coexist with sin." It's a perfectly good argument in itself to refute position A by showing that it leads to untenable position B, but grossly misleading if it isn't made clear that one's opponent does not advance the position "B" EXPLICITLY. And that is what IAAD is doing.
Apart from that, In this case, at any rate, IAAD is still wrong. LEF never said (and I have already pointed this out, in vain) that sin continued to exist after justification by baptism of desire, nor anything leading to that conclusion. His argument rested on the simple point that grace and charity can be LOST after justification by mortal sin, and that if one dies in that state, one is damned (obviously). So LEF's thesis is that if one perseveres in grace, God will provide baptism before death. God can do that, after all. IAAD proposes a hypothesis: what if someone dies without baptism immediately after being justified? But it is precisely LEF's position that God will not allow that to happen. Where is the lack of logic in that position? It can't be refuted by a contrary hypothesis; hypothesis A excludes hypothesis B; the objection is a wash. Do I agree with LEF's position? I do not, any more than IAAD. But this position has nothing whatever to do with the proposition of Baius.
He continued in the following post,expressing his "opinion" that Fr. Feeney was wrong and even should be condemned:
It should be noted that the LEF thesis has never been condemned ex cathedra (infallibly). It is disproved by the constant teaching of the Church. It is a question of contingent facts and of the free operation of Divine Power; namely, that God has actually permitted some justified persons to die without baptism, and yet be saved. THAT is clear from tradition, not from any a priori argument. At any rate, LEF's position is wrong, it can and should be condemned, I think, but in fact, it has not been. Formally, it possibly remains in the realm of arguable, but wrong, opinions, just like the innovatory and laxist implicit denial of Extra Ecclesiam by certain theologians, originating with the Spanish Dominican school of the 16th century, before the Council of Trent. Should both these opinions, the latter long tolerated (like Gallicanism and the Dominican opposition to the Immaculate Conception), be condemned? I think so, I hope so, I pray so, but that will be up to a future (valid) Pope.
His close in that post is also worth reading and noting:
In contrast to LEF's erroneous opinion, which did not even enter into his suppression, you have the archbishop of Boston and various priests openly and explicitly denying a defined dogma of the Faith, something as to which IAAD continues to keep a perfect silence. I wonder why.
It's another source of cheap amusement (nothing to with this blog, maybe) that even Wikipedia gets my point exactly right: LEF was persecuted (my word, of course) for his preaching No Salvation Outside the Church. I invite all to read it. There are, of course, points in the article that I would take issue with, but on several of the facts it's surprisingly (to me) accurate. No, I didn't ghost-write it or edit it either. Most amusing of all, a Jєωιѕн publication (The Jєωιѕн Week) gets it right too: "Richard Cardinal Cushing excommunicated a priest, Leonard Feeney, in 1953, for preaching that all non-Catholics would go to Hell." (This, by the way, is our moderator's expressed position as well, so why not admit that LEF was right on this point? Would that somehow weaken his, IAAD's, own position somehow?)
As a sad postscript to this affair, a writer in a leading American Catholic magazine a few years later (I think Commonweal, but perhaps it was America magazine), a layman if that improves things, actually referred to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, a truth for which our Divine Savior poured out His Blood to bring to us, as "this medieval nonsense." Well, words fail.
The moderator has wondered just what I have been getting at. My aim is simply the truth, no matter which side it falls on. Only God's side is all truth. St. Augustine said, in regard to the Donatists (an early schismatic group), and the principle is of general application: to heal what is diseased, and not to harm what is healthy. A doctor of the soul acts no differently from a doctor of the body. There is a terrible scandal in mixing up in one immoderate attack not only on LEF, but on the Dimonds and similar "Feeneyites," what they get wrong, what they get right, and what is debatable. St. Augustine also said, "In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity." (necessary things=dogmas; doubtful things=opinions not yet determined)
I find Mr. Larrabee to possess a refreshing lucidity coupled with intellectual honesty.
So we are dealing with competing claims or hypotheses regarding the hypothetical of one dying without baptism in a state of grace sometime after a justification by faith and repentance: one, that some do die in that state, and are saved without baptism; the other, that no one who is saved dies in such a state, but will receive the sacrament of baptism.
Did Father Feeney ever claim that justification did not entail charity and remission of sins? Not to my knowledge. And he did agree that one could be justified by BoD.
Larrabee deals with the situation with his usual clarity.
The exchange between Larrabee and the site host is worth reading:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html