Free Republic

Another typical unthinking basher.

FYI, Our Lord most assuredly had Mary's sinless blood in His body. Mary's blood and Our Lord's blood flowed together in Her womb. So while you are right to say that Our Lord's blood was never tainted with the stain of sin, you neglect to admit just where His blood even came from, namely, His Immaculate Mother, who, along with St. Joseph, Her most chaste spouse, foster father of the son of God, are both in body and soul, already in heaven.

Bottom line is that you, and Fr. Feeney don't get to define who is non-Catholic.

True, the magisterium as already defined that one.

As for BOD and BOB, Trent defined: If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, "unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.

This is going nowhere. Bottom line is there is no salvation for those who are non-Catholic.

Non-Catholics are not saved through BOD or BOB.

Catechumens are not automatically saved through BOD or BOB.

Anyone who insists there is salvation for those who are non-Catholic reduces to a meaningless formula and denies the dogma.

Its just that simple - on purpose.

Ah, but it is you who are misquoting him (and you have left the "who" off my quote), I fear. Check the text I posted above.

Not so. You posted: he is referring to *all* those invincibly ignorant, who "observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God ... live honest lives". This, however is not what he said. He said only those who are struggling with invincible ignorance pertaining to the Catholic Faith. He is in no way referring to all invincibly ignorant people, he is specifically referring only to people with normal intelligence who are searching for the truth, trying very hard to learn about the Catholic faith and join the Church.

You neglected to add or recognize the first, and un-arguably the most important requirement, namely, that the person - who, btw, is *not* an invincibly ignorant person, must first and foremost be struggling to learn the Catholic faith - this is in harmony with the EENS dogma.. Once this requirement is met, only then are they able to attain eternal life. Note that he does not automatically reward anyone with eternal life simply for living honest lives.

Moreover, the entire argument there is that no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without "the one thing that only the sacrament can provide — the indelible mark or spiritual character imprinted on his soul". This is a flat-out denial of any saving efficacy in the Baptisms of Desire or of Blood.

First off, there is no such thing as Baptism of Desire or Baptism or Blood. Neither are Sacraments established by Our Lord and as such should not be called “Sacraments.” Trent defined "Baptismus in voto”, translated, this means a solemn vow to be baptized, not an implied or implicit “Desire” - or perhaps more popularly understood as an “Intention” to be baptized. BTW, ever heard the old saying.......”The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”?

As for Baptism of Blood, the Council of Florence debunked that one when it infallibly declared: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that....... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Actually Fr. puts it in an extremely confused manner: "The state of a perfect act of love"? What exactly is this supposed to mean? The state of grace?

This “State of perfect act of love” is one of the things that Fr. was fighting at the time. The claims of, as Fr. called them, “the liberal theologians”, that salvation was rewarded to everyone and anyone who made a perfect act of love was what he was specifically referring to.

The state of grace? This can be lost only through mortal sin, and Trent solemnly anathematized those who claimed that one in a state of grace cannot avoid sinning mortally

Of course grace is lost through sin, Fr.’s point was not that it is impossible to remain in the state of grace, his point, in rebuttle to the liberals, was that it is not to be automatically expected and assumed that someone who is not even baptized *will* automatically persevere in the state of grace for their whole life through some momentary implicit “perfect act of love” - then be rewarded salvation when they die.

With regards to remaining in the state of grace, its like Fr. says: With regard to a perfect act of love of God, the same principle applies in Confession, as in Baptism. If you commit a mortal sin and make a perfect act of love of God, the sin is forgiven. But you must mention this sin in your next Confession. If you do not, you return to the state of mortal sin. Everyone admits that.....................You never have to go to Confession unless you have committed a mortal sin. Were it to be that you never had committed a mortal sin in your whole life, you would never have needed to go to Confession in your whole life by virtue of any precept..........................Theoretically, therefore, we could get into Heaven without ever going to Confession — if we never committed a mortal sin. There have been some saints who never committed a mortal sin in their whole lives. If they went to Confession, it was because they wanted to go, not because they were required to go by virtue of precept.

I disagree: he is referring to all those invincibly ignorant,

Not so. He specifically says that only those who are struggling with invincible ignorance - then goes further into detail by saying they must be sincerely struggling with our most holy religion. He purposely an specifically did not say all invincibly ignorant because, the rule is, those who will not sincerely struggle with invincible ignorance are not going to try to observe the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts, have the readiness to obey God or vow to be baptized and join the Church.

The only criteria here is obedience to the natural law, and readiness to obey God.

Not so. See my above paragraph.

Ah, but read on: The "desire for Baptism," if properly made, may put a person in the state of sanctifying grace. If the person perseveres in and dies in that state — according to the words of the Divine Judge Himself — he still cannot enter the kingdom of God. He lacks the one thing that only the sacrament can provide — the indelible mark or spiritual character imprinted on his soul.

Again, this snip from Fr. is correct because if properly made, the “desire for baptism” will result in actual baptism. IF (and its a big “if”) a person dies 10, 30 or 50 years later and has not been baptized yet, that person cannot enter heaven. Their “Desire for baptism” will not suffice under circumstances where actual baptism could have easily and readily been had.

Fr. Put it pretty good when, he explained like this:

Actually, no one who has not been baptized can stay in the state of Christian justification very long, because he does not have the sacramental helps to keep justification alive. So, if he were in the state of justification, it would be only for a day or two, maybe three. If we who are Catholics have a hard enough job to keep in the state of sanctifying grace, with all the prayers and sacramental helps we have, good God! how is anyone without them going to stay in the state of a perfect act of love of God? It is a blasphemy to say one could!

Okay. The problem is, that doesn't conform to the teaching of the Church. Bl. Pius IX says, Quanto Conficiamur:.........

Not so. Pius IX did not mention whether the one struggling with invincible ignorance was baptised or not. As such, one must deduct that he was speaking of one who was already baptised. Further, one who is "invincibly ignorant" and one who struggles with it are two different people entirely.

I do not say that there are many such persons, or even any, and we should believe most firmly what he says also, "Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff".

I Absolutely agree and I think you'll admit that practically no one, save Fr. Feeney and only a very few others, - for nearly the last century - preaches this.

Okay! That's great but it contradicts what he himself wrote in The Bread of Life, which was that Baptimus in voto put one in a state of "justification" but one needed to be baptized with water to attain "salvation", and that if someone in the state of only "justification" died he (Fr. Feeney) did not know where he would go, but it would not be to heaven.

Fr. never denied Baptimus in voto, he denied BOD - because there is no BOD. Perhaps this snip will beter explain...............The same applies to Father Feeney. He always considered the popular teaching that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are sufficient for salvation, to be a heresy, because it is a denial of the defined dogma that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet, he did not question the validity of the phrase in voto when used by theologians in accordance with the sense attributed to it by the Council of Trent. Rather, he sought to reconcile the two (in voto and ab aqua) by proposing that the votum to receive the Sacrament can produce sanctifying grace in the soul "in view of the water to come," because God knows it is coming.

When Bread of Life was published in 1952, Father sent a copy to Pope Pius XII and to every Cardinal, thereby submitting his proposal to the judgment of the Church. No judgment was ever forthcoming, but had there been one from the Chair of Peter, and had it gone against him, he also would have retracted his position immediately........taken from http://www.catholicism.org/TTAS/chapter_9c.htm#council

Why do they keep calling it "installment" Mass?

It must be a novus ordo thing - AFAIK, it used to be called the Pope's Coronation Mass.

........If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

The situation I posted is not unique so I assume the overwhelming vast majority of local ordinaries are schooled in the same train of thought.

First, I want to tell you that my schedule does not permit me to spend enough time to thouroughly think about everything that I posted - for that I apologise and can only say there's probably gonna be bigger gaps between my posts....... - when I said that the unbaptised invincible ignorant person can make it to heaven, I was wrong. The best that person can hope for is Limbo.

I quoted to you from his book above, The Bread of Life. He says clearly that no one can be saved without baptism of water.........

Your quotes are accurate and they are true - No one can be saved without Baptism of Water. What is admitedly failing in The Bread of life is "The rest of the story".

If you can understand the big picture of the happenings back then in regards to Fr. teaching EENS while the enemy cried that BOD via vague desires, unconscious longings or implicit intentions made non-Catholics outside the Church actual members through the "soul of the Church" - you might then begin to understand that he actually preached the truth.

I hate to get long winded when I post so I am purposely brief. In a nutshell, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, one must be Baptised with water in order to be Catholic - no one should ever depend on getting into heaven without being a Catholic.

Thats the rule, thats what Fr. preached.

What he did not preach (in the Bread of Life) was the exception to the rule, namely, Trent's infallible "Baptismus in voto", and that this votum (vow) must be a deliberately intended vow to receive actual water Baptism.

ps, I just want to tell you that I am enjoying this peaceful exchange!

Excellent example.

Here I want to ask - what about the man who was a non-Catholic, had for his funeral a "Mass of the Ressurection" even thoough the Church knew that he was twice divorced, had 4 children from from two wives, was living with a third woman for two years at the time of his death and died of a cocaine overdose - plus he was cremated after the novus ordo "mass in white".

Why would the Catholic Church, ANY Catholic Church allow this?

He was saved by the BOD - according to the priest celebrating the white service

He was ordered to go to Holy Cross. How exactly would that move have stopped his "preaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church"?

Holy Cross? I have not heard that one and I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Like I said, I knew Fr. Feeney and Br. Francis (he's the NH brother in the title of this thread) as well as numerous other members of the clergy of the original St. Benedict Center personally. I still have infrequent personal contact with some of those who were at Fr. Feeny's side through the whole "Boston Heresy Case".

I can and will speak only what is the truth in regards to my family's friend - Fr. Feeney. So as far as that goes, I do not expect you or anyone to understand the completness of the smear campaign that was waged aginst him.

I can almost promise you that you've not heard from any "Feeneyite" - or anyone who claims to "know" what happened in regards to the "Boston Heresy Case" that Fr. Feeney actually preached and taught that the invincible ignorant, as well as an unbaptised catechumen could attain salvation...........am I correct?

What a strange definition of Baptism of Desire. Have you ever read the Baltimore Catechism?

Oh really? Well go ahead and ask anyone - clergy or lay person - how the non-catholic who is not baptised attains salvation. When they answer "through the BOD of course!" Then go ahead and ask them if they have ever read the BC.

Fr. Feeney was disobedient: he refused orders to leave SBC.

He was disobedient because he would not stop preaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church.

No, it wasn't. I quoted for you his words. He says that Baptism of desire is heretical, and that no one can be saved unless he received baptism of water.

Baptism of Desire is thought, known and preached to mean that every non-Catholic, even unbaptised babies who die before baptism make it to heaven through baptism of desire. Now I ask you, how can an unborn baby or any infant desire anything?

If you deny baptism of desire, and baptism of blood, and say that there is only baptism of water, want to explain how a catechumen could be saved before receiving baptism of water? Like it or not, to say that you have to admit baptism of desire.

In short, the unbaptised catechumen that makes it to heaven will have had to have made an act of perfect contrition, a vow to receive the Sacraments, join the Church and abjure the errors and heresies of their whole life before they die - this should not be expected to happen to every non-Catholic on their death bed - even though, thanks to BOD thats a pretty much what everyone thinks these days...........and *that's* what Fr. Feeney was fighting over 60 years ago.

Having personally known Fr. Feeney, I can say that news stories and accounts of the controversy that befell Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict center were well orchastrated by hell.

Thankfully, there is one accurate - even documented account of the real story, if you care to spend 1 minute reading just the forward here... http://www.catholicism.org/LandC/forward.htm note this point where it says: If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the "Boston group" is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine. because it basically sums up the entire truth of the matter.

If you are saying that catechumens can be saved if they die before actually receiving Baptism, you are contradicting your previous statements, especially in 52 and 54:

Yes, catechumens can be saved prior to baptism - the key word is, of course, can and this was always Fr. Feeney's position. While I did apparently contradict myself, I did so to disagree that there even is such a convenient thing as a "Baptism of desire" - because there is no such thing - and there is certainly no such Sacrament. For me to infer that there is a BOD is to admit that everyone and anyone who dies without the actual Sacrament is automatically saved - and that, of course is heresy.

Thank you Romulus!

A strange contradiction in your thinking. You deny the existence of the baptisms of desire and of blood, yet admit the possibility of catechumens entering eternal life without receiving baptism of water. Which is it? You can't hold both. 1917 Code of Canon Law Canon 1239. §1. Those who died without baptism should not be admitted to the ecclesiastical burial. §2. The catechumens who with no fault of their own die without baptism, should be treated as the baptized.

No, its no contradiction. Perhaps you are doing what typically is done, namely, clumping the catechumen in with the all non-Catholics. Remember, a catechumen is not a life long non-Catholic who has no intentions of joining the Church or hates the Church.

A catechumen is one who truly vows to learn, live and adhere to the Catholic faith - because they KNOW thats the only hope they have.

(St. Bernard, Letter 77:8).......(Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam (Naples 1857), Vol.8, p. 703.).........(Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.72).......(St. Cyprian, Letter 72:22)...these are all fine saints etc. etc. but their writings are not dogmas infallibly proclaimed.

There is no more a "Baptism of desire" than there is a "Matrimony of desire" or a "Confirmation of desire".

Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two columns, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose...

While St. Augustine and Ambrose are great saints and learned men, they are not infallible. Same way the Baltimore catechism contradicts Scripture when it says there are three baptisms - We all know there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism and we all confess this when we pray the the Credo that is said at every Mass when we say " Et unam, sanctum, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remisionem peccatorum. which translates: "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Trent never defined any "baptism of desire" because Our Lord established the Sacraments - not Trent, any Council or any saint.

I've already posted the infallible declaration of Florence, we all know that there is only one Lord, faith and baptism. We know that we must understand the infallible teaching as it was declared - not as we re-interpret it hundreds of years later.

In short, No Salvation outside the Catholic Church means exactly what it says. One Baptism also means exactly what it says. Unless we are baptised, we had best not plan on getting into heaven. A catechumen who dies before baptism will be extremely lucky if they make it - but even they should not automatically be granted the reward by us - much less life long non-Catholics who can't seem to find Our Lord here on earth when He is present on every tabernacle.

You quoted: He that hath my commandments and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me.

Are you suggesting that the following is an option or only a suggestion?...He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved

Vatican II Council, Ad Gentes Divinitus, Art. 3 Finally, the juridic status of catechumens should be clearly defined in the new code of Canon law. For since they are joined to the Church,22 they are already of the household of Christ,23 and not seldom they are already leading a life of faith, hope, and charity.

This contradicts the Council of Florence...............Three of the sacraments, namely baptism, confirmation and orders, imprint indelibly on the soul a character, that is a kind of stamp which distinguishes it from the rest. Hence they are not repeated in the same person. The other four, however, do not imprint a character and can be repeated. Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.

The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

Fr. Feeney taught that no one, unless he had sacramentally received Baptism, could be saved

Yes, he precisely echoes Our Lord, the Popes, Councils and teachings of the Church.

The Baltimore Catechism does not claim to be nor is it infallible and does contain errors though not as many as the latest version.