Saturday, March 25, 2017

So there is only one known baptism and not three.TradCatKnight Eric Gajewski misses this point

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Three errors of the Feeneyite movement  by Eric Gajewski

1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the 
Church there is no salvation." 

They present it as "without baptism of water there is no salvation." 
Lionel: Without the baptism of water 
in the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
This was the traditional magisterial
 teaching in the Catholic Church  for 
centuries and before 1949.The present
 magisterium like the SSPX says
 there are exceptions.
St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression
"extra ecclesiam nulla salus", in the very passage in which
 he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to
Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside
 the Church, "because outside the Church there is no
 salvation," therefore baptism of water outside the
Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character,
 but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e.
 justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door). 
Lionel:There is no salvation 
outside the Church according
 to St.Cyprian.

In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches,
with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously
 all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the
Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of
all baptism, explicitly stating "even without the water". 
Lionel:He refers to someone whom 
we cannot know personally.This 
is expressed as a possibility known
 only to God. It is speculative
 and said with goodwill.
For the SSPX, the present
 magisterium and the sedevacantists 
this refers to a known case. 
This is how they interpret it.Then
 they posit this unknown case as a 
known exception to St. Cyprian and
 the dogma extra ecclesiam
 nulla salus (EENS)defined by three 
Church Councils.
And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that
Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self,
 were received in the Catholic Church without a
valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the
 Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters
 of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism
of desire).
Lionel:He could not refer to any
 one known since physically it
 was not possible. We cannot
 say that any one in particular
 will be saved without the 
baptism of water and Catholic 
However when the SSPX bishops
 and priests like Archbishop 
Lefevbre assume that there is
 salvation outside the Church
 they imply that there are 
known exceptions.This is 

Why not then believe the Dogma of the Church
 "outside the Church there is no salvation" "in the
 same meaning and in the same words – in eodem
 sensu eademque sententia" as the whole Catholic
 Church has taught it from the beginning, that is,
 including the "three Baptism"? Why then give a
 new meaning, a new interpretation to the Dogma?
Lionel:The only known baptism
  is the baptism of water.
This is the baptism referred
 to in the Nicene Creed.It is
 physical. It can be seen. It 
can be repeated.
The baptism of desire is not
 a known baptism and it cannot
 be administered, as we can
 with the baptism of water.
The baptism of blood without
 the baptism of water in the
 Church is not known to any 
one . We cannot know of any
 one saved as such. Since it is 
only God who can see the
 baptised person who  has been
So there is only one known
 baptism and not three.

It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc. and unanimously all theologians (before the modernists) !
False.They refer to the baptism of desire for example, but do not state that it refers to a visible 
instead of an invisible case.
Similarly they do not state
 that someone who is saved
 in invincible ignorance refers
 to a personally known person
 saved without the baptism of 
water in the Catholic Church.
None of these saints mentioned 
above has made this wrong 
This wrong inference,  was 
made in the Letter of the 
Holy Office 1949.It was 
accepted by Archbishop
 Lefebvre and Cardinal 
Ratzinger.The popes 
since Pius XII have
 not corrected the
 objective error.

It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: 
"it is de fide – that is, it belongs to the Catholic
 Faith – that there are some men saved also by
 the baptism of the Spirit."

Lionel: He would be referring
 to theoretical and speculative
 cases.So fine we can choose 
to beleive it as long as it
 is not considered an exception
 to the dogma extra ecclesiam
 nulla salus.Since an exception
 would infer that the case is
 personally known, to be
 an exception. It would infer
 that it is a visible and not an 
invisible case.

That traditional interpretation is approved by the
 council of Florence: the Council Fathers make
 theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism
of desire, saying that for children one ought
not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction,
 because for them there is "no other remedy" : that
 expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa qu. 68
a 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see
 IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of
 Florence! When one knows how much this Council
 espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to
 see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!
Lionel:St.Thomas Aquinas held
 the 'rigorist interpretation' of
 the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
salus. The man in the forest in 
invincible ignorance whom he 
referred to was not a personally
known case.It was a hypothetical
 reference.The saint also said that
 God would send a preacher to
 him.! So he would baptised a
 Catholic before he went to Heaven.
It is the SSPX and the sedes 
who contradict St. Thomas 
Aquinas by assuming that the
 man in the forest is a visible
 and known case in the past
 and present and so there 
are exceptions to the Feeneyite
 interpretation of the dogma.
It is really there interpretation,
 with what I call, Cushingism.
Cushingism assumes there are
 known exceptions to the dogma
 EENS and that the baptism of
 desire etc refer to visible and 
known cases and not invisible 
and unknown cases.

Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments
 of the Feeneyites are of no value. But let us refute
 them too.
Lionel: St.Thomas and the saints
 were Feeneyites since the 
baptism of desire and being
 saved in invincible ignoranced
 are not exceptions to the dogma

2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional 

They present it as a freely discussed question in
 the Church : "an academic difference to be settled
 by the Church." : each school of thought would then
 have to be accepted until the Pope later defines
 that doctrine. This is false.

The error here is to claim that only that which has
 already been defined belongs to the Deposit
 of Faith, and everything else is opened to free

The truth is that one ought to believe everything that 
belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has
 already been defined and that which is not yet defined 
but is unanimously taught by the Church. 

Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their
 own admission. They write indeed: "this teaching [on
 three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching
 of theologians since the early part of this millenium." 
They should add: common teaching of Popes, of
 Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should 
add that it is found even before this millenium in the
 very early years of the Church, without a single
 dissenting voice.

Lionel: O.K.This is not an issue.
Since BOD is not an exception to 
the dogma EENS, it never was.
It was Cardinal Cushing and the
 Jesuits who made this an issue
 in Boston and then transferred
 the error into Vatican Council II
 ( LG 14, AG 7 etc).
Now Vatican Council II can be
 interpreted with or without this 

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of
three baptisms, as it belongs to the Catholic Faith,
though not yet defined. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitl
y say: "it is de fide…" 
Lionel: The case of the catechumen
 refers to a hypothetical case.No 
one knows of any particular person 
saved as such. The case of the 
catechuman was called a baptism 
in the Baltimore Catechism. It was
 placed in the  Baptism Section.This 
 was confusion.
So the SSPX website says there are
 three baptisms without specifying 
that there is and can only be one 
know baptism.
When the Nicene Creed refers
 to one baptism for the forgiveness
 of sins it is referring to one known
 baptism and not three known baptisms.
This was not taken into account
 by the Council Fathers(1965).So 
they referred to 'seeds of the
 Word', 'imperfect communion 
with the Church'(UR 3,'those who 
know' and who are not in invincible
 ignorance(LG14) as if these
 hypothetical cases are examples
 of known baptism as the baptism
 of water.

If a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be
excused in case of ignorance, or one may discuss
some precision within the doctrine (as to how explicit the
Catholic Faith must be in order to have baptism of desire)
, but one is not allowed to reject the doctrine itself,
 simply denying baptism of desire.
Lionel:We do not have to deny
 the baptism of desire.
We can specifty that a hypotyhetical
 baptism of desire is accepted. Since
 the dogma says all need the baptism
 of water in the Catholic Church,
 we can assume, theoretically, 
that the baptism of desire must
 include the baptism of water.
Anyway, with or without the 
baptism of water, it still is a
 theoretical case and so it 
cannot be an exception, or
 relevant, to the dogma EENS.

The example of St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is a false one. Indeed one must note that St. Thomas accepted the highest purity he saw possible for Our Lady, accepting even the feast of the Immaculate Conception as being the day of her "sanctification." He says explicitly: "Under Christ, Who [alone] did not need to be saved, being the universal Savior, the Blessed Virgin had the highest purity." The hard question in this point of doctrine was how to reconcile the fact that she is redeemed, and that she is immaculate. The truth is that Our Lady was sanctified in the very first moment of her conception by being preserved from original sin, and not in the second moment of her life by
being purified : as this distinction was simply
 not taught before St. Thomas Aquinas, he cannot
be criticized for not holding it. There was no
 unanimity before him as to how to reconcile
these two points of doctrine. And therefore the parallel
 with baptism of desire does not stand at all! Neve
r could a Pope define a doctrine contrary to what the
 Church has always taught.
Lionel:St.Thomas Aquinas had it
right on salvation theology.

And he who denies a point of doctrine of the Church,
 knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition
 of the Church is not without sin against the virtue of Faith
 ("without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" ! Dz 799)

3/ Third error : The Council of Trent teaches 
that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification
 "but not for salvation". 

The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire
 is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated
 in Session 7 Canon 4 on the sacraments in general:
 "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New
 Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they 
are superfluous; and that men can, without the
 sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the
 grace of justification by faith alone, although
 it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary
 for each individual, let him be anathema." (Dz 847).

Beware of ambiguous translations! In their recent
 flyer on "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the
 Council of Trent", they use an ambiguous translation 
of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): "the instrumental
 cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism,
 which is the sacrament of faith, without which no 
man was ever justified…" Now the Latin has 
"sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio": thus
 the terms "without which" refer to the faith
 (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament 
(neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo).
 Thus in the translation found in "The Church
 Teaches" (TCT 563), one finds: "… without
 [which] Faith no one has ever been 
justified." Why not use the established
 unambiguous English translation? Why
 replace it with an ambiguous one?

Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: "it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time, if they but die in the state of grace…" In other words, 
salvation (which is at the end
 of the Christian life on earth) only
 requires perseverance in the state of
 grace received at justification (which 
is at the beginning of the Christian life
 on earth). Baptism is the sacrament of
 justification, the sacrament of the 
beginning of the Christian life. If one 
has received sanctifying grace (which 
is the reality of the sacrament, res
 sacramenti, of Baptism), he only 
needs to persevere in that grace
 to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires
 obedience to the Commandments of God,
 including the commandment to receive
 the sacrament of Baptism: thus there
 remains for him the obligation to receive
 baptism of water, but it is necessary for 
him no longer as mean (since he already 
received by grace the ultimate fruit of tha
t mean), but only as precept. In case o
f circumstances not depending on our will
 and preventing us from fulfilling such a 
precept, "God takes the will as the fact."
 This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, 
St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.

Lionel:The baptism of desire 
does not exist in our reality.
So it is not an exception to 
the dogma EENS,

It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments
 in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in
 the expression "re aut voto") deals with justification
 as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism 
deals with salvation as opposed to justification.
 Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly
 with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation",
 the expression "grace of justification" in that context 
appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential 
requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session
 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the 
sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular,
 without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic 
reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the
 Church on baptism of desire, only reach false conclusions.

That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut
 voto" is so much the more true since baptism of
desire is an exception, a special case, not the
normal one. One needs not mention exceptions
each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are
many definitions of the church on original sin that
 do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for
 instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: "nullus omnino
 – absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt
of the guilt of original sin: such "definition" must
 be understood as the Church understands it, i.e.,
not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same
way, it is sufficient that Baptism of desire be explicitly
 taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some
 place, it is not necessary to expect it at every page
of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a
negation of it. This principle is important to remember,
 in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique
 of the Feeneyites: they accumulate quotes on the general
 necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on
Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:Yes I would hold the many
 quotes on the necessity of the 
baptism of water in the Catholic
 Church. This was the 
standard teaching for centuries.
 Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly
 the common teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Lionel: I also affirm the strict
 interpretation of the dogma
 EENS, like Fr.Leonard Feeney
and I do not reject the 
baptism of desire as a theoretical 
 possibility known only to God 
and which would include the baptism 
of water.Since the baptism of
 desire is never explicit for us
 human beings I do not have to
 reject it.
Implicit for us baptism of desire
 is compatible with the dogma
 EENS as it was known in
the 16th century for example.
I reject explicit for us baptism 
of desire.It would e contrary
 to Principle of Non Contradiction.


 The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism,
as understood "in the same sense and in the same
 words" as the Church always understood it, far from
 excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.

The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of
 proper Thomistic Theology 

To remedy the errors of modernism St. Pius X has
ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy
 and theology. A book like "desire and deception" put
out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition
 to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory
 by St. Pius X. Let us hear St. Pius X: "We will and strictly
 ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of
 the sacred sciences… And let it be clearly understood
 above all things that when We prescribe scholastic
philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic
 Doctor has bequeathed to us… They cannot set aside
 St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions,
without grave disadvantage."
Lionel:.Scolastic philosophy
 is rational and Feeneyite.
The SSPX philosophy is irrational 
and Cushingite.

St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each
sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum
 tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing
 the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed
 of matter such as water, and form such as the words
 of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called
sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which,
in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate
 reality is both signified and produced by the exterior
sign and further signifies and produces the third element.
3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate)
reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental
grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further
actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier
of Christ, etc.
Lionel:The baptism of desire 
 for example, does not have 
an exterior sign as does the
 baptism of water. It is not
 a Sacrament.

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

One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. 
And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints 
of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without
 the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with 
sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council 
of Trent says above), and nobody dying withou
t sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.

Lionel: We cannot say that
 any one on earth will go 
to Heaven without the 
baptism of water in the 
Catholic Church and with
 baptism of desire or a 
good conscience(LG 16) etc.


Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is
absolute for the third element of Baptism, the
 new birth by sanctifying grace, element which
 is found in each of the Three Baptism (even more
 perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of
water, as is the constant teaching of the Church).
 Hence the common teaching on the necessity
 of Baptism includes the three Baptisms.
Lionel:This is meaningless.
Can I say that any particular 
non Catholic will go to Heaven 
without the baptism of water? No.
Since if there was an exception
 it would known be known to God.
So there are no exceptions to 
the dogma extra ecclesiam 
nulla salus and the dogma 
does not mention any exceptions.
The baptism of desire has 
nothing to do with the dogma
 EENS.The popes and saints 
mentioned it in response 
to questions asked of them.
The Letter of the Holy 
Office 1949 made the 
mistake.The magisterium 
accepted it. The 1949 magisterium
 opposed the pre-1949 magisterium
 of the Church.
A new theology was created upon
 visible for us baptism of desire,
without the baptism of water
 in the Catholic Church.So it was
 inferred that there was known 
salvation outside the Church.
Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the 
third element, as the only mean at our disposal to
 receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament
 itself is "the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith]
 no one ever was justified" as says the Council of 
Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly 
sets the absolute necessity on the third element
 (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One
 finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, 
chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely
 necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the new life
, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times
 Our Lord insists on the necessity to be "reborn, born
 of the Spirit". The water is mentioned only once as
 the mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our 
disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can 
infuse this new life, (justification) even without water,
 as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).

The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when
 they deal with sacramental character or with
 "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" (confusion on the third
 element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to 
Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in
 Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus). 

Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error:
pride that makes them more attached to their novelty
 than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers,
 Doctors and Saints?
They are following the age-old
teaching of the Church.Visible 
for us baptism of desire is a novelty
 in the Church.


"Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my praye
r to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness,
that they have a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge." (Rom. 10:1-2) How much I wish and
pray that, relinquishing their error, their refusal
of the traditional teaching on the Three Baptism,
 they embrace the whole of Catholic Faith (not just
 defined Dogmas). They pretend to defend Dogma,
 but not with the truth! One cannot defend truth with
error. Their error only gives easy weapons to the
 enemies of the Dogma! "Not knowing the Justice of
 God (interior sanctifying grace of justification by
 living Faith) and seeking to establish their own
 (exterior belonging to the Church by exterior
sacraments), [they] have not submitted themselves
to the justice of God" (Rom. 10:3).
Lionel: Eric has not made the
 distinction between visible
 and invisible BOD etc.He has
 not touched upon this point

We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute 
necessity of interior sanctifying grace (inseparable
 from the true Faith, Hope and Charity) and the 
necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto 
– in reality or at least in desire" as teaches the 
Council of Trent.
We must also clarify when we
 are referring to visible and
 invisible BOD.

In his time of confusion in the teaching of the
 Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable
 teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing
 what the Church has always believed and taught
 "in the same meaning and the same words,"
 not changing one iota to the right or to the left,
 for falling from the faith on one side or the other
 is still falling from the true Faith, "without which
 [Faith] no one ever was justified!" (Council of 
Trent, Dz 799).

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

Lionel: This is also their prayer 
for you, the liberals and the
One of the two groups has to 
be rational.Creating a new 
theology upon invisible cases
 being visible is not being
 rational or Catholic .-Lionel Andrades

No comments: