Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Three errors of the Feeneyite movement by Eric Gajewski
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.it/2015/04/three-errors-of-feeneyite-movement.html
1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma "Outside the
Church there is no salvation."
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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".
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.
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.
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).
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
faith.
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
faith.
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
irrational.
and priests like Archbishop
Lefevbre assume that there is
salvation outside the Church
they imply that there are
known exceptions.This is
irrational.
_____________________________________
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?
"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.
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.
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
saved.
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
saved.
So there is only one known
baptism and not three.
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) !
Lionel:
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.
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
inference.
above has made this wrong
inference.
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.
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."
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
EENS.
were Feeneyites since the
baptism of desire and being
saved in invincible ignoranced
are not exceptions to the dogma
EENS.
___________________________________
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 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
discussion.
already been defined belongs to the Deposit
of Faith, and everything else is opened to free
discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
error,
interpreted with or without this
error,
___________________________
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…"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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".
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).
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?
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
is rational and Feeneyite.
The SSPX philosophy is irrational
and Cushingite.
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.
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.
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 most
important one, because of the obstacle
of a false faith, i.e. of heresy. In the
same way, baptism in a Catholic Church
of a person 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.
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 most
important one, because of the obstacle
of a false faith, i.e. of heresy. In the
same way, baptism in a Catholic Church
of a person 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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).
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?
pride that makes them more attached to their novelty
than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers,
Doctors and Saints?
Lionel:
They are following the age-old
teaching of the Church.Visible
for us baptism of desire is a novelty
in the Church.
teaching of the Church.Visible
for us baptism of desire is a novelty
in the Church.
___________________________
Conclusion
"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).
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
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.
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.
Lionel:Yes.
We must also clarify when we
are referring to visible and
invisible BOD.
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).
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.
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
traditionalists.
for you, the liberals and the
traditionalists.
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
be rational.Creating a new
theology upon invisible cases
being visible is not being
rational or Catholic .-Lionel Andrades
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.it/2015/04/three-errors-of-feeneyite-movement.html
No comments:
Post a Comment