Comments/ questions by a Cushingite on the book BREAD OF LIFE by Father Leonard Fenney.
2 ". No Salvation Without Baptism of Water The second point is that a person justified by Baptism of Desire could never be saved without Baptism of Water. Fr. Feeney presents a series of questions and answers to express his position on this matter: Q. What does “Baptism of Desire” mean? A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it. Q. Can “Baptism of Desire” save you? A. Never. Q. Could “Baptism of Desire” save you if you really believed it could? A. It could not. Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification? A. It could. Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved? A. Never. [Ibid., p. 121.] For Fr. Feeney a man could be justified by desire for Baptism. He could get into the State of Sanctifying Grace in this fashion. But even though he was in the State of Grace he could “never” be saved; he could never get to heaven unless and until he was baptized with water. Nor did it matter to Fr. Feeney whether the person failed to receive Baptism of Water through his own fault or not. He said: “If you do not receive Baptism of Water, you cannot be saved, whether you are guilty or not guilty for not having received it. If it was not your fault that you did not receive it, then you just do not go to Heaven. You are lacking something required for Heaven. " FATHER FENNEY WAS WRONG ON THIS>>>>>>>
Lionel: He was not wrong. For us human beings there is salvation only with the baptism of water.We can speculate about the baptism of desire etc.But finally the dogmatic teaching is that all need the baptism of water. Meanwhile you and I know that there are no objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.
___________________________
"But what happens to a person who is justified by desire for Baptism and who is thus in the State of Sanctifying Grace if that person dies before receiving Baptism of Water through no fault of his own? Fr. Feeney says: “Imyself would say, my dear children, that a catechumen who dies before Baptism, is punished.” [Ibid., p. 125.] Recall his words already quoted: “It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.” [Emphasis in the original] [Ibid., p. 25.]
Lionel: I would say the same thing. In our reality there is only the baptism of water for salvation This is the general rule. If there was an exception it would only be known to God.So we cannot speculate and theorize as if we know how God will act, especially since there is a non existent case before us.
Who is this person who is justified by desire for Baptism and who is thus in the State of Sanctifying Grace ? ...he is anonymous.He does not exist in our reality. He is an unknown person.
_____________________________
Just think of the implications of Fr. Feeney’s teaching. Here is a man who is justified by desire for Baptism.
Lionel: Here is a man ?? Where is this man?
_____________________________
He is in the State of Sanctifying Grace. He, therefore, has within him a created participation in the very life of God. He is a child of God. He has the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Lionel: This is all speculation. It is meaningless.
There are no such cases known to us for us to judge and discuss them.In your mind would this be a visible case?
______________________________
He believes in the Catholic Faith. He loves God above all things. He relies on the merits of Jesus Christ for his salvation. He has perfect contrition for his sins. He is devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary and says her Rosary every day. He is preparing for Baptism. But before he receives it, he dies.
Lionel: Who is this person?
______________________________
Fr. Feeney would say that such a man cannot go to heaven because he was not baptized with water. Where does this man in the State of Sanctifying Grace go? Fr. Feeney says: “It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.” [Ibid.] FATHER FEENEY WAS WRONG!!!!!!
Lionel: Why was he wrong? He was telling you the norm for salvation is the baptism of water and that you and I do not know of any exception. A theoretical, speculative case is not an exception or relevant to EENS. This is the Cushingite false reasoning which you are using.
______________________________
" Now this is not the teaching of 20th century liberals in Boston, Mass. It is the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas himself.
Lionel: The Angelic Doctor did not say that the man in the forest was a visible and known exception to the dogma EENS which he, Aquinas, affirmed.
______________________________
And it was upheld by the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent.
Lionel: The Council of Trent did not state that ' the desire therof ' referred to a personally known non Catholic saved outside the Church. This is a false inference being made here. It is Cushingism.
______________________________
The doctrine of Fr. Feeney and his distinction between Justification and Salvation thus flies in the face of the teachings of St. Thomas and of Holy Mother Church. Recall, if you will, the questions and answers of Fr. Feeney which we have already quoted: Q. Could “Baptism of Desire” save you if you really believed it could? A. It could not. Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification? A. It could. Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved? A. Never. [Feeney, op. cit., p. 121.]
Lionel: Correct.He is affirming the dogma EENS and literally he does not know of anyone saved outside the Church. So I agree with him.
______________________________
The essential error of Fr. Feeney, then, is rooted in his novel distinction between Justification and Salvation which involves errors touching both Justification and Sanctifying Grace. In these matters, Fr. Feeney departs from the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Lionel: He is affirming the dogma EENS.
Without the baptism of water there is no salvation.
We do not know of any body who is justified without the baptism of water or who is saved without the baptism of water.
We do not know of any body who is justified without Catholic faith and who is saved without Catholic faith, which would also include the baptism of water.
______________________________
He does this in order to foster and to protect his own doctrine of no Salvation without Baptism of Water. To further demonstrate this we will now proceed to a consideration of the teaching of the Catholic Church on Justification and sancttifying grace " Father Fenney was wrong!!!!!!!
Lionel: It is the teaching of the Catholic Church over the centuries.
_______________________
" St. Emerentiana — An Unbaptised Saint There are, therefore, many saints in heaven who never received Baptism of Water and who have not, 16 therefore, upon their souls, the indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism. For they were justified not by Baptism of Water but by Baptism of Desire or of Blood. Since they died in the State of Grace they were saved. The fact that they did not have the indelible mark on their souls which is placed there by the Sacrament of Baptism did not prevent them from entering heaven. They were justified. They died in the State of Grace. And they were saved. An example is St. Emerentiana, virgin and martyr. While still an unbaptised catechumen she was martyred at the grave of St. Agnes. Her feast day is January 23 rd "
Lionel: St.Emerentiana and St. Agnes may be in Heaven but no one on earth could say that they did not receive the baptism of water.
______________________________
" The Council of Trent and Baptism of Desire Thus the Council of Trent infallibly taught that Justification was “a translation from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam to the State of Grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour.” [Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, pp. 25-26.] The Decree of the Council says: “… and this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof [emphasis added], as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” [Ibid., p. 26.]
Lionel: It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney here.
______________________________
Please note that the Decree of the Council of Trent, which was infallible, did not distinguish between two kinds of Justification — one brought about by Baptism of Water and one brought about by desire for Baptism. It speaks of only one Justification which is “effected” by “the laver of regeneration [i.e., Baptism of Water], or the desire thereof….”
Lionel: Correct since in our reality there is only the baptism of water.
______________________________
That Justification is effected by “desire” for “the laver of regeneration” is an infallible truth.
Lionel: Practically we do not and cannot know of any such case of Justification with or without the baptism of water.
______________________________
It is, therefore, the same State of Justification and the same State of Grace that results whether the person is put into that state by Baptism of Water or by Baptism of Desire. Justification by Baptism of Desire is the infallible teaching of the Church. It is not a mere theological opinion that Catholics are free to reject.
" Therefore, a person who dies in the State of Justification, whether justified by the waters of Baptism or the desire for them, would be saved. The status of two souls — one justified by Baptism of Water and the other by Baptism of Desire — as regards salvation is the same. And again — this is true even though a person justified by desire for Baptism does not have upon his soul the character of Baptism which is the indelible mark put there by the Baptism of Water. "
Lionel: Again this is theoretical speculation.It is not a problem as long as the baptism of desire is not considered an exception to EENS.
______________________________
Q. If you got into the State of Justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved? A. Never. [Feeney, op. cit., p. 121.] The essential error, therefore, of Fr. Leonard Feeney is not that he taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. It is rather his rejection of the teaching of the Church on Grace and Justification in the service of his doctrine that Baptism of Water was absolutely necessary for salvation.
Lionel: He was speaking in a literal sense. You are mixing up what is theoretical as being literally known . This is the error of Cushingism.
How can unknown cases of Justification be relevant to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
______________________________
That he was wrong there is no doubt. Indeed his insistence that a justified person who has not been baptized with water could “never” be saved is essentially heretical.
Fr. Feeney’s accusation of heresy, therefore, against Cardinal Gibbons and the Baltimore Catechism for their teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood is an outrage and an absurdity.
Lionel: They were heretical since possibillities and hypothetical cases could not be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was also heretical.
______________________________
For in this accusation of heresy he would have to include St. Cyprian, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, not to mention the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Lionel: Wrong. They did not assume possibilities and unknown people were known exceptions to EENS. This was the mistake of the liberal theologians.It was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre. This still is the false inference of the bishops and priests of the SSPX, FSSP, CMRI etc.
Where are the exceptions to EENS in 2018?
Where are the known cases saved with Justification and other conditions?
Where is a known St. Emerentiana today?
There are no such people.
______________________________
It may be that at one time Fr. Feeney had a valid point to make in opposing the liberal tendencies of his day which sought to water down the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation so as to make it almost meaningless. But that is no excuse for him to deviate from Catholic Tradition and the infallible teaching of the Church on Baptism, Justification and Sanctifying Grace. His errors are most grave. For they involve the implicit denial of certain dogmas of the Faith — which is the very meaning of the word HERESY.
Lionel: He is affirming the dogma EENS and does not interpret speculative and hypothetical cases as being relevant or exceptions to EENS.
He is rational and traditional.
______________________________
Fr. Feeney wrote: “Q. If you got into the State of Justification with the aid of ‘Baptism of Desire,’ and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved? A. Never.” [Ibid., p. 121.] To say such a thing is to deny or doubt “a dogma properly so-called . . . 20 [which] is . . . the sin of heresy.”
Lionel: He is still affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.There are known known people with Justification who can be an objective exception to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be physically visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X for example says every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).
Are you saying that you know of an exception?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre know of an exception?
No.
So Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment