FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Another EENS, please be patient... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Another EENS, please be patient... (/showthread.php?tid=44655)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - UnamSanctam - 06-26-2011

I wish that mainstream Catholicism would redirect their ire and admonish the modernists rather than the feeneyites.

I respect Fr. Leonard Feeney, and his beliefs.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-26-2011

@Wulfrano:

I have. THe summary is this: Fr. Feeney could not assent to his superiors to be present, because the order in which he was called upon was contrary to canon law. He was not given a list of charges, and he was not given other necessary specifics to make the whole process canonical. If he would have shown up, he would have given sanction to uncanonical proceedings, and would have confirmed the liberals in their tactics.

Moreover, doctrinally:

Concerning explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Innocent XI, in his condemnation of certain errors on moral questions, “Errores varii de rebus moralibus,” includes the following heretical proposition:

“(It is error to believe that) 64. A man is capable (capax) of absolution, however much he may labor in ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even though through negligence, be it even culpable, he does not know the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Concerning explicit faith in the Catholic Church and in her supremacy, the Ecumenical Council of Constance condemned the 41st proposition of John Wycliff in which this heretic said that it was not necessary for salvation to believe in the supremacy of the Roman Church.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-26-2011

(06-26-2011, 07:56 PM)Gregory I Wrote: @Wulfrano:

I have. THe summary is this: Fr. Feeney could not assent to his superiors to be present, because the order in which he was called upon was contrary to canon law. He was not given a list of charges, and he was not given other necessary specifics to make the whole process canonical. If he would have shown up, he would have given sanction to uncanonical proceedings, and would have confirmed the liberals in their tactics.

Moreover, doctrinally:

Concerning explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Innocent XI, in his condemnation of certain errors on moral questions, “Errores varii de rebus moralibus,” includes the following heretical proposition:

“(It is error to believe that) 64. A man is capable (capax) of absolution, however much he may labor in ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even though through negligence, be it even culpable, he does not know the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Concerning explicit faith in the Catholic Church and in her supremacy, the Ecumenical Council of Constance condemned the 41st proposition of John Wycliff in which this heretic said that it was not necessary for salvation to believe in the supremacy of the Roman Church.

I am a simple catholic layman.  I am no hierarchy.  If Rome says that feeney is out... Feeney is out!


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - GottmitunsAlex - 06-26-2011

(06-26-2011, 08:37 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 07:56 PM)Gregory I Wrote: @Wulfrano:

I have. THe summary is this: Fr. Feeney could not assent to his superiors to be present, because the order in which he was called upon was contrary to canon law. He was not given a list of charges, and he was not given other necessary specifics to make the whole process canonical. If he would have shown up, he would have given sanction to uncanonical proceedings, and would have confirmed the liberals in their tactics.

Moreover, doctrinally:

Concerning explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Innocent XI, in his condemnation of certain errors on moral questions, “Errores varii de rebus moralibus,” includes the following heretical proposition:

“(It is error to believe that) 64. A man is capable (capax) of absolution, however much he may labor in ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even though through negligence, be it even culpable, he does not know the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Concerning explicit faith in the Catholic Church and in her supremacy, the Ecumenical Council of Constance condemned the 41st proposition of John Wycliff in which this heretic said that it was not necessary for salvation to believe in the supremacy of the Roman Church.

I am a simple catholic layman.  I am no hierarchy.  If Rome says that feeney is out... Feeney is out!
Does the same hold true when said Benedict XVI is in....Benedict XVI is in?!




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-26-2011

(06-26-2011, 08:40 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 08:37 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 07:56 PM)Gregory I Wrote: @Wulfrano:

I have. THe summary is this: Fr. Feeney could not assent to his superiors to be present, because the order in which he was called upon was contrary to canon law. He was not given a list of charges, and he was not given other necessary specifics to make the whole process canonical. If he would have shown up, he would have given sanction to uncanonical proceedings, and would have confirmed the liberals in their tactics.

Moreover, doctrinally:

Concerning explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Innocent XI, in his condemnation of certain errors on moral questions, “Errores varii de rebus moralibus,” includes the following heretical proposition:

“(It is error to believe that) 64. A man is capable (capax) of absolution, however much he may labor in ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even though through negligence, be it even culpable, he does not know the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Concerning explicit faith in the Catholic Church and in her supremacy, the Ecumenical Council of Constance condemned the 41st proposition of John Wycliff in which this heretic said that it was not necessary for salvation to believe in the supremacy of the Roman Church.

I am a simple catholic layman.  I am no hierarchy.  If Rome says that feeney is out... Feeney is out!
Does the same hold true when said Benedict XVI is in....Benedict XVI is in?!


I am talking of the Rome of Pius XII.  The Rome of "you know who" of course has to have Benedict XVI in.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-26-2011

So you are qualified to assert "official" documents when it agrees with your worldview, but if any other even MORE authoritative documents say "On the contrary" suddenly you are not qualified?

Logical fallacy.

If you are a simple Catholic layman, and if that qualifies you to withhold judgement on a particular document, how about being consistent with your EXCUSE and say the same thing about the excommunication (so-called) of Fr. Feeney?

Why not? Because your position is inconsistent. You repeatedly assert Pius XII, but then you ignore the fact that he suspended the Penalties of POpe Paul IV's Cum ex. You assert the authority of Pius XII and Pius IX, but then you either ignore, or fail to address where they differ from YOU.

I thought the hallmark of the sedevacantist was "The greatest defenders of the papacy." Yeah; when THEY are the pope of their own doctrinal little kingdom, sure.

I myself disagree with the majority opinion about BOD, but as far as I can tell, I am allowed to by the current hierarchy. The current hierarchy allows for the stricter interpretation of EENS.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-27-2011

(06-26-2011, 10:42 PM)Gregory I Wrote: So you are qualified to assert "official" documents when it agrees with your worldview, but if any other even MORE authoritative documents say "On the contrary" suddenly you are not qualified?

Says it all!



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-27-2011

The following is an extract from a long post I made earlier.  I don't think this was answered (sorry if it was)

#######################################################################
##### FOLLOWERS OF FATHER FEENEY:  IS THIS CHRIST'S CHURCH? ###############
#######################################################################

I think you turn the long history of Baptism of Desire in the Church into a series of logical blunders, fuzzy sentimentalism, stumbling over what past Saints said by mistake, not seeing invisible water (I think I've heard folks say this),  speaking a little carelessly, poor thinking, post-modern liberalism etc, etc.  Well by those "blunders", according to  you, a virtual denial of the central Catholic truth "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" has crept into CATECHISMS and THEOLOGY MANUALS  and common teaching for CATHOLICS since Trent.  Well, I think this is saying that CHRIST DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PRESERVING TRUTH IN HIS CHURCH, and that FATHER FEENEY (and others like him) WERE NEEDED TO START TURNING THINGS AROUND.  I know we have reasons to question some of what recent  post-Vatican II Popes have taught.  But that is not PAR FOR THE COURSE as you seem to make it.

You say that the teaching of Baptism of Desire is unclear.  Well, then you must think CHRIST ALLOWED THE VAGUE INSIDIOUS MYTH OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE TO SLITHER THROUGH HIS CHURCH with the same results in the teaching of Catholics since Trent, and Father Feeney then came as a knight on a white horse brandishing the Catholic sword of faith to save the day. 

Christ has (in your scheme) allowed even POPES to confuse Catholic theologians and children's catechisms, rather than to enlighten us further on how to understand the SAME DOCTRINE.  He allowed supposedly non-infallible teaching to almost totally OBSCURE rather than support the infallible teaching of the past

----
NO!  I think that Christ has let truth, not hideous error into the catechisms of children and approved theological manuals for adults.  In modern times - but about a century ago! - even the catechism of Pope St. Pius X taught baptism of desire. Oh - maybe the Pope didn't officially direct the catechism, but it was written for his Catholic flock. Baptism of Desire came into the Church far, far earlier in history - not in the inventive minds of post-modernist theologians. Christ guided the growth of the belief in Baptism of Desire.  We need to fight the liberals' corruption of  Baptism of Desire - not Baptism of Desire itself.

#######################################################################
#######################################################################



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-27-2011

(06-27-2011, 06:57 PM)Doce Me Wrote: The following is an extract from a long post I made earlier.  I don't think this was answered (sorry if it was)

#######################################################################
##### FOLLOWERS OF FATHER FEENEY:  IS THIS CHRIST'S CHURCH? ###############
#######################################################################

I think you turn the long history of Baptism of Desire in the Church into a series of logical blunders, fuzzy sentimentalism, stumbling over what past Saints said by mistake, not seeing invisible water (I think I've heard folks say this),  speaking a little carelessly, poor thinking, post-modern liberalism etc, etc.  Well by those "blunders", according to  you, a virtual denial of the central Catholic truth "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" has crept into CATECHISMS and THEOLOGY MANUALS  and common teaching for CATHOLICS since Trent.  Well, I think this is saying that CHRIST DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PRESERVING TRUTH IN HIS CHURCH, and that FATHER FEENEY (and others like him) WERE NEEDED TO START TURNING THINGS AROUND.  I know we have reasons to question some of what recent  post-Vatican II Popes have taught.  But that is not PAR FOR THE COURSE as you seem to make it.

You say that the teaching of Baptism of Desire is unclear.  Well, then you must think CHRIST ALLOWED THE VAGUE INSIDIOUS MYTH OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE TO SLITHER THROUGH HIS CHURCH with the same results in the teaching of Catholics since Trent, and Father Feeney then came as a knight on a white horse brandishing the Catholic sword of faith to save the day.   

Christ has (in your scheme) allowed even POPES to confuse Catholic theologians and children's catechisms, rather than to enlighten us further on how to understand the SAME DOCTRINE.  He allowed supposedly non-infallible teaching to almost totally OBSCURE rather than support the infallible teaching of the past

----
NO!  I think that Christ has let truth, not hideous error into the catechisms of children and approved theological manuals for adults.  In modern times - but about a century ago! - even the catechism of Pope St. Pius X taught baptism of desire. Oh - maybe the Pope didn't officially direct the catechism, but it was written for his Catholic flock. Baptism of Desire came into the Church far, far earlier in history - not in the inventive minds of post-modernist theologians. Christ guided the growth of the belief in Baptism of Desire.  We need to fight the liberals' corruption of  Baptism of Desire - not Baptism of Desire itself.

#######################################################################
#######################################################################

OKay Doce, I replied to this, perhaps obliquely, so let me make this excruciatingly clear:

Your position is fallacious on its face. WHY? Because BOD is NOT DOGMA. THere have been all KINDS of pseudo-heresies that have confused the Church: Subordinationism, and its outgrowth, ARIANISM. There were only a handful of theologians who fought that heresy, 75% of the church succumbing. Fr. Feeney is not the only one to emphasize EENS, but also Abp. George Hay, Fr. Michael Meuller, and Orestes Brownson, also an american!

Let's take your objection point by point:

"...Well by those "blunders", according to  you, a virtual denial of the central Catholic truth "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" has crept into CATECHISMS and THEOLOGY MANUALS  and common teaching for CATHOLICS since Trent. 

Such a belief is not incompatible with the Church's existence, because Catechisms and theology manuals do not make up the magisterial documents of the church.

Well, I think this is saying that CHRIST DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PRESERVING TRUTH IN HIS CHURCH, and that FATHER FEENEY (and others like him) WERE NEEDED TO START TURNING THINGS AROUND.

The Truth is not preserved in Catechisms and theology manuals, but in the Documents of the Ordinary and Extraordinary magisterium. THat is why magisterial documents are called "IMmediate" sources of faith, and scripture and tradition are "remote" sources of faith.

  I know we have reasons to question some of what recent  post-Vatican II Popes have taught.  But that is not PAR FOR THE COURSE as you seem to make it.

Pre or post VII is irrelevant to me, we have to question a fallacious teaching WHENEVER it is observed, and is pernicious.


You say that the teaching of Baptism of Desire is unclear.  Well, then you must think CHRIST ALLOWED THE VAGUE INSIDIOUS MYTH OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE TO SLITHER THROUGH HIS CHURCH with the same results in the teaching of Catholics since Trent, and Father Feeney then came as a knight on a white horse brandishing the Catholic sword of faith to save the day.   

False: SO many "Traditional" catholics, and catholics in general, seem to be laboring under the delusion that God's protection over his church is ABSOLUTE: it is not. Christ promised only that the gates of hell would not prevail in the end. He did not promise the church would not be decimated to within an inch of her life. Look at God's promise to David: He promised David would have perpetual succesors on his thrown. Well, when the Babylonians killed King zedekiah, and when the Assyrians killed the king of israel, and no king reigned in israel until the time of Judas Maccabeus (WHo was NOT of the line of David), Did God break his promise to David? No, because Chist, as the son of David, reigns today, seated in glory as the king of heaven. God keeps his promises in the way that he sees fit.

And like I said, it was not only Fr. Feeney who defended this doctrine. The priests and theologians of Port-Royal defended it, Abp. Hay, Fr. Michael Muller, and Orestes Brownson defended it. ANd in these latter days, Fr. Feeney has defended it. He is one of many, and there will be more. Arianism had not only Athanasius to contend with, but Also St. Basil and St. Gregory.


Christ has (in your scheme) allowed even POPES to confuse Catholic theologians and children's catechisms, rather than to enlighten us further on how to understand the SAME DOCTRINE.  He allowed supposedly non-infallible teaching to almost totally OBSCURE rather than support the infallible teaching of the past.

Yeah, Popes can do that in their capacity as private theologians. Look at Popes Liberius and Honorius. Tell me they didn't confuse the people pf God.

Now, as a POSITIVE, I will repost what I wrote as a response a few posts earlier:




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-27-2011

(06-11-2011, 01:15 PM)Gregory I Wrote: For DOCE.

Before I demolish any misconceptions, and because you seem to like the saints writings (Even though I insist on magisterial teaching) COnsider what St. Francis Xavier Said:

" Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not
appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before,
especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve
over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free
them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none."

Saint Francis Xavier



By all means, allow me: ;D

First, there are different english translations of the council of Trent, some more accurate than others. The translation of the word "sine" is always "Without", not "except through." The "except through" translation is a dynamic equivalency that has no place in the translation of an actual ecumenical council, since dogmas are made up of WORDS. THerefore we cannot play fast and loose with them.

Now, here is the line in question, not as I translated it, but from this site that translates it into english by "Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)"

19th century, fairly removed from the controversial mid 20th century.

Having established that, let's look at the phrase as translated in the 19th century:

"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

My friend; context, context CONTEXT. Listen: The declaration that the translation from a state of injustice to justice cannot take place without baptism or its desire is made in the CONTEXT of the following line: "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Now, please tell me, if this supports baptism of desire, how it makes sense to first emphasize the necessity of baptism, the to say that you can actually be justified by desire, then to reemphasize the necessity of sacramental water baptism in our Lord's own words?

It doesn't, it is a glaring inconsistency, because the END emphasis is on sacramental water baptism, but the FIRST emphasis is on the inability to be justified WITHOUT Baptism or its desire. In order for this to make sense, as the author intended, we must take batism and its desire as a single unit. Similar to how we are saved through faith, yet er must be baptized. We are not saved through faith alone. So we are first moved by faith which leads us to desire baptism, whereby we actually are baptized. Now, can you be justified if you eliminate any portion of this process? NO!

If you have "Faith" in the revealed truth, but you do not desire baptism, you are a hypocrite and condemned.
If you have faith and "desire" baptism, but as fire insurance, simply to be sure of not going to hell, you commit sacrilege against the sacrament (by having a faulty disposition, and are condemned by the very waters that would save you.
If you have faith, which leads not simply to desire, but to the Latin Voto (a solemn vow and intention) and are baptized you will be saved.

Do you see how it is necessary to both desire baptism and receive it to be saved? In other words, you must be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. And the text itself says what is a proper disposition: a vowed intention to receive the sacrament (The word voto used here in latin indicates a vow, not simply desire, which is a completely different word.)

Can I back this interpretation up?

YES I CAN! From the SAME council in the SAME Session, just paragraphs later:

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
"Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

So we see first that in order to be disposed TOWARD Justice, a man must first be moved to faith, and then to penitence which is necessary, then to intend to receive baptism. But is such a person justified? NO. THey are disposed, but not justified, for read what follows:

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof. (apparently not anything that came before)

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by [b]Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[/b]

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified.

So clearly, according to Trent, a man cannot be saved without baptism or its desire. The words "except through" are a faulty translation based on faulty premises (reading into the text what is not there).

Also, Trent specifically says the desire to receive baptism is a disposition. It also clearly indicates that this disposition does not justify in itself, but only inasmuch as it leads unto the instrumental cause of our jsutification, which is baptism alone, since under the list of causes Trent makes no mention of any kind of "desire" or even "vow" being in any way the instrumental cause of any person's justification whatsoever.

What has happened is you have not read the council of Trent in accord with itself. Because of that, you are applying modern theology and terminology retroactively to ideas that are not extant in the council. As for the Catechism

A). It is not a magisterial document, but rather a document promulgated and port forth by the magisterium. THere is a difference. THe Catechism is subject to the magisterium, it is not the same as it. It is merely a compendium of magisterial sources, that is why it is called the Catechism of THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, not simply, the teaching Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. SUch a Catechism has never existed. THey are all specifically indicated as subject to the magisterium, and therefore exist apart from it.

B). THat passage of the Catechism is clear under the insttitution of Baptism who it applies to:

"The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

Oh, can we say it again? ALL who were to be saved. Not just the majority. Everyone who is going to be saved, according to the Catechism, is gonna have to be baptized.

"Oh, well that is only in one place." NOPE!

"Ministers In Case Of Necessity

"Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This office extends in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

And here indeed let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord. Seeing the necessity of this Sacrament for all, He not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common, as its matter, but also placed its administration within the power of all. In its administration, however, as we have already observed, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity, but because they are less necessary than the Sacrament."

Again, under the extraordinary ministers of baptism, the Catechism Refers to it as NECESSARY for ALL.

Plus, you simply neglected the single most detrimental line to your entire argument:

Necessity of Baptism (These quotes are in order of appearance, so that what is referred to as already being explained is what has already been quoted)

"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Again, the rigorist position is maintained: All gotsta be baptized or go to hell, even if their parents are infidels living apart from the faith! No warm and fuzzy sentimental theology HERE thankyouverymuch. ;)

The following quotes from the Catechism of Trent also ENTIRELY back up my point:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Again we read:

"Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved."


SO: THe final recap: According to the Council and Catechism:

First, a desire to receive baptism is necessary to be saved. But this is only a first step, a disposition, and does not justify in itself. Second, the Person desiring must desire RIGHTLY and freely and with faith. Third, the Person intending to receive baptism must repent of his sinfulness. And even here, he is not yet justified. Finally, he is actually baptized, and it is here that he is finally made just, for there is one sole instrumental cause of our justification, sacramental water baptism.

In regards to what you quoted, it should be noted that even if the Catechism were not in error on this point, if a person died and went to heaven without baptism, but GOd chose to ressurect them, could they receive the eucharist or other sacraments? NO! THe obligation to receive baptism remains. But why is that, if the person was in heaven? Didn't they enter into the ultimate of what God desires? are they not worthy above all, having entered into the holy of holies? NO! For they are not made members of the church, and sacraments are reserved for the members of the Church alone. THerefore, it is entirely questionable whether such a one would go to heaven at all. It is a precarious position to say that member may be made a member of the church triumphant without ever having been a member of the church militant, when there are not three churches, but ONE mystical body of Christ that IS the Roman Catholic Church, as taught for millenia and recently reemphasized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. I contend simply with Fr. Feeney, I do not know this persons fate, but it is not heaven, since he is not a member of the church.

TO conceive of an invisible church apart from the organizational church is what the protestants teach, and it is a heresy; it is a variant of the "branch theory" put forth by Anglicanism.

I am STILL patiently waiting for any document of the ordinary magisterium that teaches or shows what is considered baptism of desire. SO far everything supports the rigorist interpretation, not the post-modern liberal theologians.

Also, if you take into account the fact that the position I maintain, which is the position is the COuncil and the ROman Catechism, then you will see that St. Alphonsus has innocently made a similar blunder as you. BOD is not condemned after all, but it is not greater than a theological opinon.

It certainly has no greater weight than Limbo which everyone seems to enjoy rejecting so much, even though Limbo is built on surer theological footing. But that's a whole other story.