Monday, July 29, 2019

Feeneyite Follies


 It was October of 1995, and the verdict was announced in what can still be considered the most famous criminal case in United States history; the trial of OJ Simpson. There were strong feelings about the decision, and I was now working as a young lawyer in New York City. You couldn't get away from the Simpson case; it was ubiquitous on the media, and it seemed that's all people wanted to discuss, even almost three weeks later. I grabbed some lunch outside the courthouse at a nearby diner where you could be seated outside as well as inside during nice days, so I sat outside. That was my first mistake. There was a man sitting at the table next to me yelling (literally) about how upset he was that Simpson was acquitted.

 "Can you believe those idiots on the jury?" he screamed to the people sitting at his table (and everyone else within a square block who could hear him). "They declared that [expletives deleted] killer to be innocent!" "Nobody with any intelligence accepts that guy is innocent. Everybody knows he's guilty, right?" The loudmouth turned his (unwanted) attention to me. "Excuse me, sir, in the suit. Yeah, you. You don't agree with the jury finding Simpson innocent, do you?" I looked at him and said, "Simpson wasn't declared innocent of the crime." His expected reaction followed. "What? Do you have your head in the sand? Where have you been? The jury declared him not guilty!" I responded, "Exactly. A decision of not guilty is not the same as saying someone is innocent." He got even more angry. "Let me guess, you're a lawyer, and you're playing word games like a typical bleeding heart liberal!"

I tried to reason with him. That was my second mistake. "I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by a long shot, but I understand the law, and it's painfully obvious you do not. 'Innocent' means you didn't do something. In the law, 'not guilty' means that the prosecution didn't carry their burden of proof. Maybe he is guilty, but you were not on the jury and did not engage in the deliberations. As long as there is reasonable doubt, our system of justice will not send someone to prison, or execute that person, because it is better to let 100 guilty people go free rather than let one truly innocent person be punished. Not guilty is a declaration that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not that Simpson is really innocent of the charge."  He started accusing me of making things up because I agreed with the jury. Luckily for me, I had finished my sandwich, wished him a nice day, and headed back to court as he screamed that "lawyers like you are destroying this country." Whatever.

I'm recounting this episode in my life to make a point; never argue with someone who doesn't understand the basics of the discipline in question. A lawyer shouldn't argue the law with non-lawyers. Doctors shouldn't argue about the correct course of medical treatments with a non-physician. Likewise, don't argue theology with non-theologians who don't even grasp the basics--most especially Feeneyites. I don't spend much time on Twitter, but I decided to engage a couple of Feeneyites with the intention of pointing out some glaring errors. That was my first mistake this time out. As I've often stated, I'm not a theologian or a canonist. However, I know enough to realize I need to consult professional theologians from pre-Vatican II, just as I consult a doctor when I'm sick and don't try to "self-diagnose" on Web MD. I was lucky enough to have been taught by a real pre-Vatican II canonist, Fr. Gommar DePauw, founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, and he always taught me to seek out the teachings of the Church by Her approved theologians and canonists.

Feeneyites are those who deny the Catholic teaching on Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD), so named for the late Fr. Leonard Feeney (d. 1978). Feeney was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for disobedience, only to be accepted into the Vatican II sect before death by Montini (Paul VI)  without having to abjure his errors. Even Feeney didn't accept his heresy in its current form. That dishonor belongs to the malevolent would be "Benedictine" brothers, Fred and Bobby Dimond of  "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM) in New York. Their followers are, like them, fanatics--people who can't change their mind and won't change the subject. I tried to reason with them. That was my second mistake this time out.

 The Feeneyite Twitter followers all mimic Fred and Bobby by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as "heretics" and "liars." When you point out St Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori both taught BOD and BOB, they respond that these theological giants and Doctors of the Church made "innocent mistakes," but you are a heretic and a liar since you have something they didn't have--the "truth" as expounded by two men born in the 1970s with no ecclesiastical training or education, and not even a secular degree beyond high school. If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Ad hominem! the Feeneyite followers of MHFM shout. No, it's not attacking the person to show they are unqualified to speak to the subject. You can impeach an expert witness on the stand in court by showing he lacks the necessary skill and education. When I offered to formally debate a Feeneyite on a neutral forum so I could set forth the necessary background information, he refused and wanted me to "answer his questions." I then refused, since we were speaking past each other. Hence, my decision to write this post. I wish to remind my readers that a folly is "lack of good sense; foolishness." It describes Feeneyite errors perfectly.

The purpose of this post is not to go through all the errors of MHFM and their followers. That would require more posts than I care to think about, and I've written some posts on this topic before. My purpose is to expose their fundamental errors and hopefully God will reach some of them. If not, at least those Traditionalists who read this post will better understand how they get it wrong and will not fall into Feeneyism.I wish to credit Fr.DePauw, and all the approved pre-Vatican II theologians and canonists for setting forth the teaching of the Church. I also wish to thank and credit those who wrote extensively on this topic to the edification of all, especially Fr. Anthony Cekada, the Sisters of the CMRI, Dylan Fellows, Christopher Conlon, John Daly, John Lane, and Steven Speray. To all of them I give full credit for compiling and explaining the the truth about BOD and BOB as taught by the One True Church, and whose works can be used by all in Her defense.

Feeneyite Folly #1: Limiting and Misapplying Infallibility

Feeneyites will limit infallibility to the Extraordinary Magisterium alone. A few terms must be defined:

What is the Magisterium? According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is Divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19).

What constitutes the Magisterium? According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]; words in brackets and emphasis are mine).

The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council (1870).  The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra pronouncements of popes and Ecumenical Councils) and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible.

Feeneyites use the Extraordinary Magisterium to "check" the UOM for "error." Infallibility excludes even the possibility of error, which they don't understand. They refuse to learn from the UOM, so it ceases to be a Magisterium or teaching authority. If you point to the fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of  Pope St. Pius X both teach BOD and BOB, they will immediately respond that "catechisms are not infallible." Pure ignorance. As theologian Van Noort explains: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of Divine-Catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (Van Noort, Ibid, pg. 222; Emphasis mine).

They reject the infallibility of the UOM as dogmatically defined by the Vatican Council in 1870. If catechisms and the unanimous teachings of the theologians contradict their private interpretation of some ex cathedra pronouncement, the UOM must be discarded--they thereby reject the definition of the Council, making them heretics. Here are some historical examples of the UOM:

 100 A.D. Scripture is officially complete at the death of the last Apostle (St. John). Scripture confirms the Church founded by Christ cannot teach error, and that those who reject it are condemned. The pope and bishops of the Church continue to propagate the infallible Deposit of Faith (Scripture and Tradition) from generation to generation. Again, this teaching is referred to as the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) and is infallible. The primary methods of teaching used by the UOM are by preaching and writing.

300 A.D. The first three centuries of Catholics have lived without any teaching from the Extraordinary Magisterium. They have learned their faith solely through the ordinary everyday teaching of the popes and bishops (the infallible UOM). The Deposit of Faith remains completely intact and is infallible.

319 A.D. Arius, a Catholic Priest, is noticed to be preaching a doctrine on the Divinity of Christ that differs from the continuous teaching of the Church handed down (the UOM). The clergy know the Deposit of Faith handed down so far is infallible, so when they notice a departure from it, they immediately know it's heretical. Arius is then corrected by his peers.

326 A.D. The Council of Nicaea, the first use of the Extraordinary Magisterium since the founding of the Catholic Church, is called to order, which condemns Arius and his false doctrine, since he refuses to recant. The doctrine on the Divinity of Christ is already considered infallible through the day to day teaching of the UOM, and now the Church has confirmed it is infallible again through the Extraordinary Magisterium, so there is no confusion about it among the faithful.

Proof from Reason: It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible. She is to teach us the way to Heaven and cannot give that which is evil or erroneous. What kind of teaching authority can't teach? Feeneyites would have us restrict infallibility to those few, rare ex cathedra decisions, while everything else is liable to be erroneous, heretical, and/or evil. You could never be certain what to believe or do outside of those few definitions--and be prepared to use private judgement to discern with a checklist what UOM teachings you think "do not contradict" the Extraordinary Magisterium! It is blasphemous to even think the Church's teachings could be self-contradictory! That's the exact reason I'm a sedevacantist.

Feeneyite Folly #2: We Don't Need Theologians Because of the Plain Meaning of the Texts

 Feeneyites, despise the teachings of the theologians, insisting that anyone can read "the plain meaning" of the words. In a similar fashion, Protestants reject the Magisterium on the grounds that they can "read the Bible for themselves." A Feeneyite will say, "Then we need theologians to interpret those interpretations, and so on," contending an infinite regress. Here's what the Church actually teaches from the Vatican Council (1870): 

3. If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine)

Notice that doctrines must always be understood in the same sense as the Church understood.  That doesn't mean "read with plain meaning." To go back to the example of the Simpson trail, "not guilty" has always been understood as meaning the prosecution did not carry the burden of proof against the defendant in a criminal trial. It does not mean that the "plain meaning of the words not guilty are the same as innocent." The bishops are highly trained and educated men who use scholastic terminology not readily accessible to the average layman. That's why the Church orders catechisms for adults, such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, to explain in layman's terms the technical decisions. If the "plain meaning rule" were true, it would render adult catechisms superfluous, you would just read the Council documents. 

Feeneyite Folly #3: The Church Never Infallibly Defined BOD and BOB

 Ironically, the Extraordinary Magisterium did define BOD and BOB at the Council of Trent. On the "Sacraments in General:" 

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine)

From the Decree on Justification: 

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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 Savior. 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. (Emphasis mine)

How do we know what these passages mean? The unanimous consent of all theologians and the Catechism of the Council of Trent tell us so. You think this ends it? For a reasonable person, it would. However, Fred and Bobby know best! 

Feeneyite Folly #4: "The Desire Thereof" REALLY MEANS "Intent to Receive"

 In Trent's Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction, we read:

The Synod [Trent] teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament [Penance] be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein. (Emphasis mine)

We have a teaching on "Penance by desire." Later, the Decree states,

This Sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The Council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. However, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive the effect of the sacrament of Penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.

Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of Penance. Otherwise, it would not be true that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.

Feeneyite Folly #5--The Numbers Game
If you inform a Feeneyite that there was unanimous consent of the theologians and Fathers regarding the reception of the effects/grace of Baptism apart from the sacrament (BOD/BOB), you will get two standard responses from Fred and Bobby's script: (1) Not ALL the Fathers agreed, and (2) theologians are not infallible. They usually throw in Aquinas not accepting the Immaculate Conception as further "proof" that theologians and Doctors of the Church can be wrong. 

First, they don't understand that it's not  NUMERICAL unanimity but MORAL unanimity that counts. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):

When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

According to theologian Scheeben, The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich." (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, ""For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

So moral unanimity is the criteria for Fathers and theologians. As to the fact that theologians and even Doctors of the Church are not infallible, again, I turn to theologian Scheeben:

Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). As to Aquinas, the matter of the Immaculate Conception was not settled but open to debate among the theologians. His main problem was how to reconcile Mary's Immaculate Conception with the fact she (like all humans) needed to be redeemed. Pope Pius IX addressed this concern in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus when he defined that Mary was preserved free from Original Sin "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ." Hence, she was redeemed by Christ in a unique manner. 

The Extraordinary Magisterium is used to (a) settle disputed theological matters where there was no consensus of the UOM for some time and (b) to state emphatically a dogma under attack which was already of the Faith as I explained above (e.g., the Divinity of Christ). It is not a "check list" against which we accept or deny what the UOM has taught. 

Feeneyite Folly #6--The Canons of Trent "Prove" Only Water Baptism Saves

The Feeneyites will cite Trent's second canon on Baptism:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine). 

Yes, but context is everything. This canon was formulated by the theologians at Trent to condemn the heresy of the so-called Reformers (principally Martin Luther) who taught that since faith alone saves, if someone doesn't have water to baptize you can substitute it with milk or beer. Trent was defining the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism, not condemning BOD or BOB. 

Next, they cite Trent's fifth canon on Baptism:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Trent uses the exact same wording in regards to Penance:

CANON VI.--If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right;...let him be anathema.

Does that mean one who has just been baptized and dies right away will be damned because Penance is "necessary to salvation"? What about baptized babies? What about those who have been baptized, fall into mortal sin, and have never before confessed--can't they be saved by an Act of Perfect Contrition, or "Penance by desire"? Baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation, to use Scholastic terminology. It is that through which we are saved, just as a pen is the instrumental cause of someone writing something down on paper. The principal efficient cause of salvation is Faith and sanctifying grace; the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

Therefore, just as a writer can substitute a pencil for a pen (for he is the one who produces the words as principal efficient cause), so too can God substitute another instrumental cause (BOD/BOB) for the Sacrament of Baptism.

Finally, they quote from Trent that Baptism is the "Sacrament of Faith" and no one can be saved without Faith. From Trent's Decree on Justification:

"...the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;..."

So why is Baptism the "Sacrament of Faith"? The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "The holy Fathers designate [Baptism] also by other names. St. Augustine informs us that it was sometimes called the Sacrament of Faith because by receiving it we profess our faith in all the doctrines of Christianity. (pg. 110) Nowhere in the Council, its Catechism, or in the teaching of any approved theologian/canonist is it held that Baptism is called "the Sacrament of Faith" because it is the only way one can first receive Faith.

Feeneyite Folly #7--Canon Law Is Not Infallible
There are two deadly Canons in the (1917) Code that destroy the Feeneyite position. 

Canon 737 states, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation..."

This should end any doubt as to how the Church understands Trent's Canon IV on Baptism. However, Canon 1239, section 2 delivers another crushing blow:

Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.
Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See The Sacred Canons, [1951], pg. 493). 

This is devastating to the cause of Fred and Bobby, so they must deny that Canon Law is infallible. First, it is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 

Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See Mirari Vos, para. #9).

Feeneyites will make two objections: (1) The Code is not universal since it only applies to the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and (2) Canon 1 "proves" it's not universal.

In response to the first objection, it is sheer ignorance of Canon Law. According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: "A general [universal] law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances." (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory. The 1917 Code is therefore universal.

In response to the second objection, Canon 1 does state that the Code as a general rule does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that apply to all Rites: (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See Ibid, pg. 16).

To summarize:

  • Universal disciplinary laws are infallible
  • the 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law by the Church's own definition
  • It also applies to all Rites when it expresses a Divine Truth and/or declares something is Divine Law
  • Canon 737 teaches a Divine truth as to what is necessary to salvation
  • Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth
  • BOB and BOD are therefore infallibly taught by the 1917 Code of Canon Law
In addition, all Eastern (Oriental) Rites have their own Canons which mirror both 737 and 1239, making the definitive case that it is a universal disciplinary law no matter how you approach it.

Feeneyite Folly #8--The Approved Theologians and Doctors of the Church Are Mentally Imbalanced

 While those of us who believe in the teaching of the Church on BOD and BOB are "liars" and "heretics," the great theologians and Doctors of the Church make "innocent mistakes, " despite the fact that they are approved by the Church precisely because of the excellence of their teachings and orthodoxy. No pope, no bishop, no one for hundreds of years caught and condemned these heretical teachings. They were even published in approved Catechisms distributed to the faithful worldwide without objection. Only Fr. Leonard Feeney picked up on it in the 20th century, and only Fred and Bobby Dimond were able to "perfect his discovery" and find all these errors in the last 25 years or so. 

St. Alphonsus Liguori, a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church wrote in Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"

When Pope Gregory XVI canonized St. Alphonsus on May 26, 1839, the Bull of Canonization declared his works could be read "without the least fear of finding the smallest error." Yet Fred and Bobby Dimond have found him in "innocent error."  They know better than Pope Gregory. Furthermore, all theologians and canonists since Trent teach that the grace of Baptism can be received outside the actual sacrament. Yes, every single one that wasn't censured. They also teach the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in the same theological manuals they wrote--of course including the aforementioned St. Alphonsus.  Therefore, we must conclude that either there is no contradiction in the two doctrines, or these intellectual and spiritual giants were schizophrenic, not realizing their work was internally inconsistent.

Here are but two examples:
Theologian Ott: "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation" (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 356).
On the same page:"In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood."

Theologian Tanquerey: "Baptism of water is necessary for all by necessity of Divine precept." (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 2:226). On pg. 228, "Contrition, or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins."

How could these be "innocent mistakes" of theological giants? They would be heretics--and crazy ones--who don't see intrinsic contradictions in their own writings.

Conclusion
This post has been but a partial refutation of the numerous errors of the Feeneyites which have led them into heresy. It's amazing how the Twitter followers of MHFM all send pictures of the Dimond's website with Church decrees twisted out of the background context needed to understand them. They reject the UOM and drone on and on about "infallible statements"--which means the Extraordinary Magisterium only. "We only need to believe infallible teachings of the popes and Ecumenical Councils," they say.

The Church has condemned this very idea. 
  • Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."
  • Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

When you understand how the Church teaches us, the case against Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire simply does not hold water. 

136 comments:

  1. How do Feeneyites explain the Holy Innocents and the Good Thief? I have noticed that Feeneyites argue just like R&Rers. Same tactics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      They are WORSE than R&R. They make up things as they go along. I remember reading one Feeneyite, perhaps Adam Miller I’m not sure (not MHFM) , who claimed that Christ sent “miraculous water” over to the Good Thief along with His sweat, and so he got baptized. Lunacy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hey Tom A.

      Nice to see you here; I normally read your comments @ AKA Catholic.

      I am on the fence with BOD/BOB. I must admit that I have seen both sides of the argument and I don't think Inroibo presents the other side thoroughly enough, though I don't expect him to in one short post, and I have read his other posts on this topic. However, he does do a great job pointing out some of the things that give pause to the "Feeneyite" position. However, I am not sure Feeneyism is the best name to give this since Fr. Feeney believed in both Baptism of Water alone and BOD. His novel position was that BOD did not save but only justified a person. He basically shrugged his shoulders when asked what happens then to a soul that was only baptized by desire. Trent teaches that nothing is needed unto salvation once a person is justified, thus his position is not only novel but erroneous. I personally think there is enough confusion on this topic to render it open for discussion. Both sides can site theologians and papal teachings. Theologians given to us as Doctors of the Church have been wrong from time to time; that cannot be denied, as admitted by Introibo. My favorite of them, St. Alphonsus, referenced the wrong canon of Trent when defending BOD. What is said about one Sacrament cannot be extended to another unless explicitly stated. Especially with Baptism since Christ explicitly gave us the form and matter and gave no exceptions to it. He also said it was de fide when others, including the SSPX, deny it is de fide. Also, Catechisms are not infallible in all they say or we would have to believe that the conception of a baby is not the beginning of life (soul meets body) for the human person, per the Trent Catechism.

      The 1917 Code of Canon Law is by far the best argument against BOW only, but I am not sure it is a sure bet.

      ...

      Delete
    3. ...

      Re the Good Thief and the Holy Innocents, they died under the old law. That is an easy one to defeat. The precept of Baptism of Water did not come until later. Those who try to use this argument fall into the same error that the R&R does when they say Peter denied Christ as Pope. No, no, he denied him prior to being given the keys to the Kingdom. Let’s get the timeline correct.

      Re the Saints who were not supposedly baptized with water, nowhere does it say they were not. BOB is not denied but is denied as a replacement for BOW. Christ was baptized by both, as the Apostles. Worst case scenario, the Church can be wrong in “fact”, per St. Bellarmine, but not in its final decisions. Thus, the details around a Saints life may be wrong due to faulty history but they remain a Saint in Heaven regardless. Again, there is to much each side can offer to create enough room for debate. After reading about the North American Martyrs, I tend to side with the Diamond on this one.

      One axiom I can’t forget when thinking about this topic is “a change in degree does not affect the principle”. So…if BOD/BOB is allowed in any degree than the principle must be that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. No one can argue that the Church’s teaching on EENS did not apply to the visible Church and membership. As admitted by BOD advocates, BOD alone does not make one a member of the visible Church since it is not a Sacrament. What appears as a crack shortly expands to a breached levy, thus we have the logical conclusion of Vatican II and the Church of Christ being this invisible apparatus that holds many more people than us mere Catholics. So if one believes in the degree BOD/BOB allows, then it is feared that EENS is reduced to a meaningless formula. Maybe I am wrong but that is my fear at least. It would certainly be good to have a real scholarly debate on this without calling each other heretics. I don’t think it is warranted. The Diamond Brothers do a lot of that and it does not help their cause. In there defense though, I don’t think they reduce the OUM to being fallible. It is my opinion that they have done a good job pointing out that the Early Church Fathers were in no way close to moral unanimity on this. And those who advocated for BOD/BOB throughout Church history only allowed BOD for catechumens and spoke of BOB with no mention of it replacing BOW. I have learned a lot from John Lane and respect Steve Speray a lot too. Most take the corporate position on this and I am not sure one has to in order to remain Catholic. The reasons for questioning BOD/BOB are not the same for rejecting VII as an Ape of the Church.

      Anyway, I digress. I would love to have an offline conversation about this if you or Introibo are open to it.

      Peace and God bless!

      Delete
    4. @Cm7,
      Thank you for the thoughtful and charitable comments. Needless to say we disagree, but I see that you are sincerely looking for the truth. God will reward that.

      I cannot give adequate coverage to the errors of the Feeneyites (you are correct about Feeney, but the nomenclature sticks). It would take (literally) over a hundred posts.

      I wish I had time for a conversation offline. If you and Tom can get something going, let me know. I can use a fake email to protect my identity and offer some points when I can.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo,

      Regarding Fenneyites and the good thief, I was told that the good thief was under the old law as Christ had not died yet.
      Therefore, no Baptism was required.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    6. Joann,
      You are correct. Don’t think for even one minute that means some Feeneyites will not make up crazy stories!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Excellent! Fred and Bobby Dimond say the popes that taught BOD are material heretics while the rest of us are formal heretics. They don't even get that right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You missed the man's point completely. His point was that Simpson should have been condemned and punished, and instead was allowed to go free. Lawyerly quibbles about the legal definition of "not guilty" have nothing to do with what he said.

    The law exists to punish the guilty. It did not punish Simpson. The system failed us that day. That's all he was saying. It's not a difficult point to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:47
      The law exists to punish the guilty when proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This was not done. Neither of us were on the jury and engaged in the deliberations. He was objectively wrong in saying they declared him innocent. All of them might have believed him guilty but refused to convict as the prosecution did not carry the high burden of proof.

      To be certain, our system of justice is far from perfect, but it is still the best in the world—at least in my opinion.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Not sure if you know "Bishop" Neal Webster (he's originally from New York City BTW). He is a traditional sedevacantist but one who is a Feeneyite. I've had a few arguments with him about BOD and BOB in the past. We argued some of the same points you brought up in the article such as the one about the St. Pius X Catechism. His argument against the catechism was that there is no proof that Pope St. Pius X ever signed off on it or that he actually wrote it and I said why would a Pope's name be attached to something heretical and why would it be approved by the Church during his time? I said are you saying Pope St. Pius X or the Catholic Church before Vatican II approved of a heretical catechism? I asked him how was it possible for the Catholic Church to have saints like St. Emerantiana where she is mentioned in the traditional Roman Breviary for Jan 23rd (her feast day) which says "Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God." Is the Catholic Church heretical for approving a canonization of a saint and a Roman Breviary which is to be said faithfully by it's own priests and bishops? At this point he said he had to go to the bathroom and we quit talking. It's because he was full of crap.

    I think your readers also need to know about the question of his Holy Orders. It's very complex but I'll keep it as simple as I can (even though it isn't). Webster was ordained a priest by "Bp." Timothy Hennebery later consecrated by Bp. Slupski. As far as validity Bp. Slupski isn't the problem but Henneberry whom he was ordained by is. Henneberry was ordained by Bp. Moises Carmona and later consecrated by Bp. Maurice Terrasson. "Bp." Maurice Terrasson is where the problem is. Maurice Terrason was ordained a priest by Jean Laborie in 1974 and later consecrated by Clemente Dominguez (formerly known as "Pope" Gregory XVII). Jean Laborie had been consecrated by Louis Jean Stanislaus Canivet (Old Catholic Church) but later conditionally consecrated by Thuc in 1977. Clemente Dominguez started his whole religion based on an apparition and claimed he was pope and it was know he changed many doctrines within his own cult. This means Maurice Terrasson is a doubtfully priest and bishop. Webster claims that Maurice Terrasson was conditionally consecrated by Thuc but there is no record of it.

    Conclusion: For people who aren't Feenyites but who nevertheless need to go to Mass happen to run into him or a priest he ordained named "Fr." Dominic Crawford they will not only not get the Catholic Faith but also doubtful sacraments (no sacraments).

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      Never heard of “Bp.” Neal Webster. Thank you for giving us this information and the warning!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. His first name may be spelled Neil (not sure) but in any case he has a couple chapels in Tennessee and in Michigan. "Fr." Dominic Crawford was ordained a couple years ago by him and used to be a seminarian at the CMRI. He ended up getting booted out because of his error and for causing trouble. Not sure where he has "Mass" but there was a rumor that Webster was going to consecrate him bishop since Webster is now in his mid 70's and needed a successor. Unlike the Dimond Brothers, Webster is a very kind and devout person particularly when it comes spreading devotion to the Rosary and praying the 15 decades. He also is very up front to the point (the New Yorker in him) which is a good trait. While the Dimond brothers only attract their kind he can attract good people and that is something I also wanted to mention.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee. Thanks for the information on Webster. The difference between him and the Dimonds is that he does not force feeneyism down people's throat.

      I had problems following the trail. Precicily why is Websters Consecration and (ordination?) doubtful. Was it because he was ordained/consecrated by invalid bishops or because the valid bishops who ordained/consecrated him were of a false religion?

      Delete
    4. It seems according to your link that Webster is at least a valid priest so the sacraments would be valid.

      Delete
    5. Lee,
      Dylan Fellows and Christopher Conlon (Whom I credit) wrote against Crawford. I’m surprised the Dimonds don’t use him as their “clergy.” Then again, they would lose their monopoly as the Supreme Authority on Feeneyism!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. John Gregory,

      Sorry I didn't explain myself that well. The way I see it, the problem is with Jean Laborie. He ordained Terrasson in 1974 and three years later he (Jean Laborie) was conditionally consecrated by bishop Thuc. While it's possible that he was valid coming from an old Catholic line, he ordained Terrasson at the time when his line came from the Old Catholics sect before he (Jean Laborie) was consecrated again. This means Maurice Terrasson was a doubtful priest when he was ordained by Laborie. Terrasson was consecrated by Clemente Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory XVII). That in itself would not make his Orders invalid because it could have been, but knowing what we know now about Palamar de troya it would seem suspicious as to whether Dominiguez had said the proper form or had the right intentions when his cult intentionally changed doctrines. For example: Since 1983 the Palmarian liturgy has been reduced to where it now just says the words of consecration. They've declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith. Clemente Dominquez claimed to be pope because of visions. What if he had a vision telling him to say different words at the consecration or having a different intentions? So in my mind that would be doubtful too although Laborie was where it was the main problem. I could be wrong and if I am I will gladly admit it. Thank for your compliment though.

      Introibo,

      I'm surprised the Dimonds go to a Byzantine rite Mass said in union (UNA CUM) with Francis and yet condemn everybody else for going to sedevacantist clergy when they are sedevacantist. The Dimonds act like they are God. In their mind they cannot be wrong, nor can anybody tell them they are wrong without getting anathematized.

      Lee

      Delete
    7. Lee,
      I’ve heard they now go to no one and just pray the Rosary. Who knows? They once claimed you could go to a Sede “heretic” priest who believed in BOD as long as you didn’t contribute money. By the same logic why not go to Eastern Orthodox just don’t contribute money? The only thing they will NEVER change is their opposition to BOB and BOD because their reputation and followers would disappear and they know it.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Yes,they are now home alone types who don't recommend any Priest or Bishop.
      They also address valid priests who don't go along with their program as
      Mister so and so.
      One priest ordained by
      Bp.Lefevbre told me they addressed him as such in an email exchange.
      (Very disrespectful)
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    9. Andrew,
      Yes, and ironically Fred and Bobby are the ones playing “Brother” Peter and “Brother” Michael. It’s a pathetic joke.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. Thanks for the info Andrew and Introibo. I wasn't aware that they no longer went anywhere anymore. It has been some years since I've kept up with them.

      Lee

      Delete
  5. At the end of the day, these people with all of their good intentions (I give them the benefit of the doubt), are extremely prideful. They love and thrive on having the inside supposed scoop, and to Hell with of the rest of us that don’t agree with them, quite literally. Oh boy can they get nasty! Thing is, Our Lord told us multiple times through the Holy Scriptures and the saints, Saint Teresa of Avila comes to mind, not to dare to bind His Hands and Holy Will! Yes, I have heard one of them say that the Holy Water was sent to baptize the Good Thief, it is just ridiculous. Sunday Our Lord told us that not everyone who says Lord Lord will He recognize. We must follow His Will, not our own. And Holy Mother Church has spoken on this matter, and to be true Catholics we must obey! I wish these people would let that truth sink in! Holy Mother Church has spoken! Aside from this, what gall to question the Church Fathers and Holy Mother Church! There are many canonized saints who were baptized through Desire and blood! But they come up with excuses to ignore them! And people follow! It is sad, but the Evil One knows how to play on people’s pride. We pray! This is exactly the pattern the Protestants followed when they revised the books of the Holy Scriptures! I pray they wake up! They may have good intentions, but they must be told they are wrong! Better to realize now, than to have Our Lord tell them at their personal judgement. I am praying that they will at least reconsider and not blindly follow those who believe themselves more knowledgeable than canonized Church Father saints! They are wolves in sheeps clothing and are trapping a lot of innocent lambs!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I almost got tripped up by Feeneyite rhetoric several months ago. They present their view well (at least, the more mature ones do). Most of them told me to read the Dimonds' book, "Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation."

    I read through 80% of it in an afternoon, and found it to be very bad. The main issue I found is that they will attack the credibility of a source when that source is in favor BoD. However, if that VERY SAME source says something AGAINST BoD, then they will "resurrect" the source, cite it, and extol its authority in the Church. They did this with:

    -St. Gregory Nazianzus ("just one father, not infallible;" then he was "the only Father to be called 'the Theologian.'")

    -the Roman Martyrology ("not infallible;" then "definitive source that no Catholic can argue against.")

    -St. Thomas ("not infallible, denied IC;" then "one of the greatest doctors of the church.")

    -St. Alphonsus ("not infallible;" then "great moral theologian.")

    Of course, they attack the authority of Catechisms and parse the words of Trent. Very two-faced.

    Ultimately, I put my trust in St. Alphonsus. St. Alphonsus is one of the greatest Doctors in Church history and, like you mentioned, his work is sanctioned as being free from error. Curious how no one picked up on the heresy of BoD during St. Alphonsus' canonization...!

    Great article, keep up the good work! God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:19
      Thank you my friend! God kept you out of the Feeneyite trap; Deo gratias! You are a wise person to put your trust in the Magisterium and the incredible St Alphonsus! You’ll never go wrong sticking by his approved teachings!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. This is a topic close to my heart. Those two "brothers" are incredible. Thanks for the article. I noticed one error at the begging.

    That would require more posts than I can to think about

    I think you meant "care" rather than "can".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @John Gregory,
      Thank you! Yes, you caught a typo—thanks again. Very hard to proofread your own work!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. "because it is better to let 100 guilty people go free rather than let one truly innocent person be punished"

    Off topic, I know, but this statement is, in my mind, just another one of those bizarre dogmas of liberalism that people are taught to believe nowadays by the liberal society in which we live, but no one really believes it because it is so contrary to reason and common sense.

    Allowing guilty people to go free is just as much an injustice as punishing an innocent person. This "100 guilty people" myth implies there is no harm done -- or only minimal harm done -- in allowing a guilty man to go unpunished. Nothing could be further from the truth. Allowing a guilty man to go unpunished is an injustice to his past victims, the innocent victims whom he will use his new-found freedom to murder or victimize, and the people of society in general, who have a right to be safe from criminals whom the legal system has determined to be guilty.

    Someone facing a choice of punishing 100 guilty people or allowing one innocent man to be punished is faced with a choice between two evils that are inherently wrong. Since neither one is acceptable, but he must still choose one, he must choose the one that is a lesser evil. Punishing an innocent man does not harm society, but only one man. Allowing 100 guilty men to go free endangers the common good and will result in far more innocent people being killed or harmed than the single innocent person whom we elect to punish.

    I know it's not exactly the same case, but St. Thomas Aquinas said that if a judge only knows through his own personal knowledge that an accused man is innocent, yet there is a weight of evidence against him that is sufficient to convict him by legal standards, the judge must try to find some way to poke holes in the evidence, but if unable to do so he must condemn the accused man. Here is the quote:

    https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS067.html#SSQ67A2THEP1

    What a contrast those medieval theologians had to our own times of wickedness!

    As I said, nobody really believes it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than punish one innocent man. Don't believe me? Try the following experiment. Ask several people if they would release 100 Ted Bundy-like killers into the public rather than punish one innocent man. Most people will say "No! Keep those people locked up where they can't kill anyone else!" It's just common sense, of which liberalism is the great enemy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon1:03
      Please understand that no one is advocating for guilty people to go free. Personally, I wish we were under a Catholic King like my patron Saint, King St Louis IX of France. That having been said, our criminal justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. There are other countries (mostly totalitarian governments) where the presumption is that if you get arrested you must have done something wrong.

      In explaining why we have such a presumption, the Founding Fathers (Deists And Freemasons mostly) valued “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” You can’t pursue happiness unless you’re alive and free. To take either away is so serious, that it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I said in another comment that our system of law is FAR from perfect, but still the best we have—at least in my opinion.

      I would be the first one to agree that I would never want a Ted Bundy (let alone 100 of him) go free. Then again, that’s not what is meant. It is a way of emphasizing that we need a presumption of innocence and a high burden of proof to protect the citizens from trumped up charges. Ask those same 100 people if they think evidence of a low standard should be allowed to incarcerate an innocent person who can expect to be sodomized, beaten, perhaps killed—and if he survives treated like a pariah for something he didn’t do.

      That’s all I was saying; not advocating for freeing criminals, nor am I “liberal.” If anyone ever called me “liberal” to the people I work with, they would laugh for days—I have a reputation as an “extreme right-wing reactionary.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. One of the men ordained by Bp.Terrason claims that Clementè conditionally ordained,using Trad rite of Ordination,every Bishop he subsequently consecrated.
      His blog is called
      "Blue Flower" and lives in England if you want to contact him.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew and all others re: ordination,
      The big problem lies in the fact that Dominguez was an illiterate with no Ecclesiastical training of any kind. He didn’t understand and couldn’t pronounce Latin, so “Mary” told him God’s favorite language after Latin was Spanish (how convenient). Those who do not have minimal training have no presumption of validity in conferring the Sacraments. That alone makes everything Dominguez did dubious at best.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I will NEVER understand why Bp.Thuc consecrated those Men.
      From what I've read 2 of them were valid priests ordained before July 1968.

      Ordination is not good for men without training but I understand they needed valid Holy Mass and Sacraments.
      Consecration was unnecessary and extremely unwise.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    5. Also remember that as Introibo said, our justice system is masonic in nature and valies natural life above all other things. In a Catholic world, the supreme good would be the soul and supernatural life of the accused. The system would seek that the accused repented of his crimes by confessing to a priest before the State would extract its punishment. This seems so foreign to our ears. But we have been conditioned by the masonic education system that even most trads would find the techniques and goals of an Inquisition type justice system abhorrent. Modern man certainly does.

      Delete
    6. @Andrew,
      It even goes beyond that to a presumption of INVALIDITY. Dominguez was an illiterate chicken farmer. Do you really think he could navigate the Roman Pontifical? Abp. Thuc actually did the ordinations and Consecrations at the instigation Of Abp. Lefebvre who didn’t want to go himself, and asked Abp Thuc to investigate. Abp. Thuc, being disillusioned by V2 fell for an apparitionist.

      @Tom,
      Yes. I don’t find them abhorrent. I just realize this is the best we are going to get during the Great Apostasy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Idk,I'm ambivalent about the validity.
      If Bp.Dominguez could recite Latin and have someone say aloud the essential form and he simply repeats what he's heard,it COULD
      POSSIBLY BE VALID.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  9. Here is a proper link for priest ordained by Bishop Terrason.
    https://sarumuse.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/romantic-sarum/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Logically thinking if there is no BOD or BOB then that means God wills people to go to Hell. Since many people were created after Christ who would never hear the gospel God would have created those people knowing they had no chance to ever be saved, which would be an evil act and therefore impossible for a perfect God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan,
      An excellent argument!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo, please explain how Ryan's argument is excellent. His first comment assumes too much and proves nothing and his second comment is a straw man. He brings ignorance into the argument which has nothing to do with BOB or BOD. How can someone be ignorant of something they desire?

      Delete
    3. @CM7,
      The salvific will of God wishes all men to be saved, but only with their cooperation. Ryan is in complete conformity with Catholic doctrine. How does God will the salvation of those who could not hear the Gospel through no fault of their own? (Think Of The Chinese in first century).

      Pope Pius IX specifically taught that those who live upright lives and desire to do what God wants of them (whatever it may be), then it is possible for God to save them.

      Ignorance doesn’t save you, but salvation must be open to all or God does not will the salvation of all people. You may be ignorant of something specifically, yet desire it generally.

      For example, you desire to do God’s will for you tomorrow, correct? Yet you do not know precisely what that might entail since you don’t know the future.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. 2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

      Delete
    5. I am pointing out that Ryan is assuming that God can't bring a person to salvation without BOD/BOB. That is an assumption too far. I did not say he was not in conformity with Catholic doctrine re God's desire for all mankind to be saved.

      What Pius IX taught, what you summarized, says nothing about people being saved without BOW, but that they can be saved if they live upright lives and desire to do what God wants of them.

      If a person is sincere in their desire to be baptized and live an "upright" life, then God will provide them the means of salvation. They will not remain in ignorance and denied what is necessary for salvation.

      Let's also not forget that these ignorant people you claim to be eligible for BOD must believe in the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation in order to be saved.

      Delete
    6. Thank you Introibo you have captured the spirit of my argument well.
      CM7 you will have to forgive me I tend to leapfrog steps when I lay out an argument.

      Lets start with what we know:

      We know God is perfect, we know because God is perfect he cannot perform an evil act

      We know that God creates the soul

      We know that the sacrament of Baptism is inseparable from the Gospel

      We know that people in first century China, or the America's before the 15th century never heard the Gospel.


      With those facts I will now lay out my argument:

      If God created a soul and placed it in South America in the year 150 AD, without BOD or BOB God would have created a soul with the purpose of sending it to Hell. In other words without BOD or BOB God explicitly wills souls to Hell, which is evil. Since we know God is not evil we know that it must be possible for a person to be saved who has never received the sacrament of Baptism.

      Really this only makes sense, and I think there is something wrong with Feeneyites who believe that every single person who was born in the "wrong" place and time deserves to burn in Hell.

      Delete
    7. @CM7,
      What does Pope Pius IX actually teach?
      Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (August 10, 1863):
      . . . they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who . . . live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God . . . will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

      What saves them? “Divine Light and Grace.” He did not write “Baptism,” did he? God could enlighten the mind and infuse the Faith and sanctifying grace before death in BOD. Hence they die as Catholics in the state of Grace.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Hello Ryan, thank you for responding. I appreciate your thoughts on this and have some further comments.

      You said, “We know that people in first century China, or the America's before the 15th century never heard the Gospel.

      However, I am not sure how you know this with absolute certitude, or even moral certitude. The argument of silence cannot be used to prove a point. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

      You then said, “If God created a soul and placed it in South America in the year 150 AD, without BOD or BOB God would have created a soul with the purpose of sending it to Hell. […]

      This is a leap too far for you since it excludes every other possibility available to God. The quote above by St. Thomas should make that clear. I am not sure what every “Feeneyite” believes concerning the dessert of those born in the wrong place and time, but I don’t think you can cast such a vast net without catching some friendly fishes in it. For instance, St. Alphonsus taught in Preparation for Death: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”

      I will be the first to admit that what St. Alphonsus says here is not binding on me but it sure does place him in the same net you are trying to catch all "Feeneyites" with.

      My point is simply this, your argument is not valid and is based on too much assumption and a tinge of emotion. We know God gives sufficient grace to all people, how He does it is not a mystery we need to concern ourselves with.

      Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is, we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

      Peace and God bless!

      Delete
    9. Introibo,

      The Church teaches us that the instrumental cause of justification is the Sacrament of Baptism, which has the matter of water. You know that BOD is not considered a Sacrament by anyone. So for you to say that Pius IX was saying that justification can come to a person apart from the Sacrament of Baptism is confusing.

      Pius IX is not saying what you are having him say. He simply says that those who “labor in invincible ignorance … CAN (not will) by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life…”. I may be missing it but I don’t see where he says “divine light and grace saves them” apart from baptism. I am baptized and I am certain divine light and grace got me to that point. You then add the word “sanctifying” before his word of grace as if there is no other grace God gives to mankind that nudges him towards sanctifying grace. And if the invincibly ignorant person is enlightened by divine light and grace, then that person would not be invincibly ignorant anymore and would know the will of God and the need for baptism. And if they were of good will and lived an upright life, then they would not be deprived of the saving waters of baptism. God does not demand the impossible and there is no doubt that baptism and membership in the Catholic Church is both a necessity of means and precept.

      St. Gregory Nazianz says, “If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”

      Peace and God bless!

      Delete
    10. You're very welcome and thank you. I had tried to respond to you earlier, but my comment wasn't woven into this thread so I will leave it here and expand a bit on your most recent comment:

      ["I am pointing out that Ryan is assuming that God can't bring a person to salvation without BOD/BOB. That is an assumption too far." What exactly are you arguing that God doesn't use BOD/BOB, but he does use a more mysterious method? Can you see how that is a contradictory argument?

      Anyways, I guess I haven't been clear enough, but that's not really what I'm saying, the feenyites believe if your not baptized your condemned right? So, not that it would necessarily have merit, but you can replace BOD/BOB with whatever other method you wish and my argument will remain unchanged. My argument is that God can save people who have not received the sacrament of baptism. ]

      You're arguing essentially (if I have it right) that on one hand God cannot will people to hell, that he gives us all the necessary graces to save our souls. And on the other hand that everyone must receive the sacrament of baptism to be saved. However when the argument arises that the sacrament of baptism did not exist for a vast number of people and therefore a logical contradiction of the previous two points exists you respond that we are assuming too much. Yet it simply the premises of your argument that have logically boxed you into to this contradiction.
      If we are logically forced to accept that God either inspires or sends a teacher to those whom the Church cannot ever reach, but who intrinsically desire the faith. Then by what argument can we deny the doctrines of BOD/BOB or of invincible ignorance, or that God has perhaps even other means to save people outside of baptism.

      This is to say if you believe that God has a way around the logical contradiction of your premises, then why is that way not BOD/BOB?

      As an aside I naturally cannot disprove the negative that the things that we have no historical record of did not happen, we can only make judgements on what facts we do know.

      Thank you for the well thought out comment
      I do like your quotes, but I think that we read a quote and think there can be no possible exception or that we understand the meaning or spirit of what was written with perfect clarity then since we ourselves are not infallible we may not understand it as perfectly as we believe.
      God Bless.

      Delete
    11. @CM7,
      Don’t you assume that Pope Pius IX means Baptism? Why didn’t he just use the word? St Gregory N believed firmly in BOB, an extra-Sacramental way of receiving the grace of Baptism. (I Can get the exact citation if you don’t believe me).

      Consider: Did not Jesus Christ Himself say,
      “You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (St Matthew 5: 27-28)

      So the THOUGHT AND DESIRE TO COMMIT ADULTERY is like the act itself and can damn you to Hell. If evil thoughts and desires can CONDEMN AND DAMN why is it so hard to believe that good thoughts and desires can FORGIVE AND SAVE??

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. "I am pointing out that Ryan is assuming that God can't bring a person to salvation without BOD/BOB. That is an assumption too far." What exactly are you arguing that God doesn't use BOD/BOB, but he does use a more mysterious method? Can you see how that is a contradictory argument?

    Anyways, I guess I haven't been clear enough, but that's not really what I'm saying, the feenyites believe if your not baptized your condemned right? So, not that it would necessarily have merit, but you can replace BOD/BOB with whatever other method you wish and my argument will remain unchanged. My argument is that God can save people who have not received the sacrament of baptism.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What exactly are you arguing that God doesn't use BOD/BOB, but he does use a more mysterious method? Can you see how that is a contradictory argument?"

      I am saying that God can bring about water baptism in miraculous ways, not that he can save a person apart from water baptism. Just because you don't see a person get baptized, or read about it, or can't fathom how it can happen, does not mean it did not happen.

      Can you give me one quote from any Pope in history that tells us there are 3 different forms of baptism or that one can be saved with desire alone without water baptism?

      Delete
    2. @CM7,
      So we now have to hypothesize that miraculous water saves?

      No one said there are three Baptisms, any more than there are “two Penances”’because of an Act Of Perfect Contrition. There is one Baptism and two ways of obtaining its grace outside the actual Sacrament.

      On October 18, 1912, Pope St Pius X promulgated the Catechism which bears his name. The answer to question 29 states, “If he [a person outside the Church] is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if if he has received Baptism l, OR AT LEAST THE IMPLICIT DESIRE OF BAPTISM; and if moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently IS ON THE WAY OF SALVATION.
      (Emphasis mine).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. @CM7
      Now I can't disprove that every single person who was saved outside of the Church, wasn't saved by a miraculous baptism of which there was no historical record.

      However I think it would be a lot more believable if you had argued that everybody who ever lived outside of the Church never had a soul.

      Delete
    4. Better yet The Pope St. Pius X Catechism says this (I showed this to"Bp." Neil Webster):

      17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
      A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

      link here: http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/PiusX/CATECHISM_OF_ST_%20PIUS%20X.htm

      Who will dare argue with Pope St. Pius X?

      Lee

      Delete
    5. Good morning gentlemen!

      So what should we make of this? It was stated in the same catechism.

      Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III: "But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”

      "So we now have to hypothesize that miraculous water saves?"---No. We have to accept that natural water can be made available miraculously. I know you would not deny that.

      If the effects of baptism can come to be without the Sacrament, then why is the instrumental cause alone water baptism? Why didn't Trent say that desire alone or fallen man's blood can be instruments of Justification like it did for Penance?

      Are you equating the Catechism of Trent with the Council itself? Even the catechism put out by TAN says that the catechism is not infallible.

      St. Gregory Nazianzen, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Oration XXXIX, Oration on the Holy Lights: "I know also a Fourth Baptism--that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent; and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains."

      I may be missing the quote Introibo alluded to but this one above does not mention BOB as a replacement for BOW. However, I am curious to know the other 3 baptisms he makes mention of.

      We can do this all day. Each of us can post a quotation from one Saint or another, and then another can counter it with a different quote by the same Saint or another. The main point I am trying to drive home is that this topic is far from being settled. This is clear to me by the fact that none of you today hold the positions of the Saints and Fathers you quote. Very few, if any, of them believed in an implicit desire for baptism or that it applied to anyone other than martyrs. The Church has constantly taught against the idea that one can be saved in ignorance. The Catechism of Trent is simply mistaken in its commentary where it has no root in Church teachings. The Catechism cannot be used as a bludgeon.

      Introibo, you are the first to say we cannot bind another to our own positions since there is no authority to bind us as a whole. We know that any and all non-magisterial comments (Saints, Theologians, Fathers) must be subject to magisterial ones, especially ex cathedra pronouncements. I am simply asking for you or anyone else out there to provide me with one single quote from the magisterium of any Pope that teaches explicitly BOB or BOD. We both know there are many that rule out all exceptions to water baptism, most notably the words of Christ Himself which the Church takes and understands literally, as they were written.

      Peace and God bless!

      Delete
    6. @CM7,
      I’ve already gave you the Catechism of the Council Of St Pius X. A pope cannot teach error to the Church ex cathedra or not. Your contention that a Catechism is not infallible is not the same as saying it can teach error.

      Trent already defined INFALLIBLY that Baptism or the DESIRE THEREOF saves. See my post above. Canon Law is infallible and teaches BOD. It was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.

      I will also supply teaching of popes, but I have no access to my library at work. What I’ve written should be more than sufficient to prove BOD.

      I can also flip it on you: Name one pope who Infallibly defined there is no BOD or BOD.
      None of them condemned the Catechisms and theologians who taught it. Are they all idiots, incompetent, or heretics for allowing “heresy” to be propagated for centuries??

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo,

      Do you believe that a soul is united to a body after a certain lapse of time? Is this an error in the Catechism? I do believe it is. So what are we to thing about this? You must admit that the Catechism can be and is in fact in error.

      "Trent already defined INFALLIBLY that Baptism or the DESIRE THEREOF saves."

      The Council of Trent defined this? Please show me where; what canon. I believe we have looked at what the Council of Trent teaches and nowhere does it teach that desire alone saves. And it never even touches BOB.

      Please share with me a Church teaching telling me that Canon Law is infallible in every word. Also, just because Canon Law allows for a position or pastoral practice does not mean it teaches it explicitly or that it binds the faithful.

      "I can also flip it on you: Name one pope who Infallibly defined there is no BOD or BOD."

      I will try to do so in my next post.

      “None of them condemned the Catechisms and theologians who taught it. Are they all idiots, incompetent, or heretics for allowing “heresy” to be propagated for centuries??"

      This last comment of yours demonstrates, once again, that the very topic we are discussing is OPEN TO DEBATE. I never once said those who believe in BOB/BOD are heretics; not once. It is precisely my position that either position can be held and neither is heretical or in bad faith.

      In summary, BOD/BOB is a theory that has been entertained and not condemned by the Church. It is not de fide or binding. You are trying to bind me to something the Church doesn’t. It was St. Alphonsus’ opinion that it was de fide, but he was wrong, not a big deal. It is my understanding that St. Augustine held that it was de fide that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell and that St. Cyprian held that it was de fide that heretics cannot validly baptize. Both were wrong. No big deal. What the Church teaches in Her Magisterium is what we are bound to.

      Without an explicit teaching from a canon in the Council of Trent on this, you have no case.

      Peace and God bless!

      Delete
    8. @CM7,
      I'm not binding anyone to anything, the Church had taught BOD and BOB. I mean no disrespect, but it seems you've read NOTHING I've written in my post above.

      Where does Trent teach BOD infallibly?

      From the decree on Justification cited above in my post:

      From the Decree on Justification:

      By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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 Savior. 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.(Emphasis mine)

      Your insistence on only following the Extraordinary Magisterium is un-Catholic as I demonstrated above. The UOM can NEVER contradict the Extraordinary because Christ does not contradict Himself. He gave us a Church that can TEACH--and not just rare ex cathedra pronouncements.

      From Pope Pius IX:
      “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that
      it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and
      constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

      You do NOT follow that principle.

      CONDEMNED proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."

      Pope Pius XII teaches:
      "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

      You do not believe this--what you do is "check" the teachings of the UOM against the Extraordinary Magisterium to see where (in your private judgement) there is a conflict, and ex cathedra trumps.

      I don't know if the soul remains in the body after death, and if so for how long, and NEITHER DO YOU. Therefore, you can't claim the Catechism contains error on that basis.

      In a sense BOB is only ANOTHER FORM OF BOD because the martyrs DESIRE TO BE WITH CHRIST or they wouldn't die for the Faith!!

      Continued below

      Delete
    9. Does Canon Law need to be infallible in every word? This very question shows a lack of understanding.

      Premise #1 The Church is Indefectible. (DE FIDE) She cannot give Her members evil practices and false teachings.

      Premise #2 Universal disciplinary laws are infallible

      Premise #3 the 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law by the Church's own definition

      Premise #4:It also applies to all Rites when it expresses a Divine Truth and/or declares something is Divine Law

      Premise #5 Canon 737 teaches a Divine truth as to what is necessary to salvation

      Premise #6 Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth

      Conclusion: BOB and BOD are therefore infallibly taught by the 1917 Code of Canon Law

      Why? According to theologian Herrmann:
      "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
      (Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

      The Church would be teaching something as certain which you think may or may not be true. This means that the Church defected which cannot happen. Priests are BOUND to treat Catechumens who die without Baptism through no fault of their own a Requiem Mass, treating them AS IF THEY WERE BAPTIZED. IT IS BINDING ON ALL PRIESTS OF ALL RITES.

      This ALONE should put to rest the idea that the CHURCH has not settled the matter and binds the Faithful. I'm the first one to admit liberty in things that have not been settled (e.g., attendance at Una Cum Masses). This is not one of those unsettled disputes.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. This is an article that goes into detail on what led to some confusion on this issue. It is from Monsignor Fenten's "No Salvation Outside of the Church. It is a bit long but will worth the read. One chapter of a small book:

    http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jul/jul17ftt.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Unknown,
      Thank you for the excellent piece!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. “Name one pope who Infallibly defined there is no BOD or BOD."

    As you know, there is no Pope who says, “there is no BOD or BOB”. However, using our intellect and keeping things in context, we can infer from words like “unless”, “without”, and “only those”, that all other options are being excluded. A few of these quotes speak more on Church membership or on being united to the BODY of Christ, which BOD does not grant even by those who advocate for it, i.e. St. Bellarmine. I left the majority of those quotes out since they do not directly address the challenge you proposed. All quotes were copied and pasted from other sources so please excuse any emphasis that remains; it is not mine.

    Peace and God bless!

    Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385: “As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ASK FOR WHAT IN THEIR FAITH IS THEIR ONLY HELP, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”

    Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

    Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

    Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

    Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”

    Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”

    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

    Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: “… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

    Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @CM7,
      Once more, I can't help but think you never read what I wrote in my post. I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CANONS TWO AND FIVE ON BAPTISM FROM TRENT. They do not mean what you think they do, just as "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" in my example concerning civil law, and why "plain readings of words" doesn't work. We need approved and professional theologians and canonists through whom the Church teaches us.

      I also find it interesting your last citation is to Pope St. Pius X. I guess he didn't bother to read the very catechism which bears his name and which he promulgated as Pope EXPLICITLY TEACHING BOD and BOB.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. CM7,

    I quoted the Pope St. Pius X's catechism which says (I'll quote it again)

    17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
    A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

    Are you saying he is teaching heresy here? As a pope through the Ordinary Magisterium he approved this to be taught among Catholics. Are you also saying you don't have to believe it even though it was his approved catechism? If so, then you have a serious problem and not those who believe in BOD and BOB. I recommend you read this: https://novusordowatch.org/2019/07/doctrinal-value-papal-magisterium/

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  16. Introibo,

    Let's cut to the chase and focus on these two sections of Trent which you say is a slam dunk case in your favor.

    CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

    The above quote concerns the Sacraments in General, correct? Yes.

    Can any of the Sacraments of the Church be obtained via desire, without the actual Sacrament? Yes, Penance, with perfect contrition.

    Does one become a priest, get married, or get confirmed if they simply desire it, or do they have to actually receive the Sacrament? No, the actual Sacrament is necessary.

    Are all the Sacraments necessary for salvation? No. I do not need to be married in order to be Justified.

    As you can see then, a statement made concerning the Sacraments in general cannot be applied to each and every one of them individually.

    From the Decree on Justification:

    By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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 Savior. 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.

    This quote from Trent concerns the impious, correct? Yes.

    Can a baby be impious; can he commit a personal sin? No. This excludes all without reason since they don’t have the faculty to desire something based on their intellect.

    Can a person with reason receive baptism without the desire for it? No. I cannot walk up to a person and baptize them without their desire. It would be invalid.

    As you can see, Trent is simply saying that an impious person cannot be Justified without the Sacrament of Baptism or the desire for it, just like you cannot have a marriage without a man or a woman.

    Peace and God bless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CM7,
      Three grace of 3 Sacraments can be received by desire; Baptism, Penance, and Holy Eucharist. Why? The theologians teach that these three pertain to salvation most directly. One must be baptized (or get the grace of the same). This requirement is absolute. Penance is necessary to be restored to grace after baptism. It is relatively necessary (if someone dies right after baptism it would not be absolutely necessary). To remain in sanctifying grace, the desire to be one with Christ in the Eucharist is relatively necessary. The other four Sacraments are not directly ordered to salvation in the same way.

      Can a baby be impious? You bet! Once more, the “plain meaning rule” does in those who seek private interpretations. I can name many writings, both theological and devotional, that describe the unbaptized (including infants) as “slaves of sin and belonging to the kingdom of Satan.”

      Once more, I honestly don’t believe you read what I wrote above! I address the “desire of” means “intent to receive” claptrap. Please read it again.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. I have no idea why you made this comment. I make no argument that would warrant such a reply.

    "I don't know if the soul remains in the body after death, and if so for how long, and NEITHER DO YOU. Therefore, you can't claim the Catechism contains error on that basis."

    I imagine this is about the Catechism teaching that the rational soul is not united to the human body immediately at conception. Are you trying to say that you don't know when the animating principal of the human body is united to it. Do you agree with the Catechism that it is not immediate? Or are you suggesting that the human body contains an animal or vegative soul at first conception and it is then swapped out for a rational soul after some period of time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @CM7,
      Two points:
      The ensoulment Of The zygote has never been defined and there are some problems with immediate animation such as the “twining phenomenon.” It may very well be the case ensoulment takes place after “some period of time.” It might be a mere few seconds.

      2. The Catechism Of Trent agrees with the Catechism Of St Pius X who promulgated it to teach the Church and containing an EXPLICIT teaching of both BOD and BOB.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The Catechism is specifically speaking about the human body in its first conception and then says the rational soul comes after conception. The quote below says that the form of the human body is the rational soul. Do you think it is relevant? IMO, to think that the form of the human body is not an intellectual/rational soul at first, posits the idea that a thing can substantially become another thing (or rational being) in the natural order.

      Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree #1, 1311-1312: “In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”

      Delete
    3. CM7,
      Once more, just as Pope Pius XII held that the human body may have been prepared for a human soul, it is not denying that the human soul is the form of the human body. Didn’t God First fashion the body of Adam and THEN breathe life into it? It’s in Genesis.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. But breathing life into lifeless matter is quite different from a living thing turning into a rational person.

      Delete
    5. CM7,
      God can create the matter first and the soul after. It’s not “turning into” a human—it is the matter sans form. At the resurrection of the dead, there will be corpses animated by their souls. This does not render the corpse “nonhuman” without the soul, but it is the matter without form. At the General Judgement, there will be recently deceased people with bodies that have (no doubt) mostly living cells.

      In any event, this issue is a red herring. Pope St Pius X promulgated a Catechism for the Church as pope which explicitly teaches BOD and BOB. This comports with the Roman Catechism and every Catechism since Trent such as the Baltimore Catechism.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. "Pope St Pius X promulgated a Catechism for the Church as pope which explicitly teaches BOD and BOB. This comports with the Roman Catechism and every Catechism since Trent such as the Baltimore Catechism."

      I agree with you on this point and will back out from here. I still have my questions and concerns but will deal with them apart from your blog. Thank you and God bless!

      Delete
    7. @CM7,
      Thank you for the exchange my friend! My prayers are with you in your search for the truth.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. I guess Pius XI is a protestant heretic:

    Nor do those only enjoy a participation in this mystic priesthood and in the office of satisfying and sacrificing, whom our Pontiff Christ Jesus uses as His ministers to offer up the clean oblation to God's Name in every place from the rising of the sun to the going down (Malachias i, 11), but the whole Christian people rightly called by the Prince of the Apostles "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood" (1 Peter ii, 9), ought to offer for sins both for itself and for all mankind (Cf. Hebrews v, 3), in much the same manner as every priest and pontiff "taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God" (Hebrews v, 1).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here is another one from Pius XII:

    88. Nor is it to be wondered at, that the faithful should be raised to this dignity. By the waters of baptism, as by common right, Christians are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ the Priest, and by the "character" which is imprinted on their souls, they are appointed to give worship to God. Thus they participate, according to their condition, in the priesthood of Christ.

    You're so "traditional" that you reject your own tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've read your blog off and on for years, just wanted to say that this is an excellent synthesis of the key points. The underlying issue-- the "metatheological issue," if you will-- boils down to how we learn the faith (which you well pointed out in conclusion, and a point that is well emphasized throughout your post). What counts as Catholic teaching? Because the Feeneyites diverge from the truly Catholic answer to this question, they diverge on baptism of desire and other issues. It is the rule of faith which is the real problem here. That is why you never tend to meet a Feeneyite who is content to only err on baptism of desire. No, it is almost invariably accompanied by errors in other matters. Most notably, I have never met a Feeneyite who did not also dissent from the Church's teaching on periodic continence and often erect as moral imperatives matters that are truly elective (e.g. Feeneyites I know believe that the use of alcohol is sinful and that the fifteen decade rosary is compulsory).

    So the ironic thing here is that what they accuse "us" of doing-- opening the proverbial floodgates to Vatican II by accepting baptism of desire-- is EXACTLY what they are actually doing with their rule of faith. They are cutting themselves off from the source of Catholic doctrine, and they are doing it in the worst period of time to do such a thing, the present crisis. It is hard enough to find the true faith amidst today's errors and anti-Church; refusing to rely on the material that IS available to us (catechisms, manuals, etc.) makes matters insurmountably worse and given enough time ends up creating completely new religions. A very sad state of affairs, pray for those who have fallen into this error.

    Cheers,
    Dylan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Fellows,
      Thank you for your most kind remarks! Truth be told, Traditionalists all owe you a great debt of thanks for your work against the Feeneyites.

      I agree that the error spreads to periodic continence and making devotions into some sort of "Divine mandate." I've also seen some, such as Richard Ibranyi, become "vacancy pushers"--the last pope according to Ibranyi was Pope Honorious II circa 1130 AD. He also claimed that married couples who enjoy the marital act when open to procreation commit mortal sin!

      As I wrote in another post about Feeney:
      Fr. Feeney himself held strange ideas. He claimed that a baptized child who died in infancy was a "son of God" but would not be considered a "Child Of Mary" since he had not yet made his First Communion. I have no idea what that means or how he arrived at such a bizarre idea. His "order" which he created was in violation of the Holy See under Pope Pius XII.

      Fr. Feeney established the "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (known by the Latin initials "MICM") without ecclesiastical approval and aided by a married laywoman, Mrs. Catherine Clark, on January 17, 1949. She took the name of "Sr" Catherine, and continued to live with her husband, Hank. Most of the members of the MICM were married and had children. They took vows of obedience and chastity. I'm sure you can see the problems already, without my commentary, but comment I will. Canon 542 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes it very plain that "Married persons for the duration of their marriage" "are invalidly admitted to the novitiate." (See Abbo and Hannan, The Sacred Canons 1: 559, 558.) This means that they cannot become religious as long as their spouse is alive even though they may be "separated" and even if "the other spouse consents that his spouse may enter religion." (Ibid., 1: 560). And what of these ersatz "religious community's" children?

      According to Feenyite author Gary Potter, in his book "After the Boston Heresy Case", "The children's parents effectively ceased to exist as parents to the children, and more so as a child grew from three to five to ten and older. Care was taken that the children had no direct or special contact with their parents, save on a half-dozen major feast days during each year when the entire community would gather for socializing. On these occasions the children might chat with their parents, but after a certain time, the parents were seen by the children as scarcely more than another Big Brother or Big Sister." (pg. 171). It would be interesting if a study were ever to be done on what became of these poor children when they grew to adulthood. What happened to them can justly be deemed CHILD ABUSE. Children have a right by natural and Divine Law to be raised by their married parents, and not reared as "siblings" of wannabe "nuns" and "brothers."

      Once again, thank you for your work and for reading/commenting! It was an honor.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. That's very kind of you, thank you. We are indebted to Novus Ordo Watch for publishing a review of it; without NOW I suspect only our immediate friends and family would have read it :)

      The whole case of Feeney fits into the genre of a Greek tragedy. Unfortunately (for everyone) Feeney actually had a legitimate position to defend against Cushing and his excessive Americanism and ecumenism. Had the matter remained isolated to that issue-- and had Feeney not sought for novel ways to explain and defend himself-- he may have been in a position to do some real good for the American Church. But that is simply not how things played out. Not only did his doctrine become corrupted, but as you well point out, he became a veritable cult leader. Although I don't necessarily "recommend" it, the book "Walled In" is a firsthand account of a young man raised in the cult (who sadly but to no surprise left religion afterwards). Aside from the patently anti-Catholic relationships Feeney's group insisted on (this poor young man did not know his parents, even though he lived with them and saw them every day!), there were other bizarre behaviors like speaking in code-- Holy Mass was called "afternoon tea," the Blessed Sacrament was called "DN," and other such tactics which, for my money, are nothing else than tools in the service of exerting complete psychological control over someone.

      Cheers & Pax Christi
      Dylan

      Delete
    3. Dear Mr Fellows,
      I’m going to hunt down a copy of that book! Sounds like a fascinating read in fanaticism. I like old aphorism a fanatic is one who “can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject!”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. If you're interested more in Feeney's story, I would strongly recommend an article written by Patrick Carey during the 1990s, published in "First Things." Carey was (is?) Novus Ordo theology professor at Marquette and Avery Dulles' biographer. The title of the article is "Avery Dulles, Saint Benedict's Center, and No Salvation Outside the Church 1940-1953."

      It is all about the early days of SBC which, I think most are unaware of, was actually financed by Dulles. Dulles actually wrote some good things for them early on. Anyways, it's a fascinating read since Carey takes a descriptive historical perspective and doesn't try to pepper the thing with N.O. theology. One of the things I found most interesting is how SBC had committed to a sort of "Athanasius Complex" where not only were they RIGHT, but any condemnation or intedict against them only proved how right they were. Reading some of the material Carey quotes from their early days reminds me of a lot of loose traditionalist (especially R&R) rhetoric, and I think that American traditionalism, at least, has been unfortunately and unduly influenced by the SBC's disobedience. That's my conclusion, not Carey's. Anyways, let me know if you can't find the article as I can send you a copy. Same goes for anyone else.

      Pax Christi & Cheers,
      Dylan

      Delete
    5. Thank you! If you could please send me your email via the comments (I will not publish or share it). I will contact you with an email that protects my identity. Then I'm hoping you could email me a copy?
      I hope this is OK with you. I'm pretty pressed for time these days and would appreciate it.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  21. Off subject, but theres a discussion on AKA Catholic about if a valid priest tried to consecrate bread and wine in a barroom, would it be valid. De Defectibus does not clearly give an answer and I do not have access to pre v2 theology books. Any thoughts? The answers over there for invalidity do not seem correct to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to theologian Halligan, "The matter to be consecrated must be definitely intended by the minister, since by intention the form determines the matter. Thus the matter...must be determined or properly designated by the minister's intention." (See "The Administration of the Sacraments" [1962]pg. 104). Although highly sacrilegious,as long as the matter is unaffected and the valid priest intends to consecrate the specific matter, the Consecration would be valid through a sacrilegious Mass.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  22. can you do a future article on how Catholics should treat family member leaving adulterous public lives and also apostates? I can't seem to finding catholic teaching on what to do in this situation.
    Would be great!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Smocko,
      I can't promise anything, but I'll definitely consider it!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes I second this suggestion
      David.

      Delete
  23. Talk about “unbalanced,” the Dimonds are among the worst. Not only in matters pertaining to doctrine & UOM, their so-called pastoral theology is also abhorrent. As a sedevacantist, & a priest, I see them doing the work of Satan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Reverend Father,
      I agree 100%. Just as Feeney himself devolved into a wacky cult, so too are these pathetic men. To tell married people periodic continence is mortal sin is doing damage to the conscience of many.

      Praying 15 decades of the Rosary every day is laudable. However, to turn that into some “requirement” for salvation is wrong. People who have large families and work could very well burn out from that so-called requirement and fall into despair.

      Ironically, for these two unscrupulous men who declare anyone who disagrees with them “liars,” “heretics,” mortal sinners, “ all going to Hell, it is the Dimonds who are Satan’s best allies.

      God Bless You Father,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  24. After skimming your article today a few things are evident. First, you like to insult others who don't agree with you. Calling them Fred and Bobbie is insulting. Many of your references to the Dimonds are highly nasty and unnecessary and mean. Second, you frequently misrepresent or distort their position. Your statement that they don't accept the Ordinary Magisterium is one example. Your article as a whole is disturbing because of its many errors. I suggest you stick to the legal profession which as you suggest is to help the guilty escape conviction. It is clear to me that disputing with you would be a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Miller,
      I’m sorry you find the facts disturbing; yet they continue to remain facts.

      1. Fred and Bobby are the actual names of the Dimond brothers. I will not acquiesce to their delusional view of themselves as “Benedictines.” I will also call David Bowden “David” and not “Pope Michael.” Nothing insulting in either case.

      2. The Dimonds do NOT accept the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium or they would accept the teaching on BOD and BOB. There is no misrepresentation.

      3. My article contains “many errors” yet you don’t name and prove even one, while I’ve shown your first two contentions to be false.

      4. I’m not a criminal lawyer, nor have I suggested the law is to help the guilty escape conviction. Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Do you know one of the originators of that principle was King St Louis IX of France, my patron saint who was canonized by Pope Boniface VIII, the pope who dogmatically defined the necessity of the Church in Unam Sanctum (1302). You MHFM supporters like him, right?

      5. Disputing with me would be a waste of time. Yeah, that’s the excuse all Feeneyites use to not debate me in a neutral forum.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  25. I know few people more nasty than the Dimond brothers. They should buy a remote island — move there — take all of their hateful zombies with them & cease spreading their pernicious lies to the public. A prayer would be answered if there weren’t Internet connections either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Reverend Father,
      Funny but I know what you mean! Feeneyites are something else!

      God Bless Father,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  26. The Council of Trent quote and interpretation from yours is wrong
    Once you understand that correctly you'll understand the Church has never taught BOD or BOB. BOD and BOB were/are theological speculations but not part part of the Magisterium obviously.

    MHFM and their followers are not of bad will; if the Council of Trent taught BOD OR BOB they would examine and agree with the Magisterium if the Council of Trent defined baptism of desire for instance (which it didn't).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:03
      Bobby and Fred Dimond are of bad will. The correct interpretation of Trent comes from no less than St Alphonsus Liguori whose teachings were declared by the Church to be “free from the slightest error.” We have the Code Of Canon Law which a universal disciplinary law, and as such is infallible. The Dimonds absurd contention that it is no universal because it doesn’t apply to the Eastern Rites is explained and refuted above.

      Feeneyites are the most obstinate heretics I’ve ever known.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  27. Just a small example:

    " In the same way, the sentence structure in Sess. 6 Chap. 4 does not mean that desire without the laver of regeneration is sufficient for justification. You need both."
    That's the whole confusion about the Council of Trent. It has nothing to do with the "General Sacraments" quote from
    CANON IV.

    And the Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism (which is not infallible btw) teaches one must AT LEAST DESIRE WATER BAPTISM. This directly contradicts defenders of BOD and BOB.
    The best case scenario for BOD defenders are people who desire baptism of water but die before it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:18
      Like the typical Feeneyite you only accept ex cathedra teachings. This is not the Catholic position as explained above. If the Catechism Of Trent is not infallible than your argument collapses because why believe it? Second, the Desire May be IMPLICIT as taught by St Alphonsus and Pope St Pius X in his Catechism. The Code Of Canon Law is infallible and teaches BOD and BOB.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The point is you cited Council of Trent and the Cathecism of Trent as part of the magisterium so we must look at those to clarify the situation:

      In the comment above you stated that to deny the Council of Trent is to be in heresy (that's why you called MHFM of bad will)

      Trent and other ecumenical councils (just like the Bible and The Nicene Creed) says there is only one baptism (of water)

      Assuming BOD and BOB exist:

      BOD: The desire to receive water baptism (since it's the magisterium there is only one baptism) but the person dies before receiving it. Someone who is catechised, wish to belong to the Church and ready to receive water baptism but dies before receiving it

      BOB: Someone who dies for Christ - catechised and wish to receive water baptism and to be a Catholic - though the person is murdered before receiving the sacrament of baptism of water.

      This interpretation above could be argued and speculated, however this is against the Council of Trent

      Council of Trent: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

      Delete
    3. @anon1:15
      The point is you read only what you want to see. I also cited the unanimous consent of the approved theologians which is part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (thereby infallible). St Alphonsus and Pope Pius IX also teach implicit desire.

      As to the malevolent “monks” from upstate New York, ask them if they believe BOD and BOB by express desire is possible. They deny it. There is only one Baptism (just as there is only one Sacrament of Penance), but God can grant the GRACE OF THE SACRAMENTS outside their actual reception.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. As to the Canon you cite: It was to condemn the heresy of Luther who taught that Baptism was not necessary and you could substitute beer or milk for water. This is also taught by St Alphonsus and the approved theologians which Feeneyites reject.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. On September 16, 2019, you have cited ex cathedra pronouncements in the section "The Teaching of the Church I) Outside the One True Church, There is no Salvation" to ,correctly, demonstrate Vatican II teaches heresy. However, when it comes to BOD and BOB you downplay when Pope speak from the Chair of St Peter (ex cathedra - (infallible) while accusing those who cite ex cathedra of bad will and heresy.

      Moving on from that, I'd like to write a few lines of thought if you allow me.

      1) I don't think your opinion on Br. Peter and Michael are correct. They are not heretics or "part of a ‎Feeneyist sect".
      Let's say if one day you change your mind about BOD and BOB what could you do to remedy all this time you called them and people who reject BOD and/or BOB heretics, people of bad-will, etc?

      2) I question the fact on seeing a "feenyite sect in MHFM" because it's not correct to call heretics people who do not teach,promote or sponsor heresy. Why would you see heresy where there isn't heresy?
      So...

      At the very best what can be done first: to have a debate in good-will, calm and focusing on facts and arguments, both sides searching for the truth and after everything has been considered (every single point from Trent to Catechism and theologians) both will reach a conclusion; each side would conclude with major logical points in the end. Then, with charity, and by careful examination, people from the outside are not only going to learn from it but they could (I repeat could) see if there is heresy and thus end the question of Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood.

      This would be close to ideal in my humble opinion. I'm not asking or promoting any debate, I'm just saying it's much better to have what I proposed above than just put heresy where there is no heresy. Much better than to make up a sect where there is no sect. It's false to say: " I condemn those ‎Feeneyites" because there is no feenyite sect. They are of good will and the material they put online and in print are not manipulated

      Delete
    6. @anon4:28
      I do not run from anyone. Any Feeneyite wishing to debate me is welcome to challenge me and we can agree upon the rules and proceed. On Twitter, I CHALLENGED NUMEROUS FEENEYITES TO DEBATE ON A NEUTRAL FORUM---NOT ONE ACCEPTED!

      I do not downplay a pope teaching ex cathedra. Feeneyites downplay the EQUALLY INFALLIBLE pronouncements of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which cannot conflict with each other. The Church infallibly teaches the necessity of Baptism and equally teaches infallibly that the grace of Baptism can be received apart from the Sacrament.

      1. I will not change my mind on BOD and BOB because to do so would be heresy. Fred and Bobby purposely deceive people by twisting Church teaching. They are Feeneyite heretics who claim the greatest theologians in the history of the Church "made mistakes" yet they (with no ecclesiastical education or training--and no secular education above high school)understand it properly. The approved theologians also had the guidance of the Magisterium, which Fred and Bobby do not have in this time of Great Apostasy.

      2. I see heresy because there is heresy. The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (as well as the Extraordinary Magisterium at Trent AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE CHURCH) teaches BOD and BOB. To deny it is therefore heresy.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. So in short you profess and proclaim BOD and BOB are de fide even though it was never taught ex cathedra and the majority of early fathers rejected it? And even so the few who considered Baptism of blood only thought it would apply to catechumen?

      Delete
    8. @anon11:05
      In short I believe what the Church teaches. ALL THE FATHERS (without exception) believed that the grace of Baptism could be received apart from the actual reception of the Sacrament. That ALONE is a defeater for the Feeneyite position. It was also taught infallibly by the UOM and at the Council Of Trent as interpreted by the Church Herself—not by Fred and Bobby.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. "ALL THE FATHERS (without exception) believed that the grace of Baptism could be received apart from the actual reception of the Sacrament'
      That's incorrect.

      St. Cyril of Jerusalem believes in BOB but rejects BOD

      St. Gregory of Nazianzus rejects BOD [Oration on Divine Light, XL, #23]
      St. John Chrysostom rejects BOD (it could be argued he considered BOB)
      Pope St. Siricius rejects BOD and BOB
      St. Augustine rejected BOD in some works but in other works supported it. St Augustine even said God wouldn't allow catechumens to be killed without receiving water baptism. [The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496]

      Delete
    10. @anon1:48
      No, it is you who are sadly mistaken. BOB is really another form of BOD, except that you die by martyrdom for the faith as opposed to e.g., dying while driving your car. So if St. Cyril believes in BOB he "believed that the grace of Baptism could be received apart from the actual reception of the Sacrament" exactly as I wrote and as you quoted me.

      Here is what your authorities said:

      St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
      First Catechetical Lecture Of Our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, To Those Who Are to Be Enlightened, Delivered Extempore at Jerusalem, As an Introductory Lecture To Those Who Had Come Forward for Baptism, Lecture III on Baptism: "If any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can ye drink rite cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

      St Gregory of Nazianzus:
      Oration XXXIX, Oration on the Holy Lights: "I know also a Fourth Baptism--that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent; and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains."

      St John Chrysostom:
      Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."

      St Augustine:
      A Treatise On the Soul and Its Origin, by Aurelius Augustin, Bishop of Hippo; In Four Books, 419, Book 1, CH 11, Title Of Chapter 11: "Martyrdom for Christ Supplies the Place of Baptism. The Faith of the Thief Who Was Crucified Along with Christ Taken As Martyrdom And Hence for Baptism".

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    11. As to Pope St. Siricus, he said the following:
      Letter to Himerius, 385: "As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church."

      The first problem with Feeneyites who use this argument will reject other papal statements such as Pope Pius IX in "Singulari Quidem" which clearly teaches BOD by referring to them as non-infallible "letters." Yet this very quote is from a non-infallible "letter"! What hypocrisy!

      Nevertheless, Does Pope St. Siricus deny BOD? Absolutely NOT! Those who by necessity desiring water Baptism may very well be lost because BOD is not obtained by mere "desire." They must have perfect contrition (as adults) along with the desiring the Faith, which is hard to obtain when in fear for your life. They could therefore be lost. The pope says delaying such infants (Original Sin) or men "may lead to the ruin of souls" (Limbo or Hell instead of Heaven). In other words, it would be a sin to delay them. The second part of the quotation reiterates the first part. Perfect contrition may not be united to their faith, and Baptism is the only help to bring them to Heaven.

      The Catechism of Trent states, "In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized at once" (pg. 180)

      Yet just three paragraphs prior it says, "...should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness" ? Is the Roman Catechism contradicting itself? No. The doctrine of BOD requires repentance of sins (perfect contrition), faith, and desire. The sacrament of Baptism DOES NOT REQUIRE PERFECT CONTRITION.

      Pope St. Siricus is saying the same as the Roman Catechism.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    12. So, as has been demonstrated, ALL THE FATHERS BELIEVED THE GRACE OF BAPTISM COULD BE RECEIVED APART FROM THE ACTUAL RECEPTION OF THE SACRAMENT THROUGH BOD OR BOB.

      Pope St. Siricus also believed in BOD.

      If what the Feeneyites teach was true--there is no BOD and BOB--then ALL THE FATHERS WOULD HAVE UNANIMOUSLY TAUGHT THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO ENTER THE CHURCH AND BE SAVED EXCEPT BY THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM ("WATER BAPTISM"). This they did not do.

      Feeneyism is HERESY. Period. Amen.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. 1) Pope St. Siricus does not teach BOD. You are trying to interpret his words to fit BOD
      2) Church never taught BOB is inside BOD. Many early Fathers considered only BOB as a sacrament equal to baptism of water, they didn't write anything about BOD as a sacrament or that BOD could be a third or fourth sacrament
      3) St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St John Chrysostom spoke of dying for Christ (martyrdom) they didn't write anything about that desire for baptism could replace water baptism.
      4) Saint Augustine wrote in favor of it but also against it. He wasn't sure (this is proven by St. Bernard admitted he wasn't sure if St Augustine was in error or in truth regarding this).

      In this case, since we don't have a continuous teaching and/or it's ambiguous, the dogmatic definitions at Ecumenical Councils are superior to the teaching of theologians and Saints. That's why Popes recommended Saint Thomas Aquinas despite his being wrong on the Immaculate Conception. Only the Holy Father when speaking ex cathedra is free from error. Theologians and Saints are to be considered but they are not primary source on dogmatic teachings, just like St Thomas and St Augistine said: "Men can err even in good faith".

      Delete
    14. I forgot a major point
      In Oration XXXIX, Oration, St Gregory didn't teach four baptisms. He was talking about Moses and Jesus in a figurative way.
      Another person (Everett Ferguson) cited that same passage to teach there are (5) FIVE kinds of baptism. That's because they don't understand St. Gregory wasn't talking about the sacrament of baptism.

      Delete
    15. @anon8:21
      1. No, Pope St Siricus mirrors the teaching of the Roman Catechism. Feeneyites continually twist things out of context much like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

      2. Neither BOD or BOB is a Sacrament. They are EXTRA-SACRAMENTAL MEANS IF OBTAINING BAPTISMAL GRACE. Those who die for the Faith desire to belong to it. Ditto BOD minus the martyrdom.

      3. Go back and read again. St John Chrysostom wrote,”...and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood." Those who are not baptized with water can have it supplied extra-sacramentally by the blood of their martyrdom.

      4. Once more, all the Fathers admitted in principle that the the grace of Baptism can be received apart from the Sacrament. Unanimous consent must be MORAL not NUMERICAL.

      The Church is also free from error in Her Universal Disciplinary Laws like the Code Of Canon Law which teaches BOD. The Council Of Trent, as interpreted by the Church through Her approved theologians also unanimously teaches BOD/BOB.

      Pope St Pius X taught BOD and BOB in the Catechism that bears his name. Pope Pius IX And Pius XII both teach BOD and BOB.

      Yet they were ALL WRONG. Only Fred and Bobby Dimond got it right. Yeah. Right. Ok.


      —-Introibo

      Delete
  28. Ok, one last question
    St. Ambrose speech at Valerian funeral is interpreted as pro-BOD
    However the following quote from St Ambrose he rejects BOD

    St. Ambrose: “Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

    Shouldn't this tell you Saints and Doctors of the Church are not infallible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:37
      Individual Fathers of the Church are not infallible—no Catholic worthy of the name suggests otherwise.

      Serious question: Do you read ANYTHING before responding? Check out “Feeneyite Folly” # 5 above. It LITERALLY answers EVERYTHING you just brought up about the Fathers, Aquinas being wrong on the Immaculate Conception and the requirements for a teaching of the Fathers to be considered infallible. There is no possible way you could possibly have read my entire post carefully and ask me that question. “ASKED And Answered” as we say in the law.

      The Fathers aside, we have the infallible Canons Of Trent supporting BOD and BOB from the unanimous consent of the approved theologians which gives us the authentic interpretation. Not Fred and Bobby. We have the Universal Disciplinary Law (Canon Law) Teaching BOB And BOD—And Universal Disciplinary Laws are infallible. We have the express teachings of Pope Pius IX, Pope St Pius X, and Pope Pius XII. All of which proves why BOD and BOB were never even questioned until Fr Leonard Feeney came along and was boosted years later by Fred and Bobby Dimond.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have read them but you haven't replied my question about St. Ambrose. It's important because of BOD/BOB were de fide as you suggest then this dogma can't be de fide since it is ambiguous.

      Plus you asked me to consider the Catechism of Trent and of Pius X (Italian Catechism 1908 renamed Catechism of Pius X later) de fide which is why I had to reply to things I didn't want to.

      I could only focus on the Council of Trent but it was you who brought up the fathers of the Church trying to convince me they were infallible in their teaching of BOD/BOB

      [Btw you're wrong about Pius IX and Pius XII, they didn't teach BoD/BoB.]

      "The conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium are that that which is taught, has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus; that is, always, everywhere and by all" Since St Ambrose, St. Augustine and others were ambiguous about BOD and BOB we can leave the early Fathers out of the way now.

      Regarding Trent, you were quoting the General Sacraments and nowhere is BOD implied there. That's why you had to bring up the Catechism of Trent: because the Council of Trent didn't teach and/or imply BoD.

      One last interesting observation:
      Canon Law 1917:
      "unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial"
      This is CONTRARY to what St. Ambrose taught and other early Fathers.

      The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 says catechumens who have died without baptism are not part of the Church. The Encyclopedia quote the Second Council of Braga (572 AD).

      Humans make mistakes, that's why Vatican I didn't extend infallibility to theologians and Saints.

      Delete
    3. From St Ambrose,
      From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."

      It is not ambiguous nor do you understand the unanimous consent of the Fathers and/or theologians. The upshot of his contention is that to be unanimous, every single approved theologian must teach the same thing, and if only one theologian disagrees...well, goodbye to unanimity.
      universal does not mean numerical unanimity, but moral unanimity. He thinks of "universal" in terms of the Catholic Church Herself, where "catholic" means "universal." St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100 A.D.) used the word Catholic to mean "universal" to describe the Church (See Letter to the Smyrnaens). The Church is indeed Catholic in that Christ is universally present in the Church and that He has commissioned the Church to evangelize the world– "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." (St. Matthew 28:19).

      Unanimous does not mean the same when we talk about unanimity among the approved theologians and Fathers of the Church. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):

      When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

      The Feeneyites talk about the necessity of the universal and constant consent of the Fathers as spoken of at the Vatican Council (1869-1870), yet they once more fail to comprehend its meaning.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    4. Here is an example from the Vatican Council:

      The universal and constant tradition of the Church, as seen both in facts and in the teaching of the Fathers, as well as in the manner of acting and speaking adopted by many Councils, some of which were Ecumenical, teaches us that the judgments of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals are irreformable. (See http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-postulatum.htm).

      Protestants jumped all over this by trying to show at least one Father of the Church in disagreement with papal infallibility (therefore "not universal"), or it was not so from antiquity (therefore not constant chronologically). Both the Protestants and Feeneyites get their terms wrong. According to the eminent theologian of the Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, Cardinal Franzelin, universality means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality (moral unanimity) cannot be confirmed is it necessary to appeal to antiquity, and that appeal is not to show it was always held, but rather if it was ever held by the Church as certain. (See On Divine Tradition, reprint of 1875, [2016], pgs. 417-423).

      Therefore, your objection to the Fathers FAILS. The unanimous consent of the approved theologians at any time means that the Church teaches it dogmatically via UOM.

      The Council Of Trent DID infallibly teach BOD and BOB, as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the approved theologians including St Alphonsus with full approval of ALL THE POPES FOR CENTURIES WHO APPROVED AND NEVER CONDEMNED THEM.

      The Council Of Brags was LOCAL NOT ECUMENICAL. It also decreed that no funeral was to be held inside Church!

      As the Fathers were MORALLY UNANIMOUS the 1917 Code Of Canon Law does not contradict that the grace of Baptism was received apart from the Sacrament.

      As to Pope Pius XII:
      Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."

      That’s BOD!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. You have stated the word "Feeneyites" 31 times already. No wonder why people ignore your attempts at debate.

      That said, everything you just wrote is irrelevant because there is no such thing as " approved theologians" or " approved theologians of the Council of Trent."

      Also:
      "When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation..."
      Which they aren't: I just showed you St. Ambrose and St Augustine were ambiguous on BOD. Since there is no Bull or Decree or Council which defines BOD we cannot say it's de fide, we cannot say it's part of Church Magisterium.

      Your Cardinal Franzelin quote is also irrelevant since we are talking about if BOD/BOB is de fide. Since you like to quote theologians, Dr. Ludwig Ott says:

      Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309: "3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized... Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church"

      Let me quote another theologian

      Fr. William Jurgens: "we must stress that a particular patristic text is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church."

      I'm sorry to quote theologians but I had to since you did after we both have agreed yesterday theologians and Saints do not define Catholic dogma.

      Delete
    6. @anon5:06

      You write:
      You have stated the word "Feeneyites" 31 times already. No wonder why people ignore your attempts at debate.

      Reply: Feeneyites is what they (and you) are. Fred and Bobby can’t go two sentences without calling those who don’t agree with their heresy “liars” and heretics. If St Alphonsus believed it, its an “innocent mistake” If someone believes St Alphonsus they are not mistaken but “liars.” On a neutral forum you must abide by rules, so I would refer to “opponents of BOD and BOB.” “Name-calling” is an excuse not to debate and let others see the weakness of their position.

      There are approved theologians. Remember, too, what constitutes an "approved theologian": Clerics of eminent learning, and orthodoxy in doctrine, at least as insofar their writings are used by the faithful and in seminaries, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the hierarchy and the Holy See. (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). Your contention is PROVEN WRONG. The approved theologians during and after Trent, under the guidance of the Magisterium, interpreted what Trent decreed. Not Fred and Bobby Dimond.


      Yes, the Franzelin quote is relevant because it proves MORAL UNANIMITY WHICH WOULD MAKE THE TEACHING INFALLIBLE

      JUrgens was NOT an approved theologian. His doctorate was in Church history, making him a mere historian.

      I agree with Ott (and Pope Pius XII) who taught BOTH BOD/BOB AND THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM BY WATER. You can’t be a member of the Church until you receive BOD/BOB which happens at the moment just prior to death. And the receive the grace of Baptism as Pope Pius XII taught to the Midwives. So the Catechumens while alive are NOT members of the Church.

      The unanimous consent of the approved theologians DOES define dogma as the instrument of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium defined at the Vatican Council in 1870.

      I NEVER stated the contrary. Read above.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  29. "so I would refer to “opponents of BOD and BOB.” “Name-calling” is an excuse not to debate and let others see the weakness of their position."

    I never called you a heretic and I never said Saint Alphonsus was liar. What I said is that his interpretation about Council of Trent is ambiguous (he even cites the wrong Canon) and that Saints are not infallible when defining dogmas of the Church, yet, before and after all of this, you called me a feeniyte many times

    It's not possible to debate or have a conversation with a person like this. I tried but it's not possible to continue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:45
      You are the perfect example of why Feeneyites will not debate. They cannot hold onto their position without twisting things duplicitously.

      Go read again what I wrote above. “Feeneyite” is the correct appellation for those who reject BOD and BOB. It was never an issue until Fr Leonard Feeney came along in the 1940s And was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953. Modern day Feeneyites go farther than Feeney himself, who said desire justified but didn’t save. You are not Catholic.

      Furthermore, I never said YOU called me a heretic or liar—or St Alphonsus—-I was clearly referring to Fred and Bobby Dimond and how they refer to opponents.

      The Latin text of St Alphonsus does not cite the wrong canon. You might have a bad translation. Nevertheless, consider that before being declared a Doctor Of The Church, ALL his writings were subjected to strict scrutiny by the pope himself and his handpicked theologians. Every word must be read and considered for its orthodoxy.

      The pope’s conclusion? The works of St Alphonsus are so Catholic they are “free from even the slightest error.” Yet, Fred and Bobby “found errors” where a true pope and his theologians found NONE. This alone should end the controversy.

      This was not a debate. Debates are conducted on neutral forums with agreed upon rules. No Feeneyites will ever agree to such and allow their errors to be exposed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. 1) You called me a heretic 14 times. I haven't called you heretic a single time
      2) If you had good faith, the consideration on which side is in heresy would be reached at the end after considering all major points (Trent, St Alphonsus, etc.)
      3) Since you called me a heretic for interpreting the dogma that heretics, pagans, jews, etc are not saved not even by desire or blood (because BOD and BOB are men made theological) speculations I believe I have the right to reply to this at least once
      4) My reply to this is the following: Because you believe in BOD/BOB you are losing your soul, it shows by your confusion on theology and your obstinate misquoting Early Fathers. Since you think BOD/BOB is de fide, you believe in men and not in the Church and in Papal infallibility. By doing so everything you did can be explained: the fact you attack people who never taught heresy like Br. Peter and Br. Dimond and the fact you even go as far to misquote Saints to win "debates"

      Delete
    3. @anon4:57
      1. That is because you are a heretic and I am not.

      2. What you're asking for is a formal debate. I explained that formal debates must be conducted on a neutral site with definitive rules. At the end people would see what was always taught: BOD and BOB.

      3. You just said it for me. YOU interpret the dogma, and thus bastardize it. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which both interprets and proposes dogma, as defined at Vatican I in 1870.

      As I wrote above:"They reject the infallibility of the UOM [Universal and Ordinary Magisterium]as dogmatically defined by the Vatican Council in 1870. If catechisms and the unanimous teachings of the theologians contradict their private interpretation of some ex cathedra pronouncement, the UOM must be discarded--they thereby reject the definition of the Council, making them heretics."

      4. If I'm "losing my soul" because I believe in BOD/BOB, then you believe I'm a heretic whether you use the word or not. If I'm "confused" on theology, so was:
      Pope Pius XII
      Pope Pius IX
      Pope St. Pius X
      The Council of Trent
      The unanimous consent of all approved theologians who interpreted Trent as including BOD and BOB--including St . Alphonsus Liguori

      I believe in men VESTED BY CHRIST WITH AUTHORITY. The approved theologians as a corporate body have divine authority. The UOM speaks infallibly. Fred and Bobby have no authority, and speak for heretics as heretics.

      I have NEVER misquoted anyone. I challenge anyone to look up my citations. This is why Feeneyites will not debate in a formal setting on a neutral site. I pray for your conversion.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. 1) Your position is heretical: BOD and BOB are not de fide. No amount of quotes from theologians or St. Alphonsus will make it happen

      2) You misquoted St. Ambrose when he rejects Baptism of Desire AND Baptism of Blood

      3) Early Fathers considered catechumen who die before Baptism in case of martyrdom. They were not talking about pagans, jews, atheists or agnostics.

      4) Some early fathers taught catechumen who die without water baptism go to Hell even though they died for Jesus Christ (this is against BOD/BOB)

      5) Point 4 proves early Fathers are not constant thus they are not part of the magisterium

      6) Point 5 proves it cannot be "de fide"

      7) You misquote Pope Pius IX and you attribute "de fide" to Catechism of St Pius X which is not de fide and everybody knows it's not part of the magisterium. It's not a dogma what's inside there, just like the Catholic Encyclopedia and Code of Canon Law

      8) Catholic Encyclopedia states catechumen who die without baptism even if they are killed fighting for Christ are lost (this shows again Catholic Encyclopedia and early fathers are not infallible)

      9) Theologians have no authority to create a new dogma. BOB/BOD for 1900 was a theological speculation which became known as ''de fide'' through Father Cekada among other heretics.

      Delete
    5. 1. It's de fide because the UOM which you reject and the Council of Trent (as interpreted by the Church) declare it so.

      2. St. Ambrose, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."

      Doesn't sound like rejection to me! You also reject MORAL UNANIMITY of the Fathers and theologians.

      3. Even if I concede your point, YOU LOSE. You've just conceded that cathechumen who are martyred before baptism are saved via BOB! How could they be so wrong if baptism by water is so clear and the only way to be saved?

      4. Baloney. Citations to those Church Fathers, please.

      5. It is the Magisterium which declared the unanimous consent of the theologians or Fathers as infallible as the extraordinary Magisterium at Vatican I in 1870. If AT ANY POINT there is unanimous consent of Fathers or theologians we have the UOM at work, as I cited Franzelin; THE premiere theologian at Vatican I and confidant of Pope Pius IX.

      6. Your prior point is blown out of the "water"--pun intended.

      7. I never said an individual catechism was de fide.
      As theologian Van Noort explains: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of Divine-Catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (Van Noort, Ibid, pg. 222)

      The Code of Canon Law is Infallible because it is a UNIVERSAL DISCIPLINARY LAW. Read "Feeneyite Folly #7" in my above post.

      8. I never claimed the Catholic Encyclopedia was infallible. Vatican I defined the UOM and it did not include the Catholic Encyclopedia!

      9. No one is creating a new dogma. It was always believed and was never in doubt until Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Church Fathers spoke about it in the early days of Christianity, and we have the Roman Breviary declaring a saint by BOB in the 17th century:

      St. Emerentiana, Jan 23, p.805: "A Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."

      I'll be praying for your conversion as I stated.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  30. 1)There is no such thing as "official interpretation of Trent" You are making up theological nonsense.

    2) St. Ambrose rejected BOD and BOB in other letters which I already quoted above

    3) " You said catechumen who are martyred before baptism are saved via BOB".
    I DID NOT say this. Pay attention: I wrote they die and go to Hell. I said that Early Fathers are often ambiguous: if some teach catechumen are saved through BOB some say they don't.

    4) "I never said an individual catechism was de fide."

    Yes you did. You said if I reject the Catechism of Council of Trent and of St Pius X I'm a heretic.


    "The approved theologians as a corporate body have divine authority."
    Not true. They don't hold infallibility to dogmas and faith. Theologians are not part of the Magisterium when it comes to "de fide" since only the Holy Father have this privilege.

    There is only one baptism and the matter is water; Baptism of desire or Blood does substitute the water baptism. Not even martyrdom can save a person if he is not already baptized

    Pope Pius XII taught as a personal opinion rhythm method as natural. He was wrong just like many Popes wrote things which are wrong. This is another example Popes err when not speaking from the Chair of St. Peter. Theologians and Saints like Augustine and St Alphonsus wrote mistakes as well, it's part of human nature, even though they are great moral value which we should follow. However what they write in their books does equal "it's not de fide".

    Last point: St. Emerentiana: not infallible and St Ambrose and other early Fathers had a different opinion. Her account is also ambiguous since we have one more source which is very different from your quotation

    Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. You clearly cannot read:
      What constitutes the Magisterium? According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]
      he Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council (1870). The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra pronouncements of popes and Ecumenical Councils) and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible.
      The Vatican Council Of 1870 teaches the UOM is infallible. It’s expressed through the unanimous teachings of the theologians. The theologians unanimously teach Trent defined BOD. End of story.

      2. He didn’t reject it in my citation. If he was ambivalent it still does not disrupt MORAL UNANIMITY.

      3. Yet how could some Fathers teach BOB, if it’s a recent “invention” made into dogma by Fr Cekada? Wouldn’t the Fathers be united in REJECTING anything but Baptism by water??

      4. No I didn’t. It’s because of the Infallibility Of Trent as testified to the unanimous consent of the approved theologians as well as all Catechisms.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    2. 5. As I wrote above:
      I turn to theologian Scheeben:

      Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83)

      Periodic abstinence is truth. If Pope Pius XII taught heresy as a private theologian, then he could not be pope and he taught BOD in his Address to Midwives. How did he not lose his authority?

      Pope Pius XII is correct because 2. Church doctrine on matters of faith and morals possesses an authority that is dogmatic and certain. (a) The unanimous teaching of theologians testifies and expresses the doctrine of the Church, because the Church accepts the common teaching of theologians as true and as her own when she either tacitly or expressly approves it. (b) Theologians as ministers and organs of the Church instruct the faithful in the doctrines of the faith. So, in fact those things preached, taught, held and believed are those same things the theo- logians propose and teach.
      And so, because of the theologians’ connection with the Church, their agreement on a doctrine has an authority that is both dogmatic and certain, because otherwise the authority of the Church herself would be endangered, because she admitted, fos- tered or approved the [false] doctrine of theologians.
      This proof is confirmed because the dogmatic authority of theologians is denied by all those and only those who: (a) Deny or refuse to admit the dogmatic authority of the Church; or (b) At least refuse to consider the connection of theologians with the Church. It is no wonder that all enemies of the Church or Catholic truth are likewise enemies of Catholic theology. See e.g. Salaverri SJ. Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd ed., Madrid, BAC 1955, 846ff.

      Along with St Emerantia we have St Victor Of Braga.

      Last point: You are a proven heretic. You have not directly answered any of the points above. You REJECT THE UOM and have no understanding of Catholic theology. I’m praying for your conversion.


      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Final note #1: You had to cite theologians from the 20th century since they are the only ones promoting heresies like BOD/BOB and downplaying what Vatican I has defined.

      Final note #2: in the book "Augustine the Bishop" St. Augustine said: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever” (Page 150) Author: Father van der Meer. St. Augustine was not referring to hesitant catechumens who presumptuously put off their baptism, but to "sincere catechumen"

      Final note #3: Early fathers teach but also reject BOB/BOD. Sometimes the same Early father write supporting BOD/BOB but at a later date he could write against it. I already quoted early fathers who rejected BOB/BOD and their ambiguity.

      Final note #4: Fr. Cekada among modern theologians often don't understand Pope Pius XII encyclical when he said the Popes are not expressing his supreme authority (ex cathedra) in encyclical letters. Let me quote: "because in these [encyclicals] the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium."
      http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

      Final note #5: St Augustine has said sincere catechumen who die without baptism are not saved. I'm just quoting Saint Augustine to demonstrate how Saints can be ambiguous in certain situations - since they are not infallible. Just like theologians or "approved" theologians are not infallible.

      Ending the debate:
      The same St. Ambrose - which they quote supporting BOD - also rejects BOD/BOB in other passage. Ambiguity is not uncommon in men because man make mistakes even when they are in good faith. The same happened with St. Augustine which is why later in his life he wrote a book of Corrections to eliminate heresies/wrong opinions he had written earlier.
      BOB/BOD is not de fide and it's in fact a heresy - it's contrary to Catholic teaching. This is not incompatible with Saints having own opinions about BOB/BOD. Saints are not free from error. Vatican I declared exactly this: theologians don't teach Infallible on matters of faith and morals.

      Let me repeat: Theologians don't teach Infallible on matters of faith and morals nor they could show people BOB/BOD is de fide. They cannot say BOD/BOB is de fide since it's not a continuous tradition of the Church. In fact BOB/BOD is heretical because it assumes God won't provide water Baptism to those who wish to be baptized.

      Delete
  31. I'll refute your opinion on Vatican I and Pope Pius XII:
    (actually Pope Pius XII refuted word-by-word what you have said)

    Refutation #1: "The unanimous teaching of theologians testifies and expresses the doctrine of the Church"

    Weak teologians like Fr. Cekada and 19th century theologians again refuted by St Pius X:
    "At the turn of the 20th century, a group of theologians called modernists stated that dogmas did not come from God but are historical [men made] manifestations.... In the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, Pope Pius X condemned this teaching as heresy in 1907."

    This is the case of many priests from SSPX and CMRI. They cite 3 Saints from the earlier centuries and a few theologians from the 19th century to subvert people that BOD/BOB is "de fide". Pope Pius XII even taught that encyclicals are not source of ex cathedra dogma (obviously encyclicals are relevant and valuable but they are not source of dogmas or equal to ex cathedra).

    THEREFORE: If Encyclicals do not define dogmas (as Pope Pius XII clarified in his Humani generis) it also means Saints and/or theologians can't create or define dogmas.



    2) Vatican I
    Another note explaining Vatican I and the Magisterium by citing Vatican I itself: "Only the Pope and bishops in communion with him make up the magisterium; theologians and schismatic bishops do not".

    Notice the Vatican I excludes theologians.

    "Thomas Cajetan, in expanding the distinction made by St. Thomas Aquinas, drew a line between personal faith manifested in theologians and the authoritative faith presented as a matter of judgment by the pope".

    ========================================
    Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21) 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make it too easy dismantle your alleged “refutation.”

      1. Fr Cekada is not a theologian. An approved theologian must possess a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (or a canonist with a Doctorate in Canon Law) from an approved Catholic University and function with the approval of the Magisterium. You don’t even understand the basic terms.

      2. The theologians cited by Pope St Pius X were CONDEMNED AND/OR CENSURED. That’s the Magisterium at work protecting the Faithful. Ratzinger, Kung, De Lubac, etc were all censured under Pope Pius XII And rehabilitated under false pope Roncalli. This is proof of how closely the Church monitors her theologians.

      3. The Vatican Council Of 1870, Pope Pius XII, do not refute what you think. They are correct that theologians are not the Magisterium nor do they define dogmas OF THEMSELVES. They are ORGANS OF THE MAGISTERIUM WHEN APPROVED. The corporate body of the approved theologians is therefore an extension of the Magisterium but not themselves the Magisterium.
      Theologians do not ‘determine’ whether some doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic.’ They merely demonstrate, or manifest or give witness that a particular doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic’ which judgement is adopted by the Magisterium.

      Get it? Probably not I’m afraid.

      Do these words of Pope Pius XII make him a heretic as a private individual and cause loss of office:

      · Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951): Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."

      He’s teaching BOD! Trying getting out of that one!

      I’ll be praying for your conversion.

      —-Introibo


      Delete
    2. To my readers:
      There comes a time to cut off comments from someone who just clearly rehashes the same disproven tripe and doesn’t understand basic theological distinctions. If the anonymous poster wishes to debate me on a neutral forum with rules, he can get back to me. Otherwise, enough fallacious arguments and willful ignorance.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. I'll quote you: "[...]Magisterium but not themselves the Magisterium. Theologians do not ‘determine’ whether some doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic.’ They merely demonstrate, or manifest or give witness that a particular doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic’ which judgement is adopted by the Magisterium"

      My answer to this: I clearly understand this and I've read this many times for the past 4 years, believe me. However since there is no constant teaching in Early Fathers and Pope statements or Saints when it comes to BOB/BOD we cannot use the opinion of "approved" theologians and/or Saints because "de fide" requires no ambiguity.



      You've already read cited above even Saints who are in favour of it were against it at later date or they weren't sure. BOD/BOB is confusion and ultimately it shows lack of faith in God - because God will give water baptism to those who desire it. Since we have no ex cathedra pronouncement on BOD/BOB we must (I believe) go the other route. Pope Pius IX statement is also incorrect since he was talking about sacraments in general not baptism exclusively. The best option then is to discuss Council of Trent. However if we are going to talk about Council of Trent we must examine the words of the council and not the Catechism or theologian interpretation of the Council.


      Regarding the Pope Pius XII address (is not even a encyclical) Pope Pius XII already explained in 1950 Humani Generis. Humani Generis explained encyclicals do not present the powerful authority of an Ecumenical Council. Pope Pius XII address to midwives could be an encyclical but it's not binding. Pope Pius XII was wrong in his Address to Midwives, it's normal, he was not protected by infallibility. Pius XII and theologians considered "limiting children" using natural family planning even though Pius IX wrote against this. Even though this is not natural. It's not natural to limit the number of children, but Pope Pius XII thought it was, he also thought in that case BOD could fit his desire to explain what he wanted, but he was also wrong.
      The Pope was not infallible when addressing midwives. God has protected the Church for 1958 years without a single Papal decree/bull/ex cathedra pronouncement on BOD/BOB because this is against scripture and against the will of God. I know you tried to demonstrate there is Pope decree or bull favouring BOB/BOD but I could show to you that you are incorrect if you want to. God will provide baptism for those who want it. God will save those who are to be saved. God can even make water appear out of nowhere he who wants to be saved is in a situation of near death.

      P.S: I could believe you are saying in good faith you are praying for my conversion however i don't think this is the case. First because you already didn't treat me fairly in the first place - showing bad will sometimes - and second because first you must prove BOB/BOD is "de fide" to consider me a heretic in the first place. I'm a Catholic already, thank God. You shouldn't pray for my conversion since I'm not outside the Church.

      Delete
    4. I have refuted your argument that Pope Pius XII taught BOD to his address to midwives. Such a shame you won't publish that part at least.

      Delete
    5. Last time (I’m a masochist, I know)
      1. There is no ambiguity on BOD/BOB. It was taught by the unanimous consent of the approved theologians since Trent and was NEVER an issue except in America in the 1940s. If something must be crystal clear from the outset, then say goodbye to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which had some opponents too, including Aquinas.

      2. We must go by the untrained laymen in interpreting Trent over the Church’s approved theologians? Sure. That’s like going to someone without a medical school education to be your doctor. See my discussion of the “Plain Meaning Rule.” See “Feeneyite Folly #2” in my above post.

      3. You refuted nothing of Pope Pius XII. The pope cannot be wrong in an ex cathedra pronouncement. However, if he were to speak heresy as he did to the Midwives, he would be a public heretic. Why do we reject Roncalli? He never infallibly taught error (a real pope cannot). However, he taught heresy in Pacem in Terris—an encyclical. This means prior to its publication he lost office (or never obtained it) through the profession of heresy as a private theologian. If Pope Pius XII professed heresy to the Midwives—he was not pope but had fallen from office.

      You reject the UOM which is infallible and teaches BOD and BOB. You reject Canon Law which is infallible as a Universal Disciplinary Law and teaches BOD and BOB. You reject Trent as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the approved theologians of the Church.

      BOD and BOB are infallible and you are a heretic. I’m praying for your conversion sincerely but do not respond unless you want a formal debate so everyone can see the Feeneyite Follies you espouse.

      —-Introibo

      Delete