Defining Desire

 

The year was 1849. His Holiness Pope Pius IX, like all true popes, was interested in the truths of Faith and in making those truths better known and loved. He had a deep devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and was considering defining the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith. To this end, he appointed a special commission of the best theologians at that time to investigate the question more profoundly than had previously been done. The first meeting of the Commission took place on May 8, 1852. At the second meeting (May 19th) and third meeting (June 8th) the Commission concerned itself to expressing the principles involved governing the definability of any doctrine as Catholic dogma. They put forth what is not necessary, and then what is necessary for an ex cathedra definition.  

Recently, I've been reading a collection of  essays written by theologian Fenton from 1944 to 1959, entitled The Church of Christ. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969) was an outstanding theologian. He was professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of America, and from 1944-1963, he was the editor of the professional theological journal, The American Ecclesiastical Review.  He produced no less than six theology books and numerous articles. Ordained in 1930, Fenton received his doctorate degree in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome the following year. His dissertation was written under the direction of the staunchly anti-Modernist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (d. 1964). 

At the Robber Council Vatican II (1962-65), Fenton was a peritus ("theological expert") for Cardinal Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. He fought the good fight against the Modernists, and afterwards, was shaken to the core. God mercifully called him to Judgement in 1969, as he was trying to grapple with what had taken place. In my opinion, he would have become a sedevacantist had he lived a bit longer. In his diaries written at the Council, he wrote, "If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end." It is no surprise that he was a friend of Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD, my spiritual father and founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. 

This post was written after I read the aforementioned book of Fenton's, containing his theological essay Requisites for an Infallible Pontifical Definition According to the Commission of Pope Pius IX. Theologian Fenton defended the Faith against the detestable heretic, madman, and excommunicated Jesuit Leonard Feeney. Feeney "discovered" that the Church had been wrong in Her perennial teaching on Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). He died a member of the Vatican II sect under Montini in 1978, a man-made religion that teaches universal salvation, thereby proving the sect will welcome all heresies--even contradictory ones---as long as you do not hold the Integral Catholic Faith. 

As I finished the article, I couldn't help but think that the principles of the Church, as articulated by the Commission, show that BOD and BOB could be dogmatically defined if we had a true pope. In this post, I will enumerate each of the principles of the Church as recorded by theologian Fenton, and show how it can apply to BOD/BOB. In so doing, I will once again give the lie to the heretical successors of Feeney (think: Fred and Bobby Dimond, the St. Benedict Center, etc.) who have the temerity to declare BOD and BOB "heresy." (If anyone thinks I'm being unfair or hyperbolic by calling Feeney a "madman," please see my post "A Sickness Of Soul" http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html---Introibo).

Four Qualities NOT Needed For A Doctrine To Be Infallibly Defined

1. The fact that their have been conflicting teachings on this subject within the Catholic Church in the past, or the fact that all have not heretofore agreed on this teaching, does not render a doctrine incapable of definition. 

The Commission used the example of the rebaptism controversy as proof of this point. They also pointed out the fact that theologians on opposing sides of an issue habitually express their willingness to abide by a final decision of the Magisterium, thus in the eyes of the Church, expressing their belief that the Magisterium can pronounce and define even in a matter which had been freely debated among the theologians. 

Application to BOD and BOB: Feeneyites are always trying to "prove" BOD and BOB wrong by citing to someone who calls the doctrine into question. For example, Fr. William Jurgens is often cited as an opponent of BOD/BOB because of a text he wrote appearing to call them into question. Therefore, there is no "unanimous consent of 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. Feeneyites have two major problems. First, Jurgens is not an approved theologian or canonist. His doctorate was not in Sacred Theology or Canon Law, but in Ecclesiastical History. Therefore any contention that Jurgens was against BOD or BOB (even if true), is the mere opinion of an historian and not the teaching of an approved theologian or canonist. Second, universal does not mean numerical unanimity, but moral unanimity. 

Unanimous refers to moral unanimity when we talk about 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. 

2. The fact that even authoritative writers can be cited in opposition to a teaching does not render that teaching incapable of definition.

The members of the Commission claimed that this principle is shown to be valid through the examination of the history of almost any defined dogma. They pointed, in particular, to the example of the Council of Trent, which proclaimed the Church's belief in the absolute immunity of Our Lady from all actual sin and imperfection in the face of previous denial of this truth even on the part of some Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 

Application to BOD and BOB: Even those who are Fathers and Doctors of the Church who could possibly be cited in opposition does not render this doctrine incapable of being defined as dogma, let alone being "proven false."

3. In order that a doctrine be definable, it is not necessary that there should be explicit, or even implicit, testimony to this doctrine in Sacred Scripture, since it is certain and manifest that the scope of Revelation is wider than that of Scripture.

In support of this principle, the Commission appealed to several dogmas including infant baptism, and the Real (and complete) Presence of Our Lord under each of the Eucharistic Species. 

Application to BOD and BOB: Not being explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the Bible has no bearing on it being definable as a dogma. 

4. In order to show that the doctrine to be defined belongs to Sacred Tradition, it is not necessary to adduce a series of Fathers and other witnesses reaching back to Apostolic Times. 

The Commission took note of the fact that the early monuments of Tradition, among them the patristic writings are to be numbered, do not state the entire content of that Divine Teaching which was delivered to the Church by the apostles.

According to the Commission, to deny this fourth principle necessarily entails the denial of at least one of these known truths:

• Not all of the doctrine entrusted to the Church as the content of Divine Public Revelation was immediately, at the very outset of the Church's life, set down in writing by the Fathers

• Not all of the ancient monuments of Divine Apostolic Tradition (the writings and inscriptions of the early Christians) have survived until our time, even though Tradition itself has survived and is just as perfectly possessed, guarded, and taught by the infallible Church today as it was in Apostolic Times

• Although the whole content of Divine Public Revelation has always been guarded and presented infallibly by the Church, it has not always been, in its entirety, distinctly conceived and formally expressed

• A doctrine proposed as part of the Divine Apostolic Tradition by the One True Church of Jesus Christ at any one period in Her history cannot possibly be in opposition to what has been taught as Divinely Revealed by the Church at an earlier time

• A doctrine proposed at any time within the Church as a part of Divine Public Revelation must, by reason of the Divine assistance promised and given to the Church, have been taught in the past at least in an implicit manner. Moreover, such a teaching could never have been denied by a majority of the teachers within the Church

Application to BOD and BOB:

Notice the fourth truth above: A doctrine proposed as part of the Divine Apostolic Tradition by the One True Church of Jesus Christ at any one period in Her history cannot possibly be in opposition to what has been taught as Divinely Revealed by the Church at an earlier time. All Feeneyites deny this truth of necessity. If water baptism was the exclusive means to be within the Church and achieve salvation, it was always true since the time the Church was founded. However, that means that the Church defected when BOD and BOB were taught in Her catechisms, by Her theologians, etc. That's why Feeneyites must either become "Vacancy Pushers" like, e.g.,  Richard Ibranyi, who puts the last pope as Honorius II in 1130 AD, or they implicitly deny the dogma that the Church is Indefectible. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach? 

The Feeneyites also 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. 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). 

Five Qualities Sufficient For A Doctrine To Be Infallibly Defined

1.  There must be a number of solemn testimonies directly pertinent to the proposition in question.

Application to BOD and BOB:

There is a plethora of testimonies to the teaching of BOD and BOB. Here are but a few:

 St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity...

 

Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned." (Denzinger 388)

The Council of Trent:

Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "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."

Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4 : "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:

Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

Catechism of the Council of Trent: 

The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen 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."

Pope St. Pius X,  Catechism of Christian Doctrine (aka Catechism of St. Pius X):

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.

 

2. A proposition is capable of being defined if there can be found one or many revealed principles containing this proposition. 

The Commission used the example that from the revealed dogma Christ is True God and True Man, it follows He has two wills. 

Application to BOD and BOB:

It has been dogmatically defined at Trent that " "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Trent also defined: "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."

From the truth that we cannot be saved without the sacraments or the desire of them, it follows that the desire of baptism can be efficacious unto salvation. Feeneyites will say that "or" should be read as "and." For example, "A car cannot run without gasoline or oil." Both are necessities. In adults, baptism must be received with the intention of being baptized ("desire"). 

This is wrong on three counts:

1. The theologians immediately post-Trent did not interpret "or" in that way; and they would know best.

2. The Canon on baptism would be defective because the adult recipient of baptism must also have attrition for his sins, not merely desire to receive the sacrament. Trent could not have been enumerating the conditions for a valid baptism of an adult. Most theologians teach that the basic truths of Faith must also be believed.

3. The Church has interpreted the meaning in Her 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 737 states, Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation...

Trent therefore infallibly defined BOD within the Decree on Justification. It is thus the proper object of a more explicit papal definition. 

3. A proposition is capable of being defined if it shows a necessary connection with dogmas.

Application to BOD and BOB: 

It is of faith that the sacraments are necessary in actuality or the desire for them. Salvation can therefore be achieved by a desire for the sacraments when actual reception is made impossible. This would include Baptism; one of the seven sacraments. Notice also that while desiring Holy Orders does not make a man a priest, it is also (strictly speaking) not necessary for salvation. If the actual reception of Holy Orders were necessary for  salvation, all women would be damned. Of those sacraments necessary unto salvation, God (Who is not bound to give grace only through the sacraments), allows people to be saved by the desire of them. 

4. A proposition may be defined as Catholic dogma if it is preached as a part of Divine Public Revelation in the concordant teaching of the episcopate.

All catechisms and theological works have received the approbation of the episcopate worldwide. 

5. A proposition is capable of definition when it is shown to be a part of Divine Public Revelation by the practice of the Church.

 Canon 1239, section 2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states: 

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). It is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 

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). 

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). Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 (cited above) in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth, therefore it applies to all Rites. 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.

Conclusion

It should be clear that BOD and BOB are not only defined by Trent, but are capable of further explicit elaboration in an ex cathedra papal pronouncement. It is incredible how far away the truth is from the Feeneyite lie that BOD and BOB are "heresy." In order to be saved, one must (a) be within the One True Church and (b) die in the state of sanctifying grace. Leonard Feeney taught that BOD would effectuate justification (confer sanctifying grace) yet you would be damned without water baptism. If you are in the state of grace you are a friend of God and cannot be damned. To assert otherwise is both heretical and illogical.

Modern day Feeneyites teach that BOD confers neither justification or salvation. The only way to be within the Church and be in the state of grace is through water baptism. Yet this post has shown the teaching of the Church to be quite different. In my opinion, if we had a true pope, he would precisely define BOD/BOB putting an end to the madness of the Feeneyites once and for all. We can follow the Church, or those who think they know better than the Church