When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]You've been corrected on this issue before. The Holy Office gave explicit permission to Fr. Feeney and his followers to hold their rigorist position when Fr. Feeney's excommunication was revoked through the good offices of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros. Feeneyism is an opino tolerata.[/quote]
Fr. Feeney's position was [b]condemned[/b] by the Holy Office:
[quote][b]Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):[/b]
"It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God."
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT[/url][/quote]
(Pope Pius XII also condemned his position, and personally checked the English translation.)

His excommunication came later (1953), and it was for disobedience (not his teaching). Hence when the excommunication was lifted, the condemnation of his teaching was not.

Links:
[url="http://bentang.tripod.com/boston.htm"]http://bentang.tripod.com/boston.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT[/url]

Edited July 10, 2004 by thedude

[blovedwolfofgod]

When you said that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians cannot be saved, I felt I should put in a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is about the only thing I can add to the discussion.

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the seperation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers....All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children ot the Catholic Church. (818)"

Now, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism by water are all valid baptisms. So the Church regards them as brothers and says they are incorporated into Christ. The only way we can be saved is to be resurrected with Christ. Iranaeus talks about the corruptible being joined to the incorruptible and sharing in it with Him. Protestants are saved as well as the Eastern churches. And you really seemed to have contradicted yourself when you talk about the invincible ignorance and saying infants cant be saved. It seems to me that for a creature that cant stay awake for longer than 6 hours along with not understanding a word we say for a good year or so would be covered under the realm of invincible ignorance. Now, if this justifies us, and the justified(without mortal sin) and the sinless go to heaven, why dont babies go there? If anything (this statement is not in represtation of the Church, but my opinion) they should go to Purgatory to be prepared for the beatific vision.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Jul 9 2004, 04:23 PM'] The Church has never taught "baptism" of desire. [/quote]
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

CCC:

1258: "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This [i]baptism of blood[/i], like the [i]desire for Baptism[/i], brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a scarament."

1259: "For [i]catechumens[/i] who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."


1261: "As regards [i]children who have died without baptism[/i], the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Inded, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them", allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

[Apotheoun]

From the Sacred Council of Trent, the Sixth Session, 13 January 1547, [u]The Decree on Justification[/u], chapter 4: "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 Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, [b][i]or the desire thereof[/i][/b], as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." [Council of Trent, [u]Decree on Justification[/u], chapter 4]

The 1949 letter of the Holy Office clarifies the nature of the desire required, and states that: "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. [i]Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, [b]it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member[/b], but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing[/i]. [i] However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; [b]but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire[/b], so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God[/i]." [[u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u], 8 August 1949]

Salvation is through Christ's Catholic Church alone; so anyone who is saved, is saved through the Catholic Church, even if they are invincibly ignorant of this fact.

Edited July 10, 2004 by Apotheoun

[M.SIGGA]

Is there anything in any Council directed against parents of deceased unbaptised children/babies? Wouldn't it be the fault of the parents or guardians if a baby or child died unbaptised since a baby can't baptise itself? Confused

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 10 2004, 01:53 PM'] From the Sacred Council of Trent, the Sixth Session, 13 January 1547, [u]The Decree on Justification[/u], chapter 4:  "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 Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, [b][i]or the desire thereof[/i][/b], as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." [Council of Trent, [u]Decree on Justification[/u], chapter 4]

The 1949 letter of the Holy Office clarifies the nature of the desire required, and states that:  "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807).  The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. [i]Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, [b]it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member[/b], but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing[/i]. [i] However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; [b]but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire[/b], so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God[/i]." [[u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u], 8 August 1949]

Salvation is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, so anyone who is saved, is saved through the Catholic Church, even if they are invincibly ignorant of this fact. [/quote]
I like it.

[quote]Is there anything in any Council directed against parents of deceased unbaptised children/babies? Wouldn't it be the fault of the parents or guardians if a baby or child died unbaptised since a baby can't baptise itself? Confused[/quote]
Not sure of any council, but here is a priest on the issue:
[quote]Catholic parents who neglect or unreasonably put off for a long time the Baptism of their children commit a mortal sin.
[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990901/SCRMNTL/baptism_one.htm#9"]http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC...ptism_one.htm#9[/url][/quote]
From what I can gather, stillborn infants are in the same boat. Here is another interesting resource:
[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19991201/SCRMNTL/blssng_mscrg.htm"]http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC...lssng_mscrg.htm[/url]

Edited July 10, 2004 by thedude

[Hananiah]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 10 2004, 01:49 AM'] This particular quote is being taken out of context. It was directed towards those individuals who were fully formed, knew the teachings of the Church, and spoke otherwise - namely, heretics. [/quote]
It is not being taken out of context at all. It condemns all heretics and schismatics. The Eastern Orthodox had been around for several hundred years and there certainly were lots of invincibly ignorant Eastern Orthodox by then. [i]Unam Sanctam[/i] even singles the Greek Orthodox out by name and says that they are not the sheep of Christ. And if Orthodox martyrs can not be saved, still less can Protestant martyrs be saved.

[quote]The entire principal of invincible ignorance is that, by it, you CAN be saved.[/quote]
Absolutely not. The entire principle of invincible ignorance is that it renders one inculpable for whatever one particular sin one is invincibly ignorant about. In this case it would be the sin of remaining outside the Catholic Church. Invincible ignorance does not save and it does not change the fact that one who remains outside the Church can not be saved.

[quote]Feeney is well known for teaching that even a catechumenate who is on his way to be baptised and is killed en route will not attain heaven.[/quote]
I am well aware of this. But he did not, to my knowledge, deny that invincible ignorance renders one inculpable for the sin of heresy.

[quote]I find it very telling that you leave Augustine's quote out. Too difficult to deal with?[/quote]
Lack of time. I'll deal with it now if you wish.

[quote]"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).[/quote]
Not even a Feeneyite would object to this.

[quote]"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).[/quote]
In this sense (Titus 3:10, formal heretics) I agree that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. I do not believe that Catholics should stop talking to them if they don't convert after two conversations.

[quote]"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39]).[/quote]
A Feenyite might object to this, but I don't.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 10 2004, 09:13 AM'] Feeneyism rejects baptism of desire, yet it is compatible with Catholicism? [/quote]
Well, I'd say the Holy Office knows better than you, so yes it is.

[quote]Justin Martyr's is relevant (read part in bold)[/quote]
So it is. It does contradict Feeneyism.

[quote]How is this contrary to what the majority of board members believe?[/quote]
It isn't. But it doesn't support the specifics of your position either. This is a fairly non-controversial statement and I don't think many Catholics except the Feeneyites would disagree with it.

Simple analogy:
Does the statement "we are justified by faith" specifically support Catholicism or Protestantism? Neither.

[quote]The bold part does contradict Feeneyism, because it teaches that people ignorant of Catholicism will be punished.  They claim that if God wants an ignorant person to be saved, he will reveal the Church to them so that they can recieve the sacraments, etc. and that ignorance in one's own fault.  A feeneyite says:

To reiterate: if God knows that John Doe will accept the Truth (whether he's on a desert island or not), God will pre-arrange that the Church be brought to him. On the other hand, if God knows that John Doe is content as he is, and will have nothing to do with the Faith, God is committing no injustice to leave John as he is. St. Alphonsus already explained why so many are ignorant: they don't want to know, so God doesn't reveal Himself to them. They are content as they are, i.e., heaped in sin.
[/quote]
He's describing culpable ignorance (they don't want to know).

[quote]Saying that a person invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church cannot attain eternal life is against Catholic teaching.[/quote]
I've never said this. All I have stated is [i]how[/i] such a person can attain eternal life, namely by being added to the Catholic Church before death.

[Hananiah]

[i]"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the seperation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ"[/i]

Agreed. How many times must I repeat myself? Invincible ignorance renders one inculpable for the sin of remaining outside the Catholic Church.

[i]"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ"[/i]

Agreed. 1 Cor 12.

[i]"they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children ot the Catholic Church. (818)"[/i]

This is true, but I think the Catechism is in need of one more clause to clarify the meaning of this paragraph: "until such time as they reject the Catholic Church."

[quote]Now, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism by water are all valid baptisms. So the Church regards them as brothers and says they are incorporated into Christ. The only way we can be saved is to be resurrected with Christ. Iranaeus talks about the corruptible being joined to the incorruptible and sharing in it with Him. Protestants are saved as well as the Eastern churches.[/quote]
I really don't see how this conclusion follows from the premises.

[quote]It seems to me that for a creature that cant stay awake for longer than 6 hours along with not understanding a word we say for a good year or so would be covered under the realm of invincible ignorance. Now, if this justifies us, and the justified(without mortal sin) and the sinless go to heaven, why dont babies go there?[/quote]
Didn't you read the first post in this thread. Mortal sin or [b]original sin only[/b] suffices to deprive one of the beatific vision.

[Apotheoun]

For those interested in reading it, the following is the [u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u] in its entirety, along with the 1952 [u]Letter of Archbishop Cushing[/u] in which permission for the official publication of the original 1949 letter of the Holy Office has been granted:


[b]LETTER OF ARCHBISHOP CUSHING[/b]

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor

+ Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.


[b]LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE[/b]

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, "Singulari quadam", in Denzinger, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, "Quanto conficiamur moerore", in Denzinger, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical "From the Housetops", fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "imprimatur," which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

+ F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949

Edited July 10, 2004 by Apotheoun

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Well, I'd say the Holy Office knows better than you, so yes it is.[/quote]
The Holy Office and I agree, Feeneyism is a heresy. See this post:
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=15364&view=findpost&p=257694"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=257694[/url]
The Catechism teaches baptism of desire, while Feeneyites do not, hence it isn't compatible with orthodox Catholicism.

[quote]It isn't. But it doesn't support the specifics of your position either. This is a fairly non-controversial statement and I don't think many Catholics except the Feeneyites would disagree with it.

Simple analogy:
Does the statement "we are justified by faith" specifically support Catholicism or Protestantism? Neither.[/quote]
Fair enough, but the quote's intention was to contradict Feeneyism.




[quote]I am well aware of this. But he [Feeney] did not, to my knowledge, deny that invincible ignorance renders one inculpable for the sin of heresy.[/quote]
[quote]He's describing culpable ignorance (they don't want to know).[/quote]
Here is a clear definition of Feeney's doctrine from the theology center he founded:
[url="http://www.catholicism.org/pages/summary.htm"]http://www.catholicism.org/pages/summary.htm[/url]
And a selected quote from that site:
[quote][On Quanto conficiamur]
We also saw that the liberals taking passages out of context, claimed that Pope Pius IX taught that a person involved in invincible ignorance of the true faith could be saved.[/quote]

[catholicguy]

Doesn't the Church teach that there is only one Baptism? As Saint Paul says "One Lord, one faith, on Baptism", so also the Council of Vienne proclaimed: "All the faithful must confess only one Baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and on faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation." This, along with the Council of Trent's decrees on Baptism seem to say that there is only one Baptism, not three. Saint Paul also says there is only one Baptism. Also, Saint Augustine says: "How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death beds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ... When we shall come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: 'Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized?' Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ... For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ... No matther what progress a catechumen may make, he still carried the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized." Saint Ambrose says: "One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized. Therefore, the three witnesses in Baptism are one: the water, the blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8); for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without and sacramental effect. Nor does the mystery of regerneration exist at all without water; "For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." After reading these, it is quite clear that the Fathers and the Councils of the Church support the belief in one Baptism which is necessary for salvation.

[catholicguy]

Three more relevant quotes are these:
Saint John Chrysostom says: "It is obvious that we must grieve for our own catechumens should they, either through their own unbelief or through the neglect of their neighbors, depart this life without the saving grace of Baptism."
Saint Augustine says: "The Church never prays for lost souls ... Mass is offered only for the members of the Mystical Body."
The Council of Braga states: "Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism."

[Apotheoun]

First, it should be noted that many of St. Augustine's views have never been accepted by the Magisterium as [i]de fide[/i]. Second, it is a dogma of divine and catholic faith that there is only one baptism, and so when the Church's Magisterium speaks of [i]baptism of blood[/i], and [i]baptism of desire[/i], she is not referring to these as if they are additional sacraments; instead, she calls them by these names because they have, in an extraordinary manner, the same effect that is produced by the Sacrament of Baptism, in an ordinary manner. As the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] teaches: "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, [i]brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament[/i]." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 1258] Thus, there is only one baptism.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

While Augustine and many of the other Church Fathers that you quote are most certainly phenominal references, as catholics we must remember two very important things:

First: Even Doctors of the Church, such as Aquinas and Augustine, were not infallible in their teachings and, in many cases, were flat out wrong (Aquinas did not believe that Mary was conceived without sin, Augustine believed in absolute and total depravity, etc). If Doctors of the Church can err, so too can those Fathers who are not Doctors of the Church.

Second: Like Scripture, Tradition (the teachings of the Church Fathers and the rituals of the Church) can only be authoritatively interpreted by the Magisterium in communion with the Holy Father. As such, if one's personal conclusions or interpretations of the early Church Fathers lead one into conflict with the teachings of the Bishops in communion with the Holy Father, then that interpretation is flawed.

With regards to the Baptism issue, as Apotheoun has already illustrated, there is only one Sacrament of Baptism, and that is by water and the Spirit. However, those things commonly called "baptism by blood" and "baptism by desire" are, in a sense, misnomers, due to the fact that they are not the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather, are extraordinary events that lead to one of the many fruits of Baptism, namely, membership in Christ Mystical Body. These extraordinary events do not, however, bestow the same wonderful graces as Baptism. I hope that helps!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The fathers, individually, aren't infallible. Only when they speak with the same opinion on a certain issue are they infallible.

[pionono]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 12 2004, 12:25 PM'] While Augustine and many of the other Church Fathers that
Second: Like Scripture, Tradition (the teachings of the Church Fathers and the rituals of the Church) can only be authoritatively interpreted by the Magisterium in communion with the Holy Father. As such, if one's personal conclusions or interpretations of the early Church Fathers lead one into conflict with the teachings of the Bishops in communion with the Holy Father, then that interpretation is flawed.

[/quote]
This is certainly true. However, it can be taken to be more than it is. The tradition of the Church is not subject to constant re-interpretation. There are distinctions that must be made here.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The tradition of the Church is not subject to constant re-interpretation[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you here. Inspired Tradition should be the target of individual interpretation just as much as Inspired Scripture, and that is to say not at all. Thus, like in the case of Scripture, Christ has given us a single reliable source for interpretations, a source that alone has the authority to make such interpretations. That source is the Magisterium in communion with the Pontiff of Rome.

The problem of many instances of "reinterpretation" of which you speak only exist when unorthodox members of the Church posit their own interpretations (un-backed by the Magisterium) as "correct" at the expense of that interpretation held by the bishops in communion with the Holy Father. The Magisterium, however, never "reinterprets" in order to get a desired result, it merely clarifies what has always been true.

The Magisterium has never contradicted itself, though many will try to convince you that it has. Ultimately, I agree 100% with you, these individual reinterpretations need to stop.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[pionono]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 12 2004, 05:24 PM']
I absolutely agree with you here. Inspired Tradition should be the target of individual interpretation just as much as Inspired Scripture, and that is to say not at all. Thus, like in the case of Scripture, Christ has given us a single reliable source for interpretations, a source that alone has the authority to make such interpretations. That source is the Magisterium in communion with the Pontiff of Rome.

The problem of many instances of "reinterpretation" of which you speak only exist when unorthodox members of the Church posit their own interpretations (un-backed by the Magisterium) as "correct" at the expense of that interpretation held by the bishops in communion with the Holy Father. The Magisterium, however, never "reinterprets" in order to get a desired result, it merely clarifies what has always been true.

The Magisterium has never contradicted itself, though many will try to convince you that it has. Ultimately, I agree 100% with you, these individual reinterpretations need to stop.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
What about when a supposed interpretation explicitly contradicts what was taught prior to it?

[catholicguy]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 12 2004, 12:25 PM'] With regards to the Baptism issue, as Apotheoun has already illustrated, there is only one Sacrament of Baptism, and that is by water and the Spirit. However, those things commonly called "baptism by blood" and "baptism by desire" are, in a sense, misnomers, due to the fact that they are not the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather, are extraordinary events that lead to one of the many fruits of Baptism, namely, membership in Christ Mystical Body. These extraordinary events do not, however, bestow the same wonderful graces as Baptism. [/quote]
So, then, is Baptism not necessary for salvation?