When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[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?

[Guest JeffCR07]

This is a common question, so don't feel stupid for asking it. Your question is one of misinterpreted terminology, and it is a mistake and confusion that very many people make, so if you will bear with me, I will try to explain it as best I can:

All salvation is through the Church and there is no salvation outside the Church. Thus, in order to be a saved, one must be a "member of" (be united to) Christ's Mystical Body. The ordinary way that this occurs is through the Sacrament of Baptism. Not only does the Sacrament of Baptism act as a sign of one's being united with the Church (a sign that is renewed every time you enter a chapel or church and make the sign of the cross with Holy Water), but it also bestows upon the person a very great amount of Grace that aids us in our growth and love of God, and, thus, in remaining in communion with the Trinity.

In extraordinary cases, such as "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood," God can united a person to the Church even without the Sacrament, for God is not bound by the Sacraments.

Thus we profess that there is one Sacrament of Baptism that acts as both a sign of being adopted into God's family as well as bestows much needed Grace upon the person. One can also undergo a non-sacramental baptism, that causes one to be united with the Church, though does not impart the wonderful Grace that can be gained by the sacrament.

When the Church Fathers spoke of there being One Baptism, it is clear that they spoke of it as refering to a Sacrament. (ie, you cannot be Sacramentally Baptised more than once)

So the answer to your question is this: It [baptism] is absolutely necessary for salvation, and to the best of my knowledge, if anyone tells you otherwise, that person is anathema, for by "baptism" we mean becoming connected to the Church.

Moreover, due to the fact that it is impossible to judge whether or not one has been baptised by blood or by desire (that is, has become connected to the Church and the Mystical Body) it would be wholly wrong and improper for one to "hold off" on the Sacrament of Baptism under the assumption that one of the other two can act as a "replacement."

Keep in mind, baptism by blood and baptism by desire are [i]extraordinary[/i] events.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]So, then, is Baptism not necessary for salvation?[/quote]
It [b]is[/b] necessary for salvation.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2004, 09:58 AM'] This is a common question, so don't feel stupid for asking it. Your question is one of misinterpreted terminology, and it is a mistake and confusion that very many people make, so if you will bear with me, I will try to explain it as best I can:

All salvation is through the Church and there is no salvation outside the Church. Thus, in order to be a saved, one must be a "member of" (be united to) Christ's Mystical Body. The ordinary way that this occurs is through the Sacrament of Baptism. Not only does the Sacrament of Baptism act as a sign of one's being united with the Church (a sign that is renewed every time you enter a chapel or church and make the sign of the cross with Holy Water), but it also bestows upon the person a very great amount of Grace that aids us in our growth and love of God, and, thus, in remaining in communion with the Trinity.

In extraordinary cases, such as "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood," God can united a person to the Church even without the Sacrament, for God is not bound by the Sacraments.

Thus we profess that there is one Sacrament of Baptism that acts as both a sign of being adopted into God's family as well as bestows much needed Grace upon the person. One can also undergo a non-sacramental baptism, that causes one to be united with the Church, though does not impart the wonderful Grace that can be gained by the sacrament.

When the Church Fathers spoke of there being One Baptism, it is clear that they spoke of it as refering to a Sacrament. (ie, you cannot be Sacramentally Baptised more than once)

So the answer to your question is this: It [baptism] is absolutely necessary for salvation, and to the best of my knowledge, if anyone tells you otherwise, that person is anathema, for by "baptism" we mean becoming connected to the Church.

Moreover, due to the fact that it is impossible to judge whether or not one has been baptised by blood or by desire (that is, has become connected to the Church and the Mystical Body) it would be wholly wrong and improper for one to "hold off" on the Sacrament of Baptism under the assumption that one of the other two can act as a "replacement."

Keep in mind, baptism by blood and baptism by desire are [i]extraordinary[/i] events.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
THis should be put in the apologetic section.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 13 2004, 08:19 AM'] It [b]is[/b] necessary for salvation. [/quote]
Baptism is necessary for Salvation, but it is not enough. It is the only way for us to be saved, but does not save us itself.

An example is mortal sin. If I die in the state of mortal sin, I will go to Hell. Therefore, even though I was Baptized, it does not ensure me of Salvation.

[catholicguy]

The problem with this belief (about more than one "Baptism", which is not really a Baptism, but an extaordinary means which qualifies as Baptism) is that either one of two things must be true by this logic. Either 1) There is more than one Baptism (the common consensus seems to be that this is false, as the Church teaches) 2) Baptism is not necessary for salvation (which also is deemed false by us, not to mention the Church). If Baptism is necessary for salvation and if "Baptism" of desire and blood are not Baptism, then sacramental Baptism (by "water and the Holy Ghost") would be necessary for salvation. Is this not the Law of Syllogism? Also, people claim that "Baptism" of blood and desire are "extraordinary circumstances" but then balk at saying that Muslims, Jews, etc, etc, are damned if they are not within the Church. The proposition becomes, not "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church", but "There is no way of knowing if someone is outside the Catholic Church; therefore, everyone is in the Church unless they explicitly state it (and even if they explicitly state it, they still could be), so they can all be saved." This is a big problem with this theology. Further, wasn't the topic about infants who die without Baptism? Can an infant really have "desire" to be baptized? Can an aborted baby be "baptized" by blood if he does not have any will to die for the Church?