Question For Feeneyites

[Hananiah]

It is Easter vigil, 200 A.D. You're a catechumenate on your way to be baptized. You are arrested by a Roman soldier, who tells you that if you offer sacrifice to Caesar he will let you on your merry way, but if you don't he will send you to the executioner. What do you do?

[picchick]

Stand up for the faith that you are to be baptized for.

[cmotherofpirl]

Get executed and go to heaven

[MichaelFilo]

The questions is direclty for Feeneyites, and I think I know where he is going with this.

God thinking,

God bless,

Mikey

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Hananiah,
What is your current position on Feeneyism? I thought I argued with you against it? Or are you still for it?

[MorphRC]

I dont get this

[Hananiah]

The Dude,

I argued that Feeneyism was not heresy, because baptisms by blood and desire are not defined dogmas (though I do believe they belong to the ordinary Magisterium). However I have never been a Feeneyite. My position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a lot stricter than the majority of the people on this board, but I accept baptisms by blood and desire.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Well I think there are only 2 people on this board who can answer this question as actual Feenyites....

*waits*

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I'de say its as close to being dogma as anything I've ever seen without ever being defined de fide. The Summa Theologica, past catechisms, fathers, papal statements, ect.
[url="http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thedude/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.cathworld.org/worlds/bible/thed...tfeeneyism.html[/url]

[catholicguy]

It depends what "Feeneyite" means, but I only believe that which the Church teaches [i]De Fide[/i]; while I do not believe in Limbo, I accept it as possible and not contrary to the Faith. Since I only believe what the Church teaches [i]De Fide[/i], I do not believe in the "Baptisms" of blood and desire. I feel that I am able to answer the question. First of all, offering false sacrifice is a mortal sin and would most likely also be a mortal sin of Presumption. Dying would send the soul to Hell (according to the teachings of the Church without speculation which is not approved). Both situations are the death of the soul. The only option is to tell the Roman soldier that first you would like him to peform a ritual for you (tell him how to baptize you; or, even more likely, you would be with another Christian who could baptize you). After being baptized, say that you will not offer false sacrifice and be martyred. In any event, tradition dictates that there were several martyrs who were baptized by Roman soldiers before being thrown to fight with the lions. While none of them are canonized, that does not mean that they did not go to Heaven (their Baptisms probably were not confirmed absolutely, so the Church would not canonize them). In any event, if one were to be martyred after Baptism, he would go immediately to Heaven (presuming that he committed no sin of Despair or otherwise). In any event, you would be baptized before dying either by another Christian (it is not as if the people were caught by themselves very often) or by a soldier (there were so many gods back then that they would not even know if this was some ceremony to a false god, but because they did not have an intent to their knowledge that was contrary to the Church, it would not be invalid; as I said tradition, or what Modernists would call "legends", dictates that some martyrs were baptized by the Roman soldiers). God bless.

Thedude, the Summa does not say that one can be saved without actual water Baptism. Some people (wrongly) think that Saint Thomas Aquinas believed in explicit "Baptism" of desire, but he simply said that God [i]could[/i] allow an Angel or some other means to teach a person. Further, the only past catechism I can think of is BC which was not even a universal catechism, much less promulgated by an infallible document. Several Fathers, especially Saint Augustine and Pope Saint Gregory the Great, said absolutely that catechumens would go to Hell. Papal statements which are not infallible do not constitute something being [i]De Fide[/i]. As you said, it is "close" to being [i]De Fide [/i](it is not De Fide); my point was that it is not really that close, especially compared to Limbo. In any event, we still agree on the only important thing; it is not [i]De Fide[/i].

Edited August 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[p0lar_bear]

catholicguy,

You completely avoided the question. I'll state the question more clearly:

A catechumen who is about to be baptized has [i]only[/i] two options: sacrifice to an idol or die unbaptized. What should he do?

[catholicguy]

Since it is not a possible situation, there is no need to answer it. How about this one: a person who has the Catholic Faith has only two options, either reject the Truth to become protestant or reject the Truth to become a Jew. Which does he do? No, he has the choice of remaining Catholic. There is never a case when one cannot be baptized by another person. At worst, even if he refused to sacrifice and were arrested, he could be baptized by a criminal before his execution. You cannot make the two of those. I suppose, in an impossible, false situation (that you have set up, not what Hananiah has set up), the culpability would be at least reduced (if not eliminated) and sacrifice could be offered physically without any spiritual assent (hey, if the CCC says culpability for masturbation is reduced when it is a habit, surely coercion to the point of physical death reduces the culpability). Still, that is an unrealistic, impossible situation, so it does not matter.

[p0lar_bear]

The situation [i]is[/i] possible. A person can be told to offer sacrifice (or repudiate the faith) or be killed on the spot with no option of baptism. You are simply avoiding the question because you have no answer.

Let me give you a more modern example:

In Nigeria there are very violent clashes between Muslims and Christians. If a Nigerian catechumen is approached by a Muslim with a gun who tells him that he must worship Allah or be killed immediately, what should he do? This is an all too real possibility for catechumens in that country.

[catholicguy]

I was thinking of ancient Rome. It may very well be possible in that situation. If it were possible, you would do your best to reason with him: "Oh, just do this one thing for me first..." If he refuses, you have both options open still. If he shoots you, you did all you could. In any event, praying to "Allah" in order to save one's soul is certainly enough to reduce culpability. If commiting an evil because of coercion excuses culpability, then the same applies here. It is one thing to be afraid (as a Catholic) and to offer false worship, but for one who is not yet a Catholic, it is the same as if someone were holding a gun to his head, telling him to give him the money from the cash register (only it is much more risky because the person could lose both his physical and spiritual life, not just his physical life). So, in the rare event that those were the only two options (and the person would not reason with you after you asked him to), then offering the false worship would not maintain moral culpability the same way that an employee can give the bank's money in order to save his life.

Also, to make it more clear, Hananiah's original post said "deliver you to the executioner", so there would be time to be baptized before reaching the executioner. Further, in cases like Nigeria (which is different from ancient Rome because there is basically vigilante justice; i.e., there is no system of government to execute, so there is no change to be baptized in between), Baptisms should be given much earlier, perhaps as soon as the catechumen made an Act of Faith (as soon as he accepts the Catholic Faith, he is baptized).

Edited August 30, 2004 by catholicguy

[p0lar_bear]

So, they should commit idolatry....

That's sure a great way to live the Faith....