So many reports on the Internet assume that the baptism of desire is visible- 3

March 30, 2013
So many reports on the Internet assume that the baptism of desire is visible- 3
1
Because of the abuse of the notion of "Baptism of Desire," a good and holy priest, Father Leonard Feeney (d. 1978), came to deny this teaching altogether. His position, which became known as "Feeneyism," was formally condemned under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII in 1949; he was excommunicated in 1953, and then the excommunication was lifted in 1972. His spiritual children, known perjoratively as "Feeneyites," tend to be, other than regarding this one issue, wonderful traditional Catholics who act out of a misunderstanding and a noble desire to fight the watering down of Catholic teaching by those who abuse the idea of "Baptism of Desire" and deny the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"). Their extreme wariness of the denial of extra ecclesiam nulla salus was prescient, especially in light of the harm caused by the post-conciliar Church's false ecumenism.
http://www.fisheaters.com/baptism2.html

2.
Feeneyists or Nulla Salists: Believe “extra ecclesiam nulla salis” (EENS, outside the Church no salvation) but reject baptism of desire. Proponents accept the heretical teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., M.I.C.M. Rejection of BOD and the heresy of Americanism, are distinguishing marks, which, they claim (despite evidense to the contrary,) indicate the only Faithful Catholics.

http://www.thefourmarks.com/who.htm

3.
People will sometimes ask, "Does this means non-Catholics are going to hell?" Not necessarily.

Invincibly Ignorant
The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
Jim Blackburn is a Catholic Answers staff apologist.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

4.
This same teaching was echoed by Pius IX's successor, Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical , to which the 1949 protocol also makes reference. The protocol summarizes the pope's teaching by saying that while membership in the Church is indeed an absolute requirement for salvation, such membership does not necessarily have to be visible to the human eye, and can be characterized by even "desire and longing," whether explicit (in the case of catechumens) or implicit (in the case of the invincibly ignorant). EWTN
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm

5.
Seriously, I will say what I said clearly elsewhere. God can save whom it pleaseth God to save. How He does that apart from the sacraments and formal membership of the Church is a mystery to me. All I know is that if someone can be saved at all, he is saved solely through the merits if Christ’s Sacrifice. The merits of Christ’s Sacrifice, all graces, everything for our salvation is mysteriously mediated through the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Any person who doesn’t belong to the Church but comes to salvation nevertheless receives whatever was sufficient through the mysterious mediation God has willed through the Catholic Church. In that sense, outside the Church there is no salvation.
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, What Does the Prayer Really Say ?http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/quaeritur-salvation-outside-the-church-again/

6.
The reason I mention all of this is because Michael Liccione has posted some wonderful stuff on all of this--not just "Extra Ecclesiam" but the whole question of the development of doctrine--over on Pontifications. Michael is both a fine philosopher and an admirable apologist, and I cannot recommend his posts highly enough. The comments (over 30 so far) are also very good, making for a fine dialogue.
http://examinelife.blogspot.it/2005/09/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus.html

7.
Pius IX clearly expressed the full teaching a century ago. His writing distinguishes between those who are invincibly ignorant and those who have willfully separated themselves from the Catholic Church:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html

8.
But after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, not the idea that non-Catholics (including non-believers) could attain salvation through their good deeds and take root?
So how to get these two doctrines reconciled?
Sound contradictory to me.
http://www.romancatholicresources.com/2009/05/catholics-how-can-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-with-the-vatican-ii-declaration-on-non-catholics/

9.
So here is where invincible ignorance comes into play. I will let the Supreme Pontiffs (notably those who predate Vatican II and, therefore, are beyond the Feenyites' reproof) to explain this doctrine:

Blessed Pius IX wrote in Quanto conficiamur moerore:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.it/2007/09/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-and.html

10.
Fr. Feeney began preaching the axiom of Pope Boniface VIII "Outside the Church, no salvation". For him, formal membership (that is one NEEDS to be baptized) of the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation. The Holy See rejected his restrictive view by distinguishing between those who really belong to the Catholic Church and those who belong by desire.

The desire would be explicit in those who were catechumens and implicit in those people of goodwill who would join the Church if they knew it to be the one, true Church of Christ
http://tridentinecatholic.blogspot.it/2008/01/dialogue-on-catholic-dogma-extra.html

11.The problem with Father Feeney's position was that he would not give any quarter in regards to the possibility that God can be God and use extraordinary means to save someone not visibly united to the Church.
http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/extra_ecclesiam.htm

12.
The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional

They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : "an academic difference to be settled by the Church." : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that doctrine. This is false.

The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the Deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion.

The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.


Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/feeny.htm

13.
The great English Cardinal considered this teaching in his Letter, not directly for the sake of the doctrine itself, but primarily as an example of something which he believed could offer “the opportunity of a legitimate minimizing.” [17] Following this line, he held that the principle “out of the Church, and out of the faith, is no salvation,” admits of exceptions, and he taught that Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, had spoken of such exceptions. Newman quotes these words of Pius IX.

‘We and you know, that those who lie under invincible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts, which are engraven by God on the hearts of all, and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, by the operation of the power of divine light and grace, to obtain eternal life’
The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (emphasis added)
The following is an exact reproduction of the American Ecclesiastical Review, February, 1951, pages 124-143, published by the Catholic University of America Press.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/meaning.htm
14.
Catholic dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (literally "no salvation outside the Church") has sometimes been interpreted as denying salvation to non-Catholic Christians as well as non-Christians, though constant[citation needed] Catholic teaching has stressed the possibility of salvation for persons invincibly ignorant (through no fault of their own) of the Catholic Church's necessity and thus not culpable for lacking communion with the Church. In the 20th century this inclusive approach was expressed in the condemnation of Feeneyism and in the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, which said that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator," although this is ambiguous and numerous interpretations have arisen. Vatican II further affirmed that salvation could be available to people who had not even heard of Christ (cf. Acts 17:23)— but that all who gain salvation do so only by membership in the Catholic Church, whether that membership is ordinary (explicit) or by extraordinary means (implicit).[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

15.
Outside the Church there is no salvation. Solemnly defined doctrine that says that no one who culpably refuses to become and remain a member of the Catholic Church can be saved. Positively this means that all who reach their eternal destiny are saved through the Catholic Church, of which Christ is the visible head. This is true even though they nay not have lived as professed Roman Catholics (Fourth Lateran Council, A,D, 1215, Denzinger 802). (emphasis added)
Catholic Culture
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33487

-Lionel Andrades

Lionel A wrote:12.
The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional

They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : "an academic difference to be settled by the Church." : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that doctrine. This is false.

The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the Deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion.

The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.


Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/feeny.htm

Lionel,

It's the Catholic Church, namely, the Magisterium (that is, the Pope, Vicar of God, and those bishops who are communion with him) who decides who is full communion with Rome and who is not. Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome and even received a Mass of Christian Burial by his bishop; most of his followers are in full communion with Rome, also. So, their understanding of "Baptism of Desire" (aka, "desire for Baptism") is neither heretical nor erroneous. As the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott pointed out ad nauseam, they would have heard about it from their bishop or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and not Internet armchair theologians if such was not the case.

P.S. Don't post on Easter; you shouldn't even be reading message boards on that most Solemn and Holy Day.

It's the Catholic Church, namely, the Magisterium (that is, the Pope, Vicar of God, and those bishops who are communion with him) who decides who is full communion with Rome and who is not. Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome and even received a Mass of Christian Burial by his bishop; most of his followers are in full communion with Rome, also. So, their understanding of "Baptism of Desire" (aka, "desire for Baptism") is neither heretical nor erroneous.

It's not a problem for me. I accept the community.
Regarding the Church accepting them: the Church also accepts those who reject the baptism of desire and who reject the dogma and who have contrary views on salvation from that of the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Posting on Easter.

My blog and these posts are a religious exercise. I do it for Jesus and Our Lady and they help me.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. Solemnly defined doctrine that says that no one who culpably refuses to become and remain a member of the Catholic Church can be saved. Positively this means that all who reach their eternal destiny are saved through the Catholic Church, of which Christ is the visible head. This is true even though they nay not have lived as professed Roman Catholics (Fourth Lateran Council, A,D, 1215, Denzinger 802). (emphasis added)
Catholic Culture
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33487

Would you agree that the word culpably is a tell tale word ?
He is referring to those saved in invincible ignorance who are visible to us or to him.

Lionel,

We have those examples in Christendom from the Middle Ages of those "kidnapped kiddos" who were carted off to Islamic lands to be raised as Muslims, even though they had been sacramentally baptized as infants. What was their eternal fate? Were they destined to fall into mortal sin? Was the prayers of their parents, siblings, friends, the Church militant, and those in Paradise all in vain for them? And, given the fact that "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptized, how many infants over the centuries who were raised in Judaism, Islam, Buddism, or any other "ism" for that matter, were sacramentally baptized at some time during their infancies, and how could you or I or anyone else ever prove that such did not occur with respect to any particular individual?

Do you see the point that I am trying to make here?

We have those examples in Christendom from the Middle Ages of those "kidnapped kiddos" who were carted off to Islamic lands to be raised as Muslims, even though they had been sacramentally baptized as infants. What was their eternal fate? Were they destined to fall into mortal sin? Was the prayers of their parents, siblings, friends, the Church militant, and those in Paradise all in vain for them? And, given the fact that "anyone whatsoever" can validly baptized, how many infants over the centuries who were raised in Judaism, Islam, Buddism, or any other "ism" for that matter, were sacramentally baptized at some time during their infancies, and how could you or I or anyone else ever prove that such did not occur with respect to any particular individual?

I understand that you are saying that we can never know.

15.
Outside the Church there is no salvation. Solemnly defined doctrine that says that no one who culpably refuses to become and remain a member of the Catholic Church can be saved. Positively this means that all who reach their eternal destiny are saved through the Catholic Church, of which Christ is the visible head. This is true even though they nay not have lived as professed Roman Catholics (Fourth Lateran Council, A,D, 1215, Denzinger 802). (emphasis added)
Catholic Culture
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33487

Why is Catholic Culture saying no one who culpably refuses instead of the traditional no one...

Why use the word culpably ?

What about those in Original Sin ? We know all in Original Sin are on the way to Hell since they also commit mortal sins in this state , are not baptized with water and have no access to the Sacraments needed for salvation.

I think that you are falling into the "either/or" fallacy. The default state is not salvation, but damnation. This is de fide, and even though the CCC is not clear on it, it is clear enough:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

So, those souls dying "in original sin alone" are excluded from Heaven, life eternal; this is de fide.

As for unbelief, it can be culpable or inculpable, however, it is never salvific, ever. "Not believing," for whatever reason, has never saved anyone, nor could it. As for making the culpable/inculpable distinction, I suppose that such is pastoral. Everyone, after all, "knows" that "outside the Church, no salvation," so what is the point of "rubbing it in"?

Whether the post-Vatican II Popes agree with it or not, the Catholic Church's strategy, perhaps led by the Holy Spirit, over the last generation has been Good Cop/Bad Cop. Ultimately, it is Jesus Christ, the Righteous Judge, who will judge as to who has ended his/her life in a state of grace and who has not. Such will be true for those men who have been Popes, also.

If the baptism of desire is not visible then how could Catholic Culture say that o one who culpably refuses to become and remain a member of the Catholic Church can be saved' - and leave it at that.

Is he implying that those who are in invincible ignorance are known to us and so these cases are the only one who wil be culpable ?.

We know, as you have mentioned, that all with original sin are culpable and if there is an exception, and I mean if, then this case would not be culpable and it would also not be known to us. So it is irrelevant to mention it unless one is confused.

This is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

We cannot judge culpability but the One and Triune God can. We only know that the category exists and not necessarily which individuals belong to such a group. Even the Holy Inquisitions, after months (sometimes, years), of proceedings could not always fully determine if an accused heretic was, in fact, a heretic. Such judgments were fallible, which means that they were reformable.

The great English Cardinal considered this teaching in his Letter, not directly for the sake of the doctrine itself, but primarily as an example of something which he believed could offer “the opportunity of a legitimate minimizing.” [17] Following this line, he held that the principle “out of the Church, and out of the faith, is no salvation,” admits of exceptions, and he taught that Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, had spoken of such exceptions. Newman quotes these words of Pius IX.

‘We and you know, that those who lie under invincible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts, which are engraven by God on the hearts of all, and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, by the operation of the power of divine light and grace, to obtain eternal life’
The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (emphasis added)
The following is an exact reproduction of the American Ecclesiastical Review, February, 1951, pages 124-143, published by the Catholic University of America Press.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/meaning.htm

Admits of exceptions ?!!

He's wrong. Here's the complete text of Quanto conficiamur moerore:

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Therefore, unless one wishes to claim that Pope Pius IX contradicted himself in Paragraphs 7 & 8, then those individuals who he was referring to in Paragraph 7 must still end their lives in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" per Paragraph 8.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]

Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church

He means in the present times no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. There cannot visible cases.

In potential, as a possibility and known only to God a person could be saved outside the visible to us boundaries of the Church. Since it is invisible it is not an exception.

I make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, visible-invisible distinction.

True, what did Florence mean by "all those who are outside the Catholic Church"? I think that they would have agreed with your "explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, visible-invisible distinction", because if someone was "outside the visible boundaries of the Church" such an individual would only be known to the Triune God. This is why Dante could place two pagans in Purgatory and another two in Paradise, without ever being accused of heresy.

In any case, does such even matter in our proclamation of EENS to the World?

Agreed.We are clear in our proclamation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
However there are so many reports on the internet which do not make the visible - invisible distinction.
Then even among supporters of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Center it is an either this or that.
There is a baptism of desire or there is no baptism of desire for them, with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is not there is a baptism of desire (invisible) and also the need for all, with no exceptions, to be baptised with water (visible).

The visible/invisible distinction that you make is fine, as long as you acknowledge the possibility that everyone in Paradise, without any exceptions whatsoever, may have the character of sacramental Baptism in Water, at least after the Law of Baptism was promulgated if such, indeed, is the will of the omnipotent One and Triune God.

In any case, BoD/BoB has absolutely no impact whatsoever on our proclamation of EENS and that's what is important.