Ali Acga In Come Free

Many less predictable things have happened.

I don’t know who wrote/translated this, for the English is not without its problems.

This is from CathNews.

Agca says he is now a Catholic
Published: April 30, 2009

In a letter written from a Turkish prison, Mehmet Ali Agca, author of the failed attempt against Pope John Paul II in 1981, claims to have renounced Islam and embraced the Catholic faith.

Italian weekly Diva e people donna [sic] published the letter, French journal 7s7 reports.

"I am looking for an Italian woman, who wants to correspond with me. Obviously (I hope) she is Catholic because from May 13 2007, I decided to renounce the Muslim faith and becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church," Agca writes. [sic]

"I have decided to return peacefully to the (St Peter’s) square and to testify to the world of my conversion to Catholicism," he says in the letter written in Italian.

"Just for a day, I would wish to return to Rome to pray at the tomb of John Paul II to express my filial appreciation for his forgiveness," he adds.

Questioned by AFP in Turkey, his former lawyer Mustafa Demirbag, said he was "very skeptical" about the conversion, given the steps required to receive baptism.

Ali Agca also claimed to have expressed his desire to visit St Peter’s Square to Pope Benedict XVI, without having received "no response to date". [sic] He also claimed to have informed the Vatican of his conversion.

"For the Vatican, I may still be the man who tried to assassinate the Polish Pope, but now I have changed, I am a different man," he says.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Ali Acga In Come Free

  1. Deacon Nathan Allen says:

    If the letter is authentic, he may already meet the conditions for baptism by desire (if he is being prevented from baptism by water and dies of natural causes) or by blood (which might be an expected outcome from one who has the courage to apostatise from Islam).

  2. Rancher says:

    Not to be sceptical or to ridicule him, but he has a history of “mental issues” which ought to make one cautious in terms of believing him.

  3. Romulus says:

    I am a different man,” he says.

    OK, but if he pays a return visit to St. Peter’s Square, frisk him all the same.

  4. Kradcliffe says:

    My take on this is like Rancher’s: he may be sincere but I gather he’s not quite right in the head. Pray for him, nonetheless.

  5. Allan says:

    Faith is a gift, and can be received by anyone. Tall/short, smart/stupid, sane/crazy. This is just further proof that everyone is called to be a saint.

    We’re all a work in progress, just like he is.

  6. Steve says:

    Not to get too off topic, but is there such a thing as baptism of desire and baptism of blood? I know
    the Catechism says as much, but how does that square with the dogmatic teaching of the Church
    through history on the issue?

  7. Ron says:

    Steve,

    Was the good thief baptized?

    Pax Christi tecum

  8. Steve says:

    Ron, not sure about baptism for the good thief, but we know that St. Dismas is in heaven. God himself
    is not limited by the sacraments though, right?

  9. Ron says:

    Yes, God has bond Himself to His Sacraments but is not bound by them. If someone intends and desires to receive the Sacraments but for reasons out of their control cannot actually do so then God provides them the graces they need.

    Pax Christi tecum

  10. MargaretMN says:

    Steve, my understanding is that there are rules and then there is the Holy Spirit. I think the church teaching is pretty clear that if you are going to make the rules an impediment in extremis, you’d better be sure you are not creating an impediment for God’s plan. As academics like to say, “it’s a tension” in the Catholic tradition. In this case the guy may be nuts, but you can’t have rules that admit no flexibility or you may screen out the good with the bad. That’s not to say that the rules are wrong or have no weight. But they are designed for normal situations. This situation is anything but normal. Someone who dies a martyr before Baptism, is also not a normal situation.

  11. Michael Fudge says:

    Steve, if you Google “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood”, you will be able to find many writings that deal with this. In the 4th century, St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote about baptisms of water, martyrdom, and tears.

    Also, you should remember that Pope John Paul II said In Fidei Depositum, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.”

  12. Not to go down a “rabbit hole”…

    But, there are also the Holy Innocents? The first to shed their blood for Christ, no? They were not baptised by water, but by blood even though they did not know it. There is, of course, a Feast Day to them right after Christmas; this must mean that the Church believes that they are in heaven, after all the word “holy” and “saint” are of the same root.

    I would expect that Ali falls in the line of baptism of desire or if it comes to it and he is truly sincere, baptism by blood.

  13. Steve says:

    Thanks all for your help with this question, but I think an important distinction needs to be made.
    Popes and theologians can speak and write about a great many things. But what matters is not their
    opinions, but their dogmatic teaching. Does the current catechism say something different
    than the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this issue?

  14. Matt Q says:

    Who knows? Who cares? If he really had a conversion of heart, praise God and John Paul’s intercession. If not, oh well. His self-promotion is expected of him as his past behavior has shown the consistency of his mentality. His words alone are insufficient at this point.

  15. Michael J says:

    I have no disagreements about what the Church teaches about Baptism, but St. Dismas and the Holy Innocents are not good examples to use. Both died before the sacrament of Baptism became obligatory so the fact that they were granted Salvation does not indicate that others who have not received the Sacrament may also.

  16. Assuming that this testimony is true and Mehmet Ali Agca has embraced the sweet yoke of Christ, let us rejoice! Can you imagine, perhaps at next year’s Easter Vigil, the once-assassin of the Vicar of Christ receiving the waters of salvation from that Vicar’s successor? Imagine how the radical, Christian-hating, fundamentalist Muslims will react!

  17. Ron says:

    Steve, the teaching of the Church has always been that there is a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood. It has always been believed.

    Pax Christi tecum.

  18. Banjo Pickin' Girl says:

    James, Does this help?:

    From the Council of Trent:

    Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum
    gratiae … post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis AUT EIUS
    VOTO fieri not potest. (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione, Caput IV:
    Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in Statu Gratiae)

    and

    Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed
    superflua, et sine eis AUT EORUM VOTO per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam
    iustificationis adispisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria not sint:
    anathema sit. (Session Septima, Canones de Sacramentis in Genere, N. 4)

    St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis: “Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.”

  19. cordelia says:

    call me a ignorant Pollyana, but who are we to doubt his sincerity?

  20. cordelia says:

    grrr…should have been “an”

  21. Pierre Ronsard says:

    Baptism by desire? Does he have the mental capacity to form the intention? All of this is reminiscent of the histrionics that attended the previous papacy. I had hoped that the JP II era was over. But then there was “baptism” of that eccentric Egyptian journalist where it appeared that no water actually touched his skin, since it was poured over the back of his head and flowed over his hair. Then there was the “conversion” of Tony Blair who instantly announced how wrong the Church was in its teachings about homosexuality. People act as if conversion is somehow good for the Church. But it is invariably a good for the convert. The Church is the fount of goodness and honor. Can other than the weak in faith be edified by this report about this Turkish would-be killer?

  22. Memphis Aggie says:

    I think John Paul II would have wanted it to end up this way.

  23. Tommy says:

    Wouldn’t it be amazing if he was baptized in St Peter’s Square!!!!

  24. I am not Spartacus says:

    Steve. Check your old Roman Missal

    Jan 23 (semi-double) St. Raymond Pennafort, Confessor
    St. Emerentiana, Virgin, Martyr

    Virgin and martyr, d. at Rome in the third century. The old Itineraries to the graves of the Roman martyrs, after giving the place of burial on the Via Nomentana of St. Agnes, speak of St. Emerentiana. Over the grave of St. Emerentiana a church was built which, according to the Itineraries, was near the church erected over the place of burial of St. Agnes, and somewhat farther from the city wall. In reality Emerentiana was interred in the coemeterium majus located in this vicinity not far from the coemeterium Agnetis . Armellini believed that he had found the original burial chamber of St. Emerentiana in the former coemeterium . According to the legend of St. Agnes Emerentiana was her foster-sister. Some days after the burial of St. Agnes Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on 23 January. In the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” she is mentioned under 16 September, with the statement: In coemeterio maiore . She is represented with stones in her lap, also with a palm or lily.

  25. ED says:

    Baptism of Desire was never ever used in the manner posted. I’m sure if Ali Agca wanted to be baptized one of the Italian guards would do it for him. God will do things as he told us to do , he wants baptism by water ,whether or not he accepts other ways is known to him alone and speculating about it just waters down the Sacrament. I believe even Pope Pius 9th warned about this speculating.

  26. I am not Spartacus says:

    call me a ignorant Pollyana, but who are we to doubt his sincerity?

    I was born in Vermont and we have an old saying –

    Try to assassinate One Pope and expect skepticism from Catholics.

  27. ED says:

    IN the ages when St. Agnes Emerentiana lived catechumens were baptized even as they continued to be called catechumens contining to be instructed, i’ve read this in many old Catholic books. Also in a TAN book there is a story about St. Patrick arriving at a place where a devout king (official) lived who long “desired” baptism, if he had already recieved it why did St. Patrick raise him from the dead , which when he was he explained he didnt have his baptismal garment on) so St. Patrick took water baptized him and asked him if he wanted to return to the grave which he said yes. I think the TAN book is called RAISED FROM THE DEAD….about saints raising dead people.

  28. Noah Moerbeek says:

    Actually considering what I know about holy people and the people that tried to kill them. This makes total sense.

  29. The Nicene Creed says “One Baptism” -not three.

    Shedding your blood for Christ (Like the holy innocents, who were probably un-baptized)or St. Agnes Emerentiana as cited above may very well be examples of “Gods ways being above our ways” as it says in Isaiah. The good thief example is another example as cited above used by heretics to say that water baptism is un-necessary.

    I think both the Baltimore Catechism and CCC should not have called these special circumstances “baptism”. Because “God is God and He can do whatever he wants (except sin)” and although true this mode of thought is all too often used by lukewarm or liberal Catholics to justify just about every abhorrent practice or deviation from the magesterium of holy Mother Church.

  30. I am not Spartacus says:

    Catechism of Trent

    http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-b.htm

    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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

    OK, I won’t do this all day long, although I could. I just thought this current Universal Catechism and the Catechism of Trent would suffice to prove the truth of BOB and BOD.

  31. I am not Spartacus says:

    Catechism of St. Pius XTH

    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.

    Maybe all Catechisms are heretical?

  32. fh in Houston says:

    Indeed Ain’t Spartacus!

    LOL

    Quoting a protestant friend, “where is Baptism of Blood in the Bible?”

    LOL

  33. Remember folks, its not through our efforts that any one person is reconciled and save, its purely the work of the Holy Spirit. We can only be good examples, and rejoice in one who mayb have found his way finally.

    And to tag onto a couple of other comments, he isnt the first who committed a heinous crime, only to finally repent.Maria Goretti died at the hands of Alessandro Serenelli , later he repented and lived out his days as a monk

  34. In all charity, I agree with Memphis Aggie and believe that ” John Paul II would have wanted it to end up this way”.

    Maybe all Catechisms are heretical?
    Comment by I am not Spartacus

    Maybe the Nicene Creed needs to be updated ?
    The Nicene Creed states:
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum
    Of course I am using hyperbole here but there can not be at the same time ONE baptism and THREE, humanly speaking. And, being a layman without extensive theological training, I’d like to hear a satisfactory explanation on these additional “baptisms”. Did the Angelic Doctor have anything to say on this matter (He must have)?

    Merely quoting ancient documents does not seem to be good enough for modern man [e.g Since many popes defined Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the CCC "gets vague" on these pronouncements (*)in CCC 846 and 847. Liberal Theologians say that these ex cathedra pronouncements "don't count" since papal infallability, although traditionally believed was not actually defined until Vatican I (1868-1870). Heck, to some people anything prior to Vatican II "doesent count"].

    The Creed that has always been attributed to St. Athanasius echoes:
    Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:
    Whosoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
    Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
    For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.

    Friends, I think we tread on dangerous territory when we second guess our friends in Heaven who have left us intact, from Our Lord, this treasure which is the Catholic faith.

    (*)Pope Innocent III Fourth Lateran Council 1215
    Pope Boniface VIII
    Unam Sanctam 1302
    Pope Eugine IV Cantate Domino 1441

  35. Ron says:

    From St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa:

    Third Part, Q. 66, Article 11:
    “I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): “These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): “The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: ‘Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’ that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable.”

    And found this on a blog http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/04/implicit-baptism-of-desire-in-thomas.html :
    “As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.”

    STh III, q. 69, a. 4.

    Pax Christi tecum

  36. Precentrix says:

    *in illo tempore*

    What St Thomas has to say:

    Essentially, that those who die with even an *implicit* faith in salvation (coupled with at least imperfect contrition) will likely receive remission of sin, but not of the temporal punishment due to sin; whereas martyrdom provides for the remission of eternal and temporal punishment in the same way as sacramental baptism.

    *****

    No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
    STh III 68 a. 2 ad 2

    As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.”

    STh III, q. 69, a. 4.

    If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.”

    STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3

    *****

    Baptism of desire is at least an implicit desire for sacramental baptism, and cannot be separated from the sacrament itself. It is known to God alone if that person would, for example, have desired baptism if he had known about it, or understood the nature of the sacrament, or even heard the Gospel.

    Baptism of blood implies the baptism of desire, at least… and the act of holocaust implied in the complete offering of self to God, for the honour of His Name… well…

  37. Precentrix says:

    Ron:

    Jinx!

  38. Caroline says:

    Just think of how many prayers that John Paul II would have offered for
    this mans conversion!

  39. Cal says:

    Frankly, if he has indeed renounced Islam and embraced Christianity and is still in a Turkish prison, what is left of his life is in very great danger.

  40. kate says:

    I hope and pray that his conversion is authentic.
    Just as I hope and pray for the safety of the Holy Father.

  41. Well, that brings up the whole other doctrine of Purgatory.

    This is an interesting topic, because, Vatican II opened up the idea that if God really wanted to save a person, HE in fact could and would. St Dismas is a wonderful example of this. Dismas never had the sacramental form of Baptism, however, God himself said he would be with him in Paradise. Are we to argue with the Lord Jesus Christ himself? That is not to say that one does not need Baptism, for even the Lord himself taught that. But the Baptism itself is nothing without the Cross. They go hand in hand. Are we to assume that if a person is on a desert Island, and had no access to another person to be baptized, but wanted to, because a copy of the catechism and scripture washed up, he read, and Believed, that he could never know the grace of salvation? Not up to us. Up to one God, in three Divine persons, to decide. Sacraments are outward signs of grace, to help us, not dictate to God what he can and cant do, which is presumptious at best, and Blasphemous at worst

    Now on the other side, one point I would make, is if he goes to St Peter’s, there are numerous individuals who can help him move past a baptism of desire, and into the fullness of the sacrament

  42. I am not Spartacus says:

    And, being a layman without extensive theological training,..

    illotempore. I can easily trump your claim of not having extensive theological training. I have had no theological training.

    Of course I am using hyperbole here but there can not be at the same time ONE baptism and THREE…

    I don’t see why not. There is One God. There is a Triune God.

    The Catechisms citing BOB and BOD include the Catechism of Trent, The Catechism of Pope St. Pius XTH, The Baltimore Catechism, and the current Universal Catechism of The Catholic Church (that’s just off the top of my head)

    I suspect that the Catholic Church (even allowing for Romanita) would have caught-up with and excised that “heresy” by now – if it were heresy.

    IOW, the average Catholic can trust Catechisms and safely ignore well-intentioned laymen who take it upon themselves to authoritatively explicate Catholic Doctrine.

    Not one of the well-intentioned laymen claiming that BOB/BOS is heretical have any Divinely-Constituted authority (I certainly don’t, thanks be to God).

    If I thought those exercising Divinely-Constituted authority were producing, century, after century, after century, Catechisms Teaching the same heresy,then I, personally, would have to admit the Church is no longer the Pillar and Ground of Truth and that Jesus was a liar.

  43. Matt Q says:

    Cordelia wrote:

    “Call me an ignorant Polyana, but who are we to doubt his sincerity?”

    )(

    Under what obligation are we to have to accept it?

  44. fh in Houston says:

    Well said Ain’t Spartacus

    And let me add to “I am not Spartacus”‘ list the Douay Cathechism of 1649 which also cites the Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Intent.

    There is one Baptism, though it may be done though a different matter (water, tears of contrition, or blood)and form (words & washing by minister, or God’s grace).

  45. fh in Houston says:

    Catechism that is!!!

  46. Bart says:

    You could compare this with the repentance and conversion of the murderer of Maria Goretti.

  47. fh in Houston says:

    BTW, St. Thomas and the Church Fathers are not the Magisterium of the Church.

    We tread on dangerous ground when we do not obey the Magisterium of the Church.

  48. There is One God. There is a Triune God.

    “I am not Spartacus”: That’s not playing fair… you can’t compare the mathematical formula 1 = 3 which is an error of logic due to the fallacy of accident with a Divine Mystery. One is on the temporal plane and the other on the supernatural and known only to God.

    I had to look up Romanita. By this word do you mean:

    1.An immiscibly Latin culture of the Roman Empire(Cicero contributed much to the notion) ?

    2.Romanitas is an alternate history novel by Sophia McDougall ?

    “Laymen who take it upon themselves to authoritatively explicateCatholic Doctrine. and “laymen claiming that BOB/BOS is heretical” Woah…kind of strong here on the first part and untrue on the second part. I did not say that any catechism was heretical but merely Juxtaposing the Creed of Nicea which every Catholic says (or the priest says at a low E.F.liturgy)at every Mass every sunday the world over with the terminology “baptism”.

    As to level our respective levels of education, The Angelic Doctor himself considered his writings as “straw” , certanly, two folks blogging on WDTPRS even more so.

    I believe that God is not bound by the sacraments (or anything) but am not fond of calling hypothetical circumstances “baptism” as it may confuse those we wish to convert.

    My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

    Pax.

  49. Ahh, But, the Magisterium was formed by their teachings. You can approach it from both sides. The Magesterium also has taught, through Vatican II, and other councils about the Baptism of intent, and again I point out, that our Lord himself, sanctioned a baptism of intent.

    I hear where you are coming from though, we also simply cant take things from the fathers/doctors out of context, other wise you are like a certain speaker of the house :D

  50. Lori Ehrman says:

    Not Spartacus,

    I am in total agreement on the 3 in 1 concept. Why not? All of the Sacraments are mysteries. I don’t even need to understand. I just trust and love…enough for me. His conversion would be like that of Alessandro, who killed St. Maria Goretti. How Great!

  51. ED says:

    Is it any wonder why the missionary activity in the church has become scarce when all these excuses and ways around the words of JESUS are shouted out loud. I believe the 9/11 terroists were more sincere in their belief in GOD too. And im sure many heretics thru the centuries were sincere in trying to correct the TRUE CHURCH when corruption set in, but JESUS still steered his church. Didnt the Council of Trent warn those who would change the WATER in Baptism into some sort of metaphor, hmmmmmmmm!!!!

  52. Lori Ehrman says:

    Not Spartacus, I agree. 3 in 1 seems par for the course when it comes to the Divine Mysteries. I don’t need to understand. Trust, obey and love! Ali Agca would be like Alessandro, murderer of St. Maria Goretti! I am sure folks thought he was nuts too.

  53. ED says:

    Isn’t it ironic today you can go on the internet and find all kinds of excuses for replacing WATER baptism for a desire for it when in the bad old days the martyrs went to their deaths trying to get WATER baptism and other SAcraments to Pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics. What fools they were couldnt they see the American Indians were sincere in their belief in the GREAT GOD, that Protestants were just purifying the corruption that had seeped into the Catholic Church and that Jews had faith in the Messiah to come. What is BOD OR BOB but metaphors for replacing WATER in Baptism as the Council of Trent condemned. I’m soo glad we have explained away that need and that matyrdom isnt needed anymore. In fact i think i’ll say Mass right now i desire the priesthood i dont need the seminary or bishops hands and everyone knows couples cohabitating that GOD knows their as married as the church weddings.

  54. wsxyz says:

    Whoa there ED!
    No one is saying that baptism (with water) is unnecessary.

    But what happens if someone has truly converted, fully repents of his sins, is on his way to his baptism, and is run over by a truck while crossing the street to the church?

    Does Jesus say “Aww Gosh… I wish I could allow you into Heaven since your contrition is perfect and your love for me is pure, but you died 15 minutes too soon. I’m really sorry, but it’s going to have to be eternal torment for you.”

    Now St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Pius V, and Pope St. Pius X didn’t think so, but maybe you know better than they do?

  55. Alessandro says:

    Not once in this discussion have I heard that we ought to stop baptizing by water, but a WHAT IF scenario.

  56. Nick says:

    I am pretty sure that in the Nicene Creed when it says, “One baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” it means that a person does not have to be baptized more than once in their life. It is not saying that there is only one type of baptism.

    Anyways, this is very good news and I am very hopeful that it is authentic.

  57. monique in TX says:

    Nick at 6:54, I think you are correct. Some early Christians thought one could be baptized as often as you had sinned and repented. Once does it. That is why anyone entering the Catholic Church who has been validly baptized in any Christian denomination that has a valid, trinitarian baptism is welcomed with a declaration of faith and confirmation, not a second baptism.

    As for Agca, I hope this is actually true. Given his history, let’s say I am waiting to be convinced.

  58. Houghton G. says:

    ED

    He doesn’t have Italian guards. He served his time in Italy and was released; he’s in a Turkish prison for crimes committed before he tried to kill John Paul II. I doubt that his Turkish guards will accede to any request he might make of them to baptize him a Christian.

  59. Hidden One says:

    Quite frankly, I’m more inclined to doubt and attack the sincere, charitable, and pious intentions of many of the commenters on this thread than to doubt and attack those of Mr. Agca. What good does all your spiritually-caustic verbiage amount to?

    *waits for Fr. Z. to detonate seismic charges destroying Baptism of Desire/Blood/Water rabiit warren*

  60. Maynardus says:

    “Vatican II opened up the idea that if God really wanted to save a person, HE in fact could and would. St Dismas is a wonderful example of this…”

    Umm, Our Lord is recorded as having granted Dismas his salvation personally and the Church managed to observe his feast day for quite a few years before She was graced with the “revelations” of V2.

    It is illogical to deny that God can save whom He wills, however He wills – how can God be constrained? But He also willed to found a Church as the *ordinary* means of salvation. Scripture makes this quite clear and it’s what the Church has always taught. Anyone who truly holds the Catholic Faith would be utterly foolish – to the point of insanity – to trifle with their salvation by cavalierly dismissing the urgency of receiving the actual Sacrament of Baptism while instead going around insisting that the fact that they “desired it” was sufficient!

    God alone knows and judges, but in general we cannot assume that the means of salvation are other than the ordinary ones. For the exceptions where true desire was manifestly present or Catholic martyrdom was incurred the Church tells us we can trust to the Mercy of God. But one can never presume…

  61. Joe bis says:

    If I understand Hidden One correctly I agree. It is not hard to find, on the internet, those who take “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” in the same sense that was attributed to Fr Feeney SJ and which taken in that sense got him excommunicated. The Church, if I understand correctly, does not insist on attributing an erroneous interpretation to Fr Feeney SJ, and in any case he rejected the interpretation attributed to him and was rehabilitated by the Church. There are some, however, who maintain that interpretation, as I said, and their only way of making their case is to insist not that they are the only ones who correctly interpret the Church’s teaching, but that the teaching of the Church (as seen in the sources given by many posters) is wrong.

    One unfortunate aspect of the “feeneyite” position is that those holding it force false dichotomies onto the issue. For example, “if you believe in baptism of desire then you are denying the necessity of baptism”. Everything God has given us in the faith is reasonable and comprehensible by the intellect, but God has not instructed us to resolve all the tensions that we could possibly imagine between His mercy and His justice. For that we need to rely on Christ and His Spirit. The Church has always maintained the necessity of baptism, and the possibility of baptism of desire. Imagining a contradiction between them indicates that to that extent at least a lack of “putting on the mind of Christ” or, as our Orthodox brothers and sisters call it, the phronema of Christ and the Church.

  62. Maynardus says:

    Joe et al:

    At the risk of further deepening the “baptism-of-fill-in-the-blank” and E.E.N.S. rabbit hole down which this topic appears to be plunging, I would note that whatever Fr. Feeney’s faults or virtues he was not excommunicated for adherence to an erroneous doctrine but for disobedience, i.e. failure to obey a summons to Rome. Insofar as his case is worthy of discussion it should certainly be discussed on its merits rather than erroneous (if commonly held) suppositions. But this is hardly the forum for that discussion (there may not be enough capacity in the Internet!) and so I shall not descend further into the forbidden warren!

  63. Aaron Magnan says:

    The baptisms of fire and desire are approved by either the Church and/or God, though God needn’t reveal all of these to us.

    It’s like the indulgence matter: if you expect some Vatican bureaucracy to jump out and approve your partial remittances, then you are expecting approval from the wrong people. The indulgence is delineated by the Church, but it is God who approves of the condition of a man’s heart.

  64. Ron says:

    It amazes me that there are Catholics, who think they are more traditional than the Tradition, who deny the reality of Baptism by Desire or Baptism by Blood, as if those holy martyrs who died before receiving the actual Sacrament were condemned when the Church holds up their sanctity. St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, along with the teaching of Popes and all the Councils not withstanding, how can someone possibly deny it is part of the Tradition (unless tradition resides solely in the reasoning of these individuals themselves)?

    I’d like them to give one Doctor or Pope of the Church who condemned or rejected Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood?

    Regardless, the existence of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood does not mean we do not try to bring all to the actual Sacrament. Actually, that is the point, that these individuals wanted to receive the Sacrament but for reasons beyond their control were unable. It is the extraordinary working of God for the salvation of the soul, not the ordinary. No one is lost but by their own fault.

    Pax Christi tecum.

  65. I am not Spartacus says:

    “I am not Spartacus”: That’s not playing fair…

    As I said, I have had no theological training. I too acknowledge One Baptism. However, it seems to me that One Baptism is capable of being received in more than one way – via Water, Desire, or Martyrdom. At least that is what Our Catechisms teach and I have never heard even one of those Catechisms, say nothing about all of them, described as heretical.

    If those Catechisms were teaching heresy, why did all of those Popes – even Popes raised to the altars – not correct the heresy, well-knowing as they did, that it is through those Catechisms that Dick and Jane Catholic Child was learnt Theology and the truths of the Faith?

    I had to look up Romanita. By this word do you mean:

    I used it to indicate that Rome moves slowly.

    I believe that God is not bound by the sacraments (or anything) but am not fond of calling hypothetical circumstances “baptism” as it may confuse those we wish to convert.

    I trust The Church to get it right when it comes to Baptism. The fact is that for Century after Century after Century justly famous Catechisms have taught BOB and BOD and, it seems to me, that that Doctrine has only recently come under attack.

    I would be interested to read any Document, Encyclical, Allocution, Papal Letter, any Conciliar Document, etc addressing this supposed “heresy” but I never see such things produced.

    I do see many well-intentioned laity claiming this or that about BOB/BOD but it beggars common sense to see the Doctrine of BOB and BOD taught in all these Catechisms for all of those centuries and not once, as far as I know, see any Magisterial correction of this officially transmitted “heresy.”

    inillotempore. Thanks for the exchange. I hope what I wrote did not come off as a personal attack. I certainly did not intend it to be one.

  66. It comes under attack because of the surge of evangelical thought. That thought, doesnt fully understand the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism removes the stain of original sin, a hinderance of our entry to the kingdom. It does not however allow a sinner to enter heaven. HItler was baptized I believe. Are we to assume a man who murdered millions is saved?

    Also in respone to the response from Maynardus

    “Anyone who truly holds the Catholic Faith would be utterly foolish – to the point of insanity – to trifle with their salvation by cavalierly dismissing the urgency of receiving the actual Sacrament of Baptism while instead going around insisting that the fact that they “desired it” was sufficient!”

    Unless I missed a post or two, or I misspoke, and if you read further down, I dont think anyone is suggesting that a baptism of desire negates the sacramental form or trumps it. Rather, if there is not the sacramental form , (I e a person asks God for pardon, and confesses their belief) then we are left to hope/pray/assume that God will save that person. Again its not up to us to say a person isnt saved. That is up to God and God alone. The Sacarament is God’s way of showing us that a person is saved, in other words, an outward sign of God’s grace. That is not saying the sacarament is purely symbolic in nature, rather it is for our benefit, rather then to “cow pen” God to one way or another (as if we could : ) )

    You are right, to say that saying we DONT NEED sacarmental baptism is absurd, and I would add heretical. I dont think anyone here is saying that though, rather discussing the notion that if a person truly desires to be saved, and doesnt have access to the sacramental form, like the martyrs, etc. That person has the potential for salvation. In other words, they have the potential to go up, but probably not without a stop in purgatory, for cleansing. All I am saying is, to deny that a baptism of intent occurs, to someone who repents on their Death Bed, or for instance, doesnt have access to a Priest, Deacon (or in the rare circumstance, a lay cahtolic), is also in itself denying the power of Almighty God

  67. dymphna says:

    If he’s converted, big yippee, but don’t let him out on
    parole.

  68. Steve says:

    Interesting that the Mass reading* for 4/30 is the story of Philip who, upon the advice of an angel,
    instructs a traveling Ethiopian eunuch about Jesus and eventually baptises him. When they come up
    out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatches Philip away. He vanishes. Is this passage not at least
    food for thought that God will provide water Baptism for any person truly desiring to receive Baptism? I’m
    just asking.

    *Acts 8:26-40

  69. I am not Spartacus says:

    The Sources of Catholic Dogma Denzinger

    Baptism of Desire (an unbaptized priest) *

    388 [From the letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop

    of Cremona, of uncertain time] [early 12th century prolly]

    To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy 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 ministered 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.

    The Minister of Baptism and the Baptism of Spirit*

    [From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii" to Berthold,

    the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206]

    413 You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”

    We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” [cf. Matt. 28:19], the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another. . . . If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.

    Council of Trent

    Chap. 4. A Description of the Justification of the Sinner, and Its
    Mode in the State of Grace is Recommended

    796 In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of the sons” [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5]

  70. Bill Strom says:

    Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching – a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching.

    Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos #13. Aug. 15, 1832:
    “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943; # 22:
    “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration ( i.e. Sacrament of Baptism) and profess the true faith.”

    Pope Pius XII MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI–”On the Mystical Body of Christ,” 1943 #46:
    “Finally, while by His grace [the Holy Spirit] He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body.”

    Some catechisms have even contain heresies like the nicknamed “Catechism of St. Pius X” . It said in question under section “The Communion of Saints”…….

    ……check out this site it answers most of the questions brought up here
    http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/04/catechism-of-catholic-church-on-page.html

  71. Bill Strom says:

    “Baptism of Desire (an unbaptized priest) *

    388 [From the letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop

    of Cremona, of uncertain time] [early 12th century prolly]”

    Totally useless point from Denzinger. It was added by Karl Rahner I think when he edited it.( of universal salvation — no one goes to hell) It has NO authority at all. How does one become a priest without being baptized?

    Self baptism valid because of desire? Doubtful and it is just his opinion even if he is a pope it is just one opinion not in the chair of Peter.

    Trent is the only valid point but this quote is mistranslated see:
    “Mistranslation of Trent concerning: Baptism of Desire”
    It should say “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it”

    http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/mis-translation-of-trent-concerning.html

  72. I am not Spartacus says:

    Mr. Strom. Thanks for the link. I’ll have to check it out in detail when I have time.

    What about the Catechisms prior to what you claim is the (what, fabricated?)entry by Fr. Rahner in Denzinger?

    As to the putative mistranslation of Trent, why do you suppose The Catechism of Trent’s entry about BOD seems so consistent with that claimed “mistranslation?” Was The Catechism of the Council of Trent also mistranslated.

    BTW, when was the Council of Trent’s Texts mistranslated? Who did the mistranslations and was this the sole error in translation? Are their any records of any Bishops complaining about the errors in the texts of the Council of Trent? Are their any records of any Popes addressing the putative errors of translation in the Conciliar Texts?

    All I ever seem to see are claims made by laymen or priests – never Bishops or Popes.

    If what you claim is true, why do you think the First Vatican Council did not address this long-promulgated error, heresy, fabrication (whatever it is being called) that was a feature of popular,and treasured, and, until just recently,Catechisms considered orthodox and reliable?

    With all due respect for your diligence and industry I do not see any link to a Magisterial Source correcting what partisans of the highly-restricted application of EENS claim must be held.

    I think many are familiar with the Fr. Feeney matter but, following the controversy, where is The Magisterial Document correcting the “errors” of BOB/BOD that partisans of that rigorous explication insist is the sole orthodox Doctrine.

  73. Allison says:

    This discussion about alleged baptism of blood/baptism of desire reminds me of a book I read by William Biersach, While the Eyes of the Great are Elswehere. Anyone ever read it?

  74. I am not Spartacus says:

    Mr. Strom. I spent a few minutes this morning reading the site you linked to. One of the first things I read contained an error. I think the error can easily be corrected. If I decide to read anything else at your link and discover additional errors I’ll let you know. Again, thanks for the link.

    He is what you wrote:

    =================== begin quotes++++++++++++++++

    Some catechisms have even contain heresies like the nicknamed “Catechism of St. Pius X” . It said in question under section “The Communion of Saints”

    #29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

    A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

    ++++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Here is the error. The question you cited, question #29, is in the section titled The Church in Particular.

    The Section The Communion of Saints doesn’t begin until after question #72.

    I did find the attack on Fr. William Most bizarre, personal, cruel and unjust and after reading that I was left with no desire to read further. Fr. Most’s reputation for orthodoxy, at least for me, remains unsullied even after reading The Brother’s personal opinions.

  75. I am not Spartacus says:

    CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

    DECLARATION
    “DOMINUS IESUS”
    ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
    OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

    VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS
    IN RELATION TO SALVATION

    20. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.
    Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

    The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82

    21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.

    Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and which are part of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions”.86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.89
    22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.93 One understands then that, following the Lord’s command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life”.94
    In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as always retains its full force and necessity”.95 “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”.96 Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes.97 Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom,98 must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

    The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.
    Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

    JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER
    Prefect

  76. I am not Spartacus says:

    Mr. Strom. I was thinking about the document you cite below. I wonder if that document would carry more weight if you had included the names of all who signed it.

    +++++++++++++++++++ begin quotes +++++++

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

    Your Excellency’s most devoted,

    F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

    A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

    Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

    ++++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++++++++

    (I think Ottaviani’s reputation for orthodoxy is rather solid.)

    From your site:

    ++++++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++++++

    On August 8, 1949 — almost four months after the silencing of Father Feeney — the Holy Office issued a document, a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Boston and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known as Protocol No. 122/49.*

    ++++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++

    I have no doubt you are sincere and approach the EENS controversy with good intentions. I do think you have erred in just the few internal links I have read. Instead of taking up too much space by citing specific matters and trying to respond to them, I will post the link which I think has a far better “read” on the Letter from the Holy Office.

    http://assumptionofourlady.wordpress.com/part-1-the-holy-office-speaks/

  77. I agree with Memphis Aggie and believe that
    ”John Paul II would have wanted it to end up this way”.

    Most apropos regarding E.E.N.S. on the feast of St. Athanasius :

    Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:

    Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.

    Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.

    For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.

    Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur.

    This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.

    Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes.

    Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.

    Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:

    For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.

    Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas.

    But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.

    Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus.

    What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.

    Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus.
    The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
    Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus.
    The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.
    Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus.
    The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.
    Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.
    Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus.
    So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.
    Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.
    Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
    Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.
    Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.
    Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus.
    Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
    Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.
    However, there are not three gods, but one God.
    Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus.
    The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
    Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus.
    However, there are not three lords, but one Lord.
    Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur.
    For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.
    Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus.
    The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.
    Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus.
    The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.
    Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.
    The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.
    Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.
    There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
    Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales.
    In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less.
    The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.
    Ita ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit.
    So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshiped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.
    Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.
    He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.
    Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat.
    It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus et homo est.
    Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
    Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.
    As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.
    Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.
    He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
    Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem.
    He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity.
    Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
    Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.
    Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.
    And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God.
    Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae.
    He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.
    Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.
    As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ.
    Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
    He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.
    Ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis: inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
    He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
    Ad cuius adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis: et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.
    At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
    Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.
    Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
    Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Amen.
    This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.

    My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

  78. Bill Strom says:

    Comment by I am not Spartacus wrote:
    “I did find the attack on Fr. William Most bizarre, personal, cruel and unjust and after reading that I was left with no desire to read further. Fr. Most’s reputation for orthodoxy, at least for me, remains unsullied even after reading The Brother’s personal opinions.”
    Fr. Most,
    while I respect Fr. Most in many of his efforts to fight for orthodoxy. He seemed to have a closed mind and a vendetta against Fr. Feeney’s Position, which you have never mentioned is acceptable to the Church because 3 orders are approved that hold the Feeney position:
    OSB – Order of St. Benedict (Benedictines of Still River)

    MICM – Sisters of St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Saint Anne’s House)

    MICM – Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Immaculate Heart of Mary School)

    http://www.worcesterdiocese.org/vicar/ReligiousCommunities/tabid/478/Default.aspx

    So to be a “Fenneyite” is ok with the Church.

    I wouldn’t like to call him a liar out of respect for his work but I fail to see how a normal person studying this controversycame up with this (quote below) and even repeated it after being corrected by the “Feeneyites”:

    “he [Feeney] insisted that
    all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he
    had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell.
    Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their
    names on a parish register
    - would also go to hell, even if they
    never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt

    This shows a lot of bad will on Most’s part for not being honest. Many people have weaknesses and prejudices that get the better of them sometimes, so, I don’t know how guilty Fr. Most was in this false accusation but it is a complete falsehood and COMPLETELY undermines anything he has to say on the subject. Fr. Feeney nor any of his supporters EVER implied or wrote anything like this.

  79. Bill Strom says:

    Comment by I am not Spartacus QUOTED:
    DECLARATION
    “DOMINUS IESUS” Like it proves our point? I doesn’t, let me call your attention to this part of your quote \”For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

    This is only repeating that grace is available to lead people to God, which means to enter the Catholic Church,
    Do you see? They not \”formally member\”, that is, they are not members because:

    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943; # 22:
    “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration ( i.e. Sacrament of Baptism) and profess the true faith.”

    Pope Pius XII MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI—”On the Mystical Body of Christ,” 1943 #46:
    “Finally, while by His grace [the Holy Spirit] He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body.”

    And the Council of Trent agrees that only the Baptized are members:
    Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap.II:\”The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’”

    Even the arch-liberal Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. is honest enough to admit this:

    “…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire. “(Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, Translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40,41, 57 Or. 40, 23 (PG 36, 3890), 58 ‘Sermo contra dilationem Baptismi’ (PG 46, 424), 59 Cf. Fr. Hoffmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus (Munich 1933), pp.221 sqq., 381 sqq., 464 sqq., New York, The Seabury Press, 1975.)

  80. Bill Strom : Nice blog !

    My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

  81. Bill Strom says:

    thanks for the compliment inillotempore. I’m trying the best I can.

  82. I am not Spartacus says:

    DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
    LUMEN GENTIUM
    SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
    POPE PAUL VI
    ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

    CHAPTER II

    ON THE PEOPLE OF GOD

    #16 Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)

    (And The Ecumenical Council Footnote? The Letter of The Holy Office condemning the errors of Fr. Feeney).

    (19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

    http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a2

    As far as I can tell, for Fr. Feeny to be right in his explication of EENS, all that needs to be admitted is that all Catechisms are heretical, that Pope John Paul II was a heretic; that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic; that Dr’s of the Church are heretics; that an Ecumenical Council is heretical; and that Dominus Iesus is heretical.

  83. My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

    #16 Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

    Ahhh..Isn’t that refreshing, theold “ignorant native” theory. I believe that this is true (again: God is God and can do as He pleases). However the “dictates of conscience” clause has been bandied about by liberal theologians to justify everything from contraception, to euthinasia, to abortion (and basically whatever else you desire, worry-free).

  84. RBrown says:

    The is only one Baptism, not three, and it is a Sacrament.

    When we speak of Baptism of Desire or Blood, the word baptism is used analogically because BOB and BOD bring about the fruits of the Sacrament without the Sacrament having been celebrated.

  85. My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

    RBROWN: Indeed. Many of us have pointed this out all along the thread of this blog.

    In corde Iesu et Maria

  86. RBrown says:

    RBROWN: Indeed. Many of us have pointed this out all along the thread of this blog.
    Comment by inillotempore

    Which of you pointed out the analogical use of Baptism?

  87. I am not Spartacus says:

    He seemed to have a closed mind and a vendetta against Fr. Feeney’s Position, which you have never mentioned is acceptable to the Church because 3 orders are approved that hold the Feeney position:

    OSB – Order of St. Benedict (Benedictines of Still River)

    MICM – Sisters of St. Benedict Center, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Saint Anne’s House)

    MICM – Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Immaculate Heart of Mary School)


    So to be a “Fenneyite” is ok with the Church.

    Mr. Strom. You piqued my interest and I did some searching and today I ran across this:

    In a letter to Mrs. Terri O’Rorke (which was referenced on the television program Chronicle, Fr. Edward J. Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester (NH) wrote:

    “I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire.Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center. For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center.”

    And there are, as you prolly know, unanswered questions as to whether or not “Brother Andre Marie” was ever ordained a Deacon.

  88. First, the Chronicle news program is yellow journalism, at best.

    Second, +McCormack is not the first bishop to disapprove of the defenders of tradition.

    Thank goodness the bishop of Worcester takes tradition seriously.

    Sparticus, I don’t know how you came to be against Fr. Feeney and his followers, like it or not, we’re ecclesiactically approved, defenders of tradition and here to stay.

    My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

    P.s. What does the question as to whether or not “Brother Andre Marie” was ever ordained a Deacon ? The Richmond Slaves have various retired priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  89. Bill Strom says:

    Dear I am not Sparticus,
    Last I checked New Hampshire and Massachusetts are two different states and dioceses. Maybe your not American and didn\’t realize that.

    You seem to be grasping at straws. How many Franciscans groups are there?
    There are 4 different Feeney groups(that I know of) 3 approved. One celebrates the novus ordo mass the other 3 don\’t always. One lives the rule of S. Benedict 2 live the Franciscan rule and I don\’t know enough about the one in New Hampshire but I think they may use the Augustine rule. It seems like you\’re confused. The group in New Hampshire would be the fourth and they are in dialog with the Bishop there,from what I have heard. They are not approved yet if you bothered to read the link to the Canon lawyer I gave that would have been clear.

    So you are saying that Vatican II says there is salvation outside the Church?

    I think it doesn\’t:
    Vatican II— Lumen Gentium:#14. \”This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.\”

    As for the footnote (since you think the church is committing heresy to approve 3 Feeneyite groups)

    The footnote is not part of Vatican II\’s Constitution on the Church. In the footnote (#59) of the section (16)refers to, the letter concerning Father Feeney is appended, but minus the phrase of \”implicit\” desire\’s acceptability before God.

    Abbot Jerome Theisen, O.S.B., in his book, The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation, comments on this deletion in the text: \”The suppression of the votum implicitum is probably due to disenchantment with the term, especially since it was used indiscriminately to describe the situation of both separated Christians and the \”unevangelized\” in their diverse relations to the Roman Catholic Church.\”

    Furthermore, this \”footnote\” did not appear in the Relationes-the reports which accompanied the official schemata. Evidently, it was added later by a peritus. So is a secretary infallible after the council?

  90. Bill Strom says:

    Council of Trent Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved.

    “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it”

    This shows how far from tradition groups like SSPX and the BoD advocates have come, by saying that desire to be baptized is no longer necessary. There is NO tradition for BoD for more than Catechumen as far as I know.

    According to this understanding ( i.e. “at least to have the actual desire/vow for baptism”), it would seem that it would be un-Catholic to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote Trent in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.

    Thus, 99% of those who quote Trent reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the bad will of many baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all by teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.

  91. Bill Strom says:

    Ps. I have been doing my own little survey of how educated priests are on this subject. I have spoken to 3 priests so far after mass. One said Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (he actually knew the Latin)is a heresy! And he said “Yes There is salvation outside the Church” He said it was condemned with Fr. Feeney. The next 2 seemed clueless that it was a dogma. One said we were never taught about that. They seem to have never even read the Catechism even though it is inaccurate it is better than saying EENS is a heresy! LOL seminaries LOL

    Try it yourselves. Most priest seem clueless on one of the most important dogmas in the Church. I would suggest to bring the three proclamations with you or they think your a nut. Here they are:

    * “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

    * “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

    * “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

    plus
    Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, 1832:#5:

    You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the apostles, martyred St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: “Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.” Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: “Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ.”

    Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: “There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.” Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.

  92. I am not Spartacus says:

    Sparticus, I don’t know how you came to be against Fr. Feeney and his followers…

    Inillotempore.I am not against Fr. Feeney. He is dead. Even when he was alive he had no Teaching Authority and The Holy Office was crystal clear his personal opinions about EENS were wrong.

    I am with the Catholic Church and its authoritative explication of the Dogmatic Teaching on EENS. (Sentire cum Ecclesia</I.)

    Nine Catholics in America even know the name, Fr. Feeney. That he has followers today who defend his condemned ideas about EENS I attribute to free will.

    Fr. Feeney is not my Teacher. The Catholic Church is my Teacher.

  93. My hope is that Ali Acga does indeed convert.

    My dear Sparticus : Fr. Leonard was a Jesuit before he founded the Slaves. Jesuits are men of learning and scholarship (Some even Doctors of the Church). I disagree when you say Fr. Lenord “had no Teaching Authority “.

    I know there are some Jesuits who do not represent the Church well (Georgetown and Fr. Karl Rahner come to mind).

    I accept your correction when you say “Fr. Feeney is not my Teacher. The Catholic Church is my Teacher”. How far the sons of St. Ignatius have strayed from the teachings of their own Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine! In refuting the Protestant denial of the necessity of Baptism, Bellarmine wrote, “…those who imagine that there is another remedy besides baptism, openly contradict the Gospel, the Councils, the Fathers, and the consensus of the Universal Church.”

    In the Divine Office – every Sunday – the Athanasian Creed is recited:

    “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith… Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally…”

    I suppose next, St. Athanasius will be accused of heresy in the creed that bears his name for not caving to the relativism that is the fad of today.

    Sparticus, this exchange has been interesting. thank you for it.

    Pax.

  94. Bill Strom says:

    Sorry inillotempore I am with “I am not Spartacus” Fr. Feeney has no authority to teach in the way “I am not Spartacus” means it. Feeney’s teaching is not authoritative because Feeney teaches it but only because the Church Teaches it.

    But “I am not Spartacus” is wrong that he is with the Church mind (Sentire cum Ecclesia) because by the Church giving permission for these 3 groups to exist, it is saying that there is not a conclusive judgement on the matter and that holding the strict understanding of the Dogma is perfectly acceptable to be a Catholic in good standing.

    True Sentire cum Ecclesia would be not to condemn what the Church does not condemn.