The fundamental error of the
Feeney adherents:
Rejecting the
rules for belief laid down by Vatican I and Pius IX
Introductory
Note: The notes from my lecture “Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles” were posted on our Web-site in early 2001 and occasioned a lively
discussion on the Sacred Heart List, an e-mail discussion group for the
adherents of the St. Benedict Center, who follow the teachings of the late Rev.
Leonard Feeney SJ. The following is an exchange of e-mails between myself and
one St. Benedict Center adherent. — AC
Is There True Unanimity Among
Theologians?
Dear Fr.
Cekada:
It
would seem that remarks I made on our Sacred Heart List were passed on to you —
as your proposal was passed on to the list. Fair enough. Without going through
the other parties I thought I would contact you directly and will forward a
copy of my response to our list. And, if you choose to respond in turn, I will
post your response as well. I'm certainly not very competent in such things,
but I will do the best I can.
To the matter:
First of all, I was commenting upon your post as a simple layman and claim no
expertise. That being said, I took the time to respond to your initial post
because it didn't make sense to me — I can't make it work in reality. Thus, let
me attempt to make myself clear — and then, if you choose, you can make
yourself clear.
It is your
contention (as I understand it — and I am more than willing to accept
correction if it is needed) that you hold than those who do not believe in
"Baptism of Blood" and "Baptism of Desire" commit sin in
that disbelief. So, let's call that point no. 1.
1)
Do you claim that people who do not believe in "Baptism of Blood" and
"Baptism of Desire" commit sin in that disbelief?
As proof that
BOB/BOD was a "dogmatic" matter, you offered a citation from a text
by a Dominican theologian which states:
IV. Thesis: The unanimous
teaching of theologians in matters of faith and morals establishes certitude
for the proof of a dogma.
A. First Proof: The connection of theologians with the Church.
1. As
men who study theological science, theologians have only a scientific and
historical authority. But as servants, organs, and witness of the Church, they
possess an authority that is both dogmatic and certain.
You then provided
a list of 25 theologians (I no longer have the original post, not that it
matters) who accept BOB/BOD to one degree of certainty or another — but not all
are unanimous in the "way" they hold BOB/BOD, but are, by your
accounting, all "believers" in BOB/BOD. I pray I have stated all of
that correctly — lest there be any misunderstanding.
Thus, I would ask
you:
2) If all of
these theologians hold BOB/BOD as a doctrinal certainty (or, as the thesis
above, which you have made your own by citation, calls "dogma") — why
should there be any deviation in their "level" of acceptance? Are
dogmas to be accepted by "level" of belief according to the mind of
the particular theologian, or by some "degree" of certainty? How can
that be so with a matter ("dogma"), which by definition — must be believed?
3) Because this
thesis rests upon the phrase "the unanimous teaching of theologians of
faith and morals, is a group of 25 the number which must be used to determine
"dogma" according to the thesis you have provided?
4) If, as an
example, we included within your number of theologians St. Francis Xavier, who
did not accept BOB/BOD — is 25 out of 26 "unanimous"?
5) As a matter of
fact, Fr. Leonard Feeney was a card-carrying theologian. If we add him to your
group, and the number is now 25 to 2 — Is the teaching still
"unanimous"?
6) What is the
number? How many theologians must not agree before there is no longer a
"unanimous teaching of theologians"? If the number is more than one,
what is the definition of "unanimous" that you have (the one I have
which means "to a man — all, everyone without exception,” must be
defective)?
7) What about the
theologians at the Council of Trent — those who defined the canons regarding
the Sacrament of Baptism: do they count or do they not count? They were
theologians; they are dead — but they do not agree with your theory, do they?
Because they do not agree, must they be eliminated? If they are not eliminated,
how can you ever claim a "unanimous" teaching unless you hand pick
the theologians and only consider the views of your hand-picked group? And if
you hand pick the theologians just because they believe what you are trying to
promote, of what value is that?
You proposed that
I spend $15 to find out how BOB/BOD are defined.[1]
If you believe that BOB/BOD are dogmatic (and if you do not propose they are dogmatic,
why use the citation above which deals with "certitude for the proof of a
dogma") which requires assent of the intellect and will by the faithful,
are they so complicated that it requires a $15 essay to define them? What could
possibly be so difficult? Perhaps, instead (and you can save me the money), you
could please provide all of official Church pronouncements, conciliar
documents, encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, instructions, etc., which: 6)
a. define the terms "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of
Blood." b. declare, define, and pronounce that "Baptism of
Desire" and "Baptism of Blood" are sufficient unto salvation
without the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Those items
should clear up the matter so that all of those of us on the Sacred Heart List
might be set straight in our thinking.
I pray that I
have not confused "doctrinal" with issues of fact or ecclesiastical
law as I previously did — that's the trouble with lay people, I know.
I'm sure our list
would like to this matter pursued. I (and they) await your response to these
simple questions. We can go from there.
Sincerely,
—
N.N.
A
Catholic’s Obligations, Unanimity & Mortal Sin
Dear N.N.:
Thank you for
your e-mail.
Some
correspondents have still not understood my point, so before addressing your
questions, I will repeat it as simply as I can.
(Readers who
are receiving this material for the first time should consult my article
“Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles” [www.traditionalmass.org], where
they will find my complete argument, together with quotes and citations to
support my claims in Section I below.)
A. Vatican I
(Dz 1792) obliges you to
believe by divine and Catholic faith those things:
1. Contained
in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed
for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:
(a) Solemn pronouncements (by ecumenical councils, or popes ex cathedra) OR
(b) Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either
in council, or spread throughout the world.)
B. Pius IX further
specified (Tuas Libenter [1863], Dz
1683) that you must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held
by theologians to belong to the faith.
C. Pius IX
specified still further (ibid. Dz
1684) that you must also adhere to:
1. Doctrinal decisions of Vatican
Congregations (e.g., the Holy Office)
2. Forms of doctrine held as:
(a) Theological truths and conclusions,
(b) So certain that opposition merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
D. Conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing:
· Points A-C are the criteria Vatican I
and the Roman Pontiff have laid down for judging a theological issue.
· Accordingly, no Catholic is free to
reject them.
· They are, moreover, first principles
in the science of theology.
· The teaching of theologians on baptism
of desire and baptism of blood falls squarely into categories A-C.
· You must therefore adhere to this
teaching.
II. Misc. Questions & Objections.
1.
Is Rejection a Sin?
As I demonstrated in my original article, the teaching on baptism of desire/blood
falls into the categories mentioned above.
According to
Cartechini (De Valore Notarum
Theologicarum, [Rome: Gregorian University 1951], 134-5), rejecting a
teaching so categorized is a mortal sin against the faith.
Those
who reject baptism of blood or baptism of desire, therefore, commit mortal sin.
2.
Different categories assigned by theologians? Some correspondents believe that ALL theologians would
assign the same theological “categories” (“notes,” “qualifications,” etc.) to
baptism of desire and baptism of blood if a Catholic were truly obliged to
accept the teachings.
This is false.
Collectively,
all the theologians cited agree that
baptism of desire and baptism of blood are “in conformity with the truth
presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” —
otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines.
Individually,
the theologians may indeed assign different categories to the doctrines
—theologically certain, Catholic doctrine, de
fide, etc. But any of these
categories still place the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood
among those teachings Catholics must believe and adhere to. (See I.A-C.)
The specific
category assigned is important for another reason. Each has a corresponding theological censure which indicates your
degree of error if you deny the doctrines — whether your denial constitutes
theological error, error in Catholic doctrine, or heresy.
3.
Does one dissenting theologian destroy unanimity? I assume this is the point behind the
questions about numbers and unanimity.
The answer is no.
Salaverri explains that it is only necessary that the consensus of theologians
be “morally unanimous,” (Tractatus de Ecclesia, 3rd
ed. [BAC, 1955], 858), as distinguished from physically unanimous.
But I think the
question is moot. Theologians generally cite adversaries to a doctrine they are
defending. In the case of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, the
adversaries seem to be few and disreputable.
The following is
from Solà’s discussion of baptism of desire and baptism of blood: “Adversaries: Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without
receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire
for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water.’
Baius [in a proposition condemned by Pope St. Pius V] also taught that charity
was not always joined to the remission of sins.
“Against the
second part [baptism of blood] there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few
theologians who disagree over the manner in which the martyrdom achieves its
effect.” (De Sacramentis, [BAC 1954],
69. His emphasis.)
The
heretics who denied baptism of desire were opposed by the Doctor and Father of
the Church, St. Bernard of Clarivaux (ob. 1153), whom Solà also quotes.
4. St. Francis Xavier, Fr. Feeney: Theologians? As I explained in Section II of my
original article, the term “theologian” connotes extensive research work, a
distinguished teaching career at a Pontifical University, publication of
multi-volume theological treatises, etc.
As far as I know,
St. Francis Xavier would not meet these criteria. His writings, as I recall,
were limited to letters.
Nor would Fr.
Feeney. His earlier writings were popular religious works. And his later works
would not meet the fourth criteria Salaverri lays down: “orthodoxy in doctrine
acknowledged by the Church, at least insofar as [his] writings are used by the
faithful and students knowingly and without reproof by the Magisterium of the
Church.” (de Ecclesia, 857.)
5.
Trent, Definitions, “Official” Pronouncements. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood
are defined in essentially the same way in the works I cited.
A. Desire. St.
Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love
of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in
whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session
14, on Penance, ch. 4.
St. Alphonsus
further states: “It is de fide that
men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said
that no one can be saved ‘without the
washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia
Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
The first
citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a
priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had 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.”
(Dz 388)[2]
Other theologians
also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions. They also cite Pope Innocent III’s
decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be
validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have
flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament,
although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)[3]
Some add Pope St.
Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and
sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the
remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this
proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens
without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
B.
Blood. St.
Alphonsus defines baptism of blood as: “The shedding of blood, or death
tolerated, for the faith or for another Christian virtue.” As sources, he
cites, among others, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. (ibid.)
As
Solà noted (see above), opposition to this doctrine was virtually non-existent.
The Magisterium does not usually intervene to issue a solemn definition for a
common teaching unless it is widely attacked by heretics.
III. Summing Up.
Once again, before a Catholic can resolve a specific theological issue, he must
first understand and accept the general
theological principles the Church lays down as criteria for determining what
must be believed.
Vatican
I and the Roman Pontiff have unambiguously specified the type of teaching you
must believe and adhere to:
·
Solemn pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
·
Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
·
Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith.
·
Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
·
Theological truths and conclusions so certain that
opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
The
standard teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood (as was amply documented
in my original article) fall into these categories.
You
must therefore adhere to these teachings.
Further,
no matter what category theologians have
assigned to these teachings — theologically certain, Catholic doctrine or de fide — rejecting them has the same
consequences in the moral order: you commit a mortal sin
against the faith.
And finally, you must reject the notion promoted in pro-Feeney circles that such
teachings may be ignored because a Catholic’s obligation “is restricted to only
those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has proposed to be
believed by all as dogmas of the faith” — for that is a principle the Church condemned
in the Syllabus of Errors. (Dz 1722.)
Yours in
Christ,
—
The Rev. Anthony Cekada
Baptism
of Desire: Contradicted by Trent?
Dear Fr.
Cekada:
Thank you for
your response.
As we progress,
and reiterating the fact that I am not a theologian, I would like to take a
little different tack here than normally one might see in such an exchange. Let
me say first, that I while I believe that I am an open-minded individual, I am
more than willing, and surely this is a result of God's grace, to submit to all
of that which the Church has solemnly defined and declared that I must believe.
However, as I mentioned in my previous post, that which you propose, i.e., that
BOB/BOD (I hope you don't mind the shorthand) are "de fide" — is something
about which you will have to convince me. Hopefully I will be able to make my
simple approach understandable. And, if you don't mind, Father, perhaps we
might approach this matter one point at a time. I'm a slow learner and have a
short attention span. Thus, let's start at the top and move downward
You wrote:
A. Vatican I (Dz 1792) obliges you to
believe by divine and Catholic faith those things:
1. Contained
in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed
for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:
(a) Solemn pronouncements (by
ecumenical councils, or popes ex cathedra)
OR
(b) Universal ordinary magisterium
(teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread
throughout the world.)
The Council of
Trent states: (Dz 858, 861)
Can. 2. If anyone
shall say that real
and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of
our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Spirit" (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.
Can. 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is
optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.
Therefore,
Father, I have six elementary questions I would pose to you:
1) Does your item
"2(a) Solemn Pronouncements" by ecumenical councils include the
solemn pronouncements of the ecumenical Council of Trent?
2) The answer, of
course, is, "yes." Therefore, based upon your initial statement
"A" which states one's obligation as a Catholic to believe by divine
and Catholic faith those things which are... "(a) Solemn pronouncements
(by ecumenical councils...)" does it not apply to the canons on the
Sacrament of Baptism cited here?
3) In other
words, how can one accept with divine and Catholic faith that which Trent has
solemnly defined in the canon on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for
salvation (canon 5 above), and then deny the very canon by proposing that the
Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation (which would carry an anathema
according to the canon) — without incurring the anathema?
4) How can one
accept with divine and Catholic faith that which Trent has solemnly defined in
the canon on the necessity of "pure and natural water" for the
Sacrament of Baptism (canon 2 above) and then deny that "real and natural
water" are necessary for baptism (which, likewise, carries an anathema accordinng
to the canon)?
5) While you have
stated that one is obligated to believe these canons by "divine and
Catholic faith" (because they are solemn pronouncements of an ecumenical
council) — do you now propose that one does not
have to believe these canons?
6)
If one accepts these canons as they are written (which Vatican I's Dei Filius,
chapter 4 declares we must), and, for that matter the whole of the pronouncements
of the Council of Trent, as they are written, does one, in any way, fall into
error?
That should get
us off to a smashing start, don't you think!
In union with
His Holiness,
Pope John Paul
II
—
N.N.
First
Ask: What Are The Criteria for Our Belief?
Dear N.N.:
Thank you for your e-mail.
Unfortunately, by going directly to a
series of questions about the particular issue
of baptism of desire, you pass over the key to this discussion: Ascertaining
all the general criteria by which a
particular issue such as this must be judged.
My original article, “Baptism of
Desire and Theological Principles,” began by setting forth the “general rules for belief” that the Church imposes upon Catholics. What kinds of teaching are we obliged to
adhere to?
Answering this question establishes
the general principles, or the rules
of evidence, for discussing any point
of Catholic teaching. Only when all these principles are established can one
then look at a particular issue.
Vatican I and Pius IX laid down these
general principles by establishing all the following as the types of teaching that a
Catholic must believe and adhere to:
1. Solemn pronouncements of the
extraordinary Magisterium.
2. Teachings of the
universal ordinary Magisterium.
3. Teachings of the
universal ordinary Magisterium held by the universal and common consent of
theologians to belong to the faith.
4. Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican
congregations.
5. Theological truths and
conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure
short of “heresy.”
Fr. Feeney’s followers (and many
traditionalists) seem to have the impression that a Catholic’s obligation is
pretty much limited to point 1 on the list. Your letter stops after point 2 and
then asks a series of questions.
But a Catholic has to accept all these
criteria, and consequently also believe or adhere to all the teachings which
fall under points 2-5.
Otherwise, a reasonable discussion of
almost any theological point among Catholics becomes entirely impossible,
because some of the Church’s standards have been set aside.
So, I ask you to reread Section I of
my original article, with particular attention to the quotes from Tuas Libenter and the Syllabus of Errors, in order to verify
that points 2-5 above do in fact accurately represent the obligations that Pius
IX laid down.
I think that if you carefully study
the issue, you will come to understand and accept the Church’s requirements as
regards points 2-5.
Acknowledging these as first
principles would go a long way towards resolving any difficulties over the
specific issue of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Please take your time in replying.
I’ll be away for about two weeks (seminary teaching and missions) and I won’t
have access to e-mail.
Yours in Christ,
— The Rev.
Anthony Cekada
Baptism
of Desire Is the Real Point
Dear Fr.
Cekada:
Thank you for your e-mail. You wrote:
Unfortunately, by going directly to a
series of questions about the particular issue
of baptism of desire, you pass over the key to this discussion: Ascertaining
all the general criteria by which a
particular issue such as this must be judged.
Actually,
Father, it was not my intent to cause confusion in this matter, but merely my
intent to go directly to the points which you presented — in the order you
presented them. I understand what you believe the "key" to the
discussion is — but I also know what the "point" of the discussion
is. Therefore, I will do this again — hopefully it will be clearer. When we
have resolved the first 2 points we can get on to those which follow.
You wrote:
A. Vatican I (Dz 1792) obliges you to
believe by divine and Catholic faith those things:
1. Contained
in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed
for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:
(a) Solemn pronouncements (by
ecumenical councils, or popes ex cathedra)
OR
(b) Universal ordinary magisterium
(teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread
throughout the world.)
I accept that a
Catholic is obliged to believe by divine and Catholic faith these mentioned
above (this is not meant to exclude others, but at this point, taking your post
point by point, this is what I am addressing).
Therefore, were
are in complete agreement regardinng point (1) and I accept that Vatican I
obliges a Catholic to believe by divine and Catholic faith those things which
are contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
Further, we are
in complete agreement that Catholics are obliged to believe by divine and
Catholic faith those things which are "Proposed for belief as divinely
revealed by the Church's authority, either through: (a) solemn pronouncements
(by ecumenical councils (by ecumenical councils, or popes (ex cathedra) or (b)
through the universal ordinary Magisterium” (as the Magisterium is defined by
Holy Mother Church).
Now: back to the
point I was making in my second post. Two questions:
1) Are the
"solemn pronouncements" of the Council of Trent included in 2. (a)?
2) If you hold
that the solemn pronouncements of the Council of Trent are to be included in
category of "solemn pronouncements by ecumenical councils," are
Catholics obliged to believe in them with a "divine and Catholic
faith"?
If Catholics are
obliged to believe in the solemn pronouncements of the Council of Trent with a
"divine and Catholic faith," are the following canons on the
Sacrament of Baptism, shown below, (Dz 858, 861) included in the solemn
pronouncements of the Council of Trent:
Can. 2. If anyone
shall say that real
and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of
our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Spirit" (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.
Can. 5. If anyone shall say that
baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.
If the canons
cited here on the Sacrament of Baptism are included in the solemn
pronouncements of the Council of Trent, and therefore must be believed by a
Catholic with divine and Catholic faith, would you please respond to the questions
below, which — tied directly to the second point in your inclusion — respond,
in context, to your thesis that anyone who does not accept BOB/BOD commits sin
— then we can go on to the next point.
[Questions 2–6
from previous e-mail repeated]
I pray this
added explanation suffices.
In union with
His Holiness,
Pope John Paul
II
—
N.N.
Your
Fundamental Error: A Refusal of Submission
Dear N.N:
Thank you
for your March 10th e-mail. It was awaiting me when I returned from
the seminary.
The discussion
must always come back to the principles or the criteria that determine what a
Catholic is obliged to believe.
You ask me a
series of questions, for instance, aimed at demonstrating that (1) belief in
baptism of desire or blood contradicts Trent’s canons 2 and 5 on the sacrament
of baptism, and that (2) this supposed contradiction nullifies the obligations
that Vatican I and Pius IX imposed upon Catholics to submit to teachings of the
universal ordinary magisterium.
We could, of
course, trade quotes over the specific issue in point (1). Other priests, it
seems, have spent a long time doing this.
I myself would
begin with passages from St. Alphonsus’ Theologia
Moralis explicitly affirming both canon 2 and
baptism of desire as de fide. I would then follow with a raft
of material from other post-Tridentine theologians, and then perhaps throw in
something from the Dictionnaire de
Théologie Catholique about the specific heresies (Luther’s teaching that
beer or milk could be used to confer the sacrament of baptism; Calvin’s, that
“water” in John 3:5 was only a metaphor for the Holy Ghost) that canon 2 was
formulated to condemn.
But this would be
a waste of time. None of it would even register. Why?
The real problem
still boils down to point (2): You and I do
not follow the same criteria for
determining what a Catholic is obliged to believe.
I
submit to the criteria Vatican I and Pius IX laid down for the teachings that
Catholics must believe and adhere to:
1. Solemn
pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
2. Teachings
of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
3. Teachings
of the universal ordinary Magisterium held by the universal and common consent
of theologians to belong to the faith.
4. Doctrinal
decisions of the Vatican congregations.
5. Theological
truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some
theological censure short of “heresy.”
None of these should surprise anyone —
all were standard principles in pre-Vatican II theology manuals. In my original
article, I reproduced the passages from Vatican I, Tuas Libenter and the Syllabus
of Errors that imposed these obligations.
The tenor of your questions, however,
makes it clear that you do not
submit to these obligations.
Rather,
you wish to debate them somehow, by implying that baptism of desire or blood
contradict canons 2 and 5, and that those who reject your position must now
defend or justify Vatican I and Pius IX’s criteria.
But
these criteria are not open to
debate — not among Catholics, anyway.
In practice, your criteria (and those
of the typical Feeney adherent) appear to be these:
1. No
anathema, no belief. A Catholic’s obligation
to adhere to Church teaching is restricted to only those matters that the
infallible judgment of the Church has solemnly proposed for belief as dogmas of
the faith.
2.
Free interpretation of magisterial texts. The
individual lay Catholic is free to determine for himself the “literal meaning”
of these (few) solemn infallible pronouncements, and contradict what popes,
bishops, and approved theological manuals have taught about them for centuries.
The first principle was condemned by Pius IX in
the Syllabus of Errors (Dz 1722).
The second is the Protestant principle
of unmediated free interpretation — but instead of a Bible, each lay believer examines
a vernacular Denzinger.
So, when you ask me, “If one accepts
these canons [on baptism] as they are written… does one, in any way, fall into
error?” my response is: If someone accepts them as you think they were written, he falls in every way into error.
For you approach these canons, and
indeed all pronouncements of the magisterium, without having first submitted to
all the obligations for belief or adherence
that Vatican I and Pius IX imposed.
This
refusal of submission — and not the particular issue of extra Ecclesiam — is the fundamental error from which all the other
errors of Feeneyism flow.
The Church’s requirements are a
package. You accept and submit to them all,
or you can’t honestly call yourself a Catholic.
And no matter what category
theologians may attach to baptism of desire or baptism of blood — de fide, Catholic doctrine, or just
“theologically certain” — to refuse adherence to a teaching in any of these categories is still a mortal sin against
the faith.
Fr.
Feeney’s adherents spill oceans of ink answering the question “who shall
ascend.” Better they should first accept Vatican I and Pius IX’s answer to the
question “what must I believe.”
Instead,
they proclaim that the universal ordinary magisterium taught errors for
centuries, and that Catholics have no duty to submit to it.
This
is heresy pure and simple, putting them firmly extra Ecclesiam — where there is, as we know, nulla salus.
Yours in Christ,
— The Rev. Anthony Cekada
March 22, 2001
(E-mail exchange, Feb-Mar 2001).
[1]. This refers to a 125-page
dossier of photocopies from the
works of the 25 theologians I cited. It is available from our office for $15,
which covers the cost of copying and binding.
[2]. This citation was accidentally
omitted from my original e-mail.
[3]. Feeney adherents sometimes claim that this decision and that of Innocent II have no binding force for Catholics because they are “mere private letters.” This is false. The documents are Epistolae, which in Canon Law are classed among official Pontifical Acts. Both documents were included in the Corpus Juris Canonici, the official collection of church laws which preceded the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It is worth noting that the 1206 decree is the work of Innocent III, who also approved the 1215 decree of Lateran IV containing the phrase: “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved” — the axiom Feeney adherents try to cite against baptism of desire. Innocent III, it seems, saw no contradiction between one teaching and the other. It would be 700 years until his error would finally be discovered and corrected in Boston.