----------------------
Section I:
It should be self-evident for Catholics that non-magisterial and/or non-infallible documents must be seen in light of and in subjection to infallible Magisterial documents of the Church. Therefore:
1) NON-definitive statements cannot DEFINE for us what definitive statements mean, othewise definitions are NOT definitions, and thus the very concept and practice becomes obsolete. Besides, the nature and intent of a dogmatic definition already accomplishes this for us.
2) Infallible definitions cannot even be interpreted or modified by NON-infallible statements. Otherwise, two problems, fatal to the nature of authority and infalliblility, would follow from this:
A) We would have a document NOT protected from error determining for us the meaning of a document which IS protected from error, which turns upside-down the entire notion of infallibility.
B) We would have a statement of higher authority made subject to a statement of lower authority. This would turn upside-down the entire notion of authority.
This principle means that the teachings of Church Fathers and Doctors must be seen in light of and subject to the infallible magisterial statements of the Church. This fact, this principle, has always been recognized:
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth." -Pope Pius XII (Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953)
"I hereby condemn as heretical the notion that when anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in St. Augustine, he may absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any Bull of the Pope." -Pope Alexander VIII (Denz. 1320)
So what we have being employed below by Matt.1618 is this: he is setting up NON-infallible and non-binding statements of the Fathers against the clear, infallible and binding definitions of the Church to which these Church Father's quotes MUST be submitted.
By the way, has anyone noticed that Matt.16 has YET to quote even ONE of the infallible definitions concerning the necessity of Church membership and water Baptism for salvation? What is he avoiding in failing to quote these documents? Is he afraid of their perspicuity?
Let us now quote some of them:
At the Council of Florence, In the Bull "Cantata Domino" (1441), Pope
Eugene IV infallibly defined for all time:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mat.25:41), unless before the close of there lives they shall have enter- ed into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church... moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
It was infallibly declared at Trent in it's Canons on Baptism that:
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. " (Canon 5) "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn.3:5): let him be anathema." (Canon 2)
Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that the Church "understands her dogmas by the words she has once declared;" and that "there must NEVER be recession from THAT MEANING under the specious name of a deeper understanding." (Dei Filius, ch.3: Dnz.1800)
Hence, THAT MEANING of a dogma is that "which Holy Mother Church has once declared." The Church has solemnly condemnd the notions that dogmas are simply interpretations and that they can have a meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula (see Lamentabili, #22,26,54 and Pascendi: DNZ 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907)
Hence, it is the WORDS as they are declared which are binding on us. The words of each and every dogmatic definition are sufficient and clear for us on this and EVERY dogma which they define. This is the very purpose for definitions.
The following lines from the above definition of Pope Eugene IV are
stated without exception, and this is how we MUST understand and believe
them:
A) "none of those who are not within the Catholic Church... can ever
be partakers of eternal life..."
B) "no one,... not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake,
can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic
Church."
In light of what was defined at Vatican I, and also in light of the condemnations of the Modernist hermeneutic by Pope St. Pius X , we must hold and believe this dogma (as with all dogmas) precisely as it is defined. Therefore, "no one" means NO ONE. Period! If one is "not within the Catholic Church," they cannot be saved. Period! These are the precise words declared by the Church.
Pope Eugene IV's infallible definition says NO ONE who is outside the Catholic Church can be saved. AND no one is IN the Church who has not at least received water baptism. This was dogmatically declared at both the Council of Florence (DNZ 696) and at Trent (DNZ 895). At Trent (Session 14, ch.2) it was declared that the "Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered it through the gateway of baptism..." and that "by the laver of baptism where we are made members of Christ's own body." (Denz.895) This is why, in Mystici Corporis (1943), Pope Pius XII could declare that "only those are to be included as REAL members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults" (Denz. 2286 [3802]).
Canons 2 and 5 (as are all of the canons) "On Baptism" from Trent are AS DECLARED unchangeable and binding on all without exception for all time and are to be held and believed and professed precisely as they are stated.
Let me put it into a simple and irrefutable syllogism.
Infallible Major Premise (declared by Church at Florence and Trent):
No Baptism in water = no Church membership
Infallible Minor Premise (declared by Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII,
Eugene IV )
No Church membership = no salvation
Therefore, Infallible conclusion (declared by Church at Trent)
No Baptism in water = no salvation.
All of the following quotes MUST be placed in submission to these infallible dogmatic definitions of the Church.
=============
[Matt.1618]
St. Ambrose. When he talked of Emperor of Valentine II, who died without Baptism . "Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this DESIRE; and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the GRACE WHICH HE DESIRED? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? CERTAINLY, Because sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: "Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest (Wis. 4:7)? (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian, 51. AD 392)
=====================
Section II:
This quote does not necessarily support the belief of BOD (baptism of desire), and it may even be used to support the necessity of water Baptism without exception. How?
*First: Read the quote again closely. Does not St. Ambrose say that the Emperor obtained that which he desired? Yes, he does. What did the Emperor desire? He desired the Sacrament of Baptism. St. Ambrose asks, "Did he not obtain what he asked for?[Baptism] Certainly he did because he asked for it."
St. Ambrose was confirming to the congregation that Valentinian did successfully receive the Sacrament of Baptism because that is what he desired and ask for. This has to be, why? Well, think about it. Did the Emperor ask for the desire for Baptism or for Baptism itself? Surely the Emperor wasn't merely desiring the desire for Baptism. That would be ridiculous. No, he desired the Sacrament of Baptism itself. The statement by St. Ambrose can only make sense by the fact that Valentinian did receive water Baptism. Therefore, this example from St. Ambrose works against those who use it in support of BOD.
*Second: let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that St. Ambrose
was really teaching BOD as sufficient for salvation here.
A) This still does not prove that BOD (as sufficient for salvation)
is a dogma of Faith or even the constant teaching of the Church, because
there are no Magisterial documents which put forth that salvation can be
attained by anyone without having received water Baptism. The works of
St. Ambrose, and all Fathers, are still subject to what the Magisterium
has infallibly declared as pointed out above. And at Trent, in canons 2
& 5 (On Baptism), the Extraordinary Magisterium has declared in unqualified
language which allows for no exceptions that: "Baptism in true and natural
water is necessary for salvation;" and She infallible condemns those who
hold that it could be optional.
B) This would also mean that this Church Father contradicted his own formal teaching on the matter where elsewhere St. Ambrose taught that "no one is excepted" from water Baptism for entrance into heaven. He taught that:
"no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven EXCEPT through the Sacrament of Baptism... `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' (Jn.3:5). NO ONE is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity." (On Abraham, II, 11:79,84)
Now, IF St. Ambrose was truly teaching BOD in his funeral oration for Valentinian, THEN this means that Matt.16 uses as a source to represent Church tradition/teaching someone who contradicts himself on the specific topic at hand. Needless to say, this is not very trustworthy. The Church NEVER contradicts herself. However, fallible churchMEN do.
===============
[Matt.1618]
St. Augustine, 1.13.3: (426-27 AD): "This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian."
===========
Section III:
Smoke screen! Smoke screen!
This quote deals with the Old Dispensation (Old Covenant), and its requirements were different. It has nothing to do with the "baptism of desire vs. water Baptism/Church membership for salvation debate. The topic is, as Trent declared, SINCE the promulgation of the Gospel ("On Justification," chap.4: Dnz 796). As of that time forward, no man can enter heaven without water Baptism and being within the Catholic Church.
Therefore, Matt.16 uses this quote, as with numerous other quotes, to confuse the issue and mislead his readers (again!).
===========
[Matt1618]
St. Augustine - Those who, though THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, DIE FOR THE CONFESSION CHRIST, - IT AVAILS THEM JUST AS MUCH FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS AS IF THEY HAD BEEN WASHED IN THE SACRED FONT OF BAPTISM. For He that said: 'If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven/" MADE AN EXCEPTION for them in that other statement in WHICH HE SAYS NO LESS GENERALLY: "Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven.'(Matt. 10:32) City of God, 13:7
St. Augustine - That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although NOT BAPTIZED, it was said: "Today you shall be with me in paradise (11).
"Considering this over and over again, I find that not only SUFFERING FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST CAN SUPPLY FOR THAT WHICH IS LACKING BY WAY OF BAPTISM, but EVEN FAITH AND CONVERSION OF HEART, if perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism. (On Baptism 4:22, 29)
St. Augustine - "I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44-48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13-19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21[28]).
St. Augustine - "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (ibid., 5:28[39]).
============================
Section IV:
There are three points which must be made concerning St. Augustine here: The first destroys the BOD position by exposing the fallacy of using the fallible opinions of certain Church Fathers and Doctors on a matter which has been subsequently defined since their life-times. The second and third points demonstrate how using St. Augustine in this matter is both weak and even self-defeating.
Point 1) IF these Church Fathers (and St. Thomas Aquinas, below) really
taught that BOD can suffice for that attainment of Heaven, THEN in light
of infallible Magisterial pronouncements on the necessity of water Baptism
for salvation, it means they were simply mistaken. None of their writings
are protected from error. Their writings are not infallible documents of
the Church binding on all Catholics, and the topic is whether or not THE
CHURCH teaches the sufficiency of BOD for salvation, not simply Churchmen.
These writings are subject to what the Church has infallibly defined as
dogma. And the Church has infallibly defined as a dogma of Faith that outside
the Catholic Church no one can be saved and no one is within the Church
until they hold the Catholic Faith and are baptized in water.
Here are the sources again:
*Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (Lateran IV:DNZ.430;
Boniface VIII: Dnz.468-69; Florance: Dnz.714; Pius IX:1716-17)
*Baptism makes one a member of the Church (Florence: Dnz.696; Trent:
Dnz.895);
*Anyone NOT Baptized is NOT a member (Trent: Dnz.895);
*Baptism is in water only (Vienne: Dnz.482; Trent: Dnz.858);
*Baptism is necessary for salvation (Pope Benedict XIV: DNZ 1470) for
adults and for children (Vienne:Dnz.482), without option (Trent: Dnz.861);
Point 2) St. Augustine's example in On Baptism Against the Donatists (4, 22), used by the Matt.16, is not at all relevant to this debate since the example of the good thief, used here by St. Augustine, was under the old dispensation. The present topic of the absolute necessity of water Baptism without exception, and thus the insufficiency of the BOD for salvation, is from the promulgation of the Gospel by the Church which began on Pentecost.
Hence the necessity and obligation under the new and final dispensation. In fact, later on, in his work "Retractions" (2, 44), St. Augustine recognizes his error in and regrets having used the good thief as an example. Thus, in this example by Mat.16, his own source regrets using the very example he used which the BOD advocates say support their position. This is either poor scholarship or dishonest.
Point 3) St. Augustine contradicts himself elsewhere
In using St. Augustine, Matt.16 presents us with another self-defeating example, for elsewhere the "Doctor of Grace" affirms the exact opposite: that without Baptism, which is in water only, no one can be saved. He says:
"The Lord has determined that the Kingdom of Heaven should be conferred ONLY on baptized persons. If eternal life can accrue only to those who have been baptized, it follows, of course, that they who die unbaptized incur everlasting death" (de Anima, IV, 11); "What is the Baptism of Christ? `The washing with water, in the word.' Take away the water and it is not Baptism." (Hom. On John, 15,4).
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death beds! And howmany sincere catechumen die UNbaptized, AND ARE THUS LOST FOREVER!... for what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? (Sermon 26.6 and On John 13, no.7)
Which is the stronger representation, a source (used by Mat..16) where he later regrets and retracts something, or a source where he does not do such a thing? Obviously, to use a source in which a contradiction is present cannot be a valid example for presenting this source as representing the Church's official, unchanging and binding teaching. Matt.16 again defeats himself with his own example.
=============
[Matt.1618]
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Summa Theologica
Third Part, Question 68, Article 2
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ays. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. 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 Cor. 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
=======================
Section V:
Well, Matt.16 uses another source who contradicts himself on this very same topic. St. thomas taught elsewhere:
"We believe the way of salvation to be open only to those who are baptized...
Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation...
Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that
without Baptism there is no salvation."
(Exposition on the Apostles Creed, Article 10)
"A thing may be so necessary that, without it, the end cannot be attained...
In this way the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to the individual, SIMPLY
AND ABSOLUTELY."
(Summa Theologica, III, Ques.65, Art.4)
So, what do we have. Matt.16 using sources which contradict themselves to support his position that water Baptism is not necessary for salvation without exception. All of the above churchmen contradicted themselves in one way or another. This is why it is the teaching Church to which we must firstly and ultimately listen and believe.
The bottom-line fact is that the official teachers of the Church are its Popes and Councils, and NO Pope or Council has EVER taught infallibly and definitively that BOD will SAVE anybody. On the literal contrary, Popes and Councils have all taught, infallibly and definitively, that all men must be baptized with water, absolutely and actually, in order to get to Heaven. Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism" from Trent define this infallibly and allow for no exceptions. As St. Augustine declared: "Rome hath spoken. The case is closed."
What does this mean for Fr. Leonard Feeney? It means that he was simply preaching Catholic dogma, without going beyond what the Church herself has infallibly defined. To go beyond and add exceptions to it is to go beyond what the Church teaches, and hence is an act of disobedience and arrogance.