Contents

Part One — THE FAITH COMPROMISED

Chapter 1: The Dogma of Faith

The Incarnational Church

The Authority of the Church

Chapter 2: The Compromisers

Chapter 3: The "Excommunication"

The Appeal to Pope Pius XII

Chapter 4: The "Reconciliation"

One Bishop’s Dead Horse

Chapter 5: A New Beginning

Our Present Status

The Certainty of Ultimate Vindication

Part Two — BAPTISM and THE DOGMA OF FAITH

Chapter 6: The Hole in the Dike

Chapter 7: The Sacrament of Baptism

Father Feeney on "Desire"

A General Description of Baptism

Ritual for Solemn Baptism

The Watered-Down Baptismus in Voto

Baptism by Desire vs. Providence of God

Chapter 8: The Baptismal Watermark

The Church, the Ultimate Authority

Excerpts from "The Christening of Mary"

The Seal of His Image

The Signature of God

The Sacramental System

The Mark of Distinction

Your Heavenly I.D. Card

Part Three — THE FAITH DEFENDED

Chapter 9: A Critique of the Compromisers

A. The Law of Baptism

B. Dr. Ludwig Ott on Baptism of Desire

C. The Requirements for Salvation

The Council of Trent

D. Baptism and The Holy Eucharist

E. The Holy Eucharist and The Mystical Body of Christ

F. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

G. The Tradition of the Fathers

Saint Ambrose and Valentinian

A Poll of the Fathers

The Decision of Trent

H. "Catholic Replies" by James J. Drummey

The Escalation of Deception

I. Venerable Pope Pius IX

Singulari Quadam

Singulari Quidem

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore

The Syllabus of Modern Errors

Vatican Council I

J. Baptism of Blood

Martyrologies and Other Sources

Saint Emerentiana

The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste

Saint Victor of Braga

Saint Ardalion

Saints Donatian and Rogatian

Saint Alban, Protomartyr of England

Saint Plutarch and Companions

Saint Genesius of Rome

Saint Gelasinus

Saint Genesius of Arles

Saint Porphyry

Saints Fausta and Evilasius

K. The Character and Grace of Baptism

L. The Doctrinal Weakness of SSPX

M. Justice: Fulfilled and Unfulfilled

N. Father Laisney’s Fundamental Error

O. The Source of the Weakness of SSPX

P. The Church: Visible or Invisible?

Q. A General Appraisal of Our Critic’s Booklet

R. The Verdict of Judge Laisney

S. The Defense Rests

Chapter 10: Father Feeney, Apostle of The Incarnation

Chapter 1The Dogma Of Faith

On Pentecost Sunday, May 30, 1993, the Holy Catholic Church reached her nineteen hundred and sixtieth birthday. At no time during those almost twenty centuries of trial and triumph have the gates of hell been so close to prevailing over her as they seem to be today.

Like the mighty Samson of old, shorn of his hair, the Church has suddenly

become powerless in the face of her enemies. A "diabolical disorientation" — to borrow a phrase from Sister Lucy of Fatima — has taken hold of her, penetrating into even her highest offices.

That this is true needs no documentary proof; it is evident for all to see; doctrinal, liturgical and disciplinary disarray are all around us.

These tragic developments are the inevitable result of one fundamental cause: the voluntary forfeiture, by what the world at large thinks is the Church herself, of her God-mandated authority over all men.*

"When did this happen?" the reader may ask. "When did the Church abandon her authority over all men?"

Historically, it has been a long time coming. As we proceed through this study, its gradual development over many years will become clear, but, for the moment, let us focus on one single event — perhaps we should say "non-event" — the silence of which eloquently confirmed the forfeiture.

* We must make a clear distinction here. The Church herself is the spotless Spouse of Christ, totally pure, totally holy, and totally true in all of her doctrines and sacraments. The protection given her by the Holy Ghost assures us of that. When the Roman Pontiff intends to define infallibly from the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra), the Holy Ghost does not inspire him with the words to use, but merely protects him from declaring as true what is not true. However, the protection of the Holy Ghost does not interfere with the free will of men. Therefore, the "voluntary forfeiture," of which we speak here, was not an act of the Church, but of fallible leaders of the Church.

It happened back in 1949. In April of that year Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. had been silenced and Saint Benedict Center interdicted by Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston. The reason given by the Archbishop was Father’s "disobedience," but the real reason was Father’s preaching of the Faith, without compromise, to constantly increasing numbers of students and others who attended lectures at Saint Benedict Center. The atheist / agnostic faculties at Harvard, and similar left-leaning institutions in the area, could not tolerate this unauthorized intrusion upon their control of education, and liberal Catholics, in general, were completely embarrassed by the "triumphalism" preached at the Center.

What infuriated the professors and embarrassed weak Catholics was Father’s uncompromising profession of the solemnly defined Catholic truth, "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

On May 28, 1949, five weeks after the silencing and interdicting, Father Feeney addressed a long letter to Pope Pius XII in which he begged the Holy Father to protect him in his struggle to defend this one dogma of the Church which clearly

proclaims the unique and universal mission given her by her Founder; and consequently, her authority over all men, the denial of which would certainly lead to an unparalleled disaster for the Church. Here are the essential parts of Father’s plea:

To Pope Pius XII

Your Holiness:

It is with the deepest anguish that I write to you, the Vicar of Christ on earth, to ask you to protect me in the crusade which God has given me to wage in your defense and in the defense of our Holy Faith in the United States of America. . .

Your Holiness must believe me when I tell you that the condition of the Church in the United States of America in the matter of doctrine is utterly deplorable. There is no doubt about it that we are slowly becoming a National Church, controlled not in the least by Your Holiness, but by the National Catholic Welfare Council of Washington, D.C. Americans are not being taught the Catholic Faith as it is contained in the writings of the Fathers and the Doctors and in the definitions of the Councils of the Church. They are being taught what a committee of extremely deficient American theologians think will interest the American mind without ever embarrassing or challenging it.

I am writing this letter to Your Holiness simply, and as a child. Your Holiness may see already that it is not a legally organized document. It is a cry of anguish from my priestly heart. In order not to tire you with too many details, may I tell you in brief statement what is the fundamental heresy universally taught by Catholics, priests and teachers, in the United States of America? This is the doctrine which American Catholics are being taught:

"The way to be saved is by being sincere to your convictions and leading a good life. If one of your convictions happens to be that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, then you are obliged to join it. If you do not sincerely think it is the one way to salvation, then you are invincibly ignorant and God will save you, apart from the Church. You are then said to belong to the soul of the Church, and whatever you desire for yourself in the way of salvation, Catholic theologians are prepared to call ‘Baptism of Desire.’ Were you to sincerely think that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ, it would be a sin for you to join it."

Your Holiness, I assure you in all my honour, in the sanctity of my Sacrament and whatever voice I have to be heard in profession of Faith, that the above statement is the substance of what is being taught all Americans as the means of eternal salvation. I am bold enough to say that you know what I am telling You is the truth. There is no Pope in history who has been as close to the American mind as You have been. I personally heard You speak in New York City when I was one of the editors of America, and I know that this is true. Every day You defer calling a halt to the wild Liberalism of the American hierarchy, a Liberalism which pays not the slightest attention to Your messages against Interfaith movements and against exposing our Catholics to the dangers of heretical perversion, the more will grow the spirit of indifference and apostasy in our land, and ten years from now will be too late to save it (emphasis added). I know along with this challenge which I offer to Your Holiness, while prostrate at your feet in reverence and love, there go thousands of graces to enable You as Christ’s Vicar to save the world for our Holy Faith. Unless you are the thundering leader of the world, other thunderers will take your place, be they the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Stalins or the Roosevelts, who have already so

confused the world that is waiting for our Pontiff to speak.

. . . Every one of my thousands of readers in America knows that I will never give up my Faith, and many are scandalized that I received so little protection in my profession of it. I beseech the protection of the Vicar of Christ on earth.

With profoundest respect, I am . . .

(signed) Father Leonard Feeney, S.J.

"And ten years from now will be too late to save it." Father Feeney received no response whatsoever to this anguished cry for help. Nine years later, in l958, Pope Pius XII died, and what had been a relatively slow trickle of modernists into leadership levels of the Church quickly swelled into a flood.

But the damage had been done. By his silence, Pius XII permitted the betrayal not only of Father Feeney, but also — more importantly and tragically — the Holy Roman Catholic Church. For he consented thereby to the forfeiture of her God-mandated authority over all men, and reduced her to the level of "just another church." And every single pope since Pius has acquiesced in this consent by an identical silence.

It is important, however, that we make this point: Although Father Feeney was completely crushed by the failure of the Holy Father to support him in his doctrinal stand, his loyalty to, and respect for, the Vicar of Christ on earth never faltered. He always thought that his condemnation must somehow have been brought about without the knowledge and consent of the Pope. In spite of his deep hurt, he would never permit any member of his Order, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to indict the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. Resist sometimes? Yes! Indict ever? No!

This splendid example of Catholic loyalty and nobility, given by Father Leonard Feeney over forty years ago, should be a guide for all of us in these days of uncertain sounding trumpets. (I Cor. 14:8)

Our primary purpose in presenting this study is to provide for our readers convincing historical and doctrinal proof that all the problems in the Church today can be traced back to one common cause: the gradual suppression, and now, today, the often outright denial, by the hierarchy, of the key dogma which clearly expresses the Church’s universal authority — Outside the Church there is no salvation! Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!

To accomplish our purpose, we will present a brief account of the persecution of Father Feeney and his disciples, a study of the doctrinal issue, and then a defense of our position against the constantly recurring distortions and falsehoods promulgated by liberals and modernists, and even, sad to say, some pontificating traditionalists.

But first, we must have a clear notion of what the Church is.

The Incarnational Church

Considered in the spiritual, invisible sense, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, made so by the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the Holy Eucharist, and enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Holy Ghost. In the pages ahead, we will present Father Feeney’s beautiful explanation of the relationship between the Holy Eucharist and the Mystical Body of Christ.

In the material, visible sense, she is, as Saint Robert Bellarmine put it: ". . . the congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff."

Saint Robert continued: "The Church is a society, not of angels, nor of souls, but of men. But it cannot be called a society of men, unless it consist in external and visible signs; for it is not a society unless they who are called members acknowledge themselves to be so, but men cannot acknowledge themselves to be members unless the bonds of the society be external and visible. And this is confirmed by those customs of all human societies; for in an army, in a city, in a kingdom, and other similar societies, men would not be enrolled otherwise than by visible signs. Whence Augustine in Book 19 Against Faustus, Chapter ll, says: ‘Men cannot assemble in the name of any religion, whether it be true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or sacraments.’" (On the Church Militant, Bk.3:2)

Although we distinguish between these two aspects, or senses, of the Church, we do not separate them. We are speaking of one Church only, for the Mystical Body of Christ is the visible Catholic Church, as Pope Pius XII taught in his enyclical Mystici Corporis Christi.

The Church, then, is a visible, incarnational society founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and vivified by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which contains and provides, exclusively, all the spiritual and material means ordained by God as necessary for men if they are to attain to the Beatific Vision — that eternal state of perfect and complete happiness which we call salvation.

The Authority of the Church

It is God’s will that the Church have authority over all men:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

And if he will not hear them, tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let

him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Matthew 18:17)

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:18)

Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15)

In recognition of this mandate, the Church has infallibly defined as follows:

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.)

Thus we have the Dogma of Faith: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus — Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Here, in one key dogma, is embraced the importance and necessity for salvation of everything found in the Catholic Church — the One True Faith, without which it is impossible to please God; the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, without which it is impossible to appease God and adore Him properly; the sacraments and a priesthood to administer them, without which it is impossible for men, since the promulgation of the Gospel, to become and remain truly holy — in other words, justified, a prerequisite for salvation.

Do away with this one dogma, and the Church forfeits her claim to unique and universal authority, her right to command the respect and obedience of all men, and her responsibility for the mission given her by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Church may be likened to a city on an island placed in a raging sea of idolatry, immorality and unbelief. The Dogma of Faith, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, is a dike surrounding the city and protecting it from the changing tides of the eroding waters. If the dike is weakened in any way, the city is endangered; if

the dike springs a leak, it must be repaired; if the dike is destroyed, the city is doomed.

This essential, foundational Dogma of Faith is being assaulted today as never before. It is being suppressed by churchmen at all levels and even being denied outright by most. That, we believe, is the "diabolical disorientation" within the Church to which Sister Lucy, the seer of Fatima, referred — and it is highly probable that Sister was directly quoting Our Lady. The dike has been weakened. It has sprung a leak which is growing ever larger. It must be repaired soon — or the City of God will be submerged in the sea of Satan.

Chapter 2The Compromisers

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" is a solemnly defined dogma which has always been believed and taught by the Church. Were this not so, it could never have been defined ex cathedra in the first place, for no Pope can define a novelty, a truth not taught by the Church from the beginning. But it has been ignored and/or denied many times throughout the history of the Church. The Orthodox churches of the East and the hundreds upon hundreds of Protestant sects in the West stand as living testimonials to such denials.

But it was not until the middle of the last century that an organized attack on the dogma from within the Church began to take form. The attackers were traitorous Catholics who, unlike their Orthodox and Protestant forebears, did not voluntarily leave the Church but stayed within to do their undermining in secret. These subversives were the fruit of the social, philosophical and theological upheaval of the eighteenth century known as the Masonic French Revolution. Their goal was to subvert the Church. They were exposed and condemned as "modernists" by Pope Saint Pius X, but then they merely burrowed more deeply underground and waited for their time to come. Eventually, as they rose higher and higher in the leadership echelons of the Church, their insidious doctrinal teachings produced many, many well-meaning but misguided dupes. These we call Catholic liberals.

By 1940, Catholic liberalism was firmly entrenched in the Church. Its sentimental, muddle-headed thinking had already made heavy inroads among clergy and laity alike. It was during that year that a prominent Catholic laywoman, Catherine Goddard Clarke, sought the permission of the then-Archbishop of Boston, William Cardinal O’Connell, to establish an educational oasis of Catholic truth close to the

renowned secular universities that dominated the area. The Cardinal readily agreed to the project, admonishing Mrs. Clarke to "teach the Faith without compromise," and cautioning her to remain independent of the universities lest it appear that he encouraged Catholics to attend them.

Thus, Saint Benedict Center came into existence in 1940 at the corner of Bow and Arrow Streets in Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

At that time, few were the true Catholics, like Cardinal O’Connell, who saw the grave dangers to the Faith posed by Catholic liberalism. Prominent among those few was the Jesuit, Father Leonard Feeney. Father came to Saint Benedict Center in l942. Within a short time, he was appointed Spiritual Director by the archdiocese and with the approval of the Jesuit Order. In her book, The Loyolas and the Cabots, Sister Catherine, M.I.C.M. (Catherine Clarke) has this to say about Father’s thinking in those early years:

Father Feeney had despaired of doing anything about Catholic liberalism until he was at the Center for several years. When so much became clear to us about the state of a world which would permit the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan; when the boys came back to study and found in every class, practically, the same philosophy which had brought on the war; when we came to the realization that we must speak out no matter who was hurt or whose sense of expediency was outraged, — Father knew that we at last saw the problem. And when Father had, finally, strong and holy men and girls (become so under his direction) who were as eager as he was to work for the Truth, then he knew that something could be done about it.

He changed, then, from the "poet priest" his admirers had known . . . . He became instead the thundering, fighting missionary who, warring in the name of the Wonderful Mediatrix of All Graces, God’s Mother, filled students with a love for God which sent them into all the churches around for daily Mass, which led them to spend their spare time studying the Scriptures and the Doctors, which fired them to make sacrifices so heroic that they left homes, parents, prestiges — to face disgrace, ignominy and persecution.

By the Fall of 1947, it was no secret that Father Feeney was teaching the Catholic Faith with no compromise whatsoever, and with magnificent results. The Center was packed with intent listeners at every weekly lecture, particularly Father’s Thursday night session; conversions were multiplying rapidly; vocations to the religious life were being discovered with increasing frequency; and disenchanted students were leaving Harvard and other secular universities in the area in growing numbers — much to the irritation of these same universities. Liberal Catholics were being embarrassed by such unabashed "triumphalism" on the part of the Center. So, pressure began to be exerted on the Jesuits and the Archbishop of Boston to put the lid on Father Feeney and to remove him from the archdiocese.

What follows is a chronological outline of the key events leading up to and including the betrayal of Father and the Center, and, most importantly, the foundational dogma of the Catholic Church — Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. (For a thorough description of these tragic events, the reader is referred to Catherine

Goddard Clarke’s book, The Loyolas and The Cabots.)

Fall, 1947

Father John Ryan, S.J., head of the Adult Education Institute of Boston College, speaking to Dr. Fakhri Maluf (now Brother Francis, M.I.C.M., but at that time a professor in the Philosophy Department of the college and the regular Tuesday night lecturer at Saint Benedict Center): "I do not agree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on salvation outside the Church."

May, 1948

Father Stephen A. Mulcahy, S.J., Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences of Boston College, speaking to Mr. James R. Walsh of the Center, asked him not to teach what the Dean termed: "Father Feeney’s doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church."

August 8,1948

Ten short months after a visit to the Center, during which he addressed a packed house and lavishly praised Father Feeney and the Center for the great work being done, Archbishop Cushing stated in a speech at Milton, Massachusetts: "I cannot understand any Catholic who has any prejudice whatsoever against a Jew or other non-Catholic. If there is any Catholic organization harboring such prejudices, I will assume the responsibility of remedying it. A Catholic cannot harbor animosity against men, women or children of another creed, nationality or color. . . .some of the finest benefactors to the Boston Catholic Archdiocese are non-Catholics."

We add a parenthetical observation: As he admitted later, the Archbishop was not a theologian. Apparently, during the ten months after his visit, some person or persons succeeded in convincing him that the Church’s teaching on salvation was a prejudiced, bigoted dogma. He did not understand that to try to convert Jews and non-Catholics to the One True Faith is the greatest of charity.

August 25, l948

In a letter from Father J.J. McEleney, S.J., Provincial of the New England Province of the Society of Jesus, Father Feeney was suddenly and unexpectedly ordered to report to Holy Cross College in the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. He was to report on September 8th. This was a highly unusual transfer order, for Father had already been assigned to Saint Benedict Center for the year from July, 1948 to July, 1949. He immediately requested a meeting with his Father Provincial. The most important comments during their conversation were these:

Fr. Feeney:

"What is the point of my being changed?"

Fr. McEleney:

"Higher authorities."

Fr. Feeney:

"What is being objected to in what I am doing?"

Fr. McEleney:

"Your doctrine."

Fr. Feeney:

"My doctrine on what?"

Fr. McEleney:

"I’m sorry, we can’t go into that."

The reader will note that it was this admission by his Provincial, that he was being transferred in order to silence his preaching of an infallibly defined Catholic dogma, that later resolved Father Feeney’s conscience problem regarding obedience to the transfer order. It confirmed his decision not to obey the order. As a priest, his first obligation was to defend the Faith.

December 2, l948

Dr. Maluf was summoned for an interview with Father William L. Keleher, S.J., President of Boston College. The subject matter of the interview was Father Feeney’s resistance to the transfer order (on the grounds that it had become a conscience matter for him —the priority of doctrine over discipline) and a strong protest letter which students of the Center had sent to Father McEleney. Parts of the conversation follow:

Fr. Keleher:

"The occasion for my calling you today is the question of Saint Benedict Center, which is getting to be a matter of great concern to the authorities here.This measure, you see, did not proceed from Father McEleney, but from the Bishop, and we are anxious to keep in harmony with diocesan authorities."

Dr. Maluf:

"But the ultimate origin of this order did not proceed from the Bishop or

the Archbishop. . . . It is fairly common knowledge at Harvard that certain people connected with Harvard were dissatisfied with the Center."

Fr. Keleher:

"Then you think that there are politics behind this measure?"

Dr. Maluf:

"I have no doubt whatsoever about it."

Fr. Keleher:

"I have the highest respect for Father Feeney, and I have always been edified by his exemplary life . . . . I believe that the work of Saint Benedict Center is the work of God. It has given to our Order not merely in quantity a large number of vocations, but some vocations of whom the whole Jesuit Order is extremely proud. . . . Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his doctrine on salvation. . . . . He kept repeating such phrases as ‘There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.’"

Dr. Maluf:

"The doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church is a defined dogma."

Fr. Keleher:

"I have never gone into the theology of it but I know that not merely our department of Religion here at Boston College, but also the theologians at St. John’s Seminary and Weston College disagree with Father Feeney’s doctrine on the salvation of non-Catholics."

January, 1949

When Dr. Maluf was dismissed from the faculty of the Graduate School, he went to the office of the Dean, Father George A. O’Donnell, S.J., to ask the reason:

Fr. O’Donnell:

"I am going to be frank with you, Fakhri. You are teaching a doctrine which is not in agreement with the doctrine of the majority of theologians at the present time in this area."

April 13,1949 (Wednesday of Holy Week)

As a result of a letter they had sent to Father Jean Baptiste Janssens, General of the Society of Jesus, in which they charged Boston College with teaching heresy contrary to the infallible definitions of the Popes, Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio were summoned to appear before Father Keleher. Here are the highlights of the meeting:

Fr. Keleher:

"I have written to you in connection with the letter you sent to the General. . . . I have received instructions . . . that the signatories of that letter be presented singly before a board . . . and be asked certain questions by me. . . . You will merely be asked to retract your statements and, in case you refuse to do that, your connection with Boston College will be severed as of this moment."

Dr. Maluf:

"If it is a question of retracting those three statements in our letter to the General, I, on my part, can tell you that I am not capable of doing that."

Mr. Walsh:

"And neither am I."

Mr. Ewaskio:

"And neither am I."

Dr. Maluf:

"Are you definitely giving us the alternative of retracting those statements or of being fired?"

Fr. Keleher:

"Yes, I am."

Dr. Maluf:

"All right. You have taken the measure, and you take responsibility for it."

April 14, l949 (Holy Thursday)

Father Keleher issued a statement to the press explaining the dismissal of the

professors which read, in part:

They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance.

Their doctrine is erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at Boston College. They were informed that they must cease such teaching or leave the faculty.

April 16, l949 (Holy Saturday)

Father Feeney issued a statement to the press in which he defended the three professors, plus a fourth, David Supple, who was a teacher at Boston College High School.

April 18, l949 (Easter Monday)

Without any warning, Archbishop Cushing silenced Father Feeney and placed the Center under interdict. The decree read as follows:

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church, has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Subsequent to this betrayal of Father Feeney and the most fundamental dogma of the Church, Archbishop Cushing scandalized every soul in the Boston Archdiocese with this flippant public proclamation: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense! "

Many Catholics in the traditionalist camp — priests and laymen alike — have, in the past, publicized their preconceived notion that the controversy involving Father Feeney was merely a matter of his "over-reacting" in attempting to defend the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation," thus, he went to the extreme of denying "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood." Therefore, the Church had to silence him and, ultimately, excommunicate him for his obstinacy.

What we have related above shows clearly how wrong that pre-conceived notion is. Father Feeney’s insistence that there is no salvation outside the Church — that was the crux of the controversy!

When the four professors were fired from Boston College in 1949 for teaching "ideas leading to bigotry and intolerance," were they fired because they rejected "baptism of desire?" No! They were fired because they were teaching Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

When Father Feeney defended the four professors publicly, he was silenced by Archbishop Cushing. Did the Archbishop silence Father for rejecting "baptism of

desire?" No! He silenced Father and interdicted Saint Benedict Center because they were preaching — much to the dismay of the Harvard establishment — the Church’s uncompromising dogma on salvation.

When Archbishop Cushing, a former B’nai B’rith Man-of-the-Year, burst forth in ecumaniacal fervor to an approving audience: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense!", was he concerned about "baptism of desire?" Of course not!

For the record: Father Feeney’s position on "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" was first published in his book, Bread of Life, in October, 1952. That was three and one-half years after the doctrinal dispute had erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston with the firing of the professors, the silencing of Father and the interdicting of the Center!

The reader will notice that, despite the continuous assertions by the Jesuits at Boston College that they did not agree with the defined dogma on salvation, and despite the fact that Father’s teaching of this dogma was obviously at the heart of the entire controversy, not once did any of his antagonists dare accuse him of heresy. Instead, when his conscience would not permit him to accept an order, the obeying of which would have been a tacit denial of doctrine, they simply ignored his conscience problem, refused to give him a hearing on that problem, and high-handedly insisted on obedience "or else." In all of Father’s subsequent dealings with the hierarchy, this false principle of discipline (obedience) having a higher priority than doctrine was the order of the day.

Archbishop Cushing silenced Father for "grave offense against the laws of the Church," and not for "teaching a doctrine which is not in agreement with the doctrine of the majority of theologians at the present time in this area," as the Jesuits themselves had identified the issue. The Archbishop was careful not to name "doctrine" as the real issue.

When, on October 10, 1949, Father was dismissed from the Jesuit Order, the notice of dismissal stated the cause as "a crime of serious and permanent disobedience," not the fact that Father did not agree with the "majority of theologians at the present time in this area." The Jesuits, too, were careful not to name "doctrine" as the real issue.

And when, finally, in February, 1953, Father was excommunicated by a decree of the Holy Office, it was "on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority." Even the Holy Office would not name "doctrine" as the real issue.

Chapter 3The "Excommunication"

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.*

On September 3, 1949, this Protocol was published in part in The Pilot, the official news organ of the Archdiocese of Boston. Three years later, on September 4, 1952, it was published in full in The Pilot under cover of an explanatory memorandum from Archbishop Cushing.

On September 24, 1952, three weeks after its publication in full, the Center addressed a letter to Pope Pius XII in which it protested: "This Protocol is substantially defective in that it contains heresy insofar as it states that one can be saved under certain conditions outside the Roman Catholic Church and without personal submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and consequently is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See."**

* According to the Catholic Dictionary, a Protocol is a "preliminary memorandum in negotiations, serving as basis for final agreement."

** The Acta Apostolicae Sedis is a monthly publication established as the official journal of the Holy See. Decrees and decisions published therein are thereby officially promulgated and made effective.

Public reaction to the initial publication of parts of the Protocol letter in The Pilot of September 3, 1949, was predictable. The Worcester Telegram, for instance, ran a typical headline:

Vatican Rules Against Hub DissidentsHolds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False

Similar headlines and follow-up stories in papers throughout the country produced not one protesting "peep" from the chanceries of the United States. This was 1949; the Pope was Pius XII, yet not one bishop spoke out in defense of a solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Church! What a scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike! And what proof that this severe weakness in doctrinal teaching existed in the seminaries of America since at least the later decades of the nineteenth century!

As usual, the long, detailed letter to the Holy Father dated September 24, 1952, went unanswered. But one month later, in a letter from Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office dated October 25, 1952, Father Feeney was summoned to Rome:

The . . . Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.

However, His Holiness . . . has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore, . . . you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities . . . of the Holy Office as soon as possible.

On October 30, 1952, Father sent a respectful reply to the Cardinal requesting a statement of the charges being made against him — as required by Canon Law. On November 22, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo sent a terse reply:

Your letter of 30th October clearly shows that you are evading the issue . . . You are to come to Rome immediately where you will be informed of the charges lodged against you. . . . If you do not present yourself . . . before the 31st December this act of disobedience will be made public together with the canonical penalties.

N.B. . . . The Apostolic Delegate has been authorized to provide for the expenses of your journey."

On December 2, 1952, Father responded, repeating his request for a statement of charges and quoting Canon Law to prove that he had a right to receive such a statement:

Your Eminence seems to have misconstrued my motives in replying to your letter of October 25, l952. I had presumed that your first letter was to serve as a canonical citation to appear before your Sacred Tribunal. As a citation, however, it is fatally defective under the norms of Canon l715 especially in that it did not inform me of the charges against me. This canon requires that the citation contain at least a general

statement of the charges. Under the norms of Canon 1723 any proceedings based on a citation so substantially defective are subject to a complaint of nullity.

On January 9, 1953, came another terse reply from the Cardinal:

In reply to your letter of the 2nd Dec. 1952 asking for further explanations, . . . the Holy Office communicates to you herewith the orders received from His Holiness, that you are to present yourself to this Congregation before the 31st January 1953, under pain of excommunication incurred automatically (ipso facto) in case of failure to present yourself on the date indicated. This decision of His Holiness has been made after the arrival of the latest documents from St. Benedict Center.

This letter from the Holy Office deserves special comment. Cardinal Pizzardo here exhibits an odd eagerness to condemn Father Feeney. He threatens Father with excommunication if he does not present himself by January 31st. This he has the authority to do. However, he has no authority to threaten anyone with an ipso facto excommunication unless it be for an obstinate disregard of Divine or ecclesiastical law.

There is no ecclesiastical law the compliance or non-compliance with which would make it possible for an order to be given requiring that a priest must come to Rome by such and such a date — or else! Therefore, by not presenting himself to the Holy Office by January 31st, Father Feeney committed no crime meriting an ipso facto excommunication. What he did do — that is, in the external forum of the Church — was provide a reason for an unjust and (as later events proved) heretical tribunal to excommunicate him juridically.

No tribunal is necessary for an ipso facto excommunication. The deed of the culprit, in itself (eo ipso), places him outside the Church, not only in foro externo (if the act is publically known), but in foro interno (his very conscience accusing).

But the offense alleged against Father Feeney — not obeying a summons — provided matter for a court, or a judge, to weigh. The matter was judged and, prescinding from any extenuating circumstances or prior canonically-valid protestations by the accused, found to be a serious infraction. Then, the judge — according to the only verifying witness, the Notary Marius Crovini — passed sentence and excommunicated Father Feeney.

According to the Church’s own canons distinguishing two types of excommunication, Father Feeney could not be excommunicated ipso facto (latae sententiae, i.e., the sentence having been carried out) because his action did not fall under the category of crimes meriting such an automatic expulsion. However, Father could be excommunicated ab homine (by a judge), and that public form of excommunication is called ferendae sententiae (of the sentence that must be carried out). Under the former type of sentence there is always intrinsic guilt, for the sin is intrinsic in the very nature of the act. However, in the latter type of sentence, for legal validity, there must be some questionable matter of doctrine or discipline against which the accused has been inculpated. Even then the external judgment of guilt passed by the tribunal remains a human judgment, and binds only the Church militant, not the court of heaven. And even this imposition on the Church militant

can be prudently and respectfully disregarded if the excommunicant is innocent and the salvation of souls warrants certain readjustments along the normal path of hierarchical obediences.

In other words, just as in the sacrament of Confession, the power of the keys is not arbitrary. It is a prescribed power, which can only have efficacy if certain conditions are met. And those conditions depend on the sincerity of the recipient. God will not forgive the impenitent, even if such a one confesses his sins truthfully. And God will not withdraw His grace from one who is unjustly, though — in foro externo — validly, excommunicated. And, finally, God is not bound by any other word than His own Word.

On January 13, 1953, Father sent a long and strong letter to the Cardinal protesting the following:

a) Violation of the "secrecy of the Holy Office" in leaking their correspondence to the public press.

b) The Cardinal’s repeated threats of imposing penalties without either accusations or proceedings, as required by the Sacred Canons and the common law of the Church.

c) The dissemination of Protocol 122/49 as a doctrinal pronouncement of the Holy See, knowing it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Father ended this last communication to Cardinal Pizzardo with a statement of righteous indignation:

I very seriously question both the good faith and the validity of any attempt to excommunicate me because I dared to call the substance of this decree to your attention, and because I dared to insist on my rights under it in both my letters of October 30 and December 2, 1952.

On February 13, 1953, the Holy Office issued a decree declaring Father Feeney "excommunicated." It read as follows:

Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto [sic], has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday, 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.

Given at Rome, at the Headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.

Marius Crovini, Notary

AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100

The Appeal to Pope Pius XII

Father Leonard Feeney never doubted for one moment that he was doing God’s will in all the actions he took in defense of the salvation dogma. Let the hierarchy do what they will, this priest of Our Lady was ready and willing to follow her Son to his own crucifixion outside the walls of the city. Like Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Father knew that he too could be cast out of the synagogue. An excommunication, even one passed by a pope, is not protected by the charism of infallibility. It is a disciplinary power that can be, and at times has been, abused.

In foro interno, Father’s conscience was never disturbed. However, in foro externo, he felt obliged to issue a public protest against the unjustness of the excommunication, and — perhaps in an effort to upset the complacency of the perpetrators — he also called attention to the many glaring canonical defects that were recurrent throughout his entire ordeal, leading up to and including the decree of excommunication itself. On July 16, 1953, Saint Benedict Center, writing in Father’s name, sent a letter of appeal to the Pope in which these defects were pointed out. It was sent to the Holy Father through the then Pro-Secretary of State for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (later Pope Paul VI). It read, in part, as follows:

2. Because the first interest of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the preservation of the Faith, we have been reluctant to make any formal representations to the Holy See concerning any secondary matters relating to our activities. Your Excellency is well aware that the first obligation of every Catholic is to defend with his lifeblood every doctrine of his Holy Faith. In doing this, he has the assurance both of his own salvation, and even if persecuted by fellow Catholics, of his ultimate vindication by the Church. The lives of the saints amply demonstrate this. Many of the saints were vilified, interdicted, excommunicated, and even martyred by those of their own Faith. We refer specifically to Saints Athanasius, Ignatius of Constantinople, Alphonsus Ligouri, John the Baptist de la Salle, Thomas of Hereford, Thomas a’Becket, Joan of Arc, John Fisher and Thomas More.

While our duty is clear, and we are encouraged in its performance by the example of these great saints, and also while we have the unfailing consolation of knowing that we will never be abandoned by our Holy Mother the Church, it is necessary in the interest of justice and for the avoidance of grave scandal to communicate with the Holy See formally and directly concerning many matters which concern us.

3. Foremost, therefore, in our minds, is the matter of the purported decree of excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney. We hereby enter a Complaint of Nullity against this purported decree of excommunication, which was dated February 13, 1953. . .

The appeal then went on to cite the breaches of the legal procedure which the Church’s own laws require her prelates to follow in the promulgation of an excommunication ferendae sententiae.

No answer was ever received to this Complaint of Nullity. But all the charges made in the letter were amply verified by the use made of the "excommunication" in the

press. To give one example, a widely circulated dispatch dated March 1, 1953, originating with the National Catholic Welfare Conference, had this to say:

The excommunication decree was issued February 13, and officially published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis on February 16, which gives a full review of the former Jesuit’s case and of his recalcitrance in refusing to accept the warnings of the Holy See. . .

The fact is that neither the decree of February 13, nor the Acta of February 16, contains the slightest hint of a "review of the former Jesuit’s case." But the press had transmitted to the world the very message which the modernists wanted transmitted: It is unwise to profess the doctrine "Outside the Church there is no salvation." And the press also unanimously agreed that Rome had spoken and that the case had been disposed of.

Thus, the forces of Anti-Christ proved their ascendancy in the world of today by placing the most important dogma of the Church under a cloud, using for this purpose the very machinery of Holy Church herself.

Chapter 4The "Reconciliation"

After the vilification of our Order and the "excommunication" of Father Feeney, we were forced into some twenty years of "exile." In 1958 we moved to Still River, Massachusetts, in the Diocese of Worcester. Sister Catherine died in 1968. It was now 1972. During those years the forces of liberalism had made enormous headway inside the Church. Nevertheless, they still clearly considered our Order a serious obstacle. For, about this time we were becoming uneasy over indications that secret negotiations between certain ranking prelates and several members of the Order had been taking place. When the alarming rumors reached Father Feeney’s ears, he repeatedly forbade any members to have any dealings with the hierarchy without his expressed approval.

The willingness, of what had grown by now to be a majority of the Brothers, to establish a reconciliation with the hierarchy greatly disturbed the loyal community of sisters living in Saint Anne’s House, and the by now minority faction of loyal brothers still residing with the others in Saint Thérèse House.

Brother Hugh found the climate of betrayal too much to bear. In 1972, along with several younger brothers, he vacated Saint Thérèse House and, on the same property, built a new home for any of the brothers who wished to continue the doctrinal battle without compromise. Father Feeney, too worn down by ill health to join them, and too fatherly to admit at this stage that any of his spiritual children would actually betray him, remained at Saint Thérèse House.

Brother Francis, who initially had given his own home in Cambridge to help house the once indefatigable young apostles of our Crusade, wished Brother Hugh well, but insisted on staying with the Brothers of Saint Thérèse House, where he hoped to rekindle any sparks of loyalty he could find. That hope, however, was sadly defused. It became clear that he and Brother Hugh would have to continue on alone. Father Feeney blessed them both with the words: "Do whatever it takes to

save the Crusade!"

By August 23, 1972, it was evident that Father had been disobeyed and that our suspicions had been well founded. On that day our Crusade was insidiously compromised by the disloyal faction. For that was the day on which Auxiliary Bishop Lawrence Riley of Boston, accompanied by Father Richard J. Shmaruk, quietly arrived at Saint Thérèse House. Father did not know the purpose of their visit, and no members of the other houses at the Center were aware that it was taking place.

The members of the House, including Father, met with their guests in the spacious front room. To edify his visitors, Father had all members recite, in unison, a memory drill on the important dates in the history of the world. Then, by prearrangement, one of the sisters suggested that they recite the creeds of the Church, one of which is the Athanasian Creed. Father enthusiastically agreed. And presto! The unsuspecting Father Feeney was "back in the Church!"

Now, the Athanasian Creed begins with these words:

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 everlastingly . . .

So, Father was "back in the Church" by professing the very doctrine for which he was "put out!"

Or at least the preliminary step in that direction had been taken. But, of course, this mysterious "reconciliation" was every bit as spurious as the earlier "excommunication."

One year later, we learned that all had been approved and that it would soon be publicized that Father Feeney had "returned to the fold," evidently having renounced his former stand. For this reason, we published on September 17, 1973, and widely distributed, a message from Father Feeney and the Center to our fellow Catholics. It reiterated our firm position on the doctrine and closed, saying:

. . . Some individuals, with no authorization to represent our Institute, are now seeking by devious means to compromise our Crusade. We wish to inform our spiritual fathers and our fellow Catholics there can be no compromise. We still profess the same Faith, out of which no one at all can be saved, as we did a quarter of a century ago.

Six months later, in March of 1974, the defection from the Crusade was finally consummated by the disloyal faction when its compromising members individually made a formal submission to Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. Press releases announcing the supposed reconciliation of Father Feeney and the Center subsequently appeared on September 26, 1974. That was one year after Father emphatically denounced those who were seeking to compromise our

Crusade through their devious machinations with the liberal hierarchy.

One Bishop’s "Dead Horse"

News accounts concerning these events repeatedly referred to letters from Rome, purportedly written in connection with our case. Normally, such correspondence should have been sent to Father Feeney as the Superior of the Order. But Father had received nothing more than rumors. He therefore authorized two loyal members to obtain whatever documentation was available from Bishop Flanagan, Ordinary of the Worcester Diocese. Brother Francis and Brother Hugh (since deceased) called on the Bishop. When asked the purpose of their visit, the following discussion ensued:

Brother Hugh:

We were sent by Father. We read in the papers that letters have been sent from Rome in connection with our case. We would like, if possible, to see all the documents that pertain to Saint Benedict Center and to Father Feeney.

Bishop Flanagan:

Let me first explain to you how this whole thing started and how I got involved in it. There was a bishops’ meeting about two years ago, and Cardinal Medeiros mentioned that he would like to see the Father Feeney case disposed of. He was anxious to send a statement to Rome saying that Father’s health was not too good and that he would hate to have him die apparently outside the Church. I expressed my enthusiastic approval of this policy.

At this point, let us give the law and tradition of the Church in such matters, in the classic expression of Pope Saint Innocent I, who stated: "Communion once broken off cannot be renewed until the persons concerned give proof that the reasons for which communion was broken off are no longer operative." We continue Bishop Flanagan’s remarks:

We sent a statement to Rome. The response came back: "Yes, by all means." The only requirement was that Father should make a profession of Faith. Bishop Lawrence Riley then went to the Center with Father Shmaruk. Father was very happy to say all the Creeds that you have. He was willing to recite every single Creed. And that was all that was required. And, now, is there any possibility for everyone to get together? Would you be willing also to do what the group at Saint Thérèse House have already done?

Brother Hugh:

We intend to come out this year stronger than ever in defense of the

Doctrine. Would you, as our Ordinary, oppose that?

Bishop Flanagan:

That Doctrine is now a dead horse. Let’s be practical. The whole spirit after Vatican II is against it. You are talking about a dead horse. That thing is dead. Let’s bury it.

Brother Francis:

We feel now more than ever the necessity of upholding the Doctrine, precisely because of what has been happening to the Church since Vatican II.

Brother Hugh:

If we come out stronger than ever and spread the Doctrine throughout the country, would you be against that? What agreement have the Brothers of Saint Thérèse House made?

Bishop Flanagan:

The understanding is that they will not talk about it. The understanding is that it is a dead horse and we will forget all about it.

Brother Hugh:

As the Ordinary, would you do something about it?

Bishop Flanagan:

Well, as I said, the understanding is that they will not publicly talk about the Doctrine. There are other things in the Church we recommend very strongly. They can preach devotion to Mary. They can be a conservative group in the Church. We need a conservative group in the Church.

Then the Bishop opened his folder and showed the documents. He could not provide copies to be brought to Father because of the confidential nature of the letters! One was from the Holy Office regarding Father, indicating that on account of his "age and infirmity" they were willing to lift the censures. The other document concerned the brothers of Saint Thérèse House who were to be received back into the Church individually.

Brother Hugh:

What about Sister Catherine and the four brothers who have died? Did they die outside the Church?

Bishop Flanagan:

Oh, no. The only one excommunicated was Father Feeney. We don’t quite know why it was done, but Father Feeney was on the record excommunicated nominatim. The most you could say of the rest was that they were under interdict. Notice that the account about the reconciliation says: ". . . from any censures they may have incurred." The phrasing was deliberate.

Brother Francis:

But why, then, did they have to make a profession of Faith? And why did they have to promise silence on a dogma defined ex cathedra by the popes? When the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani became known to us, we all — including the group from Saint Thérèse House — signed a statement denouncing it as heretical and scandalous. Did they have to withdraw that statement?

Bishop Flanagan:

In the Church today a latitudinarian attitude prevails. Some are questioning the Real Presence, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Infallibility of the Pope, without being put out of the Church.

Brother Francis:

Is this the traditional concept of Catholic orthodoxy? You allow people to question the Trinity? We say that if we are truly in heresy, we should be excommunicated. We want to hold the Catholic Truth; we do not want to be one extreme balancing another. Are we Catholics or Hegelians?

Bishop Flanagan:

To return to the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter, it has become part of the teaching of the Church. You find it in Denzinger [a compilation of doctrinal documents of different grades of authority].

Brother Francis:

The Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter is far below the authority of the doctrine it nullifies. The Holy Father spoke recently of something he called the "auto-demolition of the Church." Well, here is a perfect example of that abuse — the use that was made of that scandalous document by the liberal theologians.

In concluding, the Brothers told His Excellency that we of the Order are not conscious of having done anything that puts us outside the Church. Any gesture

of submission on our part would only mean admission that we have been wrong in our doctrinal stand. We are faithful Catholics who have never done other than our duty to defend the Faith. We are obedient to all those who hold authority over us whenever they act within the bounds of that authority as constituted by God.

This meeting took place on October 18, 1974.

Chapter 5A New Beginning

When the spurious "reconciliation" of Father Feeney took place on August 23, l972, Father had already entered into the initial stages of the protracted illness which later took his life on January 30, 1978. He did not know the reason for the visit to the Center by Auxiliary Bishop Lawrence Riley and Father Shmaruk but was apprehensive about it.

Two days later, as a precautionary measure, he issued the following statement for the record:

August 25, 1972

To whom it may concern:

If Archbishop Madeiros came and asked me to submit to him, I would not do it unless he submitted to this doctrine of the Catholic Church — "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." A heretical bishop is not a bishop to be obeyed. It is because of the fact that this doctrine is not upheld that all the collapse is coming in the Church today. It has resulted in lack of vocations, nuns leaving their convents, and every other evil that has happened.

Before his death, Cardinal Cushing boasted of the fact that he had never made a convert in his life.

If the Bishop would tell me that he believed that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, I would immediately take our Order and submit it to him or someone in authority. The Bishop would first have to give us his support with regard to the doctrine as we hold it. "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church nor without personal submission to our Holy Father, the Pope." Anyone who does not believe this doctrine is a heretic. This doctrine must not only be believed, but be professed openly.

(Signed) Father Leonard Feeney, M.I.C.M.

In March, 1974, the disloyal brothers and a small faction of sisters from Saint Joseph House made their formal submission to Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester.

Four months later, Father quietly summoned three loyal members to meet with him. In his personal diary of important events at the Center, Brother Francis recorded the purpose of the meeting:

July 12, 1974 — Father called me with Brother Hugh and Sister Teresa into the room behind the chapel in Saint Ann’s House and charged us to save the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center against those who are betraying it, and he gave us his blessing for that purpose.

All three took Father’s charge very seriously. When the first division took place, Brother Francis and Brother Hugh set up their permanent quarters on the small three-acre plot of land awarded them in a legal settlement and began immediately to plan the rebirth of the Crusade. Within a few years they accomplished much, but, in 1979, God suddenly took Brother Hugh to Himself. This left Brother Francis, who, second only to Father Feeney, was the prime mover in the founding of the Crusade, as the only original male member of the Order determined to stand firm at the monastery in Still River and continue the fight to save it.

Then, around 1980, another original member, Brother Leonard Mary, now convinced that betrayal of the Crusade was afoot, left Saint Thérèse House and moved to California to take up the fight from there.

How and why did all of this happen? How could it be that, out of an original group of some thirty-five to forty dedicated men, so few were willing to persevere without a tint of compromise?

The answer is simply this: The doctrinal position championed by the Center for almost half-a-century now — Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus — is the only position which the triumphant Masonic forces, in both the world and the Church, cannot and will not tolerate. They aim for a one-world church under the control of a one-world government, so the Catholic Church must be cut down to size! Saint Benedict Center had to be crushed. Cartago delenda est! "Divide and conquer" was the method chosen. And divide the Center, they did! And yes, the conspiracy found the former doctrinal apostles willing to aid and abet in their own auto-demolition.

The individuals first targeted for removal from the scene were those who held the annoying doctrine most firmly and faithfully and who were most capable of leading the Crusade to triumph — the "intellectuals," as the late John Cardinal Wright referred to them. The most prominent figure among them was Brother Francis.

Volumes could be written to relate in detail what took place during the years following the death of Father Feeney in l978, and even before that, during his long

illness. Suffice it to say that, unfortunately, attacks on the Center from the outside were effective only because our enemies found strange allies within the Center — allies in the sense that they made it possible for the attacks to produce effects which they would not have otherwise produced. Ultimately, the effects were these:

a) Our Order was divided into two groups: those who were loyal to their vow of allegiance to the Crusade, and those who were not.

b) Those who were not loyal to their vow formed the larger group. They gained legal possession of most of the property and buildings in Still River (including the very valuable library accumulated over the years) and then became Benedictines, taking all these assets with them into the Benedictine Order. What was once the monastery of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is now a Benedictine Abbey. And those who were once staunch defenders of the Dogma of Faith are now not permitted to preach it, neither in public nor in private.

c) Those who remained faithful to their vow formed the smaller group. This group, in turn, is made up of several factions which, for various unhappy reasons, have not been able to unite under a single leadership.

d) Brother Francis, the obvious successor to Father Feeney as the philosophical and theological leader of the Crusade, was completely deprived of any property rights and leadership status. In l986, he and the small group of four religious loyal to him, though practically penniless, were evicted from the grounds of the monastery in Still River. But, in 1989, with the help of many lay supporters, he re-established Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, and is now aggressively rebuilding the Crusade from this new base.

Our Present Status

Our group of Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary here in New Hampshire is — just as our original foundation in Cambridge, Massachusetts was — a valid Order in the Church. Here is how Sister Catherine described us back in 1951:

Yes, we are a religious community. We are, indeed, a religious order — perhaps more technically a religious congregation. Each of us has, by vow, dedicated his life to the preservation of the truths of his Holy Faith under the title of Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We live a community life . . . with hours of prayer, hours of study, and hours of work.

We are . . . waiting for the time when we can present our Order to the Holy See, as all Orders must eventually be presented.

We are waiting, then, to present our Order to the Holy See, to secure the blessings of our Holy Father, and to ask the Holy Father to foundation us as a permanent and abiding battalion in the army of our Holy Faith.

The situation today is the same. Brother Francis cannot, in good conscience, present our Order to the Holy See at this time, any more than it could have been

presented back in 1951. The silence of Rome which permits the suppression of the Dogma of Faith continues to this very day. Yet, we are loyal Catholics; we remain loyal to the Holy See, and we know with the certainty of our Faith that, someday soon, thunder will be heard again from the Chair of Peter, recalling Holy Mother Church to her primary vocation. In the meantime, plain and simple prudence dictates that we remain free of the strictures on our ability to defend the Faith that would inevitably follow upon submission to an heretical hierarch.

Therefore, we will not yet seek "regularization" under a local Ordinary. In this matter, we are guided by Father Feeney’s will as expressed in his statement of August 25, 1972, given before.

Note, "regularization" is the term now used for a procedure whereby a religious group is given official recognition under a local Ordinary. It should not be confused with the term "recantation," which is a solemn renunciation, on oath, of a former heretical position.

A "regularization" took place seven years ago when we were in Massachusetts. Here is what happened:

Early in 1988, one of our Third Order members wrote to the Archbishop of Boston, Bernard Cardinal Law, requesting a clarification of the Church’s teaching on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. His Eminence replied, via a Priest-Secretary, by stating that the dogma is, indeed, an official teaching of the Church, but then added the usual liberal qualifications based on "ignorance," "sincerity," and "desire" that render it meaningless. The letter then volunteered the opinion that ". . . a very large majority of those who have become associated with Father Feeney’s foundation are now in full loyalty to the Church’s teaching while still keeping the memory of Father Feeney with respect and affection."

This last statement was a reference to the regularization of a group of loyal Sisters in Saint Anne’s House in Still River which had occurred in February of 1988. The Mother Superior of these sisters, most of whom were original members of our Order, was disturbed at the implication that a recantation had taken place, and made her concern known to our then Bishop, Most Reverend Timothy J. Harrington. Whereupon, the Bishop’s Vicar for Canonical Affairs, Reverend Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L., wrote to the Priest-Secretary in Boston and explained exactly what had happened at the regularization. Here are the pertinent parts of Father Deery’s letter:

Mother Theresa [Teresa is the correct spelling]. . . has expressed concern about your letter of 7 March, l988. . . . It is Mother Theresa’s feeling that your letter implied a ‘walking away’ from Father Feeney’s teachings on their part. Several clarifications might prove helpful:

l) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August, 1949 [the Protocol Letter]. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents.

2) The Sisters were asked to make a profession of Faith. Nothing else was required.

This is a graphic example of the eagerness with which liberal priests in chanceries everywhere would seize upon our "regularization" and attempt to make it appear that we had recanted. This is exactly what they tried to do to Father Feeney after his so-called "reconciliation."

"Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"

Unless and until there is positive, conclusive evidence of a return to belief in and defense of the Dogma of Faith, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, we will not seek regularization under any bishop who now denies it.

We are, then, a legitimate order, or congregation, in the Church. We intend to maintain respectful, cordial relations with our Ordinary and with Church authorities in Rome. We have positioned ourselves squarely on the solid rock of defined doctrine and will not move from it. We will continue to do what we know Our Lady of Fatima wants us to do: challenge and attack the liberal/modernist heretics until their stranglehold on the Church is broken. When that victory is won, the Church will recover her strength. Then, we will petition the Holy Father to "foundation us as a permanent and abiding battalion in the army of our Holy Faith" and take our position alongside other battalions of the Church Militant who are striving to obey Christ’s command to "teach all nations."

The Certainty of Ultimate Vindication

During recent years, there have been a few encouraging signs that certain officials in Rome are becoming more outspoken in their support of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Here are some of those signs:

1) We refer again to Father Deery’s letter, quoted above, to note its conclusion. Bishop Harrington and he had previously made a special trip to Rome to discuss our case with the Holy Office. What Father Deery wrote here, then, amounts to the Bishop of Worcester advising the Archbishop of Boston about the current attitude of the Holy Office regarding the Father Feeney case and the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center:

It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.

In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.

Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings. . . . They now actively proclaim his teachings as they did before the regularization.

It is clear, then, that the Holy Office of 1988 holds the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to have been defined and therefore "definitive." This means that a judgment has been made by the Church which is decisive and final. No one — be

he pope, cardinal, bishop, priest or layman — may doubt this dogma or contradict it without suffering the loss of his soul. Every Catholic must profess it.

The Holy Office says that all the controversy surrounding the dogma arises from undefined interpretations and speculations. It then suggests that those who hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the dogma — the loyal followers of Father Feeney — should be granted the same right to be heard as is given to the liberals.

Considering the unjust treatment inflicted upon Father Feeney and Saint Benedict Center in the past, what does this letter mean?

a) It means that Father Feeney was absolutely right in defending his doctrinal position, and that Archbishop Cushing, the Jesuits, and the numerous Church officials in Rome who persecuted him, were wrong. Just as the Church later corrected the error of the clerical judges who were responsible for the excommunication and martyrdom of Joan of Arc in 1431, so the Church today is duty bound to correct the error of the judges of Father Feeney who were responsible for his "excommunication" and twenty-five-year-long living martyrdom.

b) It means that the silencing of Father was wrong; the interdicting of the Center and its publications was wrong; and the refusal to grant the Imprimatur to Father’s and the Center’s books is wrong.

c) It means that the liberal interpretation of "baptism of desire" should no longer be represented as "the teaching of the Church," but should be identified as only the personal opinion of the speaker or writer or the original source proposing such a concept.

d) It means that the Holy Office letter of 8 August, 1949 to Archbishop Cushing should be removed from Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, where the modernist Karl Rahner, S.J. placed it, because, by keeping it there, it is given the appearance of having the same authority and prestige as the three ex cathedra definitions which it undermines.

2) During the summer of 1989, the same Father Deery, again on behalf of Bishop Harrington, replied to a letter to the Bishop which inquired about the status of Brother Francis’ community. Here is the substance of his reply:

Brother Francis does have a community of several brothers and several sisters. This community has no official recognition within the Church .

It would seem permissible to support them financially even though their situation in the Church is not completely regular.

. . . Brother Francis and his community, though not officially regularized in the Church, are indeed very much Catholic (emphasis ours).

At that time, we were still located in the Diocese of Worcester. A few months later,

in October, 1989, we moved to our present site in the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire.

Bishop Harrington was a kind spiritual father to us. Both he and his Vicar encouraged us in many ways. In this letter, Father Deery states that we "are indeed very much Catholic," but "not officially regularized in the Church."

That we are not officially regularized in the Church is a matter of our own choosing and for the reasons we have stated above. But, to have the Ordinary of a diocese in the United States say we are "indeed very much Catholic," rather than "not in the Church," as is usual, is a very good omen of better things to come.

3) Another good omen is the message delivered by Pope John Paul II to the thirty-five archbishops who represented the American hierarchy, at the close of his four-day meeting with them in March, 1989. The Holy Father challenged the assembled prelates with this clear statement of their responsibilities:

We are the guardians of something given, and given to the Church universal; something which is not the result of reflection, however competent, on cultural and social questions of the day, and is not merely the best path among many, but the one and only path to salvation.

Each of these encouraging signs originated in or from Rome. That gives us hope, for Rome was ultimately responsible for the humiliation and defamation of Father Feeney, and, by its silence, for the suppression of the Dogma of Faith.

Only Rome can reestablish the Dogma in its rightful place of pre-eminence and put the Church and the world back on the track to sanctity and sanity once again.

And only Rome can restore, for the edification of all the living today, the reputation of the courageous and saintly priest who, just yesterday, walked among them.

We pray for the Holy Father that he may be given the light and the strength to assure that both of these grave injustices are soon corrected.

Chapter 6The Hole In The Dike

Let us now look at the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing dated August 8, 1949, which was finally made public, in full, on September 4, 1952. As we saw above, it was Father’s and the Center’s long letter to the Holy Father protesting against this "Protocol No. 122/49" that led to the summons to Rome by Cardinal Pizzardo, and finally the "excommunication."

In June, 1985, Brother Francis made a special trip to Rome to visit the Holy Office and discuss our situation face to face with Cardinal Ratzinger. The Cardinal was not available personally for a lengthy conference, but he suggested that Brother meet with his Secretary, Monsignor Henry Docherty, which he did. The Monsignor, after some discussion, suggested that Brother put his comments in a letter and deliver it to him before leaving Rome, which he did. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Monsignor personally assured Brother that he would receive a reply, which he did not. In fact, to this day there has been no response.

In his letter, Brother Francis reiterated our position concerning the Protocol. The principal points he made then, we still make today:

1. We agree totally with affirmations of the Holy Office expressed in the first few paragraphs of the Protocol wherein Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani states most clearly that the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is an infallible dogma found in both Scripture and Tradition and defined by the Solemn Magisterium.

2. We object most strenuously to paragraphs #12 and #13 in the middle of the letter for the ambiguity they introduce, which ambiguity constitutes an attack on the Dogma of Faith, rendering it meaningless:

#12. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least

he be united to her by desire and longing.

#13. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

3. However, in paragraph #18, the Cardinal qualifies the innovations of the above two paragraphs and states the following truth:

#18. Nor must it be thought that any desire whatsoever of entering the Church suffices for men to be saved. For, it is required that the desire, by which someone is ordained to the Church, should be informed by perfect charity; nor can an implicit desire produce the effect, unless the person has supernatural faith.

4. Nevertheless, despite the qualification in paragraph #18, the world at large understood the Protocol to be a denial of the solemnly defined dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Now, if a teacher intends to teach or clarify a certain point, but his students understand him to be teaching just the opposite, the teacher is obviously doing something wrong and is only adding to their confusion. Therefore, it becomes his responsibility to correct his error.

Because of the ambiguity of the Protocol letter, and the resulting misinterpretation given to it by both Catholics and the world at large, we feel that the Church must clarify this issue of "desire" once and for all — and the sooner the better.

Over forty years have passed since the Protocol letter first appeared in the public press. As noted earlier, the reaction of the public in 1949, when it first appeared in part, was that the Church had changed her mind — that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was false. Today, in the year 1995, it is extremely rare to find a priest, let alone a bishop, who believes the dogma. Does the reader not now comprehend the enormity of the disaster confronting the Church?

Lest our readers think we are "over-reacting," we suggest that they conduct their own polls. The question to be asked is this: "Is the teaching that ‘there is no salvation outside the Church’ still professed by the Catholic Church, and if not, why not?"

We contend that well over 90% of American Catholics — laymen, priests and hierarchy — will deny the Dogma of Faith. Some will say that the Church never taught it; others will say that it is the "Feeneyite" doctrine for which Father Feeney was excommunicated; and most will say that Vatican II changed all that.

Protocol #122/49 was the "hole in the dike." It elevated the theory that "desire" is the equal of "actual performance" to the status of a defined dogma. And this was done with the influential help of the arch-modernist, Karl Rahner, S.J., while he was the editor of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum in 1962.* Father Rahner put the Protocol in Denzinger in time for it to appear in the 1963 edition. Although it was

just a letter from the Holy Office to a particular bishop, it was placed alongside solemn papal definitions as having equal authority.

The reader should notice that it appeared in Denzinger at the time Vatican II was convened. Thus, it was available for use by the modernists in their prepared plan to destroy the dogma, and with it, the Church. In its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Vatican Council II used the Protocol as a reference in an official footnote.**

* In English, the title of the prestigious Enchiridion Symbolorum is The Sources of Catholic Dogma. It is a handbook of the principal documents and decrees on faith and morals issued by popes and councils and arranged in chronological order beginning as early as the first century. It was first authored by Father Henry Denzinger (1819 - 1893). Although it contains all infallible pronouncements by the Church, it also contains many promulgations and papal letters that are not protected by the grace of infallibility. The Protool is such a non-infallible document, and we object to its insertion in Denzinger because it clearly implies that the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is no longer tenable.

** Beginning on page 152 ahead, we discuss the doctrinal treachery contained in this Holy Office letter by its abuse of Mystici Corporis Christi, the 1943 Encyclical of Pope Pius XII.

Father Rahner was a vehement critic of the Dogma of Faith. He was a peritus at Vatican II, a modernist theologian who shared, with the average man in the street, the belief that the Protocol letter from the

Holy Office under Pius XII somehow changed the Church’s teaching on salvation. Subsequent to the Council, he went theologically and doctrinally beserk by claiming "universal salvation" for all.

Writing in 1976, in his Problem of the Anonymous Christian, Father Rahner claimed:

There can be, and actually are, individuals who are actually justified in the grace of God who attain to supernatural salvation in God’s sight . . . , yet who do not belong to the Church . . . as a visible historical reality . . . No truly theological demonstration of this thesis can be supplied here from scripture or tradition. Such a demonstration would not be easy to make, because the optimism of universal salvation entailed in this thesis has only gradually become clear and asserted itself in the conscious faith concerning salvation for unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose, through the doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings of Pius XII to the effect that even a merely implicit votum for the Church and baptism can suffice.

It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation . . . The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual’s own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the . . . Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during

the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith, than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.

There you have the wild imaginings of an heretical theologian who was a dedicated modernist. His claim for universal salvation is in direct contradiction to the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and his statement that there was no "setting of the stage" at Vatican II is an outright lie. Notice, however, his admission that it is not possible to support his theory of universal salvation from Scripture or Tradition, but only from the gradually evolving theories about "desire" beginning with Saint Ambrose and Valentinian, to the "baptism of desire" and "desire of the Church" of the Middle Ages and Trent, and finally to the writings of Pope Pius XII — meaning, no doubt, Mystici Corporis and Protocol Letter #122/49. The reader will note that Father Rahner, often described as the most influential peritus at the Council, considered the overturning of "the officially received theology" concerning salvation — which was "more or less traditional right down to the. . . Council" — as "one of the most noteworthy results of the. . . Council." He says this change "marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith" than any of the other new teachings the conclave introduced.

There you have it, right from the "horse’s mouth!" Indeed, there was a "setting of the stage" to destroy the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. It was the modernists’ prime target!

Perhaps the reader will now begin to understand why the attack on Father Feeney, fifteen years before Vatican II convened, was so total and so vicious.

It is, indeed, a sad commentary on the once great Society of Jesus that one of its members was Karl Rahner, an enemy of the Church whom they still admire, while another was Leonard Feeney, a defender of the Faith whom they cast out of the synagogue.

In summary, we repeat: The dike protecting the Church has been severely weakened; the initial hole in the dike was the theory that "desire" is equal to "act"; over the past forty years, what was initially a small hole has grown to such proportions that, today, a virtual flood of error is constantly pouring into the Church.

The dike must be repaired. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus must be reestablished as the most essential Dogma of the Faith; it must be taught in every seminary, preached from every pulpit, and believed by every Catholic.

If this is not done soon, the Church will be in danger of complete submersion in error and unbelief.

Chapter 7The Sacrament Of Baptism

We have said that "the hole in the dike" is the theory, so popular today, which claims that a desire for the sacrament of Baptism is just as effective for salvation as receiving the sacrament itself. We strongly object to this theory for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that, when carried to its logical extreme, it leads to a denial of the Dogma of Faith — "outside the Church there is no salvation." The wild theological speculations of Karl Rahner, S.J., already discussed, fully substantiate our objection.

Such loose theological thinking will eventually lead to the destruction of the objective reality that is the visible Catholic Church which has existed in the world for nineteen hundred and sixty years. Through its visible pastors, administering its visible sacraments to visible, identifiable members, this visible Church has raised human society from the brute-barbarian level of its ancestors to a level worthy of true children of God. Had the Church been just an invisible system of spirituality, this never could have been accomplished.

But, if current trends are not halted, this visible Church of the centuries will be replaced by an invisible fellowship wherein membership and the "sacraments" will all be available by "desire," even "implicit desire." There will be no boundaries, no "outside;" everybody will be "inside!" This is the Masonic plan for the church of the future, the One World Church!

Now, perhaps, we can begin to understand just how important, how vital to the well-being and very existence of the Church, and all humanity itself, is the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The Magisterium has never officially denied it, but the hierarchy universally allows the formula to be assaulted by liberal Catholics, both clerical and lay, and the war being waged against it is intensifying to apocalyptic proportions. If it ever were to be officially denied (which God will never permit, for then the gates of Hell would certainly have prevailed), the doctrines of the Church

would fall like dominoes. The effects of just the suppression of the dogma are already to be seen in the abundance of moral rot that now engulfs the world, but if the Church were ever formally to deny the dogma she has taught for twenty centuries, the ultimate effects would be catastrophic beyond measure. Consider the probable chain reaction:

If there is salvation outside the Church, it automatically follows that . . .

a) the Pope is not infallible, because the three Popes who solemnly defined the dogma were in error; therefore,

b) all past Papal and Conciliar teachings and definitions are not infallible and may be accepted or rejected at will, thus stripping the Church of her authority; therefore,

c) the sacraments of the Church are not necessary for salvation, but may be accepted or rejected at will, thus plunging the world deeper and deeper into sin; therefore,

d) the sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation but may be accepted or rejected at will, thus depriving the visible Church of her only means for maintaining organic growth in membership and structure; and

e) an ordained priesthood is not necessary to confect and administer the sacraments because they are not only invisible, but are available to everybody by "desire." therefore,

f) neither an ordained clergy nor a hierarchical structure are necessary because the "Church" is now an invisible entity and membership by Baptism in the visible Church is not necessary for salvation; the need for an authoritarian, hierarchical structure no longer exists!

Therefore, why would anyone want or need to be a Catholic? The visible, incarnational Church of Christ — the "City on a Hill" — will have outlived her usefulness for all men, and will, like an old soldier, just fade away.

Father Feeney on "Desire"

Father Feeney saw the inevitability of such a catastrophe unless the Church settled, once and for all, this whole question of "desire," and how it relates to the sacraments. Here are his thoughts as presented in Bread of Life:

Desire is a splendid diabolical word with which to confuse people. Up until recent times, even the most ambitious of the theologians of the Church never dared to use it in connection with Baptism except in a study of the nature of justification, which still left the problem of salvation unsolved — salvation by "Baptism of Desire."*

* Father was speaking here of the official and formal teaching of theologians of past centuries, as expressed in Regional Synods and official catechisms emanating therefrom. He was not speaking of the private speculations of theologians who, like Saint Thomas Aquinas, considered possibilities that, though sometimes written in personal treatises, went beyond the scope of strict dogmatics.

Perhaps I had better pause for a moment to explain the difference between justification and salvation.

We achieve salvation after our death. We can be justified in this life. Salvation is of the whole man, body and soul. Justification is of our spirit, and our spirit alone. Salvation is our entrance into the Beatific Vision. Justification is our entrance into the state of sanctifying grace. Salvation is our reward for persevering in grace. Justification is our reward for accepting grace. We may or may not persevere in justification, but if we do persevere, we will attain salvation — at the hour of our death.

When the Council of Trent was discussing the problem of justification, it had to remember that it was possible for one to have been justified in the Old Testament as well as in the New, and that is why the Council allows the distinction between the actual reception of Baptism and the eager willingness to receive it. A man in the Old Testament, waiting and wanting Baptism to be instituted, and a man in the New Testament, waiting and wanting Baptism to be administered, could both be justified.

It was possible to be justified in the Old Testament, but not to be saved. When those who died in the state of justification, in the Old Testament, went out of this life, they did not go to Heaven. They went to what is technically called the "Limbo of the Just" (appropriately referred to as "Hell" in the Apostles’ Creed), until the visible body of Jesus led them to salvation on the day of Ascension. This is how important visibility is to the notion of salvation, whatever it may mean in the realm of justification.

It is sinful to call men to salvation by offering them "Baptism of Desire." If this so-called substitute for Baptism of Water were in any sense usual, or common, or likely — or even practical — Jesus Christ would never have told His Apostles to go forth and baptize with water for the regeneration of the world.

I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revived immediately after death — were he to come to life again — he would not be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. . . .

What the Baptism-of-Desire teachers make of Our Lord’s great text, ‘Unless a man eat My Flesh and drink My Blood he shall not have life in him,’ I am very much puzzled to know. Perhaps there is a Eucharist of Desire, as well as a ‘Baptism of Desire’? And why could there not be Holy Orders of Desire, as the Anglicans would like to have it, or Matrimony of Desire, which would so please the Mormons? And what becomes of the Mystical Body of Christ, made up of invisible members and a visible head — invisible branches on a visible vine? I would very much like to know!

Our priests in America now go around preaching this dry substitute of "Baptism of Desire" for the waters of regeneration. Their "Baptism of Desire" is no longer an antecedent to the Baptism of Water to come. They make it a substitute for Baptism of Water, or rather an excuse for not having it. These priests have brought our Church in the United States into a desert, far removed from the life-giving waters of Christ.

Neither "Baptism of Desire" nor "Baptism of Blood" should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a Sacrament of the Church, and neither was instituted by Jesus Christ.

Suppose a non-baptized person had his choice between Baptism of Water on the one

hand, and what is called "Baptism of Blood" on the other. Were he not to choose Baptism of Water, the shedding of his blood would be useless and he would lose his soul. It is Christ’s Blood that counts in Redemption, and the fruits of it in application to Baptism. It is not our blood that counts at this foundational point. And it is only when we have received both the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Eucharist that Christ can be said to be shedding His Blood in one of us. This last is the real martyr, and the one who has preserved the Faith.

Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is the redemptive power of God’s words in an instituted rite that gives power to the trickle of water and the invocation in the name of the Blessed Trinity. This little trickle of water, so administered, is worth more than all the blood shed in the history of the world, for any cause whatsoever. . . .

When the Vatican Council reconvenes, I humbly plead with our Holy Father the Pope, that he will immediately gather his plenipotentiary powers of infallible pronouncement to clear up the wild confusion of visible orating (on the part of his priests and bishops) about an invisible Church — or else the gates of Hell will have all but prevailed against us. The most visible ruler in the world, our Holy Father, in his white robe and white zuchetto, may well take off his triple tiara and get down from his golden throne, and leave Christianity to the kind of committee arrangements to which it is committed in the present-day America, if we keep on preaching "Baptism of Desire."

I beseech our Holy Father to clear up this unholy confusion for the love of the Blessed Virgin Mary, . . .

Not only has there been no clearing up of "this unholy confusion" over the past forty years; it has been aggravated and compounded immeasurably since Pope Pius XII died. With no clearly stated pronouncements from the reigning Vicar of Christ to guide and restrain their opinions touching this vital issue of Baptism, liberal theologians have had a field day, and modernists, like Karl Rahner, have run amuck.

Consequently, the theological chaos we now witness is simply a result of liberal theologians pitting their opinions against each other. Most, if not all, of our critics claim their opinions are grounded on dogma. Father Feeney, on the other hand, always distinguished between defined dogma and his personal speculation. If speculation were permissible he would humorously preface his remarks by warning his students that what he was about to say was "de Feeney" and not "de Fide." Therefore, in explaining and defending our position throughout this study, what we say, in some cases, will be our opinion. That opinion will always support defined dogma, but never by way of weakening the literal meaning.

Every statement we make here, every position we take, is ultimately subject to final confirmation or rejection by the Holy See, whenever it pleases God that the Holy Father speak out and thereby end all debate.

A General Description of Baptism

Let us address ourselves, now, to a brief study of the sacrament of Baptism in order to determine what differences, if any, exist between Baptism of water and the so-called "baptisms" by desire or blood.

In The New Catholic Dictionary published in 1929, we read the following description of Baptism, which, in turn, was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Baptism (Greek, baptizo, wash or immerse), the act of immersing or washing. In Holy Scripture it also signifies, figuratively, great suffering, e.g., Christ’s Passion.

It is the "first" sacrament, or sacrament of initiation and regeneration, the "door of the Church."

Defined theologically, it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ, in which, by the invocation of the Holy Trinity and external ablution with water, one becomes spiritually regenerated and a disciple of Christ. Saint Thomas says it is the "external ablution of the body performed with the prescribed form of words."

The Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, because all are subject to original sin: wherefore Christ’s words to Nicodemus, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3).

The chief effects of this sacrament are:

a) the impression of a character or seal by which we are incorporated with Christ;

b) regeneration and remission of original sin (and actual if necessary), as well as punishment due to sin, and infusion of sanctifying grace (with its gifts).

Baptism is administered by pouring water on the head of the candidate, saying at the same time, "I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," with the intention of Christ or His Church. The water must flow over the skin.

These essentials are apart from the beautiful requirements of the Church for solemn Baptism.

Infusion (pouring), immersion, and aspersion (sprinkling) are equally valid. The present ritual of the Latin Church allows for the first two, favoring infusion by the law of custom.

Baptism of desire (flaminis) and of blood (sanguinis) are called such analogically, in that they supply the remission of sin and the regenerative grace, but not the character; the former presupposes perfect charity or love of God (therefore implicitly the desire for the sacrament), while the latter is simply martyrdom for the sake of Christ or His Church.

Without the Sacrament of Baptism or martyrdom, it is commonly taught that infants cannot attain to the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision.

We will come back to what, in our opinion, are weaknesses in this description, but first, let us learn more about those "beautiful requirements" for solemn Baptism.

The Ritual for Solemn Baptism

The following is taken from an excellent book entitled Church History, written by Father John Laux, M.A. Here, Father Laux describes early Christian life and worship during the first three centuries:

Membership in the Christian Church was acquired by Baptism. In the earliest days of

the Church, Baptism was conferred without delay on those who professed their faith in Christ. Later on, however, perhaps even before the death of the last Apostle, a period of preparation, called the Catechumenate and extending over a period of two or three years, regularly preceded the administration of Baptism. The catechumens (Greek katechoumenoi, ‘hearers,’ those receiving oral instruction) assisted only at the first part of the Divine Service up to the Offertory, which was afterwards called on this account the Mass of the Catechumens.

During the weeks immediately preceding Baptism, the catechumens were required to present themselves repeatedly in the church. Each time, the bishop or one of his priests laid his hands upon their heads, and an Exorcist prayed over them that they might be delivered from the power of the devil in the name of the Blessed Trinity. Special instructions were also given them at this time on the Apostles’ Creed; but the wording of the Creed itself . . . and the Lord’s Prayer were made known to them only during the baptismal ceremony just as they were about to descend into the piscina, or baptismal font. The great mysteries of our Religion, especially the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, were explained to them only after Baptism.

. . . Tertullian tells us that the catechumens were required to make a solemn renunciation of Satan and all his works, and pomps, and wicked angels. They then recited the Creed and the Our Father and descended into the piscina. Baptism was administered by triple immersion, but in case of necessity aspersion or infusion were also allowed.

We interrupt Father Laux with this comment: It is after this profession of Faith that the believing, and perhaps already justified catechumen fulfills his justice unto salvation by descending into the regenerating water. This public Baptism, this public confession of Faith, is the corporealization of being clothed with the New Adam, Jesus Christ. By receiving the sign or seal of His Image in the Character of this essential sacrament, the newly baptized has truly confessed with the mouth — corporealized, that is, — his Faith unto salvation. It seems to us that this is the teaching of Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Romans wherein he distinguishes between what is necessary for justification and what is further necessary for salvation: For with the heart, we believe unto justice, but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:10)

The compilers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent gave the same interpretation to this passage from Romans when, citing the same text, they wrote as follows concerning the necessity of the sacraments in general: "By approaching them we make a public profession of our faith in the sight of men. Thus, when we approach Baptism, we openly profess our belief that, by virtue of its salutary waters in which we are washed, the soul is spiritually cleansed." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books and Publishers, Pg. 150)

Now, back to Father Laux:

The minister of Baptism was the Bishop, who was assisted by priests and deacons . . . The Sacrament of Confirmation was conferred immediately after Baptism, as is still done in the Eastern Churches.

In the Apostolic Age there was no special time set apart for Baptism; later on, however, it was solemnly administered only on Holy Saturday. On the Sunday after Easter — Dominica in Albis, ‘White Sunday’ — the neophytes (newly baptized) removed the white

robes of their Baptism.

Infant Baptism was rare until the beginning of the fifth century. Perhaps it was the dread of incurring the responsibilities of the Christian life, that led many to defer their own Baptism, or that of their children, except in danger of death. But it was always regarded as valid and as an apostolic institution . . .

Over the centuries, the ceremony has remained essentially the same, but there have been minor changes: the minister of solemn Baptism is now usually a priest; infants are baptized within a few weeks of birth; in the Latin Church, the water is normally applied by infusion (pouring), and Confirmation is administered to children later, when they have reached the use of reason — normally between the ages of seven and twelve.

Here, now, is a description of the beautiful, incarnational requirements of solemn Baptism, as administered prior to Vatican II. In The New Catholic Dictionary of 1929, we read the following:

They are ancient and symbolic. At the Baptism of an infant, it is presented at the font by the sponsors. First come interrogations and answers, requesting "faith and life everlasting." The priest breathes on the face of the child, a symbol of the imparting of the Spirit of God. He makes the sign of the cross on forehead and breast, that God may be ever in the child’s mind and heart. Salt, emblematic of wisdom, is put into the child’s mouth. A solemn exorcism is pronounced, to free the soul from the dominion of Satan. The priest’s stole is laid upon the child, signifying that he is being led into the Church of Christ.

As a profession of faith, the Apostles’ Creed is recited by the priest and the sponsors, and this is followed by the Our Father. The ceremony of the Ephpheta takes place, i.e., the applying of saliva to the ears and nostrils of the child, reminding us of the curing of the deaf-mute in the Gospel (Mark 7) and symbolizing the opening of the senses to the truths of God. Then comes a renunciation of Satan with all his works and pomps, and an anointing is made with the Oil of Catechumens in the form of a cross on the child’s breast and back, signifying the open profession of the Faith of Christ and the patient bearing of life’s burdens.

After another profession of faith in questions and answers, the Sacrament itself is administered, the sponsors holding the child at the font. An unction is then made on the top of the head with Holy Chrism, as a sign of consecration to God. A white cloth, placed on the head, symbolizes sanctifying grace; this is a survival of the white baptismal robe of ancient times. A lighted candle is presented, emblematic of faith and charity.

The ceremonies of Baptism of adults differ somewhat from the above.

The key points we have learned from all of the above may be summarized as follows:

1. The sacrament of Baptism (by water) is absolutely necessary for salvation. This unqualified necessity was clearly expressed in Christ’s words to Nicodemus: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3).

2. The chief effects of the sacrament are:

a) The impression on the soul of a certain character (or seal, or mark), by which we are incorporated with Christ and made members of the Catholic Church.

b) A rebirth, and remission of original sin, and the infusion of sanctifying grace with its gifts.

3. Solemn Baptism is a very beautiful ceremony of the Church. Like all of the sacraments, it is administered only by outward, visible, incarnational signs.

4. Baptism is the "first" sacrament. It is the most important because, without it, we cannot receive any of the other six sacraments.

5. Baptism of desire and of blood are called such by analogy because they resemble Baptism of water in some ways but not in others. They may infuse sanctifying grace, but they do not impress the baptismal character upon the soul. Thus, they do not incorporate the recipient with Christ or make him a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

6. The essentials of the sacrament of Baptism are the pouring of water on the head of the candidate, saying at the same time, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," with the intention of doing what the Church does. (In an emergency, what is known as "Lay Baptism" may be administered in this manner by any lay person, Catholic or not, who has reached the age of reason.)

The Watered-Down "Baptismus in Voto"

Now, let us return briefly to the description of the sacrament of Baptism as found in The New Catholic Dictionary of 1929. There are severe weaknesses in the last two paragraphs. They read:

Baptism of desire (flaminis) and of blood (sanguinis) are called such analogically, in that they supply the remission of sin and the regenerative grace, but not the character; the former presupposes perfect charity or love of God (therefore implicitly the desire for the sacrament), while the latter is simply martyrdom for the sake of Christ or His Church.

Without the Sacrament of Baptism or martyrdom, it is commonly taught that infants cannot attain to the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision.

We emphasize in italics the phrases which merit explanation. But before getting into that, we must point out a prime cause of this whole controversy over "baptism of desire." And, since martyrdom is simply a most intense form of "baptism of desire," our arguments against "desire" will apply equally as well to "blood."

A prime cause of the controversy is the mistranslation of the Latin used by the Church, and her theologians, into the English phrase "baptism of desire." In the official documents of the Councils, and in the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas and

other theologians, the Latin phrase used was "baptismus in voto." The primary meaning of the Latin noun "votum" is "vow." Therefore, a proper translation of the phrase should be "baptism in vow," or "in solemn promise." In more facile English idiom, it means "a deliberate solemn intention to receive the sacrament of Baptism."

If Saint Thomas and the Council of Trent had intended to convey the meaning of "desire," as we understand it in English, they would have used the Latin noun "desiderium." We see, then, that "desire" is a very weak translation which betrays the true meaning of the Latin texts. This should be kept in mind for more thorough discussion ahead.

We return now to the highlighted phrases in the New Catholic Dictionary:

". . . but not the character . . . " — In Chapter Eight ahead, we discuss the importance of the baptismal character. It is this character that incorporates one into Christ and makes him a member of the Church. Even the presumed "perfect charity," or love of God, will not imprint the character on the soul. Only the sacrament of Baptism will imprint it. Without it, as we intend to prove, salvation is not possible.

". . . (therefore implicitly the desire for the sacrament). . . " — The Council of Trent defined infallibly, in fourteen different places, that conscious Acts of Catholic Faith, Hope, Charity, Perfect Contrition and true repentance for sins are required for justification by Baptismus in voto, and that this votum must be a deliberately intended vow to receive actual water Baptism. Therefore, no vague "desire" or "unconscious longing" or "implicit" intention can possibly satisfy the requirements for the vow. Thus, for example, no one who has not reached the use of reason can make it.

"...or martyrdom..." — This phrase equates the death of a hypothetical unbaptized martyr with reception of the sacrament of Baptism, a proposition which contradicts the infallible definition of Trent that the sacrament is necessary for salvation.

"...it is commonly taught..." — What is "commonly taught" is not necessarily infallible. Witness the commonly taught error of Arius that Christ is not Divine, or the commonly taught heresy of today that there is salvation outside the Church.

If we seem to be ahead of ourselves with some of the above comments, we ask the reader to be patient. More complete discussions lie ahead.

Baptism by Desire versus The Providence of God

What prompted theologians to speculate on alternatives to the sacrament of Baptism?

Both "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are theological opinions which date back to the early centuries of the Church. The millions of martyrs who shed their blood for Christ during the brutal persecutions of the pagan Romans gave rise to

the "baptism of blood" theory. With so many martyrs, and with only fragmentary information on most of them, Christian commentators of the time were led, simply by the laws of probability, to conclude that many must have died before being baptized. But only if Almighty God, Who has a vested interest in the salvation of every human soul, is left out of the equation, is such a conclusion plausible.

"Baptism of desire" also appeared early in the Church, but with less unanimity and more opposition. In the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas gave it his support in the Summa Theologica. In the sixteenth century, shortly after the discovery of America and its untold millions of inhabitants who, apparently, had never even heard of Christ, speculation among Catholic theologians began to increase. But it was also during the sixteenth century that the great Council of Trent, passing in silence over the theories of Saint Thomas and others, defined infallibly that the sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Regarding justification, the Council defined that an ardent votum for the sacrament could suffice.

Subsequent to Trent, Protestantism, having by example denied the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, set the stage for wide acceptance of the theories. Then came, in succession, the Masonic French Revolution in the eighteenth century, the rapid spread of liberalism and religious indifferentism during the nineteenth century, and communism and modernism in the twentieth. For almost five hundred years, these avowed enemies of the Church have been trying to tear her down by reducing her to the level of "just another church." And the destructive tool they have used is one called "desire."

We suggest that the success which these two theories have enjoyed is attributable to the failure of Catholic theologians to give proper consideration to the Omnipotence of God. God is All-Powerful, and since it is He Who determined that Baptism of water is necessary for entrance into Heaven, we firmly believe that, through His Divine Providence, He will make both the water and a minister available to each and every worthy person who seeks them.

In the book, Disputed Questions on Truth, Saint Thomas Aquinas confirms our opinion. Concerning the necessity of explicit faith for salvation, he writes (pages 158 and 262):

Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance.

Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the Faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius.

However, in his book, A Tour of the Summa, Monsignor Paul J. Glenn gives us Saint Thomas’ teaching on the necessity of Baptism for salvation (pages 370 and 372):

The sacrament of baptism is baptism conferred with water. The effects of the

sacrament, except for the imprinting of the character, may be produced in a soul in two other ways. A person unbaptized who sheds his blood for Christ is said to have the baptism of blood. A person unable to receive baptism (because he knows nothing of it, or because his efforts to obtain it are unavailing) may be conformed to Christ by love and contrition, and thus is said to have baptism of desire. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire take away sin and give grace. But they do not print the sacramental character on the soul. Hence they are not truly the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, a survivor of bloody torture endured for Christ, and one whose desire for baptism is no longer thwarted, are to be baptized with water.

To be saved, a man must have at least the baptism of desire."

When the question concerns what one must believe in order to be saved, the Angelic Doctor teaches that it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish what is necessary. But, when the question concerns what one must do to be saved, he argues that the desire is as good as the deed.

With all due respect to the great Saint and Doctor, we say he is not consistent here. He argues for the Providence of God in the first situation (intrinsic justification through a divine faith which comes by hearing), but, in the second (the Sacrament of Faith, which in its matter and form is extrinsic), he circumvents a special providence because he believes, erroneously, that God could not bind Himself absolutely to a material element in order to procure a soul’s final supernatural end.

Why, in this second situation also, should we not "most certainly hold that God would ... send some preacher of the faith ... as He sent Peter to Cornelius" to baptize him?

We say that God will provide the water and a minister for any needy soul, just as He provided them for Cornelius. And we say this because we know that God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4).

We also know that He gave us His solemn promise: And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened (Luke 11:9 and 10).

Do we need any greater assurance that Our Divine Savior will provide a worthy man with whatever he needs to be saved?

But the proponents of the "desire" theories pay no heed to this counter argument. They call it "new theology." They say we make God work too many miracles, as though that would tire Him; or that there are too many good people yet unbaptized for God to keep track of them, as though He were just a super "Wizard of Oz" with too much work to do. So they conduct endless searches for examples of supposed holy persons who supposedly died unbaptized, but who, they assure us, are certainly in heaven.

Ours is not new theology. It is proper development of present theology proposed by a holy Catholic theologian intent on protecting the unchangeable decree of Christ:

Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Chapter 8The Baptismal Watermark

Why do we say that God requires more than just a desire? Why does He insist on Baptism with water? Why is such a common, superabundant substance like water so important in His designs?

We have seen that the principal difference between the Sacrament of Baptism (water) on the one hand, and the two theories (desire or blood) on the other, is the fact that only by the sacrament is the character impressed on the soul. The character, then, must carry with it a special importance and degree of necessity. It is too wonderful a spiritual reality to be arbitrary. Were it not necessary, Christ certainly would have qualified His statement to Nicodemus by naming the only allowable exceptions to Baptism by water. But He named no exceptions, so it behooves us to take a deeper look at this "watermark" on the soul called character.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Character (Greek, engraving instrument), the mark or trait by which the personality of one person is distinguished from that of another. The word is used to express the spiritual and indelible sign imprinted on the soul by the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.

The Sacramental Character marks the soul . . . as distinct from those who have it not; as obliged to perform certain duties; as conformed to the image of God; as disposed for God’s grace.

Baptism marks the soul as a subject of Christ and His Church; Confirmation, as a warrior of the Church Militant; Holy Orders, as a minister of its Divine worship.

In Volume I of The Sacraments by Pohle-Preuss, first published in 1915, the author, Monsignor Joseph Pohle, elaborates on these four functions of the sacramental character — to distinguish, to oblige, to conform, to dispose. We will take from his text those comments which pertain only to the baptismal

character.

Since God does nothing without a purpose, we must first ask: Why did He institute the baptismal character? Monsignor Pohle answers:

The Baptismal Character implies on the part of the recipient a sort of "consecration" — in the sense of objective sanctification, not subjective holiness. Saint Augustine, compelled to emphasize not only the distinction between, but the actual separability of, grace and character (sanctification and consecration) insisted that heretics may receive and sinners retain the Baptismal Character without grace. Saint Thomas went a long step further by defining consecration as a bestowal of the spiritual power necessary to perform acts of divine worship. In Baptism, the passive receptivity which the Sacrament confers is really an active power: the power to receive the other Sacraments, to participate in all the rights and duties of a child of the true Church, and to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. These functions constitute necessary parts of Christian worship.

The very name "Character," and its description as a stamp or seal, indicate that it may be a threefold sign: a) a mark to distinguish various objects; b) a mark to denote a duty; c) a mark to indicate similarity. The impress of a seal or stamp produces a triple effect: it renders an object recognizable; it marks the object as part of one’s property; and it produces in it a likeness of the owner. The Baptismal Character exercises all these functions, and in addition to them a fourth, namely, d) to dispose the soul for the reception of grace.

Monsignor Pohle then elaborates on each of these four functions. He says that the baptismal character . . .

a) . . . distinguishes those who are baptized from those who have not been baptized. No one can belong to the Church unless he wear the Character of Baptism. Without this Character, no one has the power to receive the other Sacraments, to participate in all the rights and duties of a child of the true Church, or to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

b) . . . marks a man as the inalienable property of Jesus Christ, unites him indissolubly with the God-man, whose sign and livery he wears, and lays upon him the obligation of performing those acts of divine worship which Baptism, by virtue of this Character, imposes as an official duty. By Baptism, the recipient is officially marked and charged with the duties of a subject of Christ and His Church.

c) . . . conforms the soul to the image of God. Not in the sense in which man is a natural likeness of the Creator; nor in the sense in which he is a supernatural image of God by virtue of sanctifying grace. The supernatural image conferred by the Baptismal Character establishes a proper likeness to Christ, not as if the soul participated in His Divine Sonship, but in the sense of sharing in His office of High Priest. By receiving the Baptismal Character, a man is designated, empowered, and placed under obligation to perform certain acts of worship which bear a special relation to Our Divine Savior’s sacerdotal office. Consequently, the Baptismal Character, considered as a mark of similarity or conformity, is not so much the Character of the Holy Trinity, as that of Christ the High Priest.

. . . disposes the soul for the reception of, and thereby bestows a claim to, grace, both sanctifying and actual. The Baptismal Character, as this sign of disposition for sanctifying grace, must not be conceived as a "preliminary stage" of that grace,* because it is not a form of sanctification. The connection between the Character

and grace is purely moral, and may be described as a kind of affinity, inasmuch as the Baptismal Character, in view of its purpose, ought never to exist without sanctifying grace. Furthermore, the Baptismal Character confers a moral claim to all actual graces necessary for the worthy fulfilment of the office or dignity conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism. Still another effect is that the guardian angels watch with special solicitude over the bearer of this "spiritual seal," while the demons are constrained to moderate their attacks upon him.

* In a footnote, Monsignor Pohle says that Alexander of Hales, Saint Bonaventure, and the Franciscan school of theologians in general held that the baptismal character is a "preliminary stage" of sanctifying grace, and, therefore, a sanctifying grace itself, though much diminished. We bring this up here only to point out that the Church has never defined exactly what the baptismal character is or does. Hence, theologians are free to postulate their own opinions.

So speak the technical books of theologians on the subject of the sacramental character. Of necessity, the language is philosophical, technical, and, consequently, very dry. And our question concerning Christ’s insistence on Baptism with water is not clearly answered. For a deeper, more edifying appreciation of the spiritual purpose and beauty of the baptismal seal, we must turn to the writings of those holy souls in the Church whose thoughts and words on matters theological spring from their hearts as well as their minds.

There is much of this type of inspiring testimony in a yet unpublished treatise on the Baptism of Our Lady being researched and written by the compiler of The Apostolic Digest. His style is delightful yet penetrating.

With his kind permission, we will quote portions of the manuscript in order to demonstrate why "baptism" by desire or blood cannot possibly replace the need for the sacrament of Baptism by water for salvation.

The Church, The Ultimate Authority

Before quoting from the treatise, we should consider why the Church has tolerated the theories known as "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood," since at least the fourth century, without ever giving them official approval. Why has God permitted these opinions to remain unclarified by the Church for so many centuries?

If we can believe the eight Popes who approved and authorized the writings of Venerable Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), it was Our Lord Himself who told her:

Very often I permit and cause differences of opinion among the doctors and teachers. Thus, some of them maintain what is true, and others, according to their natural disposition, defend what is doubtful. Others still again are permitted to say even what is not true, though not in open contradiction to the veiled truths of faith which all must hold. Some also teach what is possible according to their supposition. By this varied light, truth is traced, and the mysteries of faith become more manifest. Doubt serves as a stimulus to the understanding for the investigation of truth. Therefore, controversies of teachers fulfill a proper and holy end. They are also permitted in order to make known that real knowledge dwells in My Church more than in the combined study of all the holy and perfect teachers.

(Mystical City of God: The Conception)

Note that Our Lord speaks of the "veiled truths which all must hold." Surely, Baptism is such. Can we say we hold it if we contest its absolute necessity for all men? And can we claim we hold it if we say that being a "veiled" truth means that it does not really apply to all men? On the contrary, the "veil" pertains to its actual application to all men; that is, the often miraculous means by which God gets Baptism to all His elect.

The present controversy over "desire" is, we believe, the final phase of that steadily mounting attack on the Faith of Catholic peoples discussed in the previous chapter. From the first through the fifteenth centuries, Catholics knew with certainty that "outside the Church, there is no salvation," and that only by the sacrament of Baptism could one be truly "inside" the Church. These closely related dogmas were not only believed and understood by the faithful since the very beginning of the Church, but they were solemnly defined by popes and councils several times, when the need to reaffirm them more explicitly had become necessary. The absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation was clearly defined by the Councils of Vienne in 1312, and Florence in 1445, and was declared again by the Council of Trent in 1563. (Vienne: See Denzinger #482; Florence: Denzinger #696; Trent is discussed thoroughly on pages 114 to 118 ahead.)

Despite these solemn pronouncements of the Church, the theory of "baptism of desire" refuses to die. This is simply because avowed enemies of the Church will not let it die! It is the only theological argument capable of nullifying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which is, as it were, the very jugular of the Church. And they are going for the jugular!

Ever since the Protestant Revolt in the sixteenth century, the popularity of "baptism of desire" has been on the increase. For five hundred years, the evil influences of rationalism, liberalism, and now modernism have been gnawing away at the Faith of Catholics, so much so that, today, the average Catholic sees little, if any, difference between his own Catholic Faith and whatever his "good" non-Catholic neighbor believes. And if, perchance, he does understand how great the difference really is, he compensates for it by bestowing "baptism of desire" on the lucky fellow.

Such is the sad condition of the Faith in the world today, and the reader knows this is true, but he may not be able to identify the cause clearly. So we say again, the cause is the denial by churchmen of the fundamental defined dogma, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," and its corollary, "The sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation."

For anyone to deny either of these dogmas of the Church, knowingly and deliberately, is a formal heresy. Yet, the unqualified acceptance of "baptism of desire" as a "teaching of the Church" has been so widespread during the past one hundred years or more, and the meaning of the term has become so

inclusive, that the only corrective measure possible now would appear to be another infallible definition by the Holy Father reaffirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and proclaiming the precise meaning of baptismus in voto.

It seems, then, that God has permitted the theory of "desire" to remain unclarified for such a long time so that "truth is traced and the mysteries of faith become more manifest." And He has tolerated this denial of defined dogmas for such a long time so that men would be brought to their knees by having to suffer the consequences of their denial.

Whether or not the testimony of Mary of Agreda given above is reliable is beside the point. What is important here is the truth that "real knowledge dwells in My Church more than in the combined study of all the holy and perfect teachers."

In the end, this "unholy confusion" will be resolved by the Church, and only the Church. Only then will all debate cease.

Now, we begin our presentation of selected segments of the unpublished treatise entitled The Christening of Mary. This presentation will continue throughout the remaining pages of this second part of our treatise. Occasionally, when we wish to make a particular point, we will do so in footnotes. (In these excerpts, the reader may note certain stylistic conventions that differ from the rest of the book; i.e., some words that Mr. Malone capitalizes we do not. Lest we alter the integrity of his writing, we keep Mr. Malone’s styles as in his original.)

Excerpts from The Christening of Mary by Michael Malone

Our Blessed Mother is indeed placed by God on a unique pedestal for our love and admiration, our praise and emulation. But that she cannot be placed by God any higher does not mean, in fact, that she cannot increase in grace. . . . Mariology teaches quite clearly that Our Lady, even though conceived "full of grace," continued to advance in grace added upon grace every moment of her life. . . . God could, and did in fact, increase the incomprehensible fullness of grace in His Mother to ever and ever greater heights of fullness in time and in eternity.

One of these special graces, raising her even to new heights of holiness, was the administration of Sacramental Baptism by her own Divine Son, Jesus. Saint Ephrem, the Syrian Doctor of the Church, declares that the Son regenerated His Mother through the waters of Baptism even though, as he goes on to declare, Our Lady was already "loftier than Heaven itself." Indeed, she awaited with great longing this sacramental enhancement all her life and, from the moment she gave birth to the Christ Child, she continued to look down on Him and prophesy, according to Saint Ephrem: "You, my Son, shall regenerate me with Your Baptism" (Mueller, Ecclesia-Maria, p.150 and note 57).

The abbot Euthymius flourished in Palestine in the 4th century and, according to him: "Our Lord personally baptized the Blessed Virgin and Saint Peter, who

himself afterwards baptized the other Apostles.". . .

No sacramental gift can be received by a person who has not been sacramentally baptized. No [other] sacrament is valid which is ministered to an unbaptized person. The great Apostle [Paul] had been baptized by the Holy Ghost before he was baptized by Ananias, but he had to receive Sacramental Baptism at the hands of his fellow-man. He who came to Baptism already justified had to be incorporated thereby as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ — the visible Church — the people and kingdom of God, in which he was to teach and govern.

Mary was baptized by the Holy Ghost, in the first instant of her human being, with the most perfect of all baptisms of the Spirit. The streams of grace that made her glad who was to be the City of our God. . . flowed with an unbroken current throughout her life, and made her life on earth one life-long baptism of the Spirit.

Mary was a martyr also, and more than a martyr, for she is Queen of Martyrs. She was baptized with Christ’s baptism of blood, although, like John her fellow-martyr, she did not shed her blood in death. She drank from the chalice of Christ’s sufferings more deeply than did all the martyrs, and less deeply only than did her Son, the Man of Sorrows, Who drank it to its dregs.

It is certain, nevertheless, that Mary, already Queen of Saints and Martyrs, was baptized again with the Baptism of Water and the Holy Ghost, which alone is sacramental. (Father William Humphrey, S.J., The One Mediator, 1894, Page 103)

Theologians in common, then, have long held Our Lady to have been sacramentally baptized.*

* Although Father Feeney did not hesitate to embrace the tradition that Our Lady was, and indeed needed to be, baptized, he refrained from placing Mary’s obligation toward her Son’s Baptism in the same universally binding category in which all other men stand in relation to this sacrament. Having been uniquely redeemed, she could also have been uniquely saved. However, as Michael Malone points out, she freely chose to be obedient to the decrees of her Son. And Therefore, in a sense beyond our tainted understanding, she chose to "work out" her own salvation, not by "fear and trembling," but by an obedience inflamed by sheer love.

The Seal of His Image

"Baptism" is originally a Greek word and its fundamental function is to indicate a complete plunge.

Baptism comes from the Greek, and signifies to plunge, immerse, submerge in water, or to wash, clean, purify, or wet with water. (Father James Meagher, The Seven Gates of Heaven, 1885, Page 53)

Note the primary emphasis on "plunging into" and the secondary connotation of "cleansing." Now, no one argues that Our Blessed Lady ever needed Sacramental Baptism to be cleansed; therefore, her only possible need for Baptism would consist in something else.

Is this "something else" perhaps the grace of the Holy Ghost? Of course not! The Holy Ghost has been Our Lady’s Spouse ever since her conception "full of grace." Also, at the Incarnation, she was "overshadowed" by the same Holy

Spirit. Therefore, Our Precious Mother had no need of Baptism to achieve justification, but only to get the seal of salvation given by the mark or character of the sacrament.

How? God has anointed you, the Lord has marked you with the Seal and placed the Holy Spirit in your heart. Receive also something else. For, as the Spirit is in your heart, so Christ is in your heart. How? You have this in the Canticle of Canticles: "Place Me as a seal upon your heart." You have, then, been marked with the imprint of His Cross, with the imprint of His Passion. You have received the Seal of His image, so that you may rise again in His image, so that you may live according to His image! (Saint Ambrose On The Sacraments, VI: 6-7)

Thus, plunging into Jesus Christ, all the members of His entire Body are branded and baptized as one.

The image of Baptism as being a plunging leap into Jesus has a very graphic appeal. Various passages in Holy Scripture contribute to this exemplification. The Prophet Ezechiel, for instance, was all but submerged in the miraculous waters which issued forth from the Temple as a symbol of Christ’s Baptism to come: "And all things shall live to which the torrent shall come!" declared the Lord (Ezech 47:9).

But especially colorful is the story told in Saint John about the man "who had been 38 years" an invalid. When Our Savior asked him if he wanted to get well, he replied: "I have no man. . . to put me into the pond" when the angel came to stir up its waters (John 5:7). It is easy to visualize an old gentleman with withered limbs being carried to the edge of Bethsaida and lowered gently into the pool by alert young assistants.

Ah, but this is where the Douay-Rheims translation misleads us. The verb "to put" is better translated in the New American Bible* as: "I have no one to plunge me into the pool." The Greek word used by Saint John was bal’lo: "to throw violently, to fling deliberately or hurl."

* In no way do we advocate the New American Bible over the Douay-Rheims. Generally speaking, it reeks of modernist influence. In this particular text, however, the translation is more literal than that of the Douay.

All right! So now we have some young whippersnappers literally grabbing the old guy and pitching him headlong into the water! This is precisely what happens when we are "baptized in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:3): we are completely immersed, head and foot, into His Body and Being.

Similarly, in the conferring of supernatural divine light and the reflection of the Divine Nature upon our soul, in the impress of the supernatural likeness of God, the eternal splendor of the Father is irradiated over us, and His consubstantial image, the Son of God, is imprinted in our soul and is reborn in us by an imitation and extension of the eternal production. Thus God’s Son Himself, in His Divine and Hypostatic Character, is lodged in the creature as the Seal of the creature’s likeness to God. By the impress of this Seal, the creature is made conformable to the Son Himself, and, by fellowship with the Son, he receives the dignity and glory

of the children of God.

This selection is found on page 156 of a seminary textbook, The Mysteries of Christianity, written over a century ago by the "Saint Thomas of Germany," Father Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Rector of the episcopal seminary and college in Cologne, where he taught until his death in 1888. An extremely prominent theologian of prodigious output, Father Scheeben was also a mystic of great renown, whose supernatural visions all but surpassed his prolific writings.

Notice: Father Scheeben states that the consubstantial image of the Son of God is imprinted in our soul, reborn in us by an extension of the eternal production itself; thus, Jesus Himself, in His Hypostatic Character, is lodged in the creature as a seal. Surely, this branding means something very essential to our regeneration!

Jesus says of His New Testament faithful: "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). Saint John, writing his Gospel in Greek, did not use the word "abundantly" at all. He used the Greek word perissos which means "a violently excessive superabundance beyond any superior measure."

On page 590 of his book, Father Scheeben goes on to say:

In a physical body, the members are brought to conformity and unity of life with the head by the conformity of their structure and the resulting connection with the head. Similarly, in the Mystical Body of Christ, we are raised to conformity with His Divine Nature by the configuration and union with the Divine-Human Head contained in the Character; and, if we have grace, to participation in His Life.

Thus, we begin to visualize what the German theologian later explains as the real distinction and superiority of sanctifying grace in the New Law as contrasted to that under the Old.

Note the clear dichotomy Father has already made between our "conformity with His Divine Nature" via the character of the sacrament of Baptism on the one hand, and "participation in His Life, if we have grace" on the other.

Therefore, it seems that the two requirements for ultimate salvation must lie in the contingency of being both character-ized as Jesus and graced with His Life. The mark and the grace, then, must constitute the two most fundamental requirements for salvation which can never be minimized, modified, displaced, or replaced: the two immutable things which must be possessed by all souls when they go to their Particular Judgment.

The Signature of God

Every act, every performance, every operation — by God or man or angel — is, to some degree, a self-portrait. And God has autographed His work. Saint

Raymond of Pennafort, taking meditative walks, would strike at the wayside blooms and flowers, shouting: "Hush! Be silent!" for he could not carry on his contemplation because of their loud roaring of the praises of God Who made them.

In much the same way, we bear the stamp of Him Who made us, for we are created in His "image and likeness." And it is also true that we share a likeness to God in the life of Grace:

Baptism plunges us into the Holy Trinity — to baptize means to plunge — Baptism introduces us into the life of the three Divine Persons. (Father Charles Massabki, O.S.B., Who is the Holy Spirit?, 1979, Page 117)

What more could man desire, since, as Saint Basil the Great declares: "To become like unto God is the highest of all goals: to become God!"

But no, it does not suffice! God Himself does not stop here, for man nor Mother, in the courtyard we might call "Grace." No! He takes us by the hand and, with the human hand of a Brother in the flesh, leads us all the way "through the veil of His flesh" into the Holy of Holies itself.

Before time began, the Father foreknew and predestined all the Elect to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that His Son should be the first-born among many brethren.(Lumen Gentium I 2:5)

Vatican Council II is here merely reiterating the words of Saint Paul to his first converts in Rome (Rom. 8:29), because our mere resemblance to the Blessed Trinity in Grace — even the "fullness" thereof — will no longer do, nor will it any longer save.

It will not suffice to bear upon us the image of the Deity, but we must also carry the image of Christ made man, and we must likewise be conformable to His image. (Father John Kenney, The Knowledge of Jesus Christ, 1889, Page 79)

Remember: the voice of God is heard only over the baptized, calling them alone His "beloved sons." As Archbishop Luis Martinez, Primate of Mexico, explained on page 125 of his marvelous book, Only Jesus:

It is upon Jesus alone that the contemplative gaze of the Heavenly Father rests with full complacency. Just as we desire to see the image of one we love everywhere, so the Father desires to see Jesus reproduced in souls. What a prodigality of graces it requires to accomplish this loving design! How many wonders must be wrought to transform souls into Jesus!

But let us go back to the very beginning, even beyond the days of Paradise in Eden, when Adam was still asleep in the slime of the riverbank and God’s breath had not as yet filled his nostrils with life. We know that he was to be made in the image and likeness of God, but it is "Christ Who is the image of God" (II Cor. 4:4). Therefore, Adam had to be constructed in the specific likeness of Jesus Christ; for "Adam. . . is a figure of Him Who was to come" (Rom. 5:14). So, the slime must have been molded by God in such a way as "to

be made conformable to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29), with the same two eyes, two hands, two feet, and so forth, which would be possessed by "the Last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45). As God worked the clay of the riverbank into that First Adam, He must have envisioned the ultimate embodiment of His Divine Son, Jesus Christ. In his The Faith of the Early Fathers (1970, I:361), Father William A. Jurgens quotes Tertullian:

Indeed a great affair was in progress when that clay was being fashioned. . . Think of God being wholly employed and devoted to it, whose lines He was determining by His hand . . . In whatever way the clay was pressed out, He was thinking of Christ, the Man Who was one day to be; because the Word, too, was to be both clay and flesh as the world was then. Thus it was that the Father said beforehand to the Son: "Let Us make man in Our image and likeness. And God made man"— that is, the creature which He fashioned — "to the image of God" — of Christ, of course — "He made him" (Genesis 1:27). (On The Resurrection)

Just as Jesus is the Word of God: His Idea, His Image, "His Eternal Concept" as Saint Thomas says, so likewise are we meant for all eternity to be the image, idea and concept not of God as Trinity, but — exclusively and almost incarnationally — of God as the Second Person thereof. For, as Saint Paul puts it: "we have the mind of Christ," and are "made partakers of Christ," because "we are members of His Body, of His flesh, and of His bones."

This is the visual signature which must now appear in us if we are to be counted among the children of the Most High. We must, then, be marked with the Character of Christ in Holy Baptism.

The nature and significance of the Character seem to us to come to this: that it is the signature which makes known that the members of the God-Man’s Mystical Body belong to their divine-human Head by assimilating them to Him, and testifies to their organic union with Him.

The Character of the members must be a reflection and replica of the theandric Character of this Head. For, to become other Christs, the members must share in the Character by which the Head becomes Christ.

But the signature whereby Christ’s humanity receives its divine dignity and consecration is nothing else than its Hypostatic Union with the Logos.

Consequently, the Character of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body must consist in a Seal which establishes and exhibits their relationship to the Logos: their Character must be analogous to the Hypostatic Union and grounded upon it. . . .

Thus, from every point of view the idea. . . is substantiated that the Character by which Christians are anointed and become Christians is analogous to the Hypostatic Union of the humanity with the Logos, which is what makes Christ what He is. (Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, Pages 582-587)

In the realm of reality, then, there simply can be no other way for a man to be made "like unto God" in the perfect sense. In his Oration on the Word Made

Flesh (page 46), Saint Gregory of Nyssa says:

How, then, are we to be made like to God? For, what is being a Christian but being made like to God, even as far as nature can receive the likeness? But how can you put on Christ unless you receive the Mark of Christ, unless you receive His Baptism?

In his Glories of Divine Grace, published in 1885, page 79, Father Scheeben explains:

By Holy Baptism, we are incorporated in the Mystical Body of Christ, and in token and pledge of this union with Christ, we receive the Sacramental Character. By this Character we are Christ’s and He is ours; by it we are really Christians; we are, as it were, Christ Himself, in as far as we, the Body and the Head, form One Whole.*

* The reader must note well that Father Scheeben speaks here of the Mystical Body of Christ which is, of course, distinct from His Physical Body.

And in his Catechetical Lectures III, page 33, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem assures us:

If a person does not receive the Seal by Baptism, he will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This seems very bold language, but I only say that it is the Lord’s, not mine!

Consider the story of Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles. Cornelius was a good man, and he was on familiar terms with the angels. His prayers and acts of kindness did not go unnoticed by God, and God sent Peter along to explain the Gospel to him. As Peter was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his friends, just as He had fallen on the Apostles at Pentecost: they began praising God in tongues, and prophesying. Yet notice: even though they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter gave orders that they were to be baptized with water, so that they would be incorporated into the Body of Christ, which is His Church.

Either the Baptism brought and wrought by Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for all human beings without exception, or it is not. But He said it was necessary; He sanctioned no alternatives and allowed no exceptions. The commandments of Jesus for His Church are indispensable requirements for all men, even for Our Precious Lady. Thus, it was not without a sense of divine urgency that the Council of Trent canonized its infallible definition:

If anyone shall say that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.

The Sacramental System

The Sacraments were not instituted by Christ simply to make available to us His divine life by participation therein. We must distinguish and differentiate their specific reasons for being, and for having been brought into being by an All-Wise Trinity. Some, indeed, are directed towards the life of Christians; others,

towards the very structure thereof.

The Sacraments of Holy Eucharist, Penance, Last Anointing, and Matrimony are Sacraments of organic life and growth . . . Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, on the other hand, are Sacraments of organic structure. They build up, strengthen, and preserve the supernatural organic structure of the Mystical Body. They fix the relation of members to their Mystic Head and, furthermore, adapt certain members to the performance of specific functions in the Body. These three Sacraments alone have this extraordinary effect, because they are the Sacraments which impress upon the soul of the recipient an indelible mark, seal, or character. (Father John Gruden, The Mystical Christ, Page 236)

According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Sacramental System exists for a twofold purpose: "For a remedy against sins, and for the perfecting of the soul in things pertaining to Divine Worship according to the rite of Christian life." Our Blessed Mother had no need of the remedy against sins, but was to be perfected according to the latter purpose by way of Baptism, for Saint Thomas immediately adds:

Now, whenever anyone is deputed to some definite purpose, he is accustomed to receive some outward sign thereof; thus, in olden times, soldiers who enlisted in the ranks used to be marked with certain characters on the body . . . Since, therefore, men are deputed to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God by the Sacraments, it follows that by means of the Sacraments the faithful receive a certain spiritual Character. Wherefore, Saint Augustine says: " . . . Are the Christian Sacraments, by any chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark placed on soldiers?" (Summa Theologica, III, Q 63, Art.1)

Our Blessed Lady was, of course, uniquely redeemed and immaculately conceived. She had an unparalleled claim, then, on her eternal reward of glory. But, as Saint Thomas explains, all "the faithful of Christ are destined to the reward of glory that is to come . . . but they are deputed to acts fitting the Church that is now, by a certain spiritual seal set on them, and called a Character."

Mary Immaculate, then, by living into the New Testament, and thus into "the Church that is now," was likewise deputed via the impress of a Sacramental Mark or Seal called a Character.

The Mark of Distinction

If, in fact, Our Dearest Lady did not need Baptism, then, for her, the Sacrament would not have been of any use. But, as Saint Thomas points out, "There is nothing useless in the works of God." Therefore, there must be a utility in Baptism even for the most innocent of perfect beings. And that is the indelible mark, or Character, of the Sacrament by which Mary of Nazareth was constituted the towering ivory neck of the entire Mystical Body. Since Our Mother was meant from all Eternity to become this channel, or Mediatrix, between Christ and His Body, she had to be marked out, deputed, and empowered as such. The "brand" of her Son’s Sacrament, then, was that "usefulness," over and above Grace, which she needed for her eternal vocation

in Christ.

Our Lady must have borne the Character of her Divine Son, or she would have been "distinguished" — set apart — from all her children in Heaven. How could she who is full of grace lack that which is carried as a Divine Seal by all her children? Unbaptized, how could Our Lady be the Queen of those who would "out-rank" her, those who share a special grace which even her fullness thereof never brought to her?

No. Our Heavenly Queen must have possessed the identifying Mark of her Son, and have possessed it pre-eminently. For, it is the Sacrament of water Baptism alone that marks us as members of Jesus Christ, and thus as members of His Mystical Body, the Roman Catholic Church, outside which there is no salvation whatsoever possible.

Just as the Sacrament of Baptism distinguishes all who are Christians and marks them out from all others who have not been washed in its cleansing waters and are not members of Christ, so the Sacrament of Order. . . . (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, Catholic Truth Society, Paragraph 46)

Your Heavenly I.D. Card

According to The Catechism of the Council of Trent, the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism include: remission of sin and punishment due; the grace of regeneration and infused virtue; incorporation into Christ; the indelible Character of a Christian stamped on the soul; and the opening of the gates of Heaven. The only effects lacking to Our Lady were the Christian stamp and perfect incorporation into her Divine Son which this stamp achieves.

Baptism, therefore, does what nothing except Baptism can do, so far as character is concerned. The most perfect charity cannot imprint character. The largest measure of sanctifying grace cannot imprint it. The crown of charity in martyrdom cannot imprint it. The charity of Mary, the Queen of Martyrs, made her "full of grace" which sanctified her soul as never a soul was sanctified, save that Soul in which grace was not by measure, since in Him, whose Soul it was, dwelled all the fulness of Godhead corporeally. On His Soul no character was imprinted, since it is to that Soul that character configurates the souls of the sacramentally baptized. That which Mary’s sanctity could not do for her, Mary’s Baptism did. (Father William Humphrey, S.J. The One Mediator, 1894, Pages 257-258)

Our Blessed Lady of Nazareth was conceived full of grace, but she was not yet perfected with all the perfections God had planned for her. "Hail, full of Grace . . . full of Justification!" the Archangel Gabriel had declared to her; "Thus it becomes Us to fulfill all justice," declared Our Lord to an astonished Baptist. His Baptism, then, is the perfection of the grace of justification precisely because it — and it alone — produces that "Perfect Man" (Eph 4:13) who alone can "ascend back up where He was before" (Jn 6:63).

We can be assured, then, that Baptism, like Our Lord Himself, is the "door of the sheep: by Me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved" (John 10:7,9).

Baptism is the Sacrament of the successive production of the Church, the Sacrament by which the Church provides for its own existence and extension, the act by which the Church acquires members and creates Christians . . . To unite one to the Church, to make one a member of the Church, to place one in a state of belonging to the Church, is, we should say, the primary, necessary, and essential effect of Baptism. (Father Emile Mersch, S.J. The Theology of the Mystical Body, 1951, Pp. 560-561)

This ends our presentation of selected sections of the unpublished treatise of Michael Malone. We think he has made a very strong case for the position we have in common with him: that the sacrament of Baptism, with the baptismal character which only it can imprint on the soul, is absolutely necessary for everyone without exception, as a necessity of means, for ultimate salvation.

The comments about the character of Baptism, made by the fathers, saints and theologians quoted above, prove a vital point: Father Laisney of the Society of Saint Pius X is entirely out of order when he accuses us of inventing a "new theology" regarding the character (see page 193 ahead). As the reader will see, he looks upon the character as something of little importance. We say that its importance is as "essential" as the sanctifying grace of Baptism, in the same manner that conformity to Christ is as important as participation in His Divine Life.

Just as Christ’s human nature cannot be separated from His Divine Person, His character or image in us (wrought by His Humanity) ought not to be separated from His grace (wrought by His Divinity).

If, by a special anticipational grace, God justifies a soul prior to Baptism, it is in view of the union to come in the sacrament. The sanctification of that exceptional soul is a preparation, so to speak, a paving-of-the-way, as the Baptism of John prepared one, by grace, for the Baptism of Jesus, which incorporates the full man, body and soul, into His Mystical Body.

Let us close this chapter on the baptismal watermark with the words of two holy men whose eras bridge most of the history of the Church: the great eastern Doctor of the fourth century, Saint Ephrem and the twentieth century apostle of the Kingship of Christ, Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.

The year 1954 saw the death of Father Fahey, the renowned Irish priest who, throughout his adult life, had been an implacable foe of all enemies of Christ. In his work, Christ Our King, he wrote:

By the character of Baptism, we are one with Our Lord in the unity of His Mystical Body, and the very character by which we are incorporated into that sublime unity is a certain participation in His Priesthood. So when Our Lord renews the act of submission of Calvary on the Altar, He renews it as He now is, that is, as Head of the Mystical Body in which all the baptized are one with Him. On the Cross, Christ was alone. His members were engrafted in Him only potentially. At the Altar, He is no longer alone: it is the "whole Christ," to use St. Augustine’s phrase, that is, Christ and His members, who now offer sacrifice to the Blessed Trinity, the members being co-offerers with the Invisible Principal Offerer and His visible

ministerial offerer, the priest. And we can be co-offerers, because the character of Baptism is a participation on our level in the Priesthood of Our Lord, enabling us to look upon Christ’s act of submission on the Altar as ours and to unite our act of submission with His.

And again:

It was the acceptance of the fact that the bodies of the baptized are members of Christ that brought forth those lovely flowers of chastity amidst the thorns of paganism, in the decadent Roman Empire.

Saint Ephrem the Deacon beautifully brings this theology to its eschatological summit as only the Syrian poet-Doctor can. In an inspiring booklet entitled The Dereliction of the Cross, a long-time friend of Saint Benedict Center, Mr. Francis Conklin, writes:

Saint Ephrem, one of the glories of the Church in the fourth century, eloquently described what awaits each soul at the Judgment:

"The Lord shall then command the Book of the living and the dead to be opened: and then, oh! the tears that shall be shed. Then shall the Judge look upon all the Christians who are there, and search for the character of the Faith received in Baptism, when they renounced the flesh, the devil, and the world. Happy then shall those be who have preserved it inviolate to the end of their lives."

Along with all of these orthodox sources just quoted, we hold that the seal of Baptism is your Heavenly I.D. Card; you don’t dare leave this earthly home without it!

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

One of the principal goals of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center is the restoration of doctrinal purity in the Church — purity in all doctrines, but, because of the present emergency in the Church, especially in the foundational dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Given the predominance of liberals in the Church today, especially here in America, it is understandable that we have critics. Surprising, though, is the number within the so-called tradionalist ranks, which fact only serves to verify the deep and dangerous influence of the pernicious doctrines of liberalism on Catholics of our day.

Our most severe critics over the past several years have been priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. In 1991, this Society published a booklet entitled "Baptism of Desire" authored by Father Francois Laisney. It is an arrogant, biased attack on the teachings of Father Feeney; it charges us, his followers, with being guilty of "a sin of temerity against Faith" and thus not worthy of receiving Holy Communion. It is to the opinions expressed in this booklet that our attention is primarily, but not exclusively, directed. Criticisms from other sources will be specifically identified as they are answered.

A Reply to Baptism Of Desire authored by Father Francois Laisney, SSPX

In the introduction (pages iii and iv), Father Laisney states clearly the basic error once held by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently held by his Society: in order to get to Heaven, all one must do is die in the state of grace.

This is not what the Church has always taught!

To die in the state of grace is certainly necessary, but not sufficient for salvation. What is both necessary and sufficient is that one receive the sacrament of Baptism and then persevere in God’s grace to the very end. But these further thoughts should be noted well.

It would be inconceivable for God to deny heaven to anyone who dies in the state of grace. That would indeed offend against Divine Justice! However, salvation embraces both the soul and the body of a man, not just the soul. All those who are now either at rest in heaven, or suffer in purgatory, were not only sanctified in soul, but also anointed in body. So, to us who have inherited Father Feeney’s spirit of understanding, it is vital that, in defending the obvious, the need of sanctifying grace in the soul, we not minimize the not so obvious, the need of the anointing of the body. And we further note that those who minimize the anointing either ignore, or have almost totally forgotten, the dogmatic truth of the particular Providence of God — or better, His most special Providence (Providentia specialissima).

Father Feeney would ask, "Why not just accept the conditions of salvation exactly as Jesus revealed them?" It is not a "miracle" for God to work salvifically outside of His own revealed terms, as Father Laisney says it is. Rather, it is a most special manifestation of His Power and Providence that He reaches all men, but within the limits set by those very terms.

We insist that two things are necessary for salvation: sanctifying grace and the seal of Baptism.

Father Laisney believes there is an invisible Church, with invisible sacraments and invisible members, outside of which there is no salvation. It is a Church of the Holy Ghost, as it were, performing saving work extraordinarily — "miraculously" — in the shadow of the Incarnational Church of Christ, related to it, but not dependent upon its visible system.

A. The Law of Baptism

Page 1: There is a law established by Jesus Christ, that every man must be baptized in order to be saved. Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

It is not totally correct to say that the above quote from Our Lord is a "law." A law, strictly speaking, is a command or prohibition. The words of Our Lord, speaking as the Divine Person Who will be the Judge of every single human being, are given by Saint John in the form of a proposition, a statement of fact. It is either true or it is false. We know it is a proposition because we can formulate its contradictory: "Some men can enter the kingdom of God who have not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost."

A law — a command or a prohibition — does not state a truth or falsehood per se. For instance: "Do not eat of the fruit of this tree." Can we say of this statement that it is either true or false? No, we cannot. Can we formulate a contradictory in a

declarative sense? No, we cannot, because it is a law, not a proposition.

Christ did establish a law, but with this command: Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19,20). This law, or command, was given to the Church and binds the Church.

Page 1: Yet God is not bound by the Laws He has set.

This is a true statement. God is not bound by the laws He has set. For instance, the dietary laws of the old dispensation are no longer obligatory. However, God is bound by the propositions He has made. If God were to make the statement "Unless a man’s name be written in the Book of Life, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven," it can only mean that all those in heaven have their names written in the Book of Life. If we assert the contradictory of this proposition to be true, viz. "There are some men in heaven whose names are not in the Book of Life," then the proposition must be false. If the proposition is false, then God has deceived us and the veracity of His word becomes meaningless.

If God is not bound by water in terms of salvation, then we may ask, why bind Him to His word in any of His teachings? So too, His Church. How can she bind herself to any of her decrees?

Are we not bordering on a dangerous conclusion; namely, that God is not even bound by His Own Veracity? Who would dare say it!

Saint Peter applied the dogma on Baptism as a law when, on the first Pentecost, he commanded the conscience-stricken Jews of Jerusalem to do penance and be baptized every one of you. . . for the remission of your sins. And thus did the Lord increase His small Church by three thousand, gathering together such as should be saved (Acts 2:38-47).

Page 2 (paraphrased): God can give His grace and thus open heaven to a soul without the waters of Baptism. An example is the penitent thief.

That God can give His grace before the actual reception of the waters of baptism, we accept. That God would open heaven to a soul who has not been "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" after the promulgation of the Gospel, we reject — despite what some saints said. Though very holy and very learned, these saints were mere men, fallible theologians stating their own opinions, which they were free to do because the Church had, at that point in time, made no definitive judgment on the issue concerned.

The example of the penitent thief, Saint Dismas, does not apply. He was saved under the same economy as all justified men of the old dispensation were saved. He went to the Limbo of the Just — Christ referred to it as "paradise," and the Apostles’ Creed calls it "hell" — and was led into the Beatific Vision by Christ on Ascension Thursday along with all the Just of the Old Testament. The need for

Baptism did not become effective until the first Pentecost Sunday when the Church was actually "born."*

* The exact point in time when the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation became effective cannot be determined. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "The time when the Law of Baptism was made admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of Our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved." But the exact occasion on which Our Lord spoke those words is not certain. What is certain is that they were spoken sometime between the Resurrection and the Ascension, a period of forty days. It is also held as certain that the Church was born when the Holy Ghost descended on Our Lady and the Twelve Apostles in the Upper Room on Mount Sion ten days after the Ascension — Pentecost Sunday. Rather than belabor a technical point, Father Feeney used Pentecost as the date of the obligation because, prior to it, there was no visible Church into which one could be incorporated by Baptism.

Incidentally, in his Retractions, Saint Augustine changed his mind about using Saint Dismas as an example of "baptism of blood," but for a different reason. He explained that it was not certain that Dismas had not been baptized. Father Feeney would say that the Saint gave the wrong reason, because Baptism was not yet necessary and would not be until Pentecost Sunday, fifty-three days later.

But the reader should note Saint Augustine’s reason. When, may we ask, can it ever be certain — short of divine revelation — that a particular deceased person was never baptized? And, since we are certain that it is divine revelation that sacramental Baptism is required for salvation, there is no "benefit of the doubt" allowed for "desire."

Page 3 (paraphrased): It may and did happen that some men died before they could fulfill their intention to be baptized, but they can still go to heaven.

The essence of what is said here is as follows:

"There are some men who may enter into the kingdom of God who have not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost."

Once again, let us consider this statement in the light of the proposition of Our Lord as quoted in Saint John 3:5:

Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The first statement above contradicts Our Lord’s proposition. If we assert that this first statement is true, we must then conclude that Christ’s proposition is false. And from that we must reason that Jesus deceived us when he solemnly proclaimed that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is "born again of water and the Holy Ghost." Thus, the very truthfulness of God’s word is made

questionable.

But Jesus could not deceive us and the truthfulness of God’s word should never be questioned!

B. Dr. Ludwig Ott on Baptism of Desire

In their attempts to explain-away Christ’s clear statement, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God, our critics often cite as an authoritative reference a book by Dr. Ludwig Ott entitled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. They refer in particular to a section subtitled "Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism" which appears under the general topic heading, "The Necessity of Baptism." Here, Father Ott writes:

In case of emergency, Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of Desire or Baptism by Blood.

He labels this with the theological note sententia fidei proxima — a proposition proximate to the Faith.*

* Theologians assign these "theological notes" to their own speculations, thus indicating the category of importance to which they, themselves, assign a particular theory. Since no neutral third party is involved, the assigned "note" is only as reliable as is the theologian himself.

It is important to notice, however, that the reference quoted above is the second reference under this general heading, "The Necessity of Baptism." So, let us look now at the first reference. It is subtitled "Necessity of Baptism for Salvation:"

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men, without exception, for salvation.

Dr. Ott labels this reference, quite correctly, de Fide. That is, it is of the Faith. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we believe it with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole mind.

Would it not be a most flagrant violation of the laws of logic and wisdom to accept the second proposition before we submit our minds to what is first? If we submit our minds here to what is first — and the Church tells us we must, for the note de Fide implies as much — then we must accept that, for salvation, "Baptism by water is. . . necessary for all men, without exception." But, logically, it is now impossible for us to accept the second proposition because it contradicts the first. We cannot hold as truth that it is necessary for all men to be baptized by water "without exception," while, at the same time, giving equal status to the possibility of an exception. If it is possible, then the words "without exception" are without meaning.

It is "double-talk" like this, so prevalent in the Church since Vatican II, that has caused so much confusion among Catholics.

When the Council of Trent defined the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism in re or in voto, it defined that necessity with respect to justification, not salvation. When salvation is discussed strictly, there is no mention of "desire" for the sacrament as sufficing for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. In fact, the Tridentine Council specifically anathematizes anyone who says that "the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous;. . . though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual. . . " (As we will see below, "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament.) In his book, Bread of Life, Father Feeney explains at great length the very simple, yet essential distinction between justification and salvation. Briefly put, justification is the state of sanctifying grace in this mortal life, this journey to eternity, this race that each man must run; salvation is the state of bliss in the Beatific Vision, the end of the journey, the prize for winning the race. The fact that the Council makes this distinction is very significant, and it does so several times.

Page 3 (paraphrased): Although "Baptism of desire" and "Baptism of blood" are admittedly not Sacraments, theologians call them "Baptism" because they produce the grace of Baptism. Baptism of blood, according to Saint Thomas, is even more perfect than the Baptism of Water. All the Doctors have taught that martyrdom leads directly to Heaven!

"Baptism of desire" is assuredly not a sacrament. It is but a conscious intention to receive the sacrament, a resolve motivated by true Faith and genuine love of God. It is not an "outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace." It does not incorporate one in the visible society called the Church. It does not qualify one to receive any of the other six sacraments. Therefore, Father Feeney concluded, it is effective in producing sanctifying grace in the soul only in view of the water to come, as demonstrated in the four cases cited in the Acts of the Apostles: Cornelius, the Eunuch of Candace, Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul), and the men baptized by Saint Paul (Acts 19:1-7). If these men had never received the water, they could never have been saved. But in each case, by the Particular Providence of God, the water was provided.

Father Feeney accepted the Divine words of Our Lord (John 3:5) as absolutely true, and was determined to protect them, whatever the cost. His whole book, Bread of Life, was written to support his contention that any theological doctrine that leads to a contradiction of this Divine utterance must be corrected, regardless of the authority of the theologian whose overly-speculative indulgence leads to such contradiction. It is precisely such indulgence that, in our century, reduced Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to a "meaningless formula."

Now, Father Feeney was not just a "part-time" theologian. He was acknowledged by his colleagues as pre-eminent in that field. In fact, his Provincial in the Society of Jesus, Father McEleney — later to become one of his principal antagonists in his dispute with Archbishop Cushing and fellow Jesuits — once referred to him as ". . . the greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." Using his keen,

well-trained theological mind, Father taught, in conformity with the opinion of Saint Thomas, that God, Who does will all men to be saved, would not forsake any man of good will — and particularly not a catechumen who has true Faith and Charity and is coming "to the knowledge of the Truth." Should such a man face sudden and unexpected death before he has received the sacrament of Baptism, God, in His Particular Providence for every single man, would get the waters of Baptism to him, or would have already done so.

But some of our critics say "this is a new doctrine." It is contrary to "the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors." How dare this Father Feeney teach such a thing!

Let us take a look at an instance in history where a noted theologian taught a "new doctrine" which was contrary to "the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors." The following information is taken from The New Catholic Dictionary published in 1929:

[The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary] is established by tradition, by the writings of the Fathers, by feasts observed in honor of this prerogative, by the general belief of the faithful. The very controversies over it among theologians brought about a clear understanding and acceptance of the doctrine long before it was declared by Pius IX.

[The Feast of the Immaculate Conception] originated in the East about the 8th Century where it was celebrated on 9 December. In the Western Church it appeared first in England in the llth Century and was included in the calendar of the universal Church in the 14th Century.

During the 13th Century, some 500 years after this great Feast was initially celebrated in the East, and 200 years after it appeared in the West, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote his contrary opinion in the Summa. A century earlier, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux forbade his monks to preach it because he felt the opinion to be too extreme. By what right did these holy theologians propose their erroneous doctrine, in the face of tradition, the writings of the Fathers, feasts already observed, and the general belief of the faithful?

In his excellent book, A Tour of the Summa, Monsignor Paul J. Glenn answers this question:

Note: Two things are to be remembered in this and the next following treatise: (a) St. Thomas held that the human body is animated successively in the womb: first by a vegetal life-principle, then by a sentient or animal soul, and finally by a rational and spiritual soul; each soul displaces its predecessor so that in the end one rational and spiritual soul animates the human being. (b) In St. Thomas’s day, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a question for free discussion among scholars; the doctrine had not yet been infallibly defined as of the Faith.

But Father Feeney had a much more compelling reason for proposing a "new opinion" (on baptism of desire) in this twentieth century than Saint Thomas had (on the Immaculate Conception) in the thirteenth, for this is the century in which the very existence of the visible Church is being threatened by a gross abuse of the theory of "baptism of desire." In order to halt the abuse, the prevailing

interpretation of the theory must be challenged by capable and courageous theologians until the Church decides to make a definitive judgment condemning it.

As it stands now, the theory that "baptism of desire" is sufficient for salvation is not a defined dogma of the Church; it has no constant, uncontested tradition in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors; it was never taught by the Apostles; there is no literal basis for it in Holy Scripture; it has never been the general belief of the faithful; and finally, at the last two doctrinal Councils of the Church, Trent and Vatican I, it was simply not mentioned at the former, and preempted at the latter on account of political disruption.

The reader should note well the first of the two comments about St. Thomas Aquinas which Monsignor Glenn made above. St. Thomas’ erroneous opinion on the succession of souls in the womb is used today by some to justify abortion early in a pregnancy. Aquinas was a saint and a brilliant theologian, but he was not infallible! Just as his opinions in the two instances cited were wrong, his opinions concerning the efficacy of "desire" could well be wrong, and for the same reason. In any event, to disagree with him, or any other of the saintly theologians of the Church, on an undefined matter of the Faith, is certainly not presumptuous. Rather, it is the very function of theologians to try to improve upon the understanding of certain complicated points of doctrine wherever possible. But such improvements should never lead to the denial of a defined dogma.

The reader should also note well that, in the section "On the Creed," page 43, The Catechism of the Council of Trent made the same mistake on ensoulment in the womb as did St. Thomas. The infallible Council did not err, but the Catechism did.

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]C. The Requirements for Salvation

Page 4 (paraphrased): Interior sanctifying grace, with the virtues of Faith (Catholic Faith), Hope and Charity, is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Father Laisney expresses this opinion with the inference that sanctifying grace is all that is necessary for salvation. He is wrong on that score, but his statement above, as given, is true, yet not complete. In order to bring it into complete conformity with the Council of Trent, we would "improve" it to read as follows: "After receiving the sacrament of Baptism, with the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity which it infuses into the soul, and being sealed and incorporated into the Church, a person must

persevere in and die in the state of sanctifying grace in order to be saved."

Page 5: "The lives of the Saints show that an error on a complicated point of doctrine is not incompatible with Faith. . . . These Saints were rather searching for the truth than asserting in a definite way their erroneous opinion: there was no pertinacity in their error."

With this statement, Father Laisney tries to reconcile his admiration for Saint Thomas (despite Thomas’ errors) with his indictment of Father Feeney (precisely because of Father’s "errors," as he calls them). In effect he says that, while St. Thomas erred innocently in searching for truth, Father Feeney errs deliberately in pertinaciously clinging to error!

This is the point we made above with regard to Saint Thomas and his erroneous opinion about the Immaculate Conception. Had he been alive when the dogma was defined by Pius IX, he would have retracted his opinion immediately.

The same applies to Father Feeney. He always considered the popular teaching that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are sufficient for salvation, to be a heresy, because it is a denial of the defined dogma that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet, he did not question the validity of the phrase in voto when used by theologians in accordance with the sense attributed to it by the Council of Trent. Rather, he sought to reconcile the two ( in voto and ab aqua) by proposing that the votum to receive the Sacrament can produce sanctifying grace in the soul "in view of the water to come," because God knows it is coming.

When Bread of Life was published in 1952, Father sent a copy to Pope Pius XII and to every Cardinal, thereby submitting his proposal to the judgment of the Church. No judgment was ever forthcoming, but had there been one from the Chair of Peter, and had it gone against him, he also would have retracted his position immediately.

But Father Laisney is committed to judging Father Feeney and his disciples for "pertinacity in an error against a dogma of the Faith." He claims that "baptism of desire" is a dogma because it has been taught constantly by the Fathers, so he admonishes us that we must "hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers." We simply disagree with his claim. And, if it is not, in fact, a constant teaching of the Fathers, he has misled many Catholics and has rashly misjudged Father Feeney and his disciples.

Page 4: Salvation cannot be attained by one with the use of his reason, without God revealing and man believing this Truth by a supernatural virtue and an act of Faith. He does not have to know everything explicitly, but he has to believe explicitly all that he knows of the Revelation.

Page 15: . . .it is necessary to know explicitly the essential articles of Faith, the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption, in as much as they have been revealed to the person.

We agree! This is definitely the traditional teaching of the Church. It could not be stated more clearly. But we ask: Would it not require very flexible, twisted reasoning

to claim that this teaching is reflected in the scandalous Marchetti-Selvaggiani Letter of August 8, 1949, wherein it states (in the two paragraphs most quoted by modernists and their allies) that men need to be "united" to the Church only by "desire and longing," and that "this desire need not always be explicit" because God also accepts an "implicit desire?"

How can we possibly reconcile this concept of votum implicitum with what Saint Thomas teaches us about the necessity of explicit Faith? We cannot, because the idea of "implicit desire" being sufficient for salvation is a novelty. This so-called Protocol Letter 122/49 was understood by the whole world to be a refutation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The world-at-large was led to believe that Rome had spoken definitively and that Father Feeney and Saint Benedict Center were totally wrong.

This Protocol Letter set a precedent for the policy of double talk, concealment, ambiguity and subtle contradiction employed so continuously since Vatican II by the hierarchy of the Church, up to and including the Pope.

Let us repeat, for emphasis, what we have said before. The fact that the Protocol never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis shows conclusively that it is hardly an official Church teaching. Those who believe it should be official Church teaching have a definite kinship with the arch-modernist apostle of "universal salvation," Karl Rahner, S.J. It was Rahner who placed the scandalous document in the prestigious and influential Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger) while serving as its editor. This fact alone should be a warning to every traditional Catholic.

Page 6 (paraphrased): Since being in the state of sanctifying grace is all that is needed for salvation, those souls who live and die in that state, yet are unbaptized, do belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church.

Here is the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ as explained in the New Catholic Dictionary (1929):

Christ as the head of the Church exercises in a mystical, supernatural manner the same life-giving influence of the Church as the human head in the human organism. From Christ proceeds that supernatural life which unites the members among themselves and with Him. Growth, increase, both intensively (sanctity), and extensively (in numbers) depends on this vivifying union, which is fostered and preserved principally by the Holy Eucharist. Notwithstanding number and diversity of members, there is but one body.

Like all proponents of "baptism of desire," our critic here completely ignores the need for the sacrament of Baptism and the character, or seal, which only it can imprint on the soul. (See our discussion of the character in Chapter Eight.)

We refer the reader to Father Feeney’s discourse on the relationship between the Holy Eucharist and the Mystical Body of Christ as given in our discussion of the Great Sacrament beginning on page 121 ahead, and we remind him that a person who receives sanctifying grace before the sacrament of Baptism cannot receive the Holy Eucharist, or any other sacrament, until he is baptized with water.

Page 6: A catechumen who believes and practices the Catholic Faith, even if he dies unbaptized, can go to Heaven. . . . This first example is the one given in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur. What is freely asserted, we freely reject.

Christ has never revealed to anyone, nor has the Church ever affirmed, that there are New Testament souls in heaven who were never baptized. We are bound in no way to believe that there are such souls. Nor were faithful souls in past centuries ever in any danger of incurring the slightest of censures for such disbelief.

Father Laisney’s opinion as expressed here is contrary to the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent and Our Divine Lord’s own words:

Council of Trent: "Canon IV. If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; . . . let him be anathema." And we remind our readers that the vow, or votum, to receive Baptism is not a sacrament; it can justify, but alone, it cannot save.

Our Lord: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. The first sentence is Christ’s command; in the second sentence, He tells us what will determine the nature of His judgment. This is a proposition, a Truth to which Christ binds Himself.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not substantiate what our critic says here. The Catechism states no more than what the Council defined, although in less precise language. The Catechism does not say that the intention to receive baptism would suffice for men’s salvation, but only that it would "avail them to grace and righteousness." "Grace and righteousness" are synonyms for justification, not salvation — and Father Laisney should know that!

It should be noted here that Father Feeney’s opinion (that an unbaptized catechumen who died suddenly could not be saved) is identical to that of Saint Augustine:

How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever! (Augustine the Bishop, Van Der Meer, p.150)

No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized. (On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7)

Not only were there inconsistencies among the Fathers themselves, but, with Saints Ambrose and Augustine, there were inconsistencies even in their own reasonings. If this were not so, why would Augustine write what he did above, and then, at another time — we assume later — struggle with the opinion he found in Saint Cyprian’s teaching, where the Bishop from Carthage first postulated the argument favoring a baptism by blood as the only exception to the necessity of water

Baptism? If, prior to Augustine’s time, a baptism by desire was anywhere held as part of the Deposit of Faith bequeathed to us by the Apostles, he certainly would not have been so tormented in mind about it as he was when he wrote:

Considering this again and again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can make up for the lack of Baptism, but also the Faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that lack of time prevents the celebration of the sacrament of Baptism* (Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum, #1630).

* It would do well to note here that the brilliant Bishop of Hippo wrote unceasingly on every aspect of our natural and supernatural existence. Concerning Baptism, it is certain that Augustine’s philosophical point of view on the nature of the spiritual faculty of the free human will carried (continued from previous page) over into his theology. Note this pertinent observation by the author of Augustine the Theologian, Eugene Teselle: "Augustine asserts that nothing is more within the power of the will than the will itself, so that whoever wishes to love rightly and honorably can achieve it simply by willing it; the velle (willing) is already the habere (having)." (de.lib. arb. I, 12, 26 & 13, 29)

Thus, we see that, as early as the 5th century, there were inconsistencies among theologians in the Church over this issue of "baptism of desire," and how to interpret it.

Saint Augustine did consistently support "baptism of blood" for salvation without water, as did certain other Fathers, but since the Church has never seen fit to pronounce, by way of infallible definition, in favor of these two issues touching the sacrament of Baptism, and since the tradition of the Church does not indicate constant agreement among the Fathers, they rank as theological opinions only, and we will treat them as such. Furthermore, we do know that the Church has pronounced favorably and infallibly for Baptism by water.

Page 27: Father Feeney’s greatest argument was that one should take absolutely literally Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." This neglects the very first principle of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, which is to take each passage in union with the whole of Scripture and Catholic Doctrine, not separately. . . . The great question is, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?

Father Laisney then presents a thesis which he sets out to prove:

Thesis: The interpretation of the Church of these words (John 3:5) is that the grace of Baptism . . . is absolutely necessary, with no exceptions whatsoever, while the exterior water . . . is necessary . . . "in fact or at least in desire."

Father apparently does not believe that the words of God are always to be taken literally unless spoken in an obvious parable or hyperbole. Our Lord Himself warned us: "For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18). And again: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away" (Luke 21:33).

We ask Father Laisney: If a proposition prefaced with the words "Amen, amen, I say to thee," is not to be taken literally, then which of Our Savior’s words were so intended?

Individual theologians may have tampered with the meaning of Christ’s words, but the Church has never taken them to mean anything other than what they clearly say.

Here are some popes and saints speaking on the principles of interpretation:

Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori: "The inspired writings have different senses, namely: the literal and mystical. The literal sense is that which the words plainly signify, and this sense alone supplies proofs of faith. The mystical sense never affords proofs of faith unless confirmed by another text which explains the passage in conformity with the mystical sense, or when the Fathers commonly agree in expounding it in the mystical sense." (An Exposition and Defense of all the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent)

Saint Teresa of Avila: "All the evil in the world comes from ignorance of the truths of Holy Scripture in their clear simplicity, of which not one iota shall pass away." (The Great Commentary, Father Cornelius a Lapide, S.J.)

Pope Benedict XV: ". . . all interpretation rests on the literal sense." (Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus)

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy Scripture regarding the sense, for all the senses of Sacred Scripture are founded on one — the literal sense — from which alone can any argument be drawn." (Summa Theologica, I, q.1, art.10, ad 1)

Pope Leo XIII: In his Encyclical On the Study of Holy Scripture, the Holy Father quotes Saint Augustine’s admonition "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity demands."

The above references are taken from an excellent little booklet, Credo — Foundations of Faith, written and published by Michael Malone, whom we quoted earlier. With his permission, we quote further from the conclusion of his section on the interpretation of Holy Scripture:

St. Alphonsus Maria continues his comments above in affirming that "we must believe with the certainty of faith not only what has been defined by the Church, but also what appears to be clearly contained in Scripture; otherwise, everyone might doubt of any truth expressed in the Sacred Writings before the definitions of the Church."

It follows, then, that we are bound to hold to the literal meaning of all the doctrinal or moral truths found in Holy Scripture, even before they are defined by the Church. For example, every soul among the faithful professed belief in the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for eternal salvation during the fifteen centuries prior to its definition by the Council of Trent in its seventh Session of March, l547, based on the clearly literal words of Jesus Christ Himself to Nicodemus as recorded in Saint John’s

Gospel (3:5).

The faithful have also held from the very beginning that the true and total Faith is required of all the Elect, as Our Lord declared: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Furthermore, no Catholic is free to hold any teaching which might serve to contradict these literal expressions.

This principle concerning the literal interpretation of Holy Scripture is at the very heart of Father Feeney’s opposition to the wild misuse being made today of the term "baptism of desire."

The Council of Trent

Following Father Laisney’s suggestion, let us now take our own look at how the Church explained these words of Our Lord: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

One of the most authoritative, most solemn, infallible witnesses to those truths of the Faith with which we are concerned here, was the Council of Trent (1545 to 1563).

Trent was convened almost three hundred years after the death of Saint Thomas (1274). It was convened as a result of the Protestant Revolt and the spread of doctrinal errors resulting therefrom. One of those errors concerned justification, which Protestants, among other misconceptions, were equating with salvation.

The deliberations of the Fathers of the Council were conducted with the aid of two primary references: Holy Scripture and the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas. It was in the Summa that Saint Thomas had proposed his speculations about "desire" being the equal of "act," with regard not only to the sacrament of Baptism, but also to the efficaciousness of a "spiritual" reception of Holy Communion. Thomas’ errors concerning the power of "desire" seem to be traceable to a similar view held by Saint Augustine, but vigorously opposed by Saint Gregory Nazianzen. Here are the pertinent infallible teachings of the Council:

[Definition of justification:] ". . . a translation from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the vowed intention to receive it,* as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Our emphasis)

*These words are a correct translation of the original Latin, "aut eius voto." Had the Council intended to say "or the desire thereof," it would have written "aut eius desiderio." This distinction between votum and desiderium was recognized by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis in a passage which we will discuss more thoroughly later on (see page 154). The Holy Father used the phrase "by an unknowing desire and resolution," which was written in Latin as "inscio quodam desiderio ac voto."Obvious meaning: justification is the state of sanctifying grace in this

mortal life. It is first gained by either the sacrament of Baptism, or the vowed intention to receive it.

Prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, a proper desire for the Baptism which the Messias would institute, when He came, could justify. That the Jews knew that the Messias would institute a baptism is evidenced by the question the Pharisees addressed to John the Baptist: "Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet?" (John 1:25)

[On the Sacraments in General] Canon IV: If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or without the vowed intention to receive them,* men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema (emphasis ours).

Obvious meaning: The sacraments are necessary for salvation. A vow to receive them may provide the grace of justification.

[On Baptism] Canon II: If anyone saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests to some sort of metaphor** those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost;" let him be anathema.

Obvious question: Is not "desire" an idea suggested as having a likeness to water?

Canon V: If anyone saith that baptism† is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

* The Latin for the words in italics reads "et sine eis aut eorum voto." To render them in English as "and that without them or without the desire of them" is to weaken the meaning intended by the Council.

** Definition of "metaphor:" A figure of speech by which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is applied to another to suggest a likeness between them.

† The Council is here discussing the sacrament of Baptism. "Baptism of desire," as Father Laisney admits, is not the sacrament.

It is very important for the reader to note well that the Council of Trent did not endorse the opinion of Saint Thomas Aquinas concerning "baptism of desire."

The "desire for Baptism," if properly made, may put a person in the state of sanctifying grace. If the person perseveres in and dies in that state — according to the words of the Divine Judge Himself — he still cannot enter the kingdom of God. He lacks the one thing that only the sacrament can provide — the indelible mark or spiritual character imprinted on his soul. Who would be so unbelieving as to suggest

that Almighty God would not, or could not, prevent such a dilemma from occurring?

Does not our God ardently "will" all men to be saved and "to come to a knowledge of the truth?" Could the God of Justice and Mercy cast into hell a soul clothed in grace but lacking the one thing He Himself said was necessary? Is He not all-powerful and able to provide that missing requirement which He Himself demands?

The same God Who said, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost. . . ," also said, "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."

If a man’s desire for Baptism is pure, and holy, and pleasing to God, there is nothing in this world that can prevent God from getting the purifying waters to him before he reaches judgment. And he cannot die and be judged until God calls him.

This was Father Feeney’s answer to the dilemma posed by supporters of the "baptism of desire" theory — the dilemma of the hypothetical man who dies in the state of sanctifying grace but was never baptized. To our Omniscient God, no man’s death is "sudden" or "unexpected." To Him, there are no "accidents." And He has committed Himself to open the door to every man who knocks. This commitment is what we call the Particular Providence of God.

As we have said before, this was Father’s position. He arrived at it because of the theological and doctrinal havoc being wrought by the wild extremes to which liberals and modernists in the Church were carrying the "baptism of desire" theory. Karl Rahner’s "universal salvation" is the ultimate extreme and it is very much with us today. If Saint Thomas Aquinas were still alive, he would certainly support Father Feeney, for he himself once wrote:

. . . For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up (in the forest or among wolves) followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius.

Going back, now, to Father Laisney’s thesis, we have only this to say: In view of the irrefutable and infallible decrees of the Council of Trent — the most recent and highest authority in the Church to rule on these subjects — his thesis is applicable to justification only, not to salvation.

Two final thoughts before moving on to the next point:

1) In the Decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili, dated July 3, 1907, Pope Saint Pius X condemned the modernist proposition that "an exegete" — a Scriptural scholar, such as a theologian — "is not to be reproved who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful, provided he does

not directly deny the dogmas themselves."

Father Feeney saw that the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, unquestionably was being denied by Churchmen. He also saw that it was the "premise" known as "baptism of desire" that made the denial possible without ever directly denying the dogma itself. Therefore, he did not hesitate to propose an interpretation of "baptism of desire" which was in conformity with Holy Scripture and the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent, and which protected both the words of Our Lord and the defined dogma, "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

2) In his Scriptural defense of "baptism of desire," our critic claims that, since Christ, in His conversation with Nicodemus about being "born again," mentioned the need for water just once, but referred to the spiritual rebirth five times, He thereby indicated that water was not really that necessary. If this were a valid argument, we would have to conclude that Jesus was ambiguous; He even contradicted Himself; therefore, we are free to drop "one jot, or one tittle" from His utterances. Or, since Scripture speaks of hell far more often than heaven, maybe there is no heaven!

Like Father Feeney, we will abide by what the Council of Trent defined infallibly: The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation; and "true and natural water" is necessary for the sacrament — not some metaphorical substitute for water, which is what liberal and modernist theologians of today have made of "desire."

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]D. Baptism and the Holy Eucharist

Page 29: A parallel between the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5) and the necessity of the Holy Eucharist (John 6:54) puts even more in light the truth of this thesis [see page 112 above]. These two affirmations of Our Lord are very similar: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5). "Amen, amen I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54).

The requirements here laid down by Christ are, of course, of the New Law, applicable from the promulgation of the Gospel.

Both of these statements by Our Lord are propositions. They are literally true. Neither is a command. They are Divine affirmations — statements of fact. Christ merely affirmed as fact that no man can enter heaven unless he is baptized with water, and further, that he will never enjoy everlasting life — Eternal Life in Christ Jesus — unless he receives the Holy Eucharist.

Christ did not directly order or command that one must be baptized or receive the Blessed Eucharist. He merely stated two truths, and the grave consequences to those who would not accept those truths. He left acceptance up to the free will of each man.

If a man does not willingly receive the sacrament of Baptism during his life on earth, he simply cannot, at death, enter heaven.

If a man does not willingly receive the sacrament of Baptism during his life on earth, he will never be able to receive the Holy Eucharist as a sacrament in this life, nor as Holy Communion in the next, for no one can receive any of the other six sacraments, including the greatest, the Holy Eucharist, unless and until he first is baptized with water while he is on earth.

That the Holy Eucharist, as Holy Communion, will exist in heaven, is strongly implied by Our Lord: "Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mark 14:25). Our Lord says "new," that is, not as a sign, for in heaven we shall have not faith, but vision. We shall then, in glory, see Jesus under the species of wine. Hence, for the elect, it will not be a sacrament, i.e. a sign.

Thus, the sacrament of Baptism, received during life on earth, is absolutely necessary to gain entrance to heaven, while the Holy Eucharist, though not necessary for entrance, evidently will be administered, as Holy Communion, to all who are there, so that all may have life "abundantly," "eternal," and "full." This day of glory will be the "Omega" of our bodily resurrection. The Body of Christ is the principle of our total deification which will follow upon our resurrection unto glory. The effect of this Communion will be an eternal one.

The Blessed Eucharist, as Holy Communion, physically unites us, in a temporary sense, with the Mystical Body of Christ while we are on earth (in via), and, in the fullest sense, with Jesus Christ when we are in heaven (in Patria). Thus, the receiving of the Holy Eucharist is absolutely necessary if we are to attain, to the highest degree of perfection, Eternal Life with and in Our Lord God, Jesus Christ, in heaven.

This wonderful journey from earth to heaven begins, for each of us, with the sacrament of Baptism and the entitlement it gives us to all of the other sacraments. And it is perfectly consummated when we drink of the Chalice of Christ’s Eternal-Life-giving Blood, with Him, in the Kingdom of His Father.

Baptized infants, then, who die before receiving the Holy Eucharist, will receive Holy Communion in Heaven. Indeed, if they are to have Eternal Life, Holy Communion in Heaven will be just as necessary for these infants as it will be for all of the Just who died before Christ’s coming.*

* None of the Old Testament saints were baptized. So, the question arises: How will they be able to

receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in Heaven? The answer: There will be no sacraments in Heaven, but there will be the Holy Eucharist as Holy Communion. For further discussion of this point, see our reply to Father Laisney which follows immediately.

This was Father Feeney’s speculative theology on the Holy Eucharist as presented in his beautiful book, Bread of Life. At the request of Pope John XXIII, Bread of Life was thoroughly searched for doctrinal errors by a Monsignor Francis Cassano of New York State. This happened sometime around l960. As the Monsignor later informed us, he reported back to the Holy Father that Father Feeney’s Bread of Life contained nothing contrary to the Catholic Faith.

E. The Holy Eucharist and The Mystical Body of Christ

Page 29: Objecting to Father Feeney’s explanation of how the Holy Eucharist makes one a child of Mary, Father Laisney says: "These words are at least offensive to the pious ear. The Church rather taught that by Baptism one was incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ, and thus became not only a son of God, but also a child of Mary."

Here, Father Laisney simply disagrees with Father Feeney’s speculative theology on the deep ontological effects of the Holy Eucharist when received in Holy Communion. He is free to disagree, but to call this theology "offensive to the pious ear" bespeaks the presumption of a textbook theologian.

Let us look at the quotes from Father Feeney to which he refers. The reader can then decide for himself how "offensive" they are. They are taken from Chapter V of Bread of Life, entitled "The Great Gift of God."

First, the reader should know what Father had said just prior to the quotes cited. He was explaining the Holy Eucharist as that "Great Gift." He had already described the four aspects, or purposes, of the Eucharist: 1) as a Sacrifice, it is God (Jesus) offering Himself to God (the Father) in propitiation for the sins of men, of whom He is now one; 2) as the Real Presence, It is God, Our Emmanuel, physically, truly on the altars and in the tabernacles of every Catholic Church in the world; God, Whom we can visit and adore almost anytime we wish; 3) as a Sacrament, it is God Whom we can consume under the sacramental veil of bread or wine; and 4) as Holy Communion, it is God absorbing us into His human nature.

Now, listen to Father Feeney:

There may be something lacking in my heart in its appreciation of the Sacrifice of the Mass as a sacrifice to God. There may be distractions in my mind which make me forget the Real Presence, so that I may not be constantly kneeling before the tabernacle. There is something transient, quickly passing, in the Blessed Sacrament, that when the eating is finished, I might forget It.

But, by reason of Holy Communion, I know at every moment that Jesus and I are still one; that where I go now, He goes; that whoever hurts me, hurts Him; whoever loves

me, loves Him. . . . I am one flesh and blood with Him.

. . .When you are equalized with Jesus through the nature which you and He have in common, then the Divine Person is with you by reason of that nature. And that, to my mind, is the big feature of the Blessed Eucharist that has been lost.

That loss, to my mind, is the explanation for all of the indefinite, vague talk about the Mystical Body of Christ. Incorporation into the human nature of Jesus Christ through the reception of the Blessed Eucharist makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ, or else I do not know the meaning of the term. I do not know why we call it the Mystical Body of Christ, if that is not so!

No other sacrament unites us with the human nature of Jesus in substance — with His Body and His Blood. Our union with the physical Body of a Divine Person is what makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ. . . . When the Word became flesh, He took a body — from the substance of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That Body is not yet the Mystical Body. When He assimilated the bodies of other men into His own, through the Blessed Eucharist in Holy Communion, when He made these bodies His members and Himself their Head. . . then, and only then, as the fruit of this sublime communion of Body with body, Flesh with flesh, and Blood with blood, can we speak of the Mystical Body of Christ. That is why Saint Paul said, ". . . and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ. . . " (Col. 1:24).

When our union with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is loved and realized — when we know that we are, in Holy Communion, plunged in the Sacred Heart, in the Blood of Jesus — we can say and mean the prayer of thanksgiving after Mass and Holy Communion:

Soul of Christ, be my sanctification; Body of Christ, be my salvation; Blood of Christ, fill all my veins.

In His revelations to Saint Margaret Mary [1675], the Sacred Heart was referring chiefly and uniquely to Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Our Lord knew that those who had taken His Body and Blood into their mouths — into their being — had not been conscious through Faith of the great heartbeat of Incarnational love for them in His Sacred Heart. It is not the Sacred Heart imagined, that Jesus wants of us, but the Sacred Heart realized: the Sacred Heart realized by concorporeal union with Him. Two hearts in one human breast, and one heart entirely unmindful of the Other, is the hardship that the Sacred Heart has to bear.

. . . imagine that same Jesus — the Way, the Truth and the Life — entering your door, coming through the portals of your lips into your heart and abiding physically there, tabernacled in your breast — and your having any other interest in the world before Him!. . . You may say that many people do not know about the Blessed Eucharist. I answer: It is our obligation to tell them! The Blessed Eucharist is supposed to be like a city on a hill. It is supposed to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth. It is the Light of the World, the Salt of the Earth! Everything you get from a Catholic should be salted with that interest. Everything you see in a Catholic’s eyes should shine with that light.

Those are the things Our Lord said on the Mount of the Beatitudes, in His beautiful discourse there. The top peak of His utterance, in the Sermon on the Mount, was an appeal to "Our Father" to give us this day our "supersubstantial bread."

We have presented these lengthy quotes from Father Feeney in order to help the reader better understand his deep and beautiful thoughts about the Holy Eucharist.

He was here explaining, from an ontological point of view, the almost unbelievable workings of the Holy Eucharist in uniting the whole of man — his body as well as his soul — with the very Being of our Incarnate God, Jesus Christ.

The above remarks by Father Feeney immediately preceded the passage which Father Laisney partially quoted. Let us now look at the entire passage so the reader may be able to determine whether or not it is "offensive to the pious ear." After the reference to "supersubstantial bread," Father Feeney continues:

I am now going to say a simple, strong and clear thing about the Blessed Eucharist. I think that Baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think that the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. Baptism, being from the merits of Christ who was the Child of Mary, you get through the co-redemptive merits of Mary, by her motherly adoption of you. You also get it from her as Intercessor, as Mediatrix of All Graces. Without her there would be no Christ to institute Baptism to remit original sin. She is, therefore, the Mediatrix, the remote reason for our having Baptism. But when you speak of a mother as a "remote reason," you know you have not got a mother at hand.

Our Lady is the Queen of Baptism. But she is the Mother of the Eucharist. What happens to those children who die between Baptism and Holy Eucharist? They are in the state of grace, which state of grace has been won for them by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus in suffering in union with the Divine nature of the Word. It has been won for them out of the treasury of suffering of Jesus and Mary. Baptism has taken these little children out of original sin and restored them to divine sonship, lost through Adam’s sin.

They go to the Beatific Vision. They are of the kingdom of Mary; but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as "those angels who died in infancy." They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but they do not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ in the quintessence of that beautiful word.

Baptism is the preparation and the liturgy. It is the inchoative Eucharist* — the beginning, the preparation for the Holy Eucharist. Baptism has as its purpose to make us sons of God — so that we can be incorporated with Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, and become the children of Mary’s womb!

And so I say: If a child dies after having received Baptism, he dies as the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary. When he gets his body back, at the end of the world, he has to drink of the Chalice in the Kingdom of his Father in order to be incorporated in flesh and blood with Jesus — and so become Mary’s child. There is no other way! But is it not beautiful?

How could anyone say that this truly beautiful, clear and understandable explanation of the Divine Wonder that is the Holy Eucharist is "at least offensive to the pious ear?" Here is a classic example of Father Feeney’s profound ability to teach Catholic doctrines in terms easily understood by the average man; an ability which — had Father not been silenced by his own Church and Order — could well have led to the conversion of America within this century.

It should be clear to the reader, from the passages from Bread of Life quoted above, that Father Feeney did not hold "the Eucharist is only of necessity of precept, not of

means,"** as our critic charged on page 31 of his booklet. If he had read the above passages carefully, he would have realized this. The Holy Eucharist is precisely the necessary means, and the only means, by which we become physically united with, and absorbed into, the human nature of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son and Child of Mary. Thus, we become more than Mary’s adopted son; we become her body and blood child as well.

* When Father says Baptism is the "inchoative Eucharist," he means it is the Eucharist just begun, in an early stage, incipient, or incompleted. For example: an acorn is an inchoative oak tree, but not yet an oak tree.

** It is a wonder that Father Laisney affirms a necessity which theologians call "means" to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, for in doing so he deviates from the textbooks. With the exception of the Summa of Saint Thomas, we are quite certain that nearly all theological manuals attribute a mere necessity of precept to the reception of the Great Sacrament. Regarding this very important qualification, the Society of Saint Pius X and Saint Benedict Center agree.In his letter to Doctor Coomaraswamy, Brother Michael erred by attributing only a necessity of precept to the Holy Eucharist. He was merely accepting the distinction as he learned it in theology from traditional (continued on next page) (from previous page) textbooks prior to his coming to the Center. He was not quoting Father Feeney.In Bread of Life, Father Feeney did not apply either of these technical notes, means or precept, to his teaching concerning the Eucharist, although he clearly inferred the former. Theology books seem to be unanimous in emphasizing that, with regard to Baptism, Our Savior addressed all men in the third person — "Unless a man. . . etc."; but with regard to the Sacrament of His Body, He addressed His adult audience, as adults, in the second person — "Except you. . . etc." Therefore these authors attribute a universal necessity (means) to Baptism, and a moral necessity (precept) to the Holy Eucharist.It is obvious from Father Feeney’s own words that he did not accept the necessity of the Holy Eucharist as being one of precept only.

Evidently, the incarnational thinking of Father Feeney is repugnant to the liberal-mindedness of "baptism of desire" devotees. They would probably also object to his explanation of how the Holy Eucharist, by physically uniting us with the human nature of Christ and, through Him, with each other, forms the Mystical Body of Christ "in the quintessence of that beautiful word." They think that everything about the Faith should be explained in terms of the spiritual — the soul — with very little regard for the body. Father Laisney wrote his booklet on "baptism of desire" from the "point of view of grace" and its effects on the soul. He accuses Father Feeney of putting "too much emphasis on the exterior belonging to the Church" and the "externals," as he calls them. Coming from a priest who presents himself as an expert critic and judge of the "errors of Father Feeney," this is a strange statement, to say the least.

We do not have to defend the deep spirituality of Leonard Feeney. Anyone who knew him personally, or has read his writings, would be aware of the depth of his great soul. His greatness as a teacher and an inspiration to others is attested to by the large number of students who, under his direction, were "filled with a love for God which sent them into all the churches around for daily Mass, . . . which fired them to make sacrifices so heroic that they left homes, parents, prestiges — to face

disgrace, ignominy and persecution." These were the words of Sister Catherine Clarke, co-founder, with Father, of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and his long-time associate at Saint Benedict Center. Her appraisal of this spiritually deep and holy Catholic priest is confirmed by all who knew him well.

No, Father Feeney did not over-emphasize the externals of the Catholic Religion. Rather, he gave them the same emphasis that Christ gave them. He believed Our Lord meant every word He said when He told Nicodemus that a man must be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God. As a theologian, he constructed premises that led to the affirmation of dogmas, not their denial.

Page 30: "Father Feeney should have applied to Baptism the explanation beautifully exposed by Saint Thomas. The reader will notice that Saint Thomas refers to Baptism of desire! In this passage, Saint Thomas makes clear that the reality contained in the Sacrament (res sacramenti) is absolutely necessary in both cases of Baptism and Eucharist; yet before the reception of the exterior sign (sacramentum tantum), the reality of the sacrament can be had by the desire of it."

Then Father Laisney quotes Saint Thomas. Here is the main point of the Saint’s argument:

". . . And it has been said above that, before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before the actual reception of this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can obtain it before Baptism through the desire of Baptism."

Saint Thomas Aquinas is Father Laisney’s heaviest weapon. Here, the Angelic Doctor clearly states as a principle that, before receiving a sacrament, its reality can be had by a desire for the sacrament. Then he adds that salvation can be had by the desire for Baptism.

What about Holy Orders and Matrimony? Are they also available by desire, as Father Feeney asked? What about the feminists of today who claim they are priestesses "by desire?" Now that this Pandora’s Box has been opened, where do we draw the line?

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a very holy and brilliant man, but we must remember that he was canonized for his sanctity rather than his brilliance. He was never a pope. He was never infallible. He was theologically in error more than once. And we say he was clearly wrong on this matter of "desire" also.

Three hundred years after Saint Thomas wrote this opinion, the infallible Council of Trent declared otherwise. Ignoring his theories, it anathematized anyone who would hold that the sacraments (the outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace) were not necessary for salvation, or that the desire for them could not produce justification.

For our part, we are guided by the infallible pronouncements of the Church, not the

opinions of fallible theologians, holy and brilliant though they may be, when those opinions run counter to defined dogmas.

F. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

Page 32: There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, the other two are not sacraments, though they are called "baptism" because by them Christ gives the grace of Baptism.

Father Laisney is correct when he admits that there is only one sacrament of Baptism, but we disagree with his claim that "blood" or "desire" can effect the grace of the sacrament equally as well as water. The indelible character, our passport to heaven, is one of the graces of the sacrament, and it is not effected by desire.

First, we know that a sacrament is an outward, visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace. Therefore, since "desire" is, by its very nature, not an outward, visible sign, it should never be equated with a sacrament. The term "baptism of desire" is a very serious misnomer which has led the average Catholic to believe that it is a sacrament. Repeated often enough, by apparently responsible authorities and in apparently orthodox publications, it has led even bishops and priests to accept it as a sacrament.

The same should be said of "baptism of blood." These two terms, then, when added to the real sacrament of Baptism — by water — give rise to the equally fallacious term, "Three Baptisms." For over 100 years, since first published in 1885, the Baltimore Catechism has taught American Catholic children that there are three kinds of Baptism.

"So what!" some may say. "Why the fuss?"

The fuss, may we point out, is an extremely important one. In this day and age its importance is beyond measure! The Roman Catholic Church, in this final decade of the 20th century, is teetering on the brink of disaster. Its leaders are diabolically obsessed with the notion that it is not the only Ark of Salvation; that the Dogma of Faith, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, does not really mean what the Church has always said it means; that one need not actually be a member of the Catholic Church to get to Heaven.

The cause of this about-face in Catholic teaching is, and has been, the gradually developing belief that, beginning with Baptism, one can "desire" his acceptance into the Church with all of her treasures, while never submitting to the sweet yoke of her Faith and discipline. In other words, there is an "invisible" church with an "invisible" membership. We estimate that this is the belief of over ninety percent of today’s Catholics.

If Saint Thomas Aquinas were alive today and an eye witness to the devastation befalling the Church, thanks to the exaggerated authority being given to his opinion on "baptism of desire," would he not refine or "improve upon" what he had written over seven hundred years ago? Did he not build upon, improve upon, and at times even correct the opinions of saintly and canonized theologians who preceded him?

We can be certain that he would correct himself! Had he lived only 38 more years, he would have repudiated the "Three Baptisms" theory — which he, chiefly, helped to establish — when the Ecumenical Council of Vienne (1312) defined infallibly that all the faithful must confess only one Baptism, "the Sacrament conferred in water."

But Father Laisney considers it "presumptuous" for Father Feeney to offer such improvement. He even belittles his attempt to do so. Is he not aware of, or concerned with, the deadly serious plight of the Church today?

Yes, he is aware and concerned, up to a point, but he does not care to admit what caused the plight. This is equally true of his Society of Saint Pius X. Its members pay lip service to the dogma, but with no more appreciation of its importance, or understanding of its true meaning, than had Archbishop Lefebvre himself. The Archbishop was unquestionably a strong traditionalist, but on the key dogma of salvation he was just another victim of Catholic liberalism.

One has to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see that the theory of "baptism of desire," run amuck, is the root cause of the denial of the key dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This denial, in turn, is the root cause of the entire process of disintegration which is now eating away at the vitals of the Church.

If this disastrous situation is ever to be corrected, we must make a start by beginning to use clear and consistent theological terminology. A distinction must be made between a sacrament, and what it does, as opposed to a "desire" for a sacrament, and what it does not do. They are not equals, and they do not produce equal results.

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]G. The Tradition of the Fathers

Page 35: Referring to our objections to "baptism of desire," Father Laisney says: "Instead of all these efforts to minimize or revise this teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes, one should rather humbly hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes!"

We come now to the opinions on "baptism of desire" expressed by these Fathers, Doctors and some popes over the centuries. What does this historical evidence teach us?

Saint Vincent of Lerins, who died about the year 450, gave to the Church guiding principles which she has ever used in evaluating what is, and what is not, valid teaching in the Tradition of the Fathers. Here are excerpts from Saint Vincent:

It never was, is, or shall be lawful for Catholic Christians to teach any doctrine except that which they have received once and for all time; and it always was, is, and shall be their duty to condemn those who do . . . Moreover, in the Church itself, every possible care must be taken to hold fast to that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone. . . He is a genuine Catholic who continues steadfast and well-founded in the faith, who resolves that he will believe those things — and only those things — which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

Hold fast to that Faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone. With this principle as our guide, we strongly contest the constantly repeated claim that "baptism of desire" is a "doctrine of the Fathers."

Nowhere in Holy Scripture is it found as a teaching of Christ. Neither did the Twelve Apostles nor Saint Paul teach it. In the Acts of the Apostles, three miraculous interventions involving Baptism are related — Cornelius the Centurion, the Eunuch of Candace, and Saul of Tarsus — and in each case, not only is the action of Divine Providence abundantly evident, but the individuals concerned are obliged to be baptized with water even though their intention to do the will of God had already put them into the state of sanctifying grace, the state called justification.

The Apostolic Age ended in the year A.D. 100 with the death of Saint John the Evangelist, the last of the Apostles. The Roman Persecutions had already begun under Nero in the year A.D. 64. The tenth, and last, under Diocletian and his successors, ended with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. During those two and one-half centuries there were some eleven million martyrs, of whom a very small handful — fifteen to twenty — are cited as examples of "baptism of blood." We shall discuss them later.

When the constant threat of martyrdom was finally eliminated from Christian life, the possibility of salvation for catechumens, who died from causes other than martyrdom prior to being baptized, became a matter of concern for the saintly theologians of that time who are now called "Fathers of the Church." Generally speaking, the time period of these Fathers lasted from A.D. 100 to about A.D. 750, the years of the "youth" of the Church.

Saint Ambrose and Valentinian

An often used example of a candidate for supposed "baptism of desire" was the young Roman Emperor, Valentinian II, a catechumen who, at the age of twenty, was assassinated in the year 392. He had planned to be baptized in Milan by his dear friend, Saint Ambrose. The memorial oration delivered by the Saint is constantly cited as a "proof" that the early Church believed in "baptism of desire." The quote from the oration usually begins with these words:

But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism . . .

Let us stop Saint Ambrose at this point and reflect on what he just said. All of the faithful assembled for the memorial service are grieved. Why are they grieved? Saint Ambrose says they are grieved because there is no evidence that the Emperor, a known catechumen, had been baptized before his death. But if "baptism of desire" was something contained in the "Deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why would they be grieved? Did not Valentinian earnestly desire Baptism?

These faithful were grieved because they had been taught, and therefore believed, that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Their teacher was their Bishop, Saint Ambrose. In his written commentary on Baptism, Ambrose stated without equivocation:

One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for "Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom." Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace. (De Mysteriis, From the Divine Office)

However, the fact remains that Saint Ambrose seems to contradict the above words when, in the funeral oration, he asks, "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?"And then concludes, "Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it."

Is this final statement by Saint Ambrose conclusive proof that he believed also in "baptism of desire," thus contradicting what he stated in De Mysteriis?

No, we do not think it is conclusive proof. And we are not alone in that opinion. Father Jacques Paul Migne (died l875), one of the great authorities on patrology in the last century, maintains that Saint Ambrose was not proposing a new doctrine on Baptism. Father Migne writes: "From among the Catholic Fathers perhaps no one insists more than Ambrose on the absolute necessity of receiving Baptism, in various places, but especially in Book II De Abraham; Sermon 2 In Psal; and the book De Mysteriis." And that Saint Ambrose meant the sacrament of Baptism with water is made abundantly clear in all of his writings, as the above quote from De Mysteriis demonstrates. However, just exactly what he meant by his words at the funeral, we may never know, but we are, certainly, legitimately permitted to assume that it was not his intention to contradict, in an emotionally charged eulogy, what he had written with much thought and precision in De Mysteriis and elsewhere.

Father Laisney says that we have no right to make such assumptions. We disagree! Not only do we have the right, we have the duty to use our God-given faculty of reason — the power of comprehending and inferring — which is vital if we are to arrive at the truth of these controverted matters. Despite his protests, we will continue to look at all the evidence available in these reputed examples of

baptism by desire or blood, our only purpose being to learn the whole truth.

So we say this: Neither Saint Ambrose, nor anyone else other than Almighty God, could ever say with absolute certainty that Valentinian had never been baptized. The year was 392, 79 years after the Edict of Milan. By this time, Christians in the Empire must have been a great majority, for just two years later Theodosius I, emperor in the East, declared Christianity to be the Faith of the Empire, and 30 years later the emperor Theodosius II declared that there were hardly any pagans left in his dominions. When Valentinian marched to Vienne for a showdown with a disloyal aide, Arbogast, a pagan Frank who had usurped imperial authority in Gaul, he was assassinated, apparently in Vienne.

Certainly it is safe to assume that he, the Emperor, embarked on this mission to Vienne, some 200 miles distance from Milan, not alone, but in the company of an armed guard of considerable size, perhaps even an army. And in that guard or army would have been many Christians, most of whom would have known of Valentinian’s resolve to be baptized, for it was no secret, and any one of whom could have baptized him before he died.

But if this had not happened, if Valentinian, in fact, had not been baptized by a soldier, Bishop Ambrose — with a faith in God that can move mountains — could still have found it appropriate to console the assembled mourners with these reassuring words: "Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it." These words would not have been a "false" assurance to worried catechumens, as our critic contends, but, rather, a confirmation by the Holy Bishop of his total faith in the promise of Christ: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you."

Here is how we would explain this incident: Valentinian was asking, seeking and knocking for the sacrament of Baptism. He was prevented by a sudden, unexpected death from receiving it solemnly at the hands of his Bishop. But no death is ever "sudden" or "unexpected" to God. If Valentinian was a worthy catechumen, as Ambrose believed he was, God got the saving waters to him somewhere and sometime before he died. Thus, with total confidence in Divine Providence, Ambrose could say: "Certainly, . . . he obtained it," for this is exactly what Father Leonard Feeney would have said had Valentinian been his catechumen!

A Poll of the Fathers

Saint Ambrose died in A.D.397, the very end of the fourth century. Before and after his time, there lived hundreds of holy men and saints who are called "Fathers of the Church." Tixeront, in his classic Handbook of Patrology, lists over five hundred whose names and writings have come down to us.

Michael Malone, author of the splendid reference book, The Apostolic Digest, has spent many years researching the works of these Fathers that have been translated into English, especially their writings pertaining, or relating, to the

dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. In what he calls a "Poll of the Fathers," he tabulates the different opinions on baptism by water, blood and desire as recorded by eleven of these holy men. Listed chronologically by year of death, the eleven are:

Tertullian. . . . . . . . . circa 220 St. Cyprian. . . . . . . . . . . .258 St. Basil the Great. . . . . . .379 St. Cyril of Jerusalem. .. . .386 St. Gregory Nazianzen. . .389 St. Ambrose. . . . . . . . . . .397

St. John Chrysostom . . . . . 407 St. Augustine . . .. . . . . . . . 430St. Prosper of Aquitaine. .. . 463St. Fulgentius . . . . . . . . . . . 533St. Bede . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 735

As we discuss the opinions expressed by these Fathers, the reader should keep in mind that they were referring only to catechumens, persons undergoing instruction preparatory to the reception of Baptism and admission into the Church. That anyone else could qualify for salvation without first receiving the sacrament of Baptism, was never considered as even a possibility.

All eleven of these Fathers, of course, said that Baptism of water was the first requirement for Salvation.

All eleven maintained that a martyr went directly to heaven regardless, apparently, of whether or not he had been baptized with water.

Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine also held that "desire" replaced the need for Baptism of water.

All of these Fathers seemed to contradict themselves in other places, or were explicitly contradicted by other writers who claimed they meant otherwise. St. Augustine, for instance, constantly expressed fear for the fate of catechumens who died before Baptism. He felt certain that they were lost.

As discussed above, St. Ambrose’ support, if any, for baptism of desire is based solely on his eulogy of Valentinian and is specifically contested by Father Migne.

In support of the "Baptism of water only" category must go the remainder of the thirty-six listed by Mr. Malone in The Apostolic Digest, as well as the mass of the Fathers catalogued by Tixeront. This consensus is tantamount to Divine Revelation. Although some made "general" statements as to the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, very many were absolute in pressing for its essential need for salvation, some even to the specific denial of any other means. Here, for instance, is St. Gregory Nazianzen, the great Eastern Doctor of the Church:

Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. . . . Others know and honor the gift of Baptism; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they desire it . . .

I think the first group will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less, because it was not through wickedness so much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will neither be glorified nor punished by the Just Judge; for, although they are un-Sealed, they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as ones who have suffered a loss . . .

If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? . . .

If you prefer, we will put it this way: if, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to Glory. You would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual Glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it! (our emphasis)

Now consider this, dear reader: If baptism by desire were truly an Apostolic doctrine, would this great fourth century Doctor of the Church have contested it so vehemently? No way!

In his book, The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation, Abbott Jerome Theisen, O.S.B., a priest who is by no means a traditionalist, states that neither Saint John Chrysostom nor any of the Cappadocian Fathers thought that salvation was possible for catechumens who died before being baptized.

In the third volume of his series entitled Faith of Our Fathers, Father William A. Jurgens writes:

"If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again . . . etc.’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation."

Father Jurgens evidently supports the "baptism of desire" theory, as his words "the obvious exceptions" imply, but possibly against his better judgment. For we know that Our Savior, indeed, did not see fit to mention "the obvious exceptions." Yet, if exceptions to the universal necessity of the sacrament of Baptism were allowable, Christ would certainly have made them explicitly clear, just as He did concerning the sacrament of Matrimony: . . . whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

What are we to learn from these facts presented thus far? It should be clear to us that, during the early centuries of the youth of the Church, there was no unanimity

among the Fathers in their opinions on so-called "baptism by desire." Some were for it; more appear to have been against it; and most taught and practiced simply in conformity with Our Lord’s prescription — Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost. The idea that desire could replace water for the Sacrament was not believed everywhere, always, and by everyone. To claim, therefore, that "baptism of desire" was a constant tradition of the Fathers is a serious misrepresentation of Church history and Tradition, and to censure those who object to this misrepresentation is an equally serious injustice.

The Decision of Trent

But to conclude this discussion of what is and what is not the true "Tradition of the Fathers," we have only to refer back, once again, to the infallible pronouncements of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Everything that had ever been said or written, prior to the Council, about the necessity of Baptism for salvation must be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of its conformity or lack of conformity with the solemn and irreformable decrees promulgated by that Council, regardless of the authority or saintliness of any previous speaker or writer.

In an earlier reply, we discussed the pertinent Canons of Trent, and quoted them verbatim. Let us now look at them once again. We have slightly rearranged the wording of the first, Canon IV, to emphasize, but not change, its obvious meaning. For the original arrangement, refer back to page 116.

Canon IV [On the Sacraments in General]: If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; let him be anathema.

If anyone saith that without the sacraments of the New Law, or without a vow to receive them, men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Our emphasis)

Canon II [On Baptism]: If anyone saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost;" let him be anathema.

Canon V [On Baptism]: If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

In the face of these solemn and infallible decrees of the Council of Trent, it simply is not licit for any Catholic to cite its authority in support of any of the following errors:

a) Water is not absolutely necessary for Baptism, but may be replaced by a desire for the sacrament. b) The desire for the sacrament provides not only the grace of justification, but it is also sufficient for salvation. c) The sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation. d) At the Council of Trent, the dogma of salvation by means of "baptism by desire" was solemnly defined; thus, actual membership in

the Church is not required for salvation.

To give the reader a better understanding of the utterly dishonest methods being used today to "canonize" this theory of baptism by desire and, thereby, ultimately to reduce Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus "to a meaningless formula," we cite two current and "respected" sources wherein the last-named error (d) is boldly proclaimed:

The first is The Catholic Catechism, by John A. Hardon, S.J. (1975). On page 235 we read this incredible sentence:

At the Council of Trent, which is commonly looked upon as a symbol of Catholic unwillingness to compromise, the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one’s eternal destiny.

Such a brazen misrepresentation of what the Fathers of Trent actually said is mind-boggling! Yes, baptism in voto was solemnly defined — for justification only, not salvation! But we notice that the "Prefatory Note" to this catechism was written by John Cardinal Wright who, as Auxiliary Bishop to Archbishop Cushing in 1949, was the "man behind the throne" in the silencing of Father Feeney.

The second source is "Catholic Replies," a regular feature in The Wanderer. In this column for the March 19, l992 issue, the editor responded as follows to a question concerning the validity of baptism of desire for salvation: "Baptism of desire was taught by the Council of Trent in the 16th century . . ."

The most charitable comment we can make about the authors of these incredible statements is that they simply misunderstand the decrees of Trent. But, since they represent themselves as authorities on Church teachings, they have a solemn responsibility before God not to misunderstand. In their present state, they are merely unwitting spokesmen for the "Department of Disinformation" of the modernist conspiracy against the Church.

Trent stated clearly enough the distinction between justification and salvation. This distinction is a serious obstacle to the plans of the conspiracy to destroy the uniqueness of the Church by making it appear that salvation is available to all men through the simple medium of "desire." So, the technique the conspirators use is not to contradict Trent openly, for that would be too obvious and too dangerous to their cause, but to try to turn Trent to their advantage by repeating, over and over again — in books, pamphlets, newspapers, sermons, etc. — a big lie about what the Council really said; a lie that people eventually will come to believe.

Those of us who wish to defend the pristine purity of the Faith cannot compete in volume with the publication output of the modernists. All we can do is print the truth, and then rely on our readers to use their voices and pens in its defense at every opportunity, for truth will ultimately prevail!

We ask our readers to examine, once more, the Canons of the Council of Trent given above, and then to decide whether or not their answers to the following questions agree with ours:

1. Did Trent define that the sacrament of Baptism requires water?

We answer: absolutely!

2. Did Trent define that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation?

We answer: absolutely!

3. Did Trent define that desire for Baptism was equivalent to the sacrament and sufficient for salvation?

We answer: absolutely not!

There is no doubt that some of the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church postulated the theory of baptism by desire. There also is no doubt that the great Saint Thomas Aquinas gave his very influential support to the opinion in his Summa Theologica. Is that sufficient to believe it is valid Church teaching? Hear Pope Pius XII answer that question:

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. Certainly, the Church considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and accords them the highest praise, but the Church recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the 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 Spirit, is the source of truth. ("Allocution to the Gregorian," October 17, 1953)

Because the Council of Trent disregarded the opinion of Saint Thomas and some early Church Fathers that the desire for the sacrament of Baptism was just as effective as receiving the sacrament itself, we disregard it.

Like Saint Gregory Nazianzen, we disagree with the opinion of Saint Thomas that, in principle, desire replaces the act itself. If Saint Thomas is correct, then all the other sacraments — Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders and Matrimony included — may be had by desire. Imagine the chaos that would then result in the Church and in society in general! Already we are witnessing chaotic consequences brought on by a falsely represented "Church teaching" on just baptism by desire.

In our opinion, "baptism of desire" — as it is taught and understood today — is a dangerous, confusing theory which has been introduced into Sacramental Theology. We pray that, some day soon, Holy Mother Church will see fit to address this issue, define against it, anathematize its abuses, and thus end all confusion and debate.

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]H. Catholic Replies by James J. Drummey

Since we have just mentioned this question box column which is a regular feature in The Wanderer, we will divert our attention from Father Laisney’s booklet long enough to consider some of the replies given by Mr. Drummey. His column enjoys a large readership; for that reason alone, he should be meticulously objective in the answers he gives to questions about the Faith. Unfortunately, whenever a question concerns Father Leonard Feeney or the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, a bias is evident. In The Wanderer dated March 19, 1992, we read:

Question: "I just read a book (Letter to a Fallen-Away Catholic) that says Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are false teachings that originated with Archbishop Gibbons of Baltimore in 1884 to make Roman Catholicism merge more freely with Americanism. Is this accurate?"

Mr. Drummey’s Reply: "No, it is not accurate. Baptism of desire was taught by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and both Baptism of blood (martyrdom) and desire were taught by St. Augustine in the fifth century. . . . "

Correction Please! — We have already pointed out that this answer concerning Trent is a serious falsification of fact (see page 139). It is true that Saint Augustine and certain other Fathers of the Church held for Baptism of desire and blood, and that, in the 13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed with them. But the opinions of these theologians were disregarded by Trent in the 16th century when it declared infallibly that the desire for Baptism effected only justification, and that Baptism by water was necessary for salvation.

Letter to a Fallen-Away Catholic is an excellent 110 page booklet which we highly recommend. It has been very effective in reawakening the Faith in lapsed Catholics. It does not say that the theories on Baptism by desire or blood "originated" with Cardinal Gibbons, but that they were given undeserved status by being presented in the Baltimore Catechism as substitutes for the sacrament of Baptism.

Question: Does the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" mean that all non-Catholics who are good-living people are destined for eternal damnation? I find this hard to understand. What is the answer?

Mr. Drummey’s Reply: ". . . everyone’s salvation — Catholic and non-Catholic — is through the Catholic Church, either as faithful members of the Church (Baptism of water), or as good-living persons who give their life for Christ (Baptism of blood) or who would belong to the Catholic Church (Baptism of desire) if they knew it was the

true Church founded by Jesus Christ to help us get to Heaven."

Correction Please! — Mr. Drummey also finds this dogma hard to understand. It embarrasses today’s false ecumenists. So, in typical liberal fashion, he renders it meaningless by saying that non-Catholics may be saved provided they are "good-living persons" who receive Baptism by "blood" or — mind you, without even knowing it — by "desire," thereby qualifying for salvation, somehow through the Church.

This is not what the Church has always taught. Here again are the solemn declarations of Popes:

There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. (Solemnly defined by Pope Innocent III, 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. (Solemnly defined by Pope Boniface VIII, 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. (Solemnly defined by Pope Eugene IV, 1441)

[Condemned proposition] #15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion. [Condemned proposition] #17: We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ. (Syllabus of Modern Errors, Pope Pius IX, 1864)

Mr. Drummey’s answer conflicts with all of these solemn papal pronouncements. Each one of them is an infallible, objective truth, not subject to anyone’s personal opinion, not even a Pope’s! Wishing to be ecumenical and charitable, he leads his readers off the straight and narrow path onto the broad way to destruction — all in the name of the theory of "desire"! One could not be more uncharitable!

But what about these "good-living people" who are not in the Church? What is their position relative to salvation? Are they really "destined for eternal damnation?" What are the requirements they must meet in order to be saved?

People who follow the "lights" of truth and obey the natural moral law, given to all men by God, are indeed cooperating with their Creator’s plan to bring them to salvation. If they persevere in this naturally good state of righteousness, God will provide all that is supernaturally required to be saved. No man is "destined" to

damnation.

What are those supernatural requirements? Our Lord revealed them clearly in the precepts He gave His Church:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;. . . (Matt. 28:19,20)

Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:15,16)

Christ commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations; their leader was Peter, the Rock, upon whom Our Lord built His Church, and to whom He gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power to bind and loose.

These Apostles were the human foundation of the Christian Church, against which the gates of hell would never prevail, and which has always been the Roman Catholic Church. This is the Church to which, Christ said, every man must listen lest he be as the heathen and the publican. (Matthew 18:17)

Hence, we see that the requirements for salvation laid down by Christ are:

1. Faith — belief in all things the Catholic Church teaches, which are . . . all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

2. Baptism — sacramental incorporation into the Body of Christ, which is His Church. This enables the benefits of all the other sacraments necessary for salvation.

3. Subjection to the proper authority of the Church, especially the person of the reigning Roman Pontiff. Anyone who rejects this authority is to be treated as "the heathen and the publican."

In his book, Letters From The Saints, Fr. Claude Williamson quotes Saint Robert Bellarmine:

I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart on your reception into the Catholic Church, outside which there is no salvation. . . . The Church is only one, and this one true Church is the congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors and especially under the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. From this definition, it can easily be ascertained which men belong to the Church and which do not. For there are three parts to this definition:

1) the profession of the true Faith, 2) the communion of the Sacraments, 3) and subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Pope.

By reason of the first part, all infidels are excluded, as well as those who have never been in the Church, such as Jews, Mohammedans, and pagans, and such as have

been in the Church but fallen away, such as heretics and apostates.

By reason of the second part, catechumens and excommunicates are excluded, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the Sacraments and the latter have been cut off from them.

By reason of the third part, schismatics are excluded, who have faith and sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful Pastor, the Roman Pontiff; therefore, they profess faith and receive Sacraments outside the Church.

If there are any "good-living people" of good will among these three groupings of people who do not belong to His Church, and if their resolve to do His will is sincere in all respects, Almighty God knows who they are and where they are. If they are asking, and seeking, and knocking, He will reward their efforts by providing them with whatever they need to know, and to do, for entry into the visible Church.

In the meantime, it is the duty of every Catholic to evangelize non-Catholics, not to lull them into a death-sleep of complacency by assuring them that their sincerity is some sort of holy and admirable substitute for Divine Faith.

Mr. Drummey’s Reply (continued): To interpret the doctrine literally, as you suggest, would be to damn for all eternity hundreds of millions who have lived and died without ever knowing of the Catholic Church, including, for example, all the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere before 1492. . . . This is not to deny the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church. . . .

Correction Please! — Sentimentalism now overcomes Mr. Drummey’s Catholic good sense. He succumbs to a cardinal principle of Catholic liberalism which holds that bothersome doctrines of the Church are never to be interpreted literally. Liberals abhor language that is cut and dried — and dogmatic!

The very purpose of a Papal definition is to remove all ambiguity about a doctrine, to make clear its limitations, and to end all debate about its exact meaning. Popes do not define so that theologians may continue to theorize about what they have said; they define in order to halt such speculation!

That is why the words used by Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Eugene IV, in the definitions quoted above, are so precise and unmistakable in meaning. And that is what gives liberals, like Mr. Drummey, such a big problem with the Dogma of Faith. The sentimental natures of liberal Catholics rebel against this defined dogma because it seems so unfair to them, so unjust on God’s part to condemn those millions who, they presume, had no chance to gain salvation. Therefore, they refuse to accept the dogma in the clear sense expounded by the words employed in the definitions.

First, we must note that comparatively few men will be worthy of admittance to the Beatific Vision. This is the testimony of Christ Himself:

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who enter by it. How narrow is the gate, and strait

is the way, which leadeth to life: and few there are who find it! (Matthew 7:13 - 14)

That the overwhelming majority of men will be damned has been the common opinion of popes and saints down through the ages:

The more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer with them in patience; for on the threshing floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high are the piles of chaff burned with fire. (Pope Saint Gregory the Great — died 604)

What do you think? How many of the inhabitants of this city may perhaps be saved? What I am about to say is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants, not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! (Saint John Chrysostom — died 404)

I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous. (Again, Saint John Chrysostom)

The number of the Elect is so small — so small —that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world! (Saint Louis Marie de Montfort — died 1716)

The greater number of Christians today are damned. The destiny of those dying on one day is that very few — not as many as ten — went straight to Heaven; many remained in Purgatory; and those cast into Hell were as numerous as snowflakes in mid-winter. (Blessed Anna Maria Taigi — died 1837)

The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed. (Saint John Marie Vianney — died 1859)

So many people are going to die, and almost all of them are going to Hell! So many people falling into Hell! (Venerable Jacinta of Fatima — died 1920)

The "hundreds of millions who have lived and died without ever knowing of the Catholic Church," is the same perplexing statistic that motivated Pelagius to reject the doctrine of original sin. In our issue of Res Fidei, "On Exonerating Pelagius," Brother Thomas Mary Sennott quoted from a letter written by Saint Jerome in which the saint shows his scorn for Pelagius’ attempt to preside over the Providence of God. Addressing the heretic, he writes:

But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21).

Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother’s womb: I loved Jacob but I hated Esau (Malachi 1:2,3).

It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question, but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God’s

knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask.

To God be the power, and He does not need you as His advocate.

The answer to this humanly unanswerable question of the "hundreds of millions" who never heard of Christ, or His Church, is not to propose theories like "desire," that may lead to the contradiction of defined doctrines like Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation. The answer, rather, is to place complete confidence in the Providence of God, as Saint Jerome says Saint Paul did, and as Saint Thomas Aquinas himself did:

For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Disputed Questions on Truth)

And, most certainly, as Father Leonard Feeney did!

That this confidence in the Providence of God is not misplaced, even with regard to "all the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere before 1492" (as Mr. Drummey imagines), is clearly demonstrated by Brother Thomas Mary in an article written a few years ago entitled "The Salvation of the Pre-Columbian Amerindians." Brother writes:

Saint John de Brebeuf (died 1649), the great apostle of the Algonquins and the Hurons, was very pessimistic about the salvation of the Indians for whom he laid down his life: "There are some indications that they formerly had some more-than-natural knowledge of the true God, as may be seen in the details of their fables. But, not willing to revere God in their manners and actions, they have lost the thought of Him, and have become worse than beasts in His sight, and in the respect they have for Him."

But what of an Indian of good will who would be willing to believe, and do, all that Saint John taught him, but who lived between Pentecost and the coming of the missionaries? God, in His Divine Providence, is not limited to ordinary means — the missionaries — to furnish people of good will with the means of salvation, but can also resort to extraordinary means. . . .

The most remarkable instance of Divine Providence’s use of extraordinary means in our particular case, is the amazing, thoroughly documented, story of Venerable Mary of Agreda (died 1665). This humble nun, while praying in her convent in Spain, was miraculously transported to America, and preached to various tribes, some a thousand miles apart, from Texas to the Pacific, before the arrival of the missionaries.

. . . recent archaeological evidence has indicated that the ordinary means were also furnished to the Amerindians during the period between Pentecost and the arrival of Columbus. In a series of remarkable books, . . . the epigrapher, Barry Fell, has presented the archeological evidence for this claim. He writes:

"Christian relics are widespread in America as the illustrations to this chapter explain. But we also find records of Christian flight to the New World among the inscriptions on the rocks of North Africa. A notable one is the very long text. . . engraved by a monk who had actually returned to Morroco from America, leaving his comrades behind in the wilderness; they had fled to escape the attentions of the Vandals in the

fifth century of our era. Other texts from Nova Scotia, Connecticut, and places on the west coast of Canada and the United States, tell us that small colonies of Christians had come here at various times. . . The epigraphic evidence of ancient Christians in North America is unimpeachable."

Of the many petroglyphs (rock carvings) that Barry Fell has deciphered, my favorite is one called the "Horse Creek Petroglyph," which was discovered in West Virginia. It is written in Old Irish, in an ancient script called Ogam, and apparently dates from the sixth to the eighth centuries A.D.:

"A happy season is Christmas, a time of joy and goodwill to all people. A virgin was with child; God ordained her to conceive and be fruitful. Ah, behold a miracle! She gave birth to a son in a cave. The name of the cave was the Cave of Bethlehem. His foster father gave Him the name Jesus, the Christ, Alpha and Omega. Festive season of prayer."

Here we have solid evidence that God did not abandon, for some 1500 years, whatever were the numbers of those who had first migrated to the Western Hemisphere from Europe, Africa and Asia. Just how extensively He provided for those isolated peoples, we do not know. But we do know, with the certainty of faith, that any Amerindians of good will, who strove to live according to the natural law which God had written in their hearts, were the beneficiaries of His Particular Providence.

God will always send "Peter" to any "Cornelius" who needs him!

In the final sentence of his reply, Mr. Drummey protests that his teaching does no harm to the unique status of the Church:

This is not to deny the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church.

To which we hasten to add: But it is to deny the infallibly defined dogma of that One True Church that, outside her, there is no salvation!

In The Wanderer dated November 19, 1992, we read:

Question: "I am interested in the fate of the controversial Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney, who taught that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I know that the Holy Office of the Vatican in 1949 presented an explicit explanation of the Church’s teaching on salvation. What is this teaching exactly and what happened to Fr. Feeney?"

Mr. Drummey’s Reply: "It is true that the Holy Office, in a letter to then-Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston, condemned Fr. Feeney’s teaching that one had to be on the register of a Catholic parish in order to be saved."

Correction Please! — What Mr. Drummey presents as "Fr. Feeney’s teaching" is a total fabrication, borrowed from his fellow liberal and contributor to The Wanderer, Fr. William G. Most. Both of them know full well that Father Feeney was teaching exactly what the whole Church had taught for almost twenty centuries, and in exactly the same manner. If he were totally, objectively honest in this matter, Mr.

Drummey would have reminded his readers of this historical fact.

But deliberately to reduce Father’s position to such an absurdity — the need to be on the register of a local parish — knowing that trusting readers will accept it as factual, is nothing less than a calumny! It appears that some Catholic columnists, like some Catholic politicians, lose their sense of moral responsibility while plying their trade.

Father Feeney was concerned that one’s name be recorded, but it was not on a parish register — it was in the Book of Life!

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]The Escalation of Deception:

From Mystici Corporis — to the Protocol — to Vatican II

Mr. Drummey’s Reply (continued): Quoting from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, the letter [Protocol #122/49] said that people can be saved "by an unconscious desire and longing" that gives them "a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer (n. 103)."

Correction Please! — First, let us look at Mystici Corporis to see if the Protocol Letter presents accurately what the Pope said. Near the end of this encyclical, the Holy Father requests the prayers of the whole Church for the return to the Mystical Body of Christ of non-Catholics, "both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from us. . . " Here is the usual, but faulty, translation of the key sentences:

We ask each and every one of them to be quick and ready to follow the interior movements of grace, and to look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though unsuspectingly they are related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church. May they then enter into Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love. . . . We wait for them with open arms to return, not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s house. (emphasis ours)

Consider the first sentence. We think it very strange for the Holy Father to say that non-Catholics should "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation," as the translation would have us believe. The Pope appears to imply two things that are just not so: first, that non-Catholics have an outside chance of gaining salvation where they are; and second, that Catholics can be sure

of their salvation. Neither of these implications has ever been a teaching of the Church. In fact, the proposition that Catholics can be sure even of their justification was condemned by the Council of Trent. (Decree on Justification, Chapter IX)

But this is a weak, misleading translation. The original Latin reads: ". . . ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt;" Translated correctly, the Pope asks that non-Catholics be. . .

. . . zealous and eager to tear themselves out of that state in which it is not possible for them to be without fear regarding their eternal salvation.

The adjective securi means "free from care, unconcerned, fearless." So, we see that the urgent request of the Pope that they "tear themselves out of " their perilous situation has been minimized to "look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation."

Now, the second sentence: notice the phrase printed in italics. There is a deliberate mistranslation here which completely alters the obvious meaning of the Holy Father’s request. The Latin reads:

. . . quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur, . . .

The abused word is ordinentur. The book, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roy J. Deferrari, gives us the following meanings for the Latin verb ordino: "Ordino, are, avi, atum — (1) to order, to set in order, to arrange, to adjust, to dispose, (2) to ordain, . . . "

Since the Pope uses the subjunctive mood to express a contingency or uncertainty, not a fact, the translation should read:

For, even though they may be disposed toward (or ordained toward) the mystic Body of the Redeemer by a certain unknowing desire and resolution,. . .

In other words, the only thing this "certain unknowing desire and resolution" (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) may be doing for these non-Catholics is setting them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church. In no way does the Pope say, as fact, that they are "related" to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, much less "united" to It.

Here is how the entire paragraph should be translated:

We wish that they, each and every one of them, . . . may be zealous and eager to tear themselves out of that state in which it is not possible for them to be without fear regarding their eternal salvation. For, even though they may be ordained toward the mystic Body of the Redeemer by a certain unknowing desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can enjoy only in the Catholic Church. Let them, therefore, come back to Catholic unity, and united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ may they hasten to the one Head in the society of glorious love. . . . We wait for them with open arms to return, not

to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their Father’s house.

Notice how, in the final sentences, the Holy Father makes it clear that these non-Catholics of good will are not yet "united" to the Church. He says that they must "come back to Catholic unity" in order to be "united with us in the organic oneness of the Body of Jesus Christ."

By incorrectly translating ordinentur into "they are related to," instead of "they may be ordained toward," Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, the author of the Protocol letter to which Mr. Drummey refers, twists the words of Pope Pius XII to mean something he did not say. This is a major deception and could well be one of the reasons why the Cardinal and his colleagues in the Holy Office saw to it that this Letter #122/49 was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and, therefore, forfeits any binding effect as an act of the Holy See.

Nevertheless, in view of this deliberate mistranslation of Mystici Corporis and the deceitful use made of it in the Protocol Letter of the Holy Office, and in defense of the memory of Pope Pius XII, it certainly is now the duty of the Holy Congregation, at some time and in some manner, to correct the English mistranslation, and to order the removal of the "Letter" from Denzinger. Catholic honor and decency demand that this be done, for to this day, modernists use both of these pieces of disinformation in their unrelenting campaign to destroy the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. On page 133 of his scandalous book, Salvation Outside the Church?, published in 1992, Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. even adds to the deception by informing his readers that the key Latin verb used by Pius XII was ordinantur (indicative mood), which he says means "they can be related to."

Mr. Drummey’s Reply (continued): Vatican II repeated that teaching in paragraphs 14-16 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, particularly when it said: "Those also can attain to everlasting 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."

Correction Please! — If this were all that Vatican II said in these paragraphs, we would have to say that it erred seriously, and this text ought to be disregarded. But, remember, Vatican II was not a defining Council. It was a pastoral Council. Its lack of dogmatic authority was verified by Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II has repeatedly cautioned us that its many and varied declarations must always be viewed in the light of Tradition. (More sentences were written by the bishops at this one Council than at all the other twenty councils put together!)

But the Council did say more, and it is a very important "more" which Mr. Drummey fails to provide for his readers.

Before getting to that, and in order to make our point clear, let us review briefly the pertinent statements bearing on the Dogma of Faith which have been issued by the Vatican since the beginning of Saint Benedict Center in 1940:

1943 — Mystici Corporis: As just noted, Pope Pius XII is reported to have said that

certain non-Catholics are "unsuspectingly. . . related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer." We protest this translation of the Holy Father’s words because it is seriously defective. What he actually said was "they may be ordained toward," or "set in order for," this Body. This is important because "are related to" implies a certain affiliation with, while all other meanings indicate only possible preparation for entry into, the Church.

1949 — Protocol #122/49: Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani states in numbered paragraphs:

12. . . . that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing [our emphasis].

13. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire.

14. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter. . . by. . . Pope Pius XII, . . . On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire [our emphasis].

As American Indians would have put it, the Cardinal speaks with "a forked tongue." Pope Pius taught nothing of the kind, nor did he make any such distinction! We repeat: Ordinentur means "they may be disposed for." To say it means either "are related to" or "are united to" is a serious mistranslation. And to misrepresent what the Holy Father taught on this vital matter concerning membership in the Church is the height of deceit.

Father Feeney objected strongly to paragraphs 12 and 13. As we shall see now, Vatican Council II was obliged to concede that his objections were valid.

1964 — Vatican Council II: In the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen Gentium), Chapter II, paragraph 16, we find the words quoted above by Mr. Drummey:

Those also can attain to everlasting 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. (footnote 59)

The relating footnote 59 refers to the "Letter of Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston." It is clear, then, that this passage is a condensed version of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Protocol letter, with one very significant difference: the phrase "implicit desire" (votum implicitum), to which Father Feeney objected so strongly, has been eliminated.

Credit Father Feeney with a victory over paragraph 13 of Protocol Letter #122/49!

Back now to Mr. Drummey’s reply: He uses the statements of Vatican II in the same

dishonest manner that most liberals employ when they misrepresent the statements of Pope Pius IX. He fails to mention important additional comments which clarify or complete the meaning of what he has quoted. We continue with the words of Lumen Gentium which he ignored:

. . . Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to lead a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She regards such qualities as given by Him Who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life" (our emphasis).

In his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, M.I.C.M., discusses this specific passage from Lumen Gentium in greater detail than we have gone into here. Note his inescapable conclusion:

So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is! Whatever of truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel, and, as Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church "to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘preach the gospel to every creature,’ . . . painstakingly fosters her missionary work" (2,16).

Credit Father Feeney with a victory over paragraph 12 of Protocol Letter #122/49!

Mr. Drummey’s Reply (continued): Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, but was reconciled with the Church, through the personal efforts of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, before he died in 1978. Feeney’s community has divided into five groups, with the two largest also now reconciled and living as male and female Benedictine communities in Still River, Massachusetts.

Correction Please! — Now, should not an honest, unbiased reporter advise his readers of the very suspicious circumstances surrounding both the "excommunication" and the "reconciliation?" Should he not mention the fact that Father was not told that he was being reconciled, or that he must retract his positions on the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the theory "baptism by desire?" Or ought he not mention the astounding fact that Father did not ask to be reconciled, had not changed his doctrinal position by one iota, and would have refused to recant had he been asked to do so? Surely, Mr. Drummey knows these facts. If he doesn’t, he has a serious moral obligation to learn them before again aiding the deliberate effort to defame a holy Catholic priest.

At the request of Cardinal Medeiros, who, it is suggested, was saddened at the prospect that Father Feeney might die "outside the Church," Rome approved the "reconciliation" and prescribed the procedure to be followed. Just as in the "excommunication," all canonical procedure was thrown out the window. All that was required was that Father make a profession of Faith by reciting the Creeds of the Church. Nothing resembling a recantation was even remotely suggested.

If, in truth, this was a "reconciliation," it was a reconciliation of certain Church

officials in Rome with the doctrinal position of Father Feeney, not vice versa.

As happens with liberal critics more often than not, Mr. Drummey, in his final sentence, gets his facts wrong and loses his sense of Catholic respect. The largest group of Sisters, who were part of "Feeney’s community" (sic) and reside in Still River, have kept their vows of loyalty to Father Feeney’s Crusade to defend the dogmas of the Church. They are still members of Father’s Order, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and have been "regularized," not "reconciled," in the Church. They are not Benedictines. With regard to the Brothers, Mr. Drummey is correct.

To his credit, Mr. Drummey printed, in a subsequent column, a letter from one of the Sisters in the Still River community, in which she corrected him on his facts. Sister enclosed a copy of Father Lawrence A. Deery’s letter to the Priest-Secretary in the Boston Chancery which we discussed earlier (see pages 41 to 43). In this letter, Father Deery, speaking for the Bishop of Worcester, advised the Archbishop of Boston on the mind of the Holy Office regarding the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Father Feeney was completely exonerated of any doctrinal error!

Mr. Drummey printed Father Deery’s letter without comment. We hope he and his readers read it carefully. We trust he will respect this decision of the living magisterium regarding Father Feeney, his doctrine, and his Crusade.

Let us return now to Father Laisney’s Baptism of Desire.

I. Venerable Pope Pius IX

Page 35 (paraphrased): Father Feeney belittled the teaching of Pope Pius IX that there are souls in Heaven who died in the state of sanctifying grace, but never received the Sacrament of Baptism ["after the promulgation of the Gospel" is understood].

First we should note that the Church was never blessed with a Supreme Pontiff who proclaimed and defended the defined dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, more often or more vigorously than Pius IX. We also remind our readers that he was a very brave and holy pope; he has been declared "Venerable", and his cause for beatification is being promoted at this very time.

Pius IX reigned as Holy Roman Pontiff for thirty-two years (1846 to 1878), longer than any other Vicar of Christ except Saint Peter. In certain statements he made in official — though not infallible — pronouncements during his Pontificate, he seemed, to some liberals, to excuse the invincibly ignorant from the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation. His three most quoted statements follow:

Singulari Quadam (December 9, 1854), an Allocution* :

. . . those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.

* An Allocution is a solemn form of address, delivered by the pope from the throne, to cardinals in secret consistory.

Singulari Quidem (March 17, 1856), an Encyclical to the Austrian Episcopate:

. . . the Catholic Church . . . is the temple of God, outside of which, except with the excuse of invincible ignorance, there is no hope of life or salvation.

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (August 10, 1863), an Encyclical to the Italian Episcopate:

. . . they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who . . . live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God . . . will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

Liberals have never tired of using these utterances by Pio Nono to "prove" their claim that he supported the then-mounting opinion that "invincible ignorance" was an effective substitute for both Faith and Baptism as requirements for salvation.

Taken by themselves and out of the body of the complete text, as liberals and modernists are wont to do, these statements do seem to verify that claim. As a matter of fact, even "in context" their true meaning is not quickly and easily perceived, as we shall now see in the following passages. First, we will look at Singulari Quadam:

It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood.

On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.

Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on earth, encumbered with this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5); To proceed with further inquiry is contrary to divine law.*

* The Latin text uses the noun nefas, which means something contrary to divine law, sinful, unlawful, abominable; an impious or wicked deed.

At this point, liberals and modernists usually end the quote, claiming that, since Pope Pius IX himself taught the Pelagian doctrine of salvation by invincible ignorance, the dogma

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was no longer tenable. But they deliberately and dishonestly ignore the words of the Holy Father that followed immediately:

Nevertheless, as charity demands, let us pray continually for the conversion to Christ of all nations everywhere. Let us devote ourselves to the salvation of all men as far as we can, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened (Isa. 59:1). The gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light.

These truths need to be fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful so that they cannot be infected with doctrines tending to foster the religious indifferentism which We see spreading widely, with growing strength, and with destructive effect upon souls.

There is no break with the Tradition of the Church in these words of Pius IX. Nor is there a denial of the dogma on salvation. In his essay, "On Exonerating Pelagius" (see our issue of Res Fidei dated November, 1991), Brother Thomas Mary Sennott explains:

The teaching here is exactly the same as that of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Pope Pius says that persons "affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter," the "matter" being the sin of unbelief; or as Saint Thomas puts it, "When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not because of unbelief."

But concerning a person of good will involved in invincible ignorance, Pius says, "the gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light;" or as Saint Thomas states, "it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance." There is complete continuity of Tradition then, in the teaching of Saint Thomas and of Pope Pius IX.

And, we might add, there is also complete continuity of Tradition in the teaching of Father Feeney that God will provide the waters of Baptism to anyone and everyone who truly desires them. With Pope Pius, we "cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one Baptism," because "to proceed with further inquiry is contrary to divine law." Is it not "further inquiry" to speculate about substitutes for Baptism?

Now we turn to Singulari Quidem:

The Church declares openly that all man’s hope, all his salvation, is in Christian faith, in that faith which teaches the truth, dissipates by its divine light the darkness of human ignorance, works through charity; that it is at the same time in the Catholic Church, who, because she keeps the true worship, is the inviolable sanctuary of faith itself and the temple of God, outside of which, except with the excuse of invincible ignorance, there is no hope of life or of salvation.

In this Encyclical to the Bishops of Austria, Pio Nono offers no qualifications to the phrase "except with the excuse of invincible ignorance," as he did in Singulari Quadam fifteen months earlier, and as he will do in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore seven and one-half years later. We may certainly assume that this was not an intended omission by the Holy Father. And we remind the reader again that there was no engagement here of his grace of infallibility.

Here is the third, and last of these texts, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life.

Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.

It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom "the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior," cannot obtain eternal salvation.

There are four sentences in this passage from Pope Pius IX’s famous encyclical. Let us analyze each one of them:

In the first sentence, the Holy Father states that he must censure "a very grave error" into which some Catholics have fallen, which is to believe that "men living in error, and separated from the true Faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life." This sentence clearly explains that anyone who holds a doctrine contrary to Catholic doctrine, or who does not embrace the Catholic Faith and Catholic unity, is not going to achieve salvation.

In sentence two, he repeats, for emphasis, that any position contrary to what he stated in the first sentence is extremely erroneous.

However, it would seem from the first sentence that a person seeking salvation would have to know of the Catholic Faith and the Church, and would have to accept them without qualification. This appears to be a hard saying because many persons seem to be in a condition of "invincible ignorance," having never even heard of the Catholic Faith. So the Pope immediately addresses this matter of invincible ignorance in sentence three.

He describes the case of a good-living but invincibly ignorant person. He says that this person can reach eternal life "by the operating power of divine light and grace." But, since he has just stated emphatically, in the first sentence, that nobody can attain eternal life while "separated from the true Faith and from Catholic unity," the phrase, "by the operating power of divine light and grace," necessarily means that God will not fail to provide such a person of good will with what he needs in order to end this separation. Included in what God will provide in order for that person to be welcomed into the true Faith and Catholic unity, where alone he "can attain eternal life," will certainly be the sacrament of Baptism. This is exactly what God miraculously provided for Cornelius the Centurion, for the Eunuch of Candace, and for Saul of Tarsus, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

The Holy Father then points to God’s justice and mercy to explain why He helps such worthy, though invincibly ignorant, persons. He states that God "will by no means suffer

anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin." (our emphasis)

Note that the Pope did not say that God would not punish with eternal punishment anyone "who has not the guilt of deliberate sin." Pius IX did not say this because he knew, as does every Catholic, that the loss of the Beatific Vision suffered by an unbaptized infant is, indeed, eternal punishment for a little baby who never committed a deliberate sin. An infant who dies unbaptized does suffer eternal punishment (the loss of the Beatific Vision), but not eternal torment (pain of the senses due to deliberate sin). Why God decrees this is known only to Him, but that He does decree it is part of Catholic truth.

To conclude from the third sentence that Pope Pius IX believed that an invincibly ignorant person can receive what is necessary for salvation without being incorporated into the Church by the actual reception of the sacrament of Baptism, is to misrepresent totally what he actually stated. And, as noted, such a conclusion also ignores his strict condemnation in the first sentence of those "who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true Faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life."

Finally, in the last sentence, the Holy Father reaffirms that those who are aware of the Church and her well known doctrine on salvation, yet stubbornly reject her authority and refuse to enter into her unity, simply cannot obtain eternal salvation.

That Father Feeney and Sister Catherine always had great admiration and respect for Pio Nono is made evident by Sister’s comments in her splendid book, Our Glorious Popes:

There is no question in the mind of anyone who innocently and chastely reads the writings and utterances of Pope Pius IX but that he believed, without any qualification, the fundamental doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the year 1863, when he was faced with all the arguments which the liberals were pushing against him concerning the poor ignorant native who through invincible ignorance must be saved outside the body of the Church, Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur, declared that he knew, about this ignorant native, all the arguments in favor of his deliverance from eternal damnation, he had heard all about this invincible ignorance — about which the liberals were so hopeful — but despite all this, he held that, unless this ignorance in a person of good will were dissolved and clarified by the light of Faith, it could not bring him to salvation. . . .

The modern liberals of our time in Catholic life have never paid any attention to anything else which Pope Pius IX has said except this little half-bow of charity toward the ignorant native. And, that the Holy Father knew that the liberals of his own day were misunderstanding him, is made clear by the Syllabus of Errors, which was issued in the following year, in which he sets down, without qualification, that it is condemned even to hope for the salvation of such men without the Faith.

Nothing but a desire to live comfortably in a non-Catholic society, not to offend and not to make enemies, . . . can explain the Catholic liberals’ selection, in our time, of two or three vaguely worded sentences in all the volumes of Pope Pius’ utterances, and the use of these sentences to build up a whole new liberal attack on a many times defined dogma of the Church, thereby entering well into the plans of the Church’s enemies.

Pope Pius IX, . . . who learned at such bitter cost that liberalism in any of its forms, and religious liberalism in particular, leads to chaos and revolution, strove during every year of his reign to

place before the faithful the truths of salvation.

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]The Syllabus of Modern Errors

Pius IX was one of "Our Glorious Popes." That he had made political mistakes early in his pontificate because of his political liberalism, he freely admitted. That some of his doctrinal statements were being misunderstood and used to encourage religious liberalism, he obviously came to realize. Sensitive to the way these mistakes and misunderstandings had permitted ideological and theological winds to blow, the very next year after the appearance of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, the Holy Father came out with his own final, official word, condemning in his full authority the heresy of indifferentism and all of the pernicious social doctrines that were erupting into modernism and anarchy. This was the publication, on December 8, 1864, of the encyclical Quanta Cura and its accompanying Syllabus of Modern Errors, which rocked the world, Catholic and anti-Catholic, and raised up a storm of hatred against him which, to this day, has not yet fully subsided.

The Syllabus, compiled by Cardinal Bilio from the encyclicals, allocutions and apostolic letters of Pope Pius IX during the first eighteen years of his pontificate, was a condemnation by the Holy Father of the errors growing out of the false principles and teachings of the age of liberalism which were eating away at the foundations of the Faith and all Christian government and morality, and ushering in the reign of Antichrist.

The Syllabus lists, in ten categories, eighty such specific errors which were increasingly gaining acceptance, and which, if not effectively corrected, would bring unimaginable sorrow and suffering to all men. The categories ranged from philosophical and theological errors to errors concerning Church doctrine, marriage, ethics, the rights of the Church and the Roman Pontiff, and even to the evils of socialism, communism and secret societies (Freemasonry).

In closing Quanta Cura and presenting the Syllabus to all of the Catholic bishops of the world, the Holy Father wrote:

In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion

and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church. (our emphasis)

Then followed the Syllabus of Modern Errors. Our attention here must be confined to Category III, labelled Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism. Four errors are listed, numbers 15 through 18:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.

16. In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.

17. We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who do not at all dwell in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church.

These four propositions are errors that were rejected, proscribed, and condemned in his full Apostolic authority, by Pope Pius IX. Therefore, any interpretation of his earlier remarks concerning invincible ignorance which supports or affirms any one of these propositions is also rejected, proscribed, and condemned.

Just what Father Laisney’s motive was in calling Father Feeney to task for "belittling" (as he calls it) the teachings of Pius IX, we do not know. Surely, he is aware that, to this day, liberals and modernists try to capitalize on Pio Nono’s use of imprecise language to make it appear that he taught that the invincibly ignorant could attain salvation without being in the true Church of Christ. As we have explained above, this was not what the Holy Father taught. And that was what disturbed Father Feeney; it was not what Pius IX actually taught, but what liberals and modernists were claiming he taught.

Furthermore, both Pope Pius IX’s predecessor, Benedict XIV, and Pope Saint Pius X wrote Apostolic exortations lamenting the fact that most of the damned lose their souls due to ignorance of those supernatural truths that must be believed for eternal salvation. In his encyclical, Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905, Pius X wrote these rarely quoted words:

We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine.

And again, in the same encyclical, the saint quotes Pope Benedict XIV:

And so, Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV had just cause to write: "we declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and

believed in order to be numbered among the elect."

Now, it is a very strange thing indeed that Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum does not contain Pius X’s encyclical Acerbo Nimis which so obliterates the heresy that those who labor in invincible ignorance of the true religion can be saved in that state. Nor does it contain the encylical of Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, which is so inimical to proponents of false ecumenism and which so clearly insists upon the literal understanding of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. But, thanks to Karl Rahner, Denzinger does contain that notorious 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston #122/49.

Vatican Council I

On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1869, exactly five years after the promulgation of the Syllabus, Pope Pius IX opened Vatican Council I. It was not the Holy Father’s intention to convene a council in order to define infallibility, but rather that "a supreme remedy might be applied to the supreme dangers that threaten Christianity," and because this fearless Pope was resolved "to build up in the eyes of the whole human race the edifice of Catholic dogma, in a form so complete, so beautiful that . . . the whole earth must admire it and exclaim that the hand of God is there!"

During the months preceding the opening of the Council, bishops and theologians (periti) prepared the subjects to come under discussion. Preliminary, first draft documents were drawn up to be presented to the Fathers of the Council for discussion, revision as necessary, final approval and promulgation. The question of infallibility was not among them.

By April 24, 1870, after three sessions, the Council had succeeded in completing only one document, the Constitution on the Catholic Faith. During April, at the urgent appeal of Archbishop Manning (later Cardinal Manning) speaking for himself and a large body of the bishops, Pius IX directed that the question of infallibility be prepared for immediate consideration by the Council during its fourth session.

Three months later, on July 18, 1870, in its First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Vatican Council I solemnly defined, after much discussion and heated debate, the Primacy and the Infallible Authority of the Roman Pontiff.

On that same day, July 18, 1870, Pius learned that war had broken out between France and Prussia; within one month the remnants of the French army protecting Rome from the menacing army of Victor Emmanuel were withdrawn; and on September 20th Rome fell to its Masonic enemy.

Pope Pius IX adjourned the Vatican Council one month after the seizure of Rome; it was never reconvened. The magnificent purposes for which he had convoked the Council were never realized, but it should be evident to any believing Catholic that, for His own good reasons, the Holy Ghost terminated Vatican I only after the dogma

of Infallibility had been solemnly defined.

We believe that God stopped the Council because of the Schema which liberal periti had prepared and which would have been presented to the bishops for consideration in Session IV, had not the Pope providentially ordered that the question of infallibility be inserted into the schedule.

The text of this Schema can be found on page 87 of the book, The Church Teaches, published by the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s College in 1955. It is entitled "The First Draft Of The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church Of Christ." In Chapter 7 of this Schema, the teaching "Outside the Church No One Can Be Saved" is addressed:

Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace from him to obtain justification and eternal life.

Here we find an introductory curtsy to the Dogma of Faith, a mere admission — not a profession — of its historical presence in Church teaching. Then, abruptly, the new theology takes over with a bold "nevertheless," followed by just a vague reference to God’s supplying the needed graces to one who "does what he can." This is the same imprecise language that Pius IX used earlier in his pontificate and which led to so much confusion and abuse.

Some have held that this Schema was drawn up by order of the Holy Father for consideration at the Council. But it would seem odd that he would prevail upon the Fathers of the Council to re-study a question which he himself had answered five years previously when he published the Syllabus in 1864.

In any event, solid evidence that the Holy Ghost officially presided at Vatican Council I is found in the fact that "The First Draft Of The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church of Christ" was never discussed, debated, or voted upon by the assembled Fathers. And we can thank God for that, for it was the renowned Spanish prelate from Cuba, Antonio Maria Claret, the only Bishop present later to be canonized, who, decrying the new theology brazenly echoing throughout the assembly, reprimanded his colleagues sternly: "My heart is torn in hearing the blasphemies and heresies uttered on the floor of this Council." During that very session, the anguished Saint suffered a stroke which ultimately killed him.

A final comment: In their book, The Church Teaches, the Jesuit authors preface their presentation of the Schema with these words: "Originally the council, the twentieth ecumenical council of the Church, planned to define much more on the constitution and nature of the Church; but there was not enough time to complete its work. The first draft of the constitution . . . contains no official teaching on the part of the Church, since it was never voted upon by the Fathers in solemn assembly. However, since it had been carefully prepared by theologians and presented to the Fathers of the council, the draft may be said to reflect the mind of the teaching

Church at that time." (emphasis ours)

In the Church universal, however, the Deposit of Faith is the same for all time. If we are speaking of the solemn magisterial mind of the Church, there is no "at that time." The mind of the Church must always reflect the immutability of her Spouse.

Therefore, we are obliged to ask these questions:

If the first draft contains no "official teaching," why is it presented in a book called The Churches Teaches? Or does the Church also have "unofficial" teachings?

If the fathers never voted on it, and the Council never promulgated it, who decided it was Church teaching?

Since when do theologians determine "the mind of the teaching Church?"

Since when does "the mind of the teaching Church" change with the times?

Here we have yet another instance of the modernist’s "Department of Disinformation" attempting to spread confusion within the Church.

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]J. Baptism of Blood

Page 35: The error in Fr. Feeney’s excessive reaction precisely lies in this, that, though he admitted that God could infuse sanctifying grace before Baptism, yet he said [that] God would not allow one to die in the state of grace, but not yet baptized. [He] taught that God would have seen to it that those few martyrs who were reported to have died without Baptism would not have left this life without Baptism. . . . Such affirmation makes liars the very persons who reported the martyrdom of these martyrs!

With these words, Father Laisney claims he is exposing "The precise error of Father Feeney." On the contrary, we say, he puts his finger on the precise error to which he himself clings, as do those who agree with him, when he denies the absolute necessity of water Baptism; namely: he accepts human testimony over the testimony of God.

Father Feeney, on the other hand, accepted the words of Our Lord as the whole truth and was determined to defend them with his last breath. He often said that there will be many surprises in heaven but no exceptions to the requirements laid down by Christ.

Martyrologies and Other Sources

We will now examine the historical evidence put forth by those who claim that "baptism of blood" is a substitute for, even superior to, the sacrament of Baptism.

This evidence is found in the many writings that have been handed down to us over the centuries as recorded in various martyrologies, acts of the martyrs, lives of the saints and similar sources. The most concise information on martyrs is found in martyrologies.

The present Roman Martyrology is a catalogue of saints honored by the Church, not only those martyred for the Faith. It first appeared in 1584, and was derived from ancient martyrologies that existed in the fourth century, plus official and non-official records taken from acts of the martyrs that date back to the second century. It has been revised several times since its first compilation. When he was assigned to revise the ancient accounts, Saint Robert Bellarmine himself had to be restrained from overly skeptical editorial deletions.

As the reader studies the extracts presented below, he should bear in mind several important considerations:

First, it was not the intent of those who first reported the circumstances of the deaths of the martyrs to provide information from which "baptismal registers" could later be compiled. If the chronicler makes no mention of the martyr’s Baptism, it does not necessarily mean that he was never baptized. A case in point is Saint Patrick. He was not a martyr, but his Baptism was never recorded. Yet, we know positively that he received the sacrament since he was a bishop.

Next, even if a chronicler states positively that a martyr had not been baptized, it should be understood to mean that he was "not recorded" as having been baptized. In those times especially, no person could hope to know with certainty that another had not been baptized.

Third, if the chronicler says that a martyr was "baptized in his own blood", this does not automatically preclude prior reception of the sacrament by water. When Christ referred to His coming Passion as a "Baptism", He had already been baptized by Saint John in the Jordan. Note, in that regard, this quote from Saint John Damascene: "These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers — thus, they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep . . . spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive yet another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom." (Barlaam and Josaphat, St. John Damascene — our emphasis)

Fourth, "baptism of blood" should be understood as the greatest act of love of God that a man can make. God rewards it with direct entrance into heaven for those who are already baptized and in the Church: no purgatory — it is a perfect confession. If it were capable of substituting for any sacrament, it would be the sacrament of Penance, because Penance does not oblige with a necessity of

means, but precept only.

In his book Church History, Father John Laux, M.A., writes:

If he [the Christian] was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and that the soul of the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the perfect happiness of heaven.

Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a "catechumen," it does not always mean he was not yet baptized. A catechumen was a person learning the Faith, as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a teacher called a catechist. That students continued in their class even after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these words of Saint Ambrose to his catechumens: "I know very well that many things still have to be explained. It may strike you as strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized. However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated. For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts." (On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)

Sixth, in those days, a formal Baptism was a very impressive ceremony conducted by the bishop. However, the Church has always taught that, in case of necessity, any person of either sex who has reached the use of reason, Catholic or non-Catholic, may baptize by using the correct words and intending to do what the Church intends to be done by the sacrament. Therefore, in the early Church, baptized Christians and unbaptized catechumens were instructed to administer the sacrament to each other, if and as needed, whenever persecutions broke out.

Seventh, salvation was made possible for us men when, on the Cross on Calvary, Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed His Sacred Body and Blood in atonement for our sins. Hence, a man is saved, not by sacrificing his own human blood, but by the sacrifice of the Most Precious Divine Blood of Our Holy Savior.

Let us put it another way: In our opinion, the absolutely certain remission of original sin and incorporation into Christ and His Church are accomplished only by the water to which, alone, Christ has given that power. A man’s blood has no such power. Martyrdom is the greatest act of love of God a man can make, but it cannot substitute for the sacrament of Baptism.

With these thoughts in mind, let us now examine the evidence presented as "proof" of the theory of "baptism of blood."

Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first centuries of the Church’s history. Of these eleven million, and the thousands of other martyrdoms which have since been recorded, we know of just a mere handful of instances — fewer than twenty — in which the martyrs were reputed to have died without Baptism. In not one of these cases is it possible to conclude positively that these persons were never baptized.

We will study briefly the few martyrdoms, of which we have knowledge, where the circumstances of the martyr’s death are cited as "proof" of "baptism of blood." Our source books are primarily The Roman Martyrology (which, for brevity, we will also call Martyrology) and Father Alban Butler’s Lives of the Saints. Any other sources will be identified. The martyrs are listed in chronological order as their feasts appear in the liturgical calendar.

January 23, A.D. 304 — Saint Emerentiana

Martyrology: "At Rome, the holy virgin and martyr, St. Emerentiana. Being yet a catechumen, she was stoned to death by the heathens while praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, her foster sister."

Butler: "She suffered about the year 304 . . . She is said in her acts to have been stoned to death, whilst only a catechumen, praying at the tomb of St. Agnes."

First, we must take notice of Butler’s prefatory remarks concerning the martyrdom of Emerentiana’s foster sister, St. Agnes, commemorated on January 21: "The following relation is taken from Prudentius . . . and other fathers. Her [Agnes’] acts are as ancient as the seventh century; but not sufficiently authentic; nor are those given us in Chaldaic by Stephen Assemani of a better stamp. They contradict St. Ambrose and Prudentius in supposing that she finished her martyrdom by fire."

According to Saint Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she was burned to death. Our point is that not all of the information given in the martyrdom narratives is necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete. Therefore, we have every right to question any particular narrative. Our sole purpose is to protect the words of Christ and the doctrines of the Church, our infallible guides to truth.

Let us consider the circumstances of the death of Saint Emerentiana: She was martyred in about A.D. 304 during the last great Roman persecution begun by the emperor Diocletian in March, 303. She went — "with her mother," one menology states — to the grave of her foster sister, Saint Agnes, to pray. Agnes had been martyred about one year previously and was buried a small distance outside the walls of Rome. That the grave was located in a relatively public area, and that the identity of the person buried there was well known, are indicated by the fact that, when Emerentiana was seen praying, a crowd gathered, not all of whom were necessarily pagans.

Father Laux reports that, by the year A.D. 250: "The Christians formed at this time about one third of the population of the Empire." It is reasonable, then, to estimate that by the year A.D. 304, perhaps one half of the empire was Christian. And Father Laux tells us what those early Christians were like:

We, in the present day, . . . can form only a faint conception of the intimacy of that union which subsisted between the primitive Christians, and was cemented by a community of danger as well as of faith and hope. The love which they bore to each other excited the astonishment, though it could not subdue the hostility, of their heathen persecutors. But they naturally regarded with feelings of peculiar affection and

respect those members of the Church who were called to suffer in its cause, to be "witnesses" (martyr is the Greek word for witness) of the divine power operating in her.

". . . The Christian, says Tertullian, when imprisoned on account of his Religion, was supported by the reflection that his brethren anxiously watched over his fate, and that no exertion would be wanting on their part to mitigate its severity. . . ."

Therefore, on that January 23rd, in the Year of Our Lord 304, when the pagan mob gathered around Emerentiana as she prayed at the grave of her foster-sister, Saint Agnes, there had to be a number of Christians in the vicinity, possibly including her mother, who heard the curses and threats of the heathens and witnessed the martyrdom, but could not seek martyrdom themselves.

Emerentiana was stoned to death by the mob. Sometime thereafter, her holy remains were obviously gathered up by Christians and brought to the Church for safekeeping, for they rest, today, in the Church of Saint Agnes in Rome.

Neither the Martyrology nor Butler say anything about Emerentiana having been baptized. They identify her as a catechumen, which liberals consistently assume is proof that she was not baptized. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance, states: ". . . while praying at St. Agnes’s grave she was stoned to death by the pagan mob, thus receiving the baptism of blood." The final phrase is the editor’s opinion. He clearly implies that the Saint was never baptized.

We cannot provide factual proof that Emerentiana was baptized, but we know with absolute conviction, by the truths of our Faith, that she must have received the sacrament of Baptism before her death. How? Consider these very reasonable possibilities:

First, Diocletian’s persecution had been underway for over one year. It was the worst ever. Its purpose was to completely obliterate the religion of Christ. It is very possible that Emerentiana was baptized, along with the other catechumens in her instruction class, as soon as the persecution broke out.

Next, to pray in public at the grave of a known Christian was to place oneself in extreme danger. Apprehension meant certain death. Realizing this, and knowing the importance of Baptism, Emerentiana would have sought it before going to the grave, if she had not already received it.

Finally, if neither of the above occurred, it is possible that a Christian onlooker, perhaps even her own mother, baptized her after the stoning but before her soul left her body, or that the Christians who retrieved her body did so later, for all Christians knew that a person is not dead until the soul departs from the body, and God alone determines that moment.

We know Saint Emerentiana is in heaven because the Church has told us so. And by our Faith, we know she was baptized by someone, for the same Church has told us that no one can enter heaven without first having been "born again of water

and the Holy Ghost."

March 10, A.D. 320 — The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste

Martyrology (under date of March 9): At Sebaste in Armenia, under the governor Agricolaus, in the time of Emperor Licinius, the birthday of forty holy soldiers of Cappadocia. After being chained down in foul dungeons, after having their faces bruised with stones, and being condemned to spend the night naked, in the open during the coldest part of winter, on a frozen lake where their bodies were benumbed and covered with ice, they completed their martydom by having their limbs crushed. . . Their feast is kept tomorrow.

Dom Gueranger, OSB, in his work The Liturgical Year: When there [on the frozen lake], they united in this prayer: "Forty have we entered on the battle; let us, O Lord, receive forty crowns, and suffer not our number to be broken. The number is an honoured one, for Thou didst fast for forty days . . ." Thus did they pray. . . . All the guards, except one, were asleep. He overheard their prayer, and saw them encircled with light and angels coming down from Heaven, like messengers sent by a King, who distributed crowns to thirty-nine of the soldiers. Whereupon, he thus said to himself: "There are forty men; where is the fortieth crown?"

While he was thus pondering, one of the number lost his courage; he could bear the cold no longer, and threw himself into a warm bath, which had been placed near at hand. His saintly companions were exceedingly grieved at this. But God would not suffer their prayer to be void. The sentinel, astonished at what he had witnessed, went immediately and awoke the guards; then, taking off his garments, he cried out, with a loud voice, that he was a Christian, and associated himself with the martyrs.

Butler: . . . The guard, being struck with the celestial vision and the apostate’s desertion, was converted upon it; and by a particular motion of the Holy Ghost, threw off his clothes, and placed himself in his stead amongst the thirty-nine martyrs.

The Martyrology makes no mention of the guard who replaced the lone defector. Butler says the guard was converted by the vision, implying that he was a pagan prior to it. Dom Gueranger says the guard was astonished by the vision, awakened the other guards, then "cried out, with a loud voice, that he was a Christian" and joined the thirty-nine on the frozen lake.

To make of this glorious incident an example of "baptism of blood," is, to our mind, not realistic. Consider the following circumstances:

The year was A.D. 320, seven years after the Edict of Milan. Sebaste was in Armenia, several hundred miles to the East of Nicomedia, the capitol of the eastern half of the Roman Empire ruled by Licinius. Despite the Edict, Licinius, a pagan hostile to Christianity, did not carry out its provisions, and even reverted to overt persecution for a few months. This incident at Sebaste probably occurred during that persecution. Nevertheless, the terms of the Edict would have been known all over the Empire and conversions to the Faith would have been occurring at a constantly increasing rate.

In the Roman Martyrology under date of September 9, we read: "At Sebaste in Armenia, Saint Severian, a soldier of Emperor Licinius. For frequently visiting the

Forty Martyrs in prison, he was suspended in the air with a stone tied to his feet by order of the governor Lysias, and being scourged and torn with whips, yielded up his soul in the midst of torments."

From the date and circumstances of his death, it is certain that Severian was not the 40th Martyr. However, we notice from this account that other soldiers were able to visit the Forty in prison. Would not this holy band of Christian soldiers, facing certain death for their faith, have been zealous enough to baptize any willing comrades who put their own lives in danger by visiting them?

And it should not be assumed that Severian was their only visitor. Father Butler reports that, according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Procopius, the soldiers at Sebaste belonged to the Twelfth Legion, that unit of the Roman Army which, in A.D. 174, under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, was made up entirely of Christians and became famous as the "Thundering Legion" because of the miraculous rain and military victory obtained by their prayers. From this heritage could have come a Christian "esprit de corps" which embraced the entire Legion.

We think it very likely that the unnamed sentinel, the 40th martyr, was another soldier of the Legion who visited the Martyrs and was baptized. He could not, and did not, seek martyrdom until graced by God with the vision of the thirty-nine crowns. Then, he acted decisively: He "went immediately and awoke the guards; then, taking off his garments, he cried out, with a loud voice, that he was a Christian, and associated himself with the martyrs."

Is it not likely, then, that this noble soldier would have known that he could not declare himself a Christian unless he had been baptized?

April 12, about A.D. 303 — Saint Victor of Braga

Martyrology: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr Saint Victor. Although only a catechumen, he refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many tortures, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood.

Butler: Saint Victor . . . was a catechumen, who, refusing to sacrifice to idols, was condemned to lose his head, and [was] baptized in his own blood.

We do not know the exact year of Saint Victor’s martyrdom. It occurred sometime during the persecution of Diocletian between A.D. 303 and 311 All we know about Saint Victor’s death is contained in the above two brief accounts. We learn only that he was a catechumen who refused to adore an idol. But the fact that he was a catechumen does not prove that he was not baptized. In his book, Baptism and the Liturgy, Jean Cardinal Danielou states that many early Christians continued in their instruction as "catechumens" for years after their baptism. Also, as we have pointed out, the usual custom of the Church in those days was to baptize those who needed it, as soon as persecutions began.

We discussed the phrase "baptized in his own blood" above. To illustrate the

various ways in which the word "baptized" was used in the past, we quote from a work entitled On the Salvation of the Rich Man by Saint Clement of Alexandria (died circa A.D. 215). Saint Clement relates the efforts of Saint John the Apostle to bring a prodigal son back to the Church. Clement describes the final meeting of the two. Saint John addresses the prodigal:

"Why, my son, dost thou flee from me . . . ? Fear not, thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. . . Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me."

And he [the prodigal], when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, trembled, and wept bitterly. And, on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears. John, pledging and assuring him that he would find forgiveness from the Savior, led him back to the Church.

The word "baptism" meant a washing, a cleansing, and was used often in comparison to the sacrament, but not as a substitute for it. In the above instance, Saint Clement refers to the prodigal’s tears of repentance as a second washing, the first having been sacramental Baptism.

April 14, Year Unknown — Saint Ardalion

Martyrology: Also Saint Ardalion, an actor. One day in the theater, while scoffing at the holy rites of the Christian religion, he was suddenly converted and bore testimony to it, not only by his words, but also with his blood.

We cannot determine the exact year or place of Ardalion’s martyrdom. Also, we are not informed as to the specific holy rites he was ridiculing, or the time that elapsed between his conversion and martyrdom.

It would be reasonable to assume that the rite of Baptism was included in his performance, since he must have known that it was first in the order of reception. If, then, he scoffed at Baptism, but agreed to receive it just to prove that it would do nothing for him, we know he would have received the Sacrament ex opere operato, despite his sinful intention.

. . . he who under pretense approaches Baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter [grace] nor the sign of the Sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. (Pope Innocent III, Denzinger 411)

But, the moment he "was suddenly converted" — and this happened "while" he was scoffing the holy rites — what had been mere playacting became a true, undefiled Baptism, and Ardalion received the seal of the sacrament and sanctifying grace. At that instant he became a baptized Catholic, and shortly thereafter, died as one.

May 24, A.D. 303 to 311 — Saints Donatian and Rogatian

Martyrology: At Nantes in Brittany, in the time of Emperor Diocletian, the blessed martyrs Donatian and Rogatian, brothers, who, because of their constancy in the Faith,

were sent to prison, stretched on the rack, and lacerated. Finally, they were pierced through with a soldier’s lance, and then beheaded.

Butler: There lived at Nantes an illustrious young nobleman, called Donatian, who, having received the sacrament of regeneration, led a most edifying life, and laid himself out with much zeal to converting others to faith in Christ. His elder brother, Rogatian, was not able to resist the moving example of his piety, . . . and desired to be baptized. But the bishop having withdrawn and concealed himself for fear of the persecution, he was not able to receive that sacrament, but was shortly after baptized in his blood.

Father Butler’s lengthy description of these martyrdoms goes on to relate how the brothers were apprehended and imprisoned, but remained constant in their faith, praying that Rogatian might somehow be baptized. Now, back to Butler:

Donatian also prayed for him that his faith might procure him the effect of baptism, and the effusion of his blood that of the sacrament of chrism, that is, of confirmation. They passed the night together in fervent prayer.

The Roman Martyrology gives us no hint that Rogatian was not baptized. Father Butler, on the other hand, seems to editorialize far too much in order to make a case for "baptism of desire" and "confirmation by blood."

Surely, Donatian knew that Rogatian did not have to wait for the bishop to baptize him. During whatever days or weeks elapsed between Rogatian’s decision to receive the sacrament and their apprehension and imprisonment, Donatian, knowing that the bishop would not be available for the solemn ritual, could easily have baptized his brother himself.

If that did not happen, what would have been Donatian’s first concern when "they passed the night together in fervent prayer" in prison? Just how does Father Butler know with certainty that Donatian did not baptize Rogatian that night?

June 22, A.D. 303, Saint Alban, Protomartyr of England

Martyrology: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, Saint Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. Saint Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of Saint Alban and his companion.

Saint Bede, in his History of the English Church and People: Led out to execution, the saint came to a river which flowed swiftly between the wall of the town and the arena where he was to die. There he saw a great crowd of men and women . . . who were doubtless moved by God’s will to attend the death of His blessed confessor and martyr. The crowd . . . so blocked the bridge that he could hardly have crossed that evening. Saint Alban, who ardently desired a speedy martyrdom, approached the river, and as he raised his eyes to heaven in prayer, the river ran dry in its bed, and left him a way to cross. When . . . the appointed executioner himself saw this, he was so moved in spirit that he hurried to meet Alban at the place of execution, and throwing down his drawn sword, fell at his feet, begging that he might be thought worthy to die

with the martyr if he could not die in his place.

While this man changed from a persecutor to a companion in the true Faith, and other executioners hesitated to pick up his sword from the ground, the most reverend confessor of God ascended a hill about five hundred paces from the arena, accompanied by the crowd. . . . As he reached the summit, holy Alban asked God to give him water, and at once a perennial spring bubbled up at his feet — a sign to all present that it was at the martyr’s prayer that the river also had dried in its course. . . . Here, then, the gallant martyr met his death, and received the crown of life which God has promised to those who love Him. . . .

The soldier who had been moved by divine intuition to refuse to slay God’s confessor was beheaded at the same time as Alban. And although he had not received the purification of Baptism, there was no doubt that he was cleansed by the shedding of his own blood, and rendered fit to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Butler (We pick up his narration at the point where the first executioner was converted and threw down his sword.): The sudden conversion of the headsman occasioned a delay in the execution. In the meantime the holy confessor, with the crowd, went up the hill, . . . There Alban falling on his knees, at his prayer a fountain sprung up, with the water whereof he refreshed his thirst. . . . Together with Saint Alban, the soldier, who had refused to imbrue his hands in his blood, and had declared himself a Christian, was also beheaded, being baptized in his own blood.

Our interest here is focused on the converted executioner and what happened to him.

The Martyrology tells us only that he "merited to be baptized in his own blood."

Saint Bede tells us about the miraculous parting of the river, and then the miraculous perennial spring on the summit of the hill. He says that God caused the spring to bubble forth only to prove that it was Alban’s prayer that divided the river. He concludes by assuring us that, although the converted soldier was not baptized, he was cleansed by the shedding of his own blood and thus made fit to enter heaven.

Father Butler informs us that, while the execution was being delayed because of the conversion of the executioner, Alban went up to the summit of the hill and prayed for water in order to quench his thirst. Then the Saint and the soldier were beheaded, the soldier being baptized in his own blood.

We intend no irreverence toward any of our three sources, but good heavens!, how obvious does God have to be to show His Love and Mercy and Particular Providence for each and every one of us — in this instance, the converted executioner?

First, our Good God parted the river at Saint Alban’s request for the sole purpose of confirming the latent faith in the executioner, and awakening faith in the great crowd that had gathered, all of whom witnessed Alban’s prayer.

Next, the executioner hurried to catch up with Alban at the place of execution, threw down his drawn sword, fell on his knees at Alban’s feet and begged to be

allowed to die with him, or in his place.

Then, while the other possible executioners were confused and hesitated to pick up the sword, Alban, followed by the crowd and, obviously, the converted soldier, mounted the hill and prayed for water, which he received immediately.

Now why would a man — indeed, a very holy man — who had but a few short minutes left this side of eternity, call upon Almighty God to bring forth a miraculous spring of water? Just to quench his thirst? Just to prove that the first miracle was no accident? Hardly! Yet these are exactly the reasons given by Father Butler and even Saint Bede.

By faith we know Saint Alban was well aware that his new comrade needed to be baptized. He asked God for water; God gave him water; and while the executioners dallied in picking up the sword at the foot of the hill, he scooped up a handful of that precious element and, pouring it over the head of his kneeling friend, said, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Within a few seconds, the soldier was a baptized Catholic, and a few minutes later, he and Saint Alban stood in the presence of Almighty God.

We do not fault Saint Bede or Father Butler. Both were worthy men whose writings in explanation of and defense of the Faith were voluminous. But they were also fallible men, subject to making mistakes in judgment, as we all are. They were not intentionally deceitful. Neither was an eye-witness to the martyrdoms. They reported facts as presented to them and drew conclusions as honestly as they could. And they did not live at a time when the very existence of the Church was being threatened by flourishing opinions based on sentimental theology.

This story of the martyrdom of Saint Alban and his unexpected companion is not a proof of the validity of the theory known as "baptism of blood." Rather, it is a very dramatic portrayal of the miraculous things God will accomplish, through His Particular Providence, in order to get the waters of Baptism to each and every one of us who truly loves Him.

June 28, A.D. 202 to 211 — Saint Plutarch and Seven Companions

Martyrology: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rhais a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother. Among them the virgin Potamioena is particularly distinguished. She first endured many very painful trials for the preservation of her virginity, and then cruel and unheard of torments for the faith, after which she and her mother were consumed with fire.

Butler: Saint Plutarch . . . [was] converted to the faith by hearing certain lectures read by Origen. Plutarch prepared himself for martyrdom by a holy life, and being a person of distinction was soon apprehended. Origen visited and encouraged him in prison, and accompanied him to the place of execution. . . . Serenus, another scholar of Origen, was burnt alive for the faith: Heraclides, a third, yet a catechumen, and Hero, who had been lately baptized [therefore called a neophyte] were beheaded: another Serenus, after undergoing many torments, had his head also cut off. Herais, a damsel, being but a catechumen, was burnt, and, according to the expression of Origen,

baptized by fire.

. . . When she [Potamioena] had spoken thus, the executioners put her feet into the boiling pitch and dipped her in by degrees to the very top of her head, and thus she finished her martyrdom. Her mother, Marcella, was burnt at the same time.

All eight of these martyrs were students of Origen. Six of them had unquestionably been baptized. The other two, Heraclides and Herais (or Rhais) are identified as catechumens.

Butler mentions that Origen visited Plutarch in prison in order to encourage him. Would he not have also visited the others for the same purpose? And if Heraclides and Herais needed Baptism, would he not have administered it to them? Or, if Origen could not visit them, would they not have baptized each other if needed, and as the Church instructed them, while awaiting their martyrdom?

The possibilities are too many to allow unquestioned acceptance of the conclusion that the two catechumens died unbaptized. Origen’s expression "baptized by fire" may easily be understood as a reference to "yet another baptism," as we discussed earlier.

August 25 or 26, A.D. 286 or 303 — Saint Genesius of Rome

Martyrology: Also at Rome, Saint Genesius, martyr, who had embraced the profession of actor while he was a pagan. One day he was deriding the Christian mysteries in the theater in the presence of Emperor Diocletian; but by the inspiration of God he was suddenly converted to the faith and baptized. By command of the Emperor he was forthwith most cruelly beaten with rods, then racked, and a long time lacerated with iron hooks, and burned with torches. As he remained firm in the faith of Christ . . . he was beheaded, and thus merited the palm of martyrdom.

Butler: [In relating the story of the martyrdom of this saint as it is given above, but with greater detail and at greater length, Father Butler provides further information. He tells us that, after his performance, Saint Genesius, with great conviction and courage, addressed Diocletian and the audience, to inform them that he was now a Christian. He quotes the Saint saying to the Emperor:] ". . . whilst I was washed with the water, and examined, I had no sooner answered sincerely that I believed, than I saw a company of bright angels over my head, who recited out of a book all the sins I had committed from my childhood; and having afterward plunged the book into the water which had been poured upon me in your presence, they showed me the book whiter than snow."

But then Father Butler adds this interesting footnote:

The baptism which he received on the stage was no more than a representation of that sacrament, for want of a serious intention of performing the Christian rite; but St. Genesius was baptized in desire, with true contrition, and also in his own blood.

The Martyrology states flatly that Saint Genesius ". . . was suddenly converted to the faith and baptized." If it had been intended by those words to mean baptism of desire, it would have been so stated. Obviously, the Martyrology means water

Baptism.

Despite the Saint’s description of the book having been cleansed by the plunging into the water "which had been poured upon me in your presence," Father Butler insists that it was cleansed by his desire, and also by his blood!

We refer the reader to our comments concerning the martyrdom of Saint Ardalion given above, and the quotation from Pope Innocent III found in Denzinger #411: ". . . he who under pretense approaches Baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity . . . "

Like Saint Ardalion, Saint Genesius received the Sacrament ex opere operato when the water was poured and the words of the sacrament spoken; and he benefitted from the grace of the sacrament with his act of faith when, as the Martyrology states, "he was suddenly converted," or when, as Father Butler reports him saying to Diocletian, "I. . . answered sincerely that I believed . . ."

August 26, A.D. 297 — Saint Gelasinus

Butler: A Comedian at Heliopolis in Phoenicia. He having been baptized, in jest, in a warm bath on the stage, coming out of it, loudly professed himself a Christian, and was stoned to death by the mob, in 297, as the chronicle of Alexander relates.

We present this commentary by Father Butler here merely to point out what appear to be inconsistencies in his judgment. Saint Gelasinus was martyred under circumstances almost identical to those of Saint Genesius (immediately above) yet he says Genesius had baptism of desire and blood, while Gelasinus was truly baptized in the warm bath.

Our point is that the conclusions of the chroniclers of martyrdoms are not above critical examination.

August 26, A.D. 286, or 303 to 311 — Saint Genesius of Arles

Martyrology (under date of August 25): At Arles in France, another blessed Genesius, who, filling the office of notary, and refusing to record the impious edicts by which Christians were commanded to be punished, threw away his books publicly, and declared himself a Christian. He was seized and beheaded, and thus attained to the glory of martyrdom through baptism in his own blood.

Butler: He was a public notary in the city of Arles, and a catechumen at a time when Maximian Herculeus arrived there. An imperial edict against the Christians, which was then in force, was put into his hands to transcribe; but he, rather than concur to such a criminal injustice, threw away his pencil, and secretly left the town in order to hide himself; but he was overtaken, and beheaded on the banks of the Rhone, about the beginning of the fourth century.

Let us extract the important essentials from these two testimonies. The Martyrology informs us that Genesius "declared himself a Christian." That means he was already a baptized member of the Church.

Father Butler tells us he was also a catechumen. Therefore, we know he was a baptized Catholic still undergoing instruction in a catechumenate.

Both sources report that he was apprehended and beheaded, the Martyrology properly concluding that he "attained to the glory of martyrdom through baptism in his own blood."

Here is a perfect example of what "baptism of blood" really means. It applies only to the martyrdom of a baptized Catholic. It is that "yet another baptism" which, in those times, so many faithful sought in order to atone for their sins as Christians.

September 15, circa 362 A.D. — Saint Porphyry

Martyrology: Also, Saint Porphyry, a comedian, who was baptized in jest in the presence of Julian the Apostate, but was suddenly converted by the power of God and declared himself a Christian. By order of the emperor he was thereupon struck with an axe, and thus crowned with martyrdom.

See our comments above concerning the "on stage" conversions of Saints Ardalion, Genesius, and Gelasinus. They apply here as well.

September 20, circa A.D. 303 — Saints Fausta and Evilasius

Martyrology: At Cyzicum, on the sea of Marmora, the birthday of the holy martyrs Evilasius and the virgin Fausta, in the time of Emperor Maximian. Fausta’s head was shaved to shame her, and she was hung up and tortured by Evilasius, then a pagan priest. But when he wished to have her body cut in two, the executioners could not inflict any injury upon her. Amazed at this prodigy, Evilasius believed in Christ and was cruelly tortured by order of the emperor; at the same time Fausta had her head bored through and her whole body pierced with nails. She was then laid on a heated gridiron, and being called by a celestial voice, went in company with Evilasius to enjoy the blessedness of heaven.

Fausta was evidently a baptized Catholic. Our attention, therefore, focuses on Evilasius, the pagan priest. All we are told is that he "believed in Christ and was cruelly tortured by order of the emperor." Just how he died, we are not told, but apparently he died at the same time with Fausta.The case of Saint Apronian (February 2nd) is similar:

The Roman Martyrology says this: At Rome, on the Salarian Way, the passion of Saint Apronian, a notary. While he was yet a heathen, and was leading Saint Sisinius out of prison to present him before the governor Laodicius, he heard a voice from heaven saying, "Come ye, the blessed of My Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world." At once he believed, was baptized, and after confessing Our Lord, received sentence of death.

Both Evilasius and Apronian were pagans who, in different ways, were actively engaged in persecuting Christians. Both were converted in an instant: Evilasius, by the prodigy of Fausta; Apronian, by a voice from heaven. (It is possible that Evilasius also heard the voice that Fausta heard, but the Martyrology does not

make that clear.)

For both martyrs, the time element between believing and being martyred appears to have been brief. But Apronian, we are told, was baptized, perhaps by Saint Sisinius. There is no mention of Evilasius having been baptized.

We admittedly lack, and are thus ignorant of, any baptismal records for these souls we have been discussing. But lack of proof for a positive conclusion does not, logically, constitute proof for a negative conclusion.

Consequently, it is by our complete faith in Christ, and the words He has spoken, and the promises He has made, that we know that Evilasius received the sacrament of Baptism. For Our God is not capricious; His actions are consistent. What He did for Apronian in getting the waters of Baptism to him, He most certainly did for Evilasius, — and for Emerentiana, and for all the other sainted martyrs we have listed in this brief study.

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]K. The Character and Grace of Baptism

Page 37 (Back to Father Laisney): Desiring to insist on the necessity of the exterior sign of the Sacrament of Baptism, Father Feeney and his disciples have practically bestowed upon the character of Baptism what the Popes, Doctors and all the Catholic theologians say of the grace of Baptism (in the strict sense), which grace is received by those who have "baptism of desire."

Desiring to insist that the baptismal character — and, consequently, the very sacrament of Baptism — is not at all necessary for salvation, Father Laisney seizes upon a particular phrase used in our Res Fidei monograph entitled "A Reply to Verbum" dated February, 1987.

Concerning a point that Verbum had seemed to misunderstand, our Brother Michael had written: "the character itself is a sanctifying grace." He did not say the character was the "sanctifying grace," of justification (habitual grace). He said it was "a sanctifying grace," meaning a grace that aids in sanctification. But, as Father Laisney correctly pointed out, Brother should not have used the word "sanctifying." The character is a grace called gratia gratis data, an abiding disposition, freely given, which assists a mature Catholic in his efforts to regain or increase in holiness. It is not holiness (sanctification) itself, but a grace that disposes the soul to receive sanctification.

The character of Baptism marks us, so to speak, as enlistees in the Church Militant. It gives us, as soldiers in this great army, a claim to, a deed to, an entitlement to, whatever other help from God we may need either to regain lost holiness or to increase in holiness already possessed. In addition to sundry actual graces, this other help from God is given by, above all, the other sacraments; and no one, but no one, is entitled to receive the other sacraments if he does not have the baptismal character impressed on his soul.

Page 38: To make of the baptismal character, "the seal without which one is lacking the essential incarnational anointment marking him as heir of the Heavenly kingdom" is new theology, and not in conformity with past Catholic doctrine. The "essential" requirement. . . is the "sanctifying grace". . .

Brother Michael had also stated: "You are incorrect in asserting that sanctifying grace ‘is the only necessary title to be admitted to see God.’ What Father [Feeney] taught in Bread of Life was that final perseverance in grace guarantees for the catechumen, before he dies, the bestowal by God of the necessary character (indelible mark) of sacramental Baptism. This is the ‘seal’ without which one is lacking the essential incarnational anointment marking him as heir of the heavenly kingdom."

Father Laisney misses our point here: The sacrament of Baptism is the outward, visible (incarnational) sign by which the character (the seal) is impressed (anointed) on the soul. Saint Ephraem Syrus writes:

The Holy Ghost imprints His sign upon His sheep with oil. As a sealing-ring imprints an image on wax, so the secret sign of the Holy Spirit is imprinted by means of oil on a person when he is anointed in Baptism. (Pohle-Preuss The Sacraments, Vol. I, Page 81)

Saint Ephraem speaks here of the incarnational ceremony of Baptism, by which the Holy Ghost "imprints His sign upon His sheep with oil." In the same incarnational fashion, in the same incarnational sacrament, Our Lord impresses His sign, His character, upon His same sheep with the water which He has sanctified for that very purpose.

Sanctifying grace is not an incarnational anointment; the baptismal character is! When a man dies, it is essential that his soul possess both! Otherwise, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Page 38 [Father Laisney quotes Father Feeney from Bread of Life:] "Let us suppose a man receives Baptism sinfully . . . he is freed from original sin. Does he go into a state of justification? He does not!"

[Then Father Laisney says] This is also new theology. Such a man certainly does not go into a state of justification, but he is not even freed from original sin, though he received the character of Baptism.

Let us first look at the whole quotation by Father Feeney found on pages 132 and 133 of Bread of Life:

Let us suppose a man receives Baptism for an evil purpose. Let us suppose he receives Baptism sinfully. Let us suppose he receives Baptism just to marry a dowager, just to make money, just to have his name written in the baptismal book under the aegis of Christian protection, as thousands of Jews did in Spain.

As long as that man intends to receive Baptism, he is freed from original sin!

Does he go into a state of justification? He does not. The intention for which he received Baptism puts him immediately in the state of positive mortal sin. But the fact that he intended to receive Baptism, rids him of original sin. Were he then to go to confession, the only sin he would be required to confess would be the sin of sacrilegious reception of Baptism, not the sin of having simply received it.

With regard to his other sins, they would have been blotted out forever, without confessing them. He might need now to add the attrition required for the forgiveness of sins, but he would not need to add the confession. And even this malefactor — even this Jew — were he later, by Confession, to get into the state of sanctifying grace, would now, without further Baptism, be entitled to receive the Blessed Eucharist. No unbaptized person has that right — no matter how justified he is by perfect acts of love — apart from the waters of redemption.

We say that Father Laisney is in error when he says that this is "new theology." It is, in fact, quite old and sound theology. In proof, we offer this passage from the letter Maiores Ecclesiae Causas to the Archbishop of Arles, sent under the authority of Pope Innocent III in the year 1201:

It is contrary to the Christian religion to force someone into accepting and practicing Christianity, if he was always unwilling and thoroughly opposed. Therefore, some make a distinction, and not a foolish one, between unwilling and unwilling, forced and forced. For whoever is violently drawn by fear of punishments and receives the Sacrament of Baptism to avoid these punishments, such a one, just like the one who comes to the sacraments in bad faith, is imprinted with the character of Christianity; and he, like one who is conditionally though not absolutely willing, is to be forced to the observances of the Christian faith. . . . But one who never consents and is absolutely unwilling receives neither the reality nor the character of the sacrament because express dissent is something more than the absence of any consent. (The Church Teaches, #684)

So, unless someone is being baptized against his will, he receives the sacrament, with all of its effects, the remission of original sin included. The words of Father Feeney are clear: "As long as the man intends to receive Baptism, he is freed from original sin."

What complicates this issue theologically is the fact that Baptism is a sacrament with multiple effects: the impression of the baptismal character on the soul, the remission of original sin, the remission of any actual sin, the conferring of sanctifying grace, adoption into the sonship of God, conferring of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. These are all effected by the one single sacrament. We do not know a priori what it is in Baptism that saves, what intrinsic thing is in this sacrament that will permit a baby, who dies one minute after receiving it, to go to heaven. We just know that it does save. Yes, we know that sanctifying grace is necessary; and yes, we know divine adoption is necessary, but even if these things could be effected outside the sacrament, we would still need the sacrament because it is required by

the Divine economy.

Since Father Feeney knew that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and since it was being taught that all one needed for salvation was sanctifying grace, he reminded people that sanctifying grace is not the only effect of Baptism. The fact that grace can be infused into the soul by a perfect act of love of God, when coupled with the fact that Baptism is necessary for salvation, logically led Father to say that something else is necessary, and that something is the baptismal character. What is intrinsic to this character that makes it so necessary? Again, we do not know. But the fact that it is an effect of a sacrament which is necessary for salvation — an effect not produced by any other sacrament — logically leads us to consider its necessity.

Father Feeney did not say that it is de fide that the character of Baptism is necessary for salvation; he said that it is de fide that the sacrament itself is necessary, and that is what Father Laisney denies.

Now, in the light of what has just been said, we present this text from the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin:

If anyone denies that by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only raised or is not imputed, let him be anathema.

Admittedly, in this decree, the Fathers of Trent were defending the true doctrine concerning the nature of justification in opposition to the Lutheran heresy of a non-intrinsic justice by imputation only. They were not dealing with the issue of the validity of Baptism administered outside the Church. However, the decree is still applicable. The Church does teach that this sacrament can be received validly outside her Body, and she also affirms that a person who willingly approaches the rite under pretext — that is, pretending for some opportunistic reason to embrace the Holy Faith and the Church— even one guilty of this impiety is still validly baptized. Whenever the Baptism of Christ is properly administered and the recipient has no contrary intention not to receive it, the sacramental character is implanted.

The baptized is then marked as Christ’s possession. He has entered the Catholic Church. Heretic or opportunist, he is, for a time perhaps known only to God, a Catholic. On this point, Father Laisney no doubt agrees.

Concerning either the opportunist, who does not accept the Catholic religion but does intend to receive the sacrament of Baptism from the Church, but under some pretext, or the heretic, who has separated himself from the Church, the following points may aid our understanding:

Whenever the sacrament of Baptism is validly administered and received, all the effects proper to this sacrament do follow. The sacrament is one; it cannot be given in parts. 2) The character of the sacrament makes one a member of the Catholic Church, which is the

Mystical Body of Christ. 3) All the sins of the baptized are washed away, original and actual. But, as Father Feeney added, upon his conversion "he might need to add the attrition* required for the forgiveness of sins." 4) The baptized is reborn in Christ, therefore, he does receive sanctifying grace. 5) With sanctifying grace come the infused theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. 6) The gates of heaven are now open if he should cooperate with the grace bestowed. 7) The sacrament of Baptism truly works ex opere operato (from the act being performed). That this is true is manifestly evidenced in the Martyrology’s accounts of those comedians who, although they approached Baptism under pretext, did convert upon being washed by the water. Now, conversion is the result of grace. So, we must affirm that, along with the reception of the character, they received all the supernatural effects of the sacrament. In their cooperation with these newly infused virtues, they merited an instant martyrdom. On page 844 of The New Catholic Dictionary of 1929 we read:

Trent teaches that the Sacraments produce grace ex opere operato; from Divine institution they are instrumental causes of grace. Hence the sacramental rite . . . confers grace when the recipient places no obstacle.

* Attrition is an imperfect contrition; it is a sorrow for sin motivated only by a supernatural fear of God’s justice.

However, it should be noted that a contrary will does create an obstacle that invalidates the sacrament. No adult can be baptized who does not want to be baptized. On the other hand, lack of proper disposition (or motive for seeking Baptism) in the recipient does not prevent the conferral of sanctifying grace. The grace is given to all who are validly baptized. But, if an improperly disposed person rejects the working of the grace that has regenerated his soul, with that sinful act of rejection he falls into a positive mortal sin of impiety or sacrilege. (Opinions of theologians do differ on this point.)

What are the effects of a valid Baptism in an heretical sect? Bishop Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D., a great Church historian of the last century and zealous fighter against the Masonic Illuminism then rampant in Germany, dealt with this very question in his History of the Church Councils. Concerning the controversy over the validity of the Baptism conferred by the Donatist heretics who troubled the Church from the third to the fourth century, Hefele capsulized what he considered to be the common opinion of "Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Bonaventure, the editors of the Roman Catechism, and others" as follows:

The heretic is, without any doubt, out of the Church; but the baptism which he confers is not an alien baptism, for it is not his, it is Christ’s baptism, the baptism which he confers, and consequently a true baptism, even when conferred out of the Church. In leaving the Church, the heretics have taken many things away with them, especially faith in Jesus Christ and baptism. These fragments of Church truth are the elements, still pure (and

not what they have as heretics), which enable them by baptism to give birth to children of God.

. . .The sacraments are often compared to channels through which divine grace comes to us. Then, when any one is baptized in a heretical sect, but is baptized according to the rules, the channel of grace is truly applied to him, and there flows to him through this channel not only the remission of sins, but also sanctification and the renewal of the inner man; that is to say, he receives the grace of baptism. (History of the Councils, Page 114-115)

The heretic then, according to the German bishop (and we have no reason to disagree), receives remission of all sin, original and actual sins committed prior to his Baptism. However, as we are speaking here of an adult, this person is now under grave obligation to cooperate with the infused theological virtues he has received and thereby to resist all anti-Catholic teaching when such error confronts him. When he does confront heretical teaching, if he does not only not resist, but embraces such evil, then this person, who, by his true Baptism, was in fact a member of the Catholic Church, is now no longer so, but incurs the guilt of the sin of heresy.

What are the effects of the valid Baptism of an opportunist with a bad motive? (Now, to clarify Father Feeney’s position as stated in Bread of Life, and in response to Father Laisney’s objections to that position, we ask the reader to summon patience, downshift the mind to slower gear, and continue on carefully.)

Concerning this unworthy approach to Baptism, Father made it clear in Bread of Life that the person received the character of the sacrament and the removal of all sin. Theologians are unanimous in attributing the removal of sin, original and actual, to the work of sanctifying grace. Therein lies our dilemma. It is recorded in Bread of Life that this improperly disposed recipient of Baptism did not receive sanctifying grace, yet did receive the forgivess of all of his sins, excepting the positive mortal sin of an unworthy approach to Baptism. This sin he would need to confess upon his conversion.

It must be noted that Father Feeney said a lot more about the grace of Baptism than transcribers recorded in Bread of Life. When objections or questions were raised, he was not immune from reconsidering a position. The loyal followers of Father Feeney do not consider Bread of Life to be de fide definita. Upon discussing this issue with Brother Francis, we learned more about the instruction Father gave concerning the effect of Baptism.

Brother Francis relates that his mentor explained, many times, that anyone, even one with an opportunistic motive, who was humble enough to ask for Baptism, by that very intent, was validly baptized and did indeed receive, with the sacrament, the gift of sanctifying grace. The infused theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity were implanted thereby as powers (motivational facilitators, if you will) in his soul. If the recipient cooperated with this grace, his eyes would be opened and, repenting of his unworthy approach to something so holy, he would need only to confess this, not the sins of his past life. Nor must we try to rationalize about this mysterious working of The Sanctifier; the bestowal of grace and the negative or

positive cooperation therewith are not to be measured by a timepiece. It is God’s work (the bestowal and the cooperation, that is), for the act of Faith is God’s act in us.

These distinctions are very subtle. We remind our readers that Bread of Life was a composition of lectures; it was not a complete treatise on the processes of justification.

Father Laisney follows the reasoning of Saint Thomas Aquinas. But it seems to us that the holy Doctor ended up dividing the sacrament of Baptism in his efforts to posit supernatural distinctions. In treating this issue, the Council of Trent — just as in its treatment of the problem of baptismus in voto — did not wish to overtax the faithful of that time with unnecessary speculation about "exceptional cases." The Council defined what we ought to believe concerning the first sacrament so that our Faith about it would be exactly as it was communicated by the Apostles. The Synod did define concerning the nature of the sacrament, the matter and form, the requirements for validity, the nature of original sin, justification and sanctification, and the Fathers provided a list of every great effect benefited by the regenerated. By appropriation, one could argue that the Tridentine Council defined that, if the sacrament is validly received, so, in every case, are all of its supernatural effects.

What then of Father Laisney’s objection? What is our answer? Based upon the traditional teaching of the Church concerning the power of this essential sacrament, we hold that the sacrament itself is what removes original sin, not, as Father Laisney accuses, the character. The imprinting of the character and the removal of original sin are both effects of the sacrament of Baptism.

Sanctifying grace is the greatest effect of Baptism. Along with the removal of actual sins, the rebirth of a man as an adopted son of God, and the opening to him of the gates of heaven, this sacrament initiates the intrinsic process of the total remaking of his fallen nature into the likeness of Christ, the New Adam.

According to Father Laisney, in the problematical case at hand, this man of bad faith, though validly baptized, is really only half-baptized. He has the character of the sacrament, but he also has original sin. Let us suppose that someone in such a situation were to repent of his sin of abusing the sacrament. Let us then suppose that he was referred to Father Laisney. What would Father have him do? Confess original sin?

But, (with the sole exception of Baptism, of course) no one can approach any sacrament in the state of original sin. When and how, then, is it to be removed from the soul of our new convert? By an act of perfect contrition? But who can be sure of this? Is it not a rare penitent who loves God so much that he can be justified prior to Confession? And even if we do have before us such a penitent, how is his original sin removed? By his desire for the sacrament of Penance? Or can he qualify for a retroactive baptism of desire? We do hope Father Laisney has been reading along because we need more answers!

L. The Doctrinal Weakness of The Society of Saint Pius X

Page 39: ". . . Baptism is the sacrament of justification. To claim the Sacrament of Baptism necessary ‘for salvation, not for justification’ is to misplace it at the end rather than at the beginning of the spiritual life. No, we should rather hold with the Council of Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism (of water) is necessary for justification . . . in fact or in desire. Baptism is necessary for salvation because and only because it is necessary for justification. Thus it is necessary for salvation in the same way as it is necessary for justification . . . in fact or in desire. . . . In one word, to die in the state of grace is necessary and sufficient to be saved. . . . I say that salvation does not require anything more than perseverance in justification."

What a hodgepodge of disorganized theological thinking is contained in these words of Father Laisney! It is not easy to determine where to begin in replying to them. So, let us comment on each of his seven sentences in the order given.

Sentence #1: "Baptism is the sacrament of justification." All sacraments justify, but the sacrament of Baptism alone incorporates us into the Church. It is the sacrament of incorporation. By the impression of the baptismal character on our souls, it alone incorporates us with Christ and makes us members of the Catholic Church. Without the character, none of the other six sacraments may be received.

Sentence #2: "To claim the Sacrament of Baptism necessary ‘for salvation, not for justification’ is to misplace it at the end rather than at the beginning of the spiritual life." Without the sacrament of Baptism, or the vow to receive it (the votum), initial justification is unattainable. Then, unless we are incorporated with Christ by bearing the baptismal character on our souls, and are thereby made members of His Church, when we die, we simply cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Sentence #3: "No, we should rather hold with the Council of Trent that the sacrament of Baptism (of water) is necessary for justification . . . in fact or in desire." This sentence refers to Canon IV (On the Sacraments in General). We hold this completely, but object to the weak translation of the Latin phrase "in voto" into the English phrase "in desire." Literally, "in voto" means "in vow."

We also hold Canon V (On Baptism): "If anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." This is the Canon that Father Laisney circumvents.

Sentences #4 and #5: "Baptism is necessary for salvation because and only because it is necessary for justification. Thus it is necessary for salvation in the same way as it is necessary for justification . . . in fact or in desire." Here is the circumvention. This is truly "new theology." Father Laisney completely disregards the traditional teaching of the Church on the necessity of the baptismal seal impressed only by the sacrament.

Then, in Sentences #6 and #7, Father concludes: "In one word, to die in the state of grace is necessary and sufficient to be saved. . . . I say that salvation does not require anything more than perseverance in justification." Here we have a clear statement of what we consider to be the serious doctrinal weakness espoused by

the Society of Saint Pius X, Father Laisney, and, as evidenced by his own words when he was alive, Archbishop Lefebvre himself.

This error is their insistence that "to die in the state of grace is necessary and sufficient to be saved." And this erroneous conclusion is a logical consequence of their erroneous belief that: "Baptism is necessary for salvation because and only because it is necessary for justification." This is a gross misinterpretation of what Trent declared.

In Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight above, we discussed the sacrament of Baptism and the baptismal character, and earlier in this chapter we summarized the pertinent decisions of the Council of Trent. There is no need to repeat all of that here. But in view of these previous discussions, we voice the following criticisms of Father Laisney’s position:

1. It is not in agreement with what Christ stipulated: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16: 15-16).

2. It is not in agreement with what the Council of Trent defined: "Canon V, On Baptism: If anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."The Council had previously made the distinction between justification and salvation, so Father Laisney becomes still another revisionist who tries to tell us what the Council of Trent really meant.

3. It blurs the distinction between justification and salvation, which Trent expressed in three or four places, and moves toward the Protestant concept which considers them to be one and the same thing. (We suggest that the reader study again Father Feeney’s comments on "Desire" in Chapter Seven above, wherein he explains the great difference between them.)

4. It ignores the meaning and purpose of the baptismal character as though it were totally irrelevant. This is the key to understanding the weak position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society on the Dogma of Faith, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, for it is the baptismal character alone that incorporates one into the Roman Catholic Church.

5. It fosters the concept of an invisible Church with invisible sacraments, and thereby aids and abets the wild speculations of modernists like Karl Rahner on easy salvation for almost everyone.

6. It comes perilously close to being a premise censured by Pope Saint Pius X in the Decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili. The Decree condemned this proposition:

#24. An exegete is not to be reproved who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or dubious, provided he does not directly deny the

dogmas themselves.

In this case, the premise is "baptism of desire," upon which Father Laisney’s position is based, and the dogma being compromised is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

In the early days of the Church, "baptism of desire" was proposed innocently as a rational solution to what appeared to be unsolvable dilemmas. But it turned out to be a time bomb waiting to explode. Over the past one hundred years or more, it has been used increasingly as a device to weaken the Dogma of Faith, subtly at first, but now more openly and boldly.

Father Feeney was taught "baptism of desire" in the seminary, and accepted it. But when he saw the devastating effect it was beginning to have on the doctrines of the Church, he studied the issue more closely. Realizing it was being abused, he began an attack on those abuses.

Today, the issue of "baptism of desire" has ripened into a major crisis. The bomb is exploding in all directions. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is being assaulted on all sides. Catholics no longer believe it. This is a Churchwide emergency of unbelievable proportions.

Again, we beg the Holy Father to fulfill his primary duty of confirming the brethren in the Faith, to turn his attention to this festering problem, define its limitations, and end the "unholy confusion."

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]M. Justice: Fulfilled/Unfulfilled

Page 41: Father Feeney says: "Unfulfilled justice is the state of justification. Fulfilled justice is the state of salvation." That "unfulfilled justice" by sanctifying grace, would be "fulfilled" by the "sacrament of water." . . . But there is no state of salvation here below! . . . Thus one does not enter a state of "fulfilled justice" by the waters of Baptism!

. . .They base this distinction between unfulfilled and fulfilled justice on Matthew 3:15 where Our Lord asks to be baptized by Saint John the Baptist, and says: "Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice." But this is a new interpretation of these words; the Fathers interpreted them as an act of perfect humility for all. . . . None of them to my knowledge ever said that without the water, Our Lord’s justice was not fulfilled!

Father Laisney takes exception to Father Feeney’s explanation of fulfilled and

unfulfilled justice. This explanation is given on pages 118 and 119 of Bread of Life. Let us first look at what Father Feeney said:

As John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, John said to Him, "I ought to be baptized by Thee, and comest Thou to me?" Then Jesus said, "Suffer it to be so for now, for so it becometh Us to fulfill all justice." (Matt. 3:14 -15)

Unfulfilled justice is the state of justification; fulfilled justice is the state of salvation. What Jesus is saying to us, at His own Baptism by John in the River Jordan, is that justification is now being turned into salvation with the aid of water.

Jesus goes so far as to praise and belittle John the Baptist in terms of this very rite of Baptism. He says of John the Baptist, "Amen I say to you, there hath not arisen among them that are born of woman a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." (Matt. 11:11) John the Baptist’s greatness came not from being born in the state of justification. It came from being admitted into the Kingdom of Christ in salvation.

If Jesus was baptized with water to fulfill all justice, how shall we have justice fulfilled in us without Baptism of Water?

What is distressing to us about Father Laisney’s comment given above is his deliberate twisting of Father Feeney’s words to mean something not intended. We say "deliberate" because we know Father Laisney is intelligent. Obviously, he has read Bread of Life thoroughly, perhaps several times, and he knows full well that Father Feeney did not teach that there is a "state of salvation here below." He also must see the absurdity in accusing Father Feeney of holding that, "without the water, Our Lord’s justice was not fulfilled."

As Brother Michael explained in his "Reply to Verbum" (which Father Laisney has also read thoroughly): "Bread of Life is a compilation of Father Feeney’s lectures. These talks were given to his disciples, not to university theologians. When he decided to publish them, he intended to teach the Faith to those who wanted to hear it; he did not intend to do what I am doing — that is, to write an apologetic. Father wiped the dust, so to speak, and went searching for the pure in heart. He didn’t bother to qualify everything he was saying with ‘howevers,’ ‘ifs,’ and ‘buts.’ If he had to disagree with Saint Thomas on a point not defined, Father would say, ‘I have to disagree.’ Saint Thomas faced the greatest of centuries; Father Leonard was facing the worst. He had to exhaust his labors more profitably than in writing carefully researched apologiae to a hierarchy he knew would not listen."

So, if a critic is determined to "get" Father Feeney at every opportunity, slight though it may be, he will diligently search for, and then try to exploit, any generalized statement made by Father in his lectures. And this instance is a case in point.

We know that Holy Scripture is the Word of God. We also know that, technically, a saint is one who has died and entered the state of salvation. Yet, we find in Holy Scripture, not only Saint Paul, but his first mentor Saint Ananias, as well as Saints Luke and John, referring to the holy faithful of the first century as "saints" even while they are still alive on earth. Surely, Father Laisney would concede that the

Holy Ghost did not inspire His human agents to teach that there is "a state of salvation here below," yet, he does not make a similar concession when Father Feeney speaks in the same sense.

If we are in grace and have been thoroughly reborn in the water of Baptism, we have indeed "put on Christ;" we have been anointed with His seal; we can say with Saint Paul, "I live now, not I, but Christ liveth in me;" and we have initiated here on earth the "beginning of our salvation." In some sense then, even though final certainty is lacking, we have had our justice fulfilled in Baptism, else what does it mean to be "reborn?" But this is not to deny that there is a far more perfect fulfillment to come in the next life when our salvation is secure in the Beatific Vision, and that an even greater fulfillment awaits us when we are resurrected unto greater Glory.

If the reader has read Bread of Life, he knows exactly what Father Feeney meant: The state of justification is the state of sanctifying grace, which grace, in an unbaptized person, still lacks something to "fulfill" it, and that means something to complete it, "to make complete or supply what is lacking in," as the New Century Dictionary says. That "something" is the sacrament of Baptism with the grace and character it effects, without both of which, when you go to Judgment, you cannot enter heaven — the state of salvation.

In Father Feeney’s words given above, he was explaining three things: 1) the distinction between justification and salvation; 2) the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation since the promulgation of the Gospel — even for one who is justified; and 3) why Our Lord was baptized.

Jesus said, "Suffer it to be so for now, for it becometh Us to fulfill all justice." The Latin word used here is iustitiam, the same word used for the state of justification.* All commentators on Holy Scripture recognize this event of Christ’s Baptism by John as the point at which the Old Law meets, and begins to give way to, the New Law.

Now, those who lived under the Old Law could be justified, but it was not until the redemptive act on the Cross was completed that they could be saved — could enter heaven. Let us remember, they were in the "Limbo of the Just." Their Old Law justice, because it lacked the saving power of the sacraments of the New Law, could not save. Their immediate home after death was not heaven, it was "hell," as the Apostles’ Creed calls Limbo. And they were confined in this "hell" from the day of their death until Ascension Thursday, when Christ, in His Glorious Risen Body, led them into heaven.

*As we will point out later, the justification spoken of in this passage is not our Lord’s personal justification (that would be an absurdity). It is the justification of all of those who would later receive the sacrament, and thus, fulfill in the New Testament what was unfulfilled in the Old.

All of the sacraments of the New Law were given their efficacy by the redemption won on the Cross. Thus, through Baptism, justice was made fruitful for salvation. (And it must not be forgotten that the Just of the Old Testament gained their justification basically by their "desire" for the Baptism which the Messiah would institute when He came.)

Father Laisney says: "Thus one does not enter a state of fulfilled justice by the waters of Baptism." In saying this, he is correct. But he says it as if to contradict Father Feeney. For the record, Father Feeney never said that "one enters the state of fulfilled justice by the waters of Baptism." He merely equated "fulfilled justice" with salvation in order to simplify his explanation for the benefit of his young listeners. He was always very careful to distinguish between justification and salvation. As we noted above, he did not teach, as Father Laisney implies, that one could be in the state of salvation in this vale of tears.

It was Our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary that gave the sacraments their efficacy, and now Baptism is efficacious unto salvation. Hence, when Moses (an Old Testament saint, now in heaven) died, he did not go to heaven; but when a little baptized baby of the New Testament dies, he does. This is what Our Lord meant when He said, "it becometh Us to fulfill all justice."

To help the reader better understand this passage in Bread of Life, we should explain one more thing. Father taught that the great event of Our Lord’s Baptism was the occasion on which He instituted the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, Father said: "When He started His public life, Jesus came down and stood in water, in the River Jordan, where John was baptizing. He wanted, thereby, to let us know what Baptism was to mean in the Catholic Church forevermore." This teaching is not de fide, though it is the one affirmed in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, where it says, "It is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by Our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying." Saint Maximus of Turin comments very beautifully on this point:

The column of fire went before the sons of Israel through the Red Sea so they could follow on their brave journey; the column went ahead through the waters first to prepare a path for those who followed. As the Apostle Paul said, what was accomplished then was the mystery of Baptism. In the column of fire He went through the Sea before the sons of Israel; so now, in the column of His Body, He goes through Baptism before the Christian people.

. . .At Christmas, Christ was born a man; today [at His Baptism] He is reborn sacramentally . . . someone might ask: Why would a holy man desire Baptism? Listen to the answer: Christ is baptized, not to be made holy by the water, but to make the water holy, and by His cleansing to purify the water He touched. For the consecration of Christ involves a more significant consecration of the water." ( Lectio Divina, Second Reading, Friday After Epiphany to Baptism, Sermo 100)

These words of Our Lord to Saint John the Baptist are among the most mysterious in all of Holy Scripture. They have long engaged the minds of the saintliest and most talented commentators in the Church. It is true that none of them ever said that Our Lord’s justice was fulfilled by the waters of Baptism. And contrary to what

Father Laisney says, Father Feeney did not hold that position either. Jesus spoke as Our Savior and Head of the Mystical Body. Personally, He needed no Baptism because its effect (salvation) could not be greater than its Cause (the Savior Himself). The members of the Mystical Body are the ones who need the water.

In order to simplify this question of Matthew 3:15, we will paraphrase what Our Lord said to Saint John: "Be patient; I know I have no need of your baptism of repentance, but baptize Me that I may fulfill the will of My Father, and that I may make these waters fruitful unto salvation."

N. Father Laisney’s Fundamental Error

Page 42: We see here that the fundamental error of Father Feeney is to have so stressed the exterior belonging to the Church that he lost from sight the primacy of the interior union with Christ, attributing to the exterior sacrament what the Church says of the interior grace of the sacrament, which, in exceptional cases, can be had without the exterior sacrament, though not without the desire of this external sacrament.

Here again is Father Laisney’s incessantly repeated thesis that "exterior belonging to the Church" is not necessary. It is apparent, then, that he does not believe Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the sense in which the Popes defined it. Thus, he obviously believes that one can belong to the Church "interiorly," as an invisible member of an invisible Church.

If Father Laisney would only reread Bread of Life with childlike simplicity, rather than critical severity, he might begin to appreciate Father Feeney’s deep understanding, and beautiful explanation of "interior union with Christ." It’s all there in Bread of Life, particularly in Chapters Four and Five.

Father Feeney was a teacher par excellence. According to his Jesuit Provincial, he was "the greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." He knew and understood thoroughly the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. But his greatest talent was the God-given ability to teach fine points of doctrine in such clear and beautiful terms that his students quickly came to know, believe, and love the Faith, without themselves having had any prior theological training. This was his mission, his vocation. After he was unjustly censured, he continued to teach the children, young and old, whom God gave him.

However — and this is a true measure of the stature of the man — Father Feeney never totally disregarded Church authority, even though used against him unjustly; he never took up his brilliant pen in his own defense. Nor did he attempt to expound his doctrinal position in theological writings. For a man gifted with such literary talent, this was a sacrifice and a cross of heroic magnitude.

Father’s book, Bread of Life, was first published in 1952. He published it in order to teach and defend the defined dogma, Outside the Church there is No Salvation, which, at that time and for the first time, was being openly denied by the Jesuits, the American hierarchy, and an unknown, but obviously considerable percentage of the hierarchy throughout the rest of the world, including Rome. Bread of Life was

not written. It was an edited compilation of his lectures.

Of necessity, Father Feeney had to come to grips with the question of baptism by desire, for "baptism of desire" was the excuse, the precise "opening to the left," which all these dissenting clerics put forward as the exception to the integrity of the defined dogma.

Today, "baptism of desire" is still a theological speculation only, but it is winning the contest, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is almost "dead and buried," as the Bishop of Worcester boasted to us back in l974. Consequently, the Catholic Church is "on the ropes," so to speak, because her leaders no longer proclaim the very reason for which Christ founded her, which was to be the "one and only path to salvation," her most fundamental reason for being.

In this struggle, Father Laisney and the Society of Saint Pius X, whether they realize it or not, have thrown-in with the side that is determined to destroy the Dogma of Faith. Anyone who studies their booklet is bound to conclude that one does not have to be a baptized member of the Catholic Church to get to heaven. Everything the Church offers may be had by desire. Of course, it would help to be a member, a visible member, but it isn’t necessary; all that is required is somehow to be "interiorly" united to her! The sacrament of Baptism is optional! This is the message that comes through on almost every page. The few protests that such "baptism of desire" is rare are overwhelmed in the process.

On page 43, Father Laisney writes: "God did indeed perform some miracles, right from the beginning of the Church, to manifest the necessity of the grace of Baptism." Then he cites the incident of the conversion of the Eunuch of Candace by Philip the Deacon given in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8:26-40. Here, for the reader’s benefit, is a summary of the incident:

Philip was told by an angel to go to the desert country of Gaza. There, he encountered "a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians," who had come to Jerusalem to adore and was now returning, "sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet." Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading, whereupon he asked Philip to explain it to him. Now we quote directly the pertinent verses:

35. Then Philip, opening his mouth, . . . preached unto him Jesus.

36. And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?

37. And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.

39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away

Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing.

Good heavens! How in the world could anyone say that this Scriptural text manifests "the necessity of the grace of Baptism" only? Obviously, it demonstrates the need for the water — the sacrament! By his act of faith "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," the eunuch was justified, but he still needed the sacrament and the seal of incorporation with Christ which it impressed on his soul. Note that only "when they were come up out of the water" did the Holy Ghost take Philip away.

Were grace alone sufficient, the angel — who could not administer Baptism — simply would have instructed the eunuch, and the physical agency of Saint Philip would never have been needed.

Is it not true that, in today’s world, priests like Father Laisney are the ones who "doth hinder" men from being baptized?

Father Feeney had not "lost from sight" any of the requirements for salvation. The likes of Father Laisney are the blind ones! They are the ones who cling "pertinaciously" to a fundamental error.

O. The Source of the Weakness in SSPX

The weak interpretation given to the Dogma of Faith, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, reflects what Archbishop Lefebvre himself believed. Here are his own words:

1972: The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: "Outside the Church there is no salvation". . . This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals , perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error (from an address given at Rennes, France).

1973: And one may have the baptism of implicit desire, in great good will. At that moment God alone is judge. We do not know what takes place in souls. God knows all souls and, for that reason, knows that in Protestant communions, in Moslem communions, in Buddhist communions, in all humanity, there are souls of good will. And by the very fact that they do seek to do His holy will, they have the implicit baptism of desire (from a lecture given in Paris during May).

1974: Thus there exists the baptism of explicit desire for the catechumens, and a baptism of implicit desire which lies in the act of doing God’s will. Those souls, whether Protestant, Buddhist or Moslem, who have implicitly this sincere desire to do the will of God, may have the desire for Baptism and so receive supernatural grace, the Grace of eternal life, but this comes through the Church. Hence, through this implicit desire, Baptism unites them with the soul of the Church and it is through the Church, never through their religion, that they can save their souls (from a lecture in Tourcoing on January 30).

1976: We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse,* the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church; but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are not aware of it . . . (from his sermon preached at the first Mass of one of his newly ordained priests in Geneva).

* These words will be addressed in section P, "The Church: Visible or Invisible?"

It is obvious that Archbishop Lefebvre did not understand the Dogma of Faith in the same sense as we understand it, and as the Church has understood it from the very beginning.

We have highlighted in italics the particular phrases to which we call the reader’s attention. The Archbishop says that, if men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism, or Islam, they are saved. . .

. . . by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals.

. . . [by the Grace of eternal life which] comes through the Church.

. . . by the Catholic Church, even if they do not know it, even if they are not aware of it.

In other words, if the Church did not exist, if it were not there to pray for these people and to channel to them the grace of eternal life, they would not be saved.

Clearly, then, the Archbishop interprets Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to mean Sine Ecclesia Nulla Salus — "Without the Church there is no salvation." (We use the preposition "without" as the opposite of "with," not "within.")

In addition to this fundamental error in interpretation of the dogma, some of the other statements by the Archbishop deserve comment:

He downgrades a solemnly defined dogma of the Church to the status of an "adage of theology." This, in itself, is an indication of lack of respect for the Dogma of Faith in the sense in which the popes defined it. In the Decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili Sane, under Pope Saint Pius X, the Holy Father condemned and proscribed the following modernist proposition:

26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to a practical sense; that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.

It seems that, to the Archbishop, the dogma on salvation was just a stimulus to the Church’s missionary work; it was not a dogma that had to be taken in the literal

sense, because, after all, men in other religions could also be saved. It was just an "adage of theology" — the gist of an old saying currently being used by theologians.

It is true that those in false religions may be saved, but "not where they are," as Orestes Brownson insisted. They must respond to the actual graces which are constantly showered upon them through the prayers and supplications offered by the Church in their behalf. These actual graces are given them for the sole purpose of drawing and leading them to the visible Church. They must then enter the Church through the sacrament of Baptism and begin to partake of the other Life-giving sacraments instituted by Christ for that purpose.

A person who has "baptism of implicit desire in great good will,"* as the Archbishop says, is exactly one to whom "God would either reveal . . . through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the Faith . . . as He sent Peter to Cornelius," as Saint Thomas explains.

* In fairness to Father Laisney, we must point out that he apparently disagrees with the Archbishop’s teaching on "implicit desire." See our page 108 above for his statements on pages 4 and 15 of his booklet.

In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII wrote: "This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII, in his encyclical letter Divinum Illud in these words: ‘Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Ghost her soul.’" Thus, two recent Popes have clarified the hitherto vague theological concept called "the soul of the Church."

The Holy Ghost is "the soul of the Church." There is no such "soul" to which one can belong apart from the body of the Church. And only to the visible Church founded by the Second Person of the Holy Trinity will the Third Person lead those Buddhists, Moslems or Protestants "who have implicitly this sincere desire to do the will of God." To such persons, He will send a preacher of the Faith, "as He sent Peter to Cornelius."

This is the Particular Providence of God in action, a Divine factor which both Saint Thomas Aquinas and Father Feeney took into consideration in the whole salvation question. It is the factor that Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked entirely, and that Father Laisney refers to as Father Feeney’s "precise error."

Chapter 9A Critique of the Compromisers

[continued]P. The Church: Visible or Invisible?

Now let us look at some of the other words of Archbishop Lefebvre given above. In our opinion, they explain his unqualified acceptance of the theory of "baptism by desire." We repeat them in context:

Hence, through this implicit desire, Baptism unites them with the soul of the Church . . .

We think . . . that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently Outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church.

In his booklet, Father Laisney echoes the thoughts of his mentor. Responding to our claim that the Archbishop believed Sine Ecclesia Nulla Salus, he writes (pages 45 and 46):

It is important to point out that it is not sufficient to say, "without the Church, no salvation;" we must say with all the Tradition of the Church, "outside the Church, no salvation." One cannot say that one could be saved by the Church, though outside the Church. To be saved, it is not only necessary to receive grace from Christ, we must be in Christ by Charity. . . . Charity is received by Baptism of desire. Now to be in Christ necessarily means to be in His Mystical Body, the Church, which is the Catholic Church.

By these statements, both the Archbishop and Father Laisney give us the answer to the puzzling question: why do they cling to such a weak position on the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

As we pointed out in the opening pages of this treatise, the Church may be looked at from two different points of view, or in two different senses:

In the material, visible sense, the Church is a "congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff" (Saint Robert Bellarmine). She is a perfect, incarnational society founded by Jesus Christ as the one and only path to salvation.

In the spiritual, invisible sense, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, born as His members in Holy Baptism, nourished by Him in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, and bonded in union by the Holy Ghost. By receiving the Holy Eucharist, the human natures of members of the visible Church on earth are absorbed into, and made one with, the human nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who is now in Heaven, Body and Soul.

We must emphasize, however, that although we may distinguish between these two senses, we cannot separate them, one from the other, as if they were independent entities. The Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church. They are

one and the same thing, considered from two different points of view.

But it seems that both Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Laisney think of the Church in the spiritual, invisible sense, to the exclusion of the visible sense, whenever her necessity for salvation is to be considered. They admit she is necessary for salvation, but then seek means other than sacramental Baptism to get people "inside" her.

The Archbishop holds that implicit desire unites one with "the soul of the Church," an erroneous concept corrected by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, as we have already explained. The second quote from the Archbishop contains no error, but it does indicate his tendency to think and speak of the Church as primarily a "mystical" entity.

In the quote from Father Laisney, he concludes with an appeal to the Mystical Body of Christ as the haven of the unbaptized who are saved. The premise of the syllogism he constructs is: "To be saved,. . . we must be in Christ by Charity." This is not the whole truth. To be saved, we must not only love God, we must also be incorporated into the Mystical Body by Baptism. Since his premise is false, his conclusion is false.

The visible Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The sacrament of Baptism is the only way to gain membership in the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that "Charity" and/or "desire" are not enough for membership in the Mystical Body.

In a word, Archbishop Lefebvre and Father Laisney believe in a shortcut to heaven; one that bypasses the visible Church and its port of entry, the sacrament of Baptism; a shortcut that leads directly to the Church Triumphant without going through the Church Militant.

This belief accounts for Father Laisney’s writing his booklet, Baptism of Desire, from "the point of view of grace," a purely spiritual approach. It accounts for his considering the external rite of the sacrament of Baptism of secondary importance. It accounts for his treatment of the baptismal character as something of almost no value. And it accounts for his failure to understand the great importance of the Dogma of Faith, the suppression and denial of which was the first thing the modernists had to accomplish if they were to succeed in their plan to destroy the Church and, with it, the Mass, the sacraments, and everything the Church stands for.

And lastly, sad but true as it is, it explains the otherwise inexplicable animosity toward Father Feeney shown by the Society of Saint Pius X. Father challenged the modernists some twenty years before Archbishop Lefebvre first entered the fray, and he challenged them on the very issue the Archbishop later championed, "baptism of desire," which back then, as today, was the spearhead of the attack on the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

When the popes defined the dogma, Outside the Church there is No Salvation, they clearly meant the visible, incarnational Church; the Church which the whole world can see and hear and know. This is "the Church" we mean. This is the visible "city on a hill" which Christ founded. Outside the walls of this City, there is no salvation possible whatsoever!

Q. A General Appraisal of Our Critic’s Booklet

We believe that we have answered most, if not all, of the criticisms of Father Feeney found in Father Laisney’s work, Baptism of Desire. Let us now comment on those that characterize the entire booklet:

Father Feeney over-reacted against them [the liberals] and said that the state of grace was not sufficient for salvation . . . He put too much emphasis on the exterior belonging to the Church, . . . (page iii — first page of the Introduction)

Father Laisney misleads his readers at the very outset of his treatise. Father Feeney was preaching a defined dogma of the Church: the absolute necessity of visible membership in the visible Church for salvation. Archbishop Cushing and other churchmen in high places denied this dogma. That was why Father was silenced and later "excommunicated." The question concerning the sufficiency of the state of grace for salvation (baptism of desire) came up after he had been silenced, and he attacked that teaching also because it, too, is a tacit denial of a defined dogma — the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

For Father Laisney to describe Father Feeney’s defense of dogmas, against the blatant denials of high ranking churchmen, as an "over-reaction," is incomprehensible. What duty could possibly be more urgent for a Catholic priest than to teach and defend the solemnly defined dogmas of the Church?

Father Feeney did not "over-react" against the liberals. He reacted with the just and righteous indignation of a priest called by Jesus Christ to defend the necessity of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church for salvation. Long before there was a Society of Saint Pius X, or a traditionalist movement, he saw how these liberals and modernists, posing as Catholic priests and bishops, were trying to subvert and defile the inviolate Bride of Christ. His greatest concern was the salvation of souls, which is the supreme law of the Church. While the periti were theologizing in their rocking chairs about how souls were being saved without coming to the Church, Father Feeney was showing the whole world the only place where salvation could be found.

To say that Father Feeney "over-reacted" bespeaks a total lack of understanding of what brought on this Great Apostasy of the twentieth century.

Father Feeney’s greatest argument was that one should take absolutely literally Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."(page 27)

This admission is astounding. It is absolutely essential for all "baptism of desire"

advocates to break down this clear decree of the Just and Merciful Judge. We would not want to be in the shoes of anyone who will have to explain to Our Lord that He must not have meant what He said.

The error in Father Feeney’s excessive reaction precisely lies in this, that, though he admitted that God could infuse sanctifying grace before Baptism, yet he said: "God would not allow one to die in the state of grace, but not yet baptized."(page 35)

Replace the word "error" with "truth," and there you have it! This is exactly what we hold. After the promulgation of the Gospel, no soul entered heaven without being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost."

Father Feeney wrote: "the sinners, just and unjust, . . ." There is no such thing as a just sinner! Such a statement manifests an erroneous understanding of justification! (page 40)

Here we have a criticism that reflects the resentment of Father Feeney clearly evident throughout Father Laisney’s treatise.

The obvious sense in which Father Feeney spoke these words is the same sense in which the Church requires her priests to pray when offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Immediately following the Commemoration of the Dead, every priest, Father Laisney included, strikes his breast and slightly raising his voice for the first three words, says:

"Nobis quoque peccatoribus . . . " ("To us, sinners also, . . . ")

It is also the sense in which every Catholic, whether in the state of sanctifying grace or not, makes this request of Our Lady fifty three times while praying a chaplet of the Rosary:

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners . . . "

Because of the fall of our first parents, we are all, by nature, sinners. This is the sense in which Father Feeney spoke, and correctly so. Father Laisney’s criticism simply makes no sense.

St. Catherine of Sienna (sic) speaks of these three Baptisms in her dialogue, in a vision which she received from Christ, explaining the Water (Baptism of Water) and Blood (Baptism of Blood) coming out of the Side of Christ (Baptism of the Fire of Charity)." (page 59)

Father Laisney uses private revelations several times to justify his support of "baptism of desire." Even his front cover depicts such a revelation. In this example involving Saint Catherine, he should have gone on to relate that, in these same dialogues, and in agreement with Saint Thomas Aquinas, she supposedly reported that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived. It is very possible that fellow Dominicans tampered with her dialogues in order to make them conform to the Angelic Doctor’s erroneous teachings on the three baptisms and the three stages of ensoulment in the womb. Saint Catherine was a Dominican Tertiary who

died 106 years after the death of Saint Thomas.

The most distressing thing, to us, about Father Laisney’s booklet is the spirit in which it was written. We are accustomed to theological disputation, but find it difficult to understand the dislike for Father Feeney and his Crusade which characterizes the entire treatise. This lack of charity is typical of the American branch of the Society of Saint Pius X, and it is a scandal to many!

Although we "Feeneyites," as they constantly refer to us, are, in their eyes, Public Enemy Number One, they have now succeeded in earning the enmity of all traditionalists who do not acknowledge their wisdom and authority, or who pay due respect to the memory of Father Leonard Feeney. This development is not only a scandal, it is a tragedy, for it has added immeasurably to the divisions within the ranks of traditionalists. This arrogance, unless checked by Society leadership, could well lead to the self-destruction of the Society of Saint Pius X in the United States.

R. The Verdict of Judge Laisney

Page 47: The decree of excommunication of Father Feeney, approved and confirmed by Pope Pius XII on 12 February, l953, does not mention the charge of heretic, but rather that of a "grievous disobedience to the Authority of the Church." One cannot condemn them more than the Church did, so one should not say that they are heretics.

Father Laisney conveniently ignores the true facts of this spurious "excommunication" as related in Part One of this study. He ignores the fact that the decree was never signed or sealed by the Pope. He ignores the unanswered Complaint of Nullity which we filed in July of that year through Monsignor Montini who, as Pope Paul VI, treated Archbishop Lefebvre so shabbily some twenty years later. Above all, he dishonestly fails to give even a hint about the equally spurious "reconciliation" in 1973 which was arranged, under Paul VI, by some of the same clerics who, under Pius XII, had engineered the "excommunication."

And, as a grand finale highlighting his ironic hypocricy, Father Laisney ignores the fact that, in his own insistence upon Divine and Catholic Faith (be it ever so minimal) for justification, he too could have been summoned to Rome — with his little booklet — to answer the same questions Father Feeney would have had to answer before the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII. For remember, Father Laisney, at the time of Father Feeney’s "excommunication," Baptism’s absolute necessity was not the issue disturbing Rome — it was his insistence upon the necessity incumbent upon every non-Catholic to renounce his false religion and embrace Roman Catholicism.

Father Laisney has all of these facts, and he conceals them from his readers. That is biased reporting! And based on this biased report, he concludes that Father Feeney and we are, indeed, worthy of condemnation.

Page 47 [continuing the above quote]: However if, after one has explained to them properly the Catholic Doctrine on Baptism of Desire (not the liberal doctrine), they

publicly, stubbornly, "pertinaciously" refuse to correct themselves and "to hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers" (Pope Innocent II), I cannot see how they could be excused of a sin of temerity against Faith; thus they could be denied Holy Communion.

This judgment, rendered from the chair of Père Laisney is, we are sure, very painful to him. It is not founded upon our "heresy," he says — because, after all, "one cannot condemn them more than the Church" — but, we assume, upon our "grievous disobedience to the Authority of the Church."

The dictionary defines "temerity" as reckless boldness or presumption, rashness. Therefore, Father Laisney decrees, if we do not accept his proper explanation of the "Catholic Doctrine" on "baptism by desire," we are opposing the Faith in a recklessly bold, presumptuous and rash manner, for which reason we should be denied Holy Communion, even though, as he is forced to admit, we are not heretics.

That was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s opinion! When Brother Francis met with him in Saint Mary’s, Kansas in 1980 to explain our position, the Archbishop personally gave him Holy Communion after their meeting. Later, he confirmed to one of his priests that Brother’s arguments were sound and persuasive, but to introduce them into his Society would cause dissension.

Father Laisney’s defense of the still undefined theory known as "baptism of desire" has not altered, in the slightest degree, our Crusade for the oft-defined dogma on Baptism. Contrary to what he says, there is a causal relation between what he calls "the Catholic Doctrine" on "baptism of desire" and "the liberal doctrine."

On page 14 of his booklet he explains how they differ: ". . . it would be presumptuous to affirm that there are relatively many such souls saved by baptism of desire only. There are certainly such souls in heaven, but they remain the exceptions to the rule. . . "

So, here we have the traditionalist Father Laisney saying that the "Catholic Doctrine" allows for comparatively few to be saved by baptism of desire.

Next, we have the liberal Father William Most, who has often written for The Wanderer, claiming that "millions upon millions" are saved by baptism of desire.

Finally, we have the modernist Father Karl Rahner proclaiming "universal salvation" by baptism of desire.

We are compelled to ask a few questions: Why would it be "presumptuous" to say that there are many souls saved by baptism of desire? How does one measure this immeasurable thing called "desire?"

By what principle does Father Laisney claim that few are saved in this manner? What is there to prevent Father Most from numbering them in the millions? Or Father Rahner from preaching salvation for everyone, without exception?

There is nothing to prevent them, absolutely nothing! If desire for Baptism is accepted as a substitute for the sacrament, the floodgates are opened, and the Dogma of Faith is completely washed away. The institution of the Church becomes meaningless! Despite his determined opposition to liberalism and modernism, Father Laisney has put the Society of Saint Pius X in league with these dangerous forces in the critical battle now being waged in the Church — the battle over the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which dogma is the cornerstone for the very extension of the Church.

Page 47 [continuing again]: But I do not think there is such a pertinacity in most of today’s followers of Fr. Feeney (I bear no judgment on the past, leaving judgment to God); they are rightly shocked by the modern "ecumenism" manifest at Assisi and thus are inclined towards the opposite excess, unaware of the teaching of the Fathers.

We are just as "pertinacious" in our defense of Catholic truth as was Father Feeney. In this study we have explained the Catholic doctrine on justification and salvation as defined infallibly by the Council of Trent. Father Laisney is free to accept our defense of Trent, or to reject it by clinging to what he claims is "the teaching of the Fathers."

We do not know that he will accept it. But it is not up to us to judge in this matter. Final judgment is the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church only, not the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center. Nor is it the prerogative of the Society of Saint Pius X!

S. The Defense Rests

This ends our study of, and replies to, the arguments put forth by our critics by which they seek to prove that the sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation, and, therefore, that there is salvation outside the Church.

Let us summarize our position briefly:

The three Ex Cathedra definitions by three different popes (see page 9) are objective truths applicable for all time, and not subject to interpretations which contradict the obvious, literal meaning intended by the popes who defined them, nor subject to the vicissitudes of history or cultures.

These popes meant, and the Church always understood them to have meant, that unless a man is a visible member of the visible Church on earth, subject in spiritual matters to the pope visibly reigning, he is not on the path to salvation.

The infallible decrees of the Council of Trent on the sacraments in general, and Baptism in particular (see pages 116 and 117), are also objective truths not subject to change by individual interpretation or the passage of time.

These decrees state very clearly that, to receive the sacrament of Baptism, true and natural water must be used to produce its effects; and, further, that a conscious vow to receive the sacrament may obtain from God the grace of

justification, but that the sacrament itself is necessary for salvation.

The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation primarily because of the baptismal character it impresses on the soul, by which a man is incorporated into Christ’s Church, and empowered to do everything required of him for his particular role in the Church.

A vow to receive the sacrament of Baptism cannot impress the character; the "outward sign" of the sacrament is necessary to impress this seal. Therefore, if God infuses the grace of justification in a man prior to his receiving the sacrament, as He did for Cornelius the centurion, He does so because He knows from all Eternity that that man is going to receive the water.

Any contrary opinions which have been expressed by popes who were not defining, or by the private speculations of saints or theologians, ought to be rendered null and void by the three solemn definitions of the popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and by the Decrees of the Council of Trent.

Although they admirably cling to the traditional liturgy, priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, whether they realize it or not, undermine the very Dogma of Faith which compels men to participate, for their own spiritual ennoblement, in this Immemorial Divine Service.

This they do by pertinaciously holding onto and preaching the un-Scriptural and undefined theological speculation known as "baptism of desire."

Chapter 10Father Feeney, Apostle of the Incarnation

In 1943, four years before Father Feeney brought to the attention of the entire world the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic Church, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Pope Pius XII presented to the Universal Church a new encyclical entitled Mystici Corporis Christi, on the Mystical Body of Christ.

To a world torn asunder by a war in which Christian fought Christian and brother fought brother, the Holy Father endeavored to present the healing truth of the doctrine of the Mystical Body, and what that truth should mean, not just to Catholics, but to spiritually minded men everywhere. The Catholic Church, as explained by this beautiful doctrine, should be recognized as the instrument for the spiritual unification of all men of good will and, therefore, a mighty influence in preventing future wars.

In 1943, the devastation and horror of World War II was at its height. This was the war that the Holy Mother of God, when she appeared to the Fatima children in 1917, had predicted would come unless men stopped offending God. War, she said, is God’s punishment for sin. The sins of men, in their perverse quality and defiant quantity, have been offending God with increasing intensity ever since the open assault on the Church in the sixteenth century. The Protestant Revolt, itself brought on by loss of faith within Christendom, ushered in what is known as the "age of reason," which in turn spawned all the "isms" that plague us today, the most notable among them being zionism, communism, liberalism and modernism.

During the last century, and in the early years of this century, liberalism and modernism drew the censures of Popes Pius IX and Saint Pius X. But these heresies were too well entrenched within the Church to be destroyed so easily. They flourish today as never before. The creed of each may be summed up in a few words: Liberals believe there is salvation outside the Church; modernists, in addition to that, believe that Holy Scripture is the work of men, not God. And both are notorious for their attempts to distort the meaning of the doctrine on the Mystical Body of Christ to their own advantage.

One of Pope Pius XII’s purposes in writing the encyclical was to correct serious errors in ecclesiology that were being promoted by various German theologians. Two of these major errors may be summarized as follows:

1. The members of the Mystical Body are absorbed into Christ in such a way that

they are Christ. They surrender their substance and become an appendage of Him. Or, as Pope Pius described it: "A false mysticism which strives to eliminate the immovable frontier that separates creatures from their Creator."

2. The Church is a mystical entity; as such it goes far beyond the formal structure of the pope and the bishops: there is an invisible Church to which people can belong without belonging to this "juridical" one. Here is the Holy Father’s description of this false notion of the Church: ". . . a Church that is something hidden and invisible. . . a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical."

The first error results in a sort of semi-quietist pantheism. The second, in a gnostic invisibleness.

By the time Father Feeney began to make the dogma on salvation an issue, Mystici Corporis had been widely circulated. That was truly providential, for the errors exposed by the Holy Father were rampant at the time in the modernist theology of priests who were to become Father Feeney’s enemies, like fellow Jesuits Teilhard de Chardin and Karl Rahner. The thesis developed by Father Rahner in his book, On the Problem of the Anonymous Christian, depends on these errors as a geometrical proof depends on an axiom.

As we have seen, Father Feeney was attacked from all sides. He stood practically alone against the formidable body of the hierarchy. The few clergymen who agreed with him would not do so publicly lest they too be tarred with the same brush. His teachings were supported by the encyclical, but it would take more than this one document to vindicate him. The attack on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was so total, so wholistic, that it undermined every discipline of theology. Ecclesiology, Sacramental Theology, and Soteriology (the study of Christ the Redeemer) were virtually rewritten in an attempt to bury the doctrine our Founder fought so valiantly to defend. The nominalism* employed by modernist theologians in order to prove that the dogma was not really true, eventually corrupted our seminaries and parishes so thoroughly that, what had been mere lukewarmness in the forties and fifties, became the "brave new Church" of the present era.

* Nominalism is a philosophical error which can be defined as follows: "The rejection of universals as anything more than figments of each person’s imagination; man knows things commonly only because of the accident of accepted language; universals are nothing more than words." The terms "Church," "outside," and "salvation," can be reduced, by the nominalist, to "mere words" which do not correspond accurately with reality. In the same way, nominalism endangers any and every truth of the Faith.

As an antidote to the sophistries and skepticism of the modernists; as a refutation of the sentimentalism and dogmatic minimalism of their liberal followers; and, most importantly, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, Father Feeney

threw down the gauntlet of defined Catholic truth. He challenged these heretics with a Church that is real, visible, led by the pope, and necessary for salvation; and with sacraments that are real, composed of matter and form, material as well as spiritual, corresponding to man’s body and soul, and mysteriously reflective of the greatest mystery known to men and angels — the Incarnation.

Father Feeney loved the term "Mystical Body," but he also realized how it could be misunderstood by faithful Catholics whose pastors were often wolves in sheeps’ clothing. In the same way that the theology of the Mystical Body was being subverted by the notions condemned by Pius XII, the theology of the sacrament of Baptism was being undermined by a false equating of desire with act; and the Papacy was being undermined by a diabolical re-definition of the word "ecumenism."

Father could see the attack turning to the Holy of Holies Itself. He could see a new abomination of desolation in the Sanctuary of God. His fear was based on an understanding, as a theologian, of the dangers of the new theology and to what it would lead. His fears were well founded.

Anyone who reads modern theological treatises on the Eucharist can see that belief in the True Presence is now being evaded by most avante-garde theologians. The classical, time-honored term transubstantiation, that most perfect single-word expression of the reality of ordinary bread becoming the Body of Christ — that simple, powerful expression given to us by our fathers in the Faith who flawlessly united supernatural Faith to philosophia perennis — has been thrown out in favor of the meaningless (or worse yet — heretical) term transignification. Many priests and even bishops have publicly denied, both in word and in deed, the True Presence of Jesus Christ in all His Divinity and Sacred Humanity. This heresy is perhaps the most offensive and most signal one of the day, but it is still only one lie among many, and Father Feeney saw it coming.

To refute these errors, and to give the faithful a clear, beautiful understanding of these profound mysteries of our Faith which are still under attack, we offer the following words of our holy Founder:

On Baptism

Of the Baptism He instituted, Jesus said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) That action, that Baptism, of Our Divine Lord’s, is the beginning of salvation! Nothing else can take the place of it. You may magnify the large thoughts you have in your head about God. You may enlarge upon man’s thirsty desire for God, his great hunger for the divine, his mighty aspirations. You can have floods and torrents and falls of ideas flowing, in longing and outlook, in your meditations. And yet, without that little trickle which is literally falling from the fountain of Jesus, you are lost.

The rite of Baptism, because it is so simple, because there is in it so little by way of impressing you or startling you, is all the more a subject matter for sublime faith if you will attach divine value to it — because Jesus did it.

That which I would not have thought to be too valuable by itself, — when this Agent does it, when Jesus does it, when His hands do it and His voice utters it, — I will call the most beautiful human initial performance that could possibly occur in this world by way of a divine bestowal of love and grace and benefit. And even after Jesus has ascended into Heaven, His actions and His words will continue undulating and vibrating through all the centuries. Water will pour the way Jesus poured it — voices will repeat the words the way Jesus said them. Just imagine a ceremonial rite that is scattered throughout the world with the dignity of a sacrament, for which a man is prepared to die, and without which he cannot get into the Kingdom of Heaven! Then, and only then, do you understand the preciousness of water united to the power of the Holy Ghost.

By holding on to the Baptism of Water, we are testifying that "the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us." We are taking God on His own terms. We are saying that in this sacrament we see the definite signature of the Incarnation. If it is impossible to get a priest, anyone with the intention of doing what Jesus did, can baptize. He needs only to take the matter Jesus took (water), and say the words Jesus phrased — and salvation is at hand.

Did you ever see power to equal that? Did you ever see frailty tying up Might in a little bundle and delivering it as a birthday present to a little child? Did you ever see Omnipotence so much in bonds?

You probably can think of nothing hushed more quickly than a human voice saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." You probably can think of scarcely anything finishing more quickly than a trickle of water on a child’s head. But because Jesus once spoke those words, and because Jesus once performed that action — and gave His Apostles power to perpetuate it — the whole Catholic Church is continually living, being, building, structuring itself. On that tiny frailty at a font, or a faucet, a pool, or a river, our eternal happiness depends. I say again, how do you like that for Omnipotence, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear!

On the Papacy

The true Faith must henceforth come to us in terms of flesh and blood, now that Bethlehem has occurred.

You say, "Does not the Church sometimes give us dogmas phrased in

such a way that they seem to be non-incarnational? Do they not sometimes insist on the abstract, essential value of an idea, theologically phrased and safeguarded more by academic utterance than by human appeal?" And I answer you that that is not so. The foundations and facts of the Faith are always entrusted to flesh and blood protection. Our Lord said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." (Matt. 16:18) He did not say, "This is dogma, and on this idea I hope to prevail."

Even dogmas, without men, cannot get on. We only know their value as dogmas when we have Christ’s Vicar guarding and safeguarding them. Unless a doctrine can be traced to the visible head of the Catholic Church, unless you can see a Pope — and usually a council of bishops behind him — and know where the Pope and council met and sat and wrote and discussed and argued and prayed and finally adjourned, your dogma does not amount to ten cents, no matter how brilliant the theology of it may seem.

On Holy Communion

In the Blessed Sacrament, I have taken in Jesus. In Holy Communion, Jesus takes in me. Holy Communion is Jesus incorporating me into Himself. Jesus, as you know, has two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man. And we, it seems, have also to be little images of that hypostatic union, that union of Christ’s two natures, when we move into eternity. We have to have both a divine and a human phase to us. We must be both God and man — God by adoption and man by incorporation with Jesus. We must be other Christs!

Let me call the Sacrifice of the Mass, "when God meets God," and let me call Holy Communion, "when Man meets man." The Man is the God-Man. Holy Communion is the incorporation of my heart, my blood, my veins, my feet, my hands — everything, every part of me — into the Jesus of the Incarnation.

By way of the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus makes divine entrance into my soul. By way of Holy Communion, Jesus makes my body one with His. How do you like that? "The Father and I are one; and you and I are one. I am the vine and you are the branches. Abide in Me, and I in you . . . "

The same cowards who make the Church an invisible society, have tried to make the Blessed Eucharist a purely spiritual communion, with nothing to do with our body.

The priest says in the Mass: "Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis . . ." — "May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my entrails . . ." May we be formed and fashioned out of the

same substance, concorporeally united, so that we become other Christs.

On the Mystical Body of Christ

Man is an incarnational animal. If you do not give him something down to the depths of his body and soul, you do not touch him.

Our Blessed Lord is constrained to say: "Who eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, liveth in Me and I in him." He did not say: "Who consumes My Spirit will be united to the Infinity of Me." The reason He did not say this is not because it is not so, but because He knew that if He found a loving human heart, it would have to start its long journey to Him on human terms. Its first steps would have to be human. When you are equalized with Jesus through the nature which you and He have in common, then the Divine Person is with you by reason of that nature. And that to my mind is the big feature of the Blessed Eucharist that has been lost.

That loss, to my mind, is the explanation for all the indefinite, vague talk about the Mystical Body of Christ. Incorporation into the human nature of Jesus Christ through the reception of the Holy Eucharist makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ, or else I do not know the meaning of the term. I do not know why we call it the Mystical Body of Christ, if that is not so!

No other sacrament unites us with the human nature of Jesus in substance — with His Body and His Blood. Our union with the physical Body of a Divine Person is what makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ. The Word of God, antecedent to becoming flesh, had no body at all. He should not be spoken of as having one. When the Word became flesh, He took a Body — from the substance of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That Body is not yet the Mystical Body. When He assimilated the bodies of other men into His own, through the Blessed Eucharist in Holy Communion, when He made these bodies His members and Himself their Head — made them His branches while He remained their Vine — then, and only then, as the fruit of this sublime communion of Body with body, Flesh with flesh, and Blood with blood, can we speak of the Mystical Body of Christ ["in the quintessence of that beautiful word," as Father usually added]. That is why Saint Paul said: ". . . and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ. . . "

The reader will notice instantly with what unity of thought Father Feeney explains each of these aspects of the Faith. Everything is explained simply and clearly, with no distinction between theological technicality and devotional practice as is typical of the words of most theologians. Every thought is developed in the context of the relationship between God and man that was made different in the New Covenant. Each mystery is explained in terms of the most profound mystery: the Hypostatic

Union.

It is this fact of the Incarnation that makes knees bend every time the words "et Verbum caro factum est" are uttered during the Last Gospel or in the Angelus. It is this fact of the Incarnation that prompts the same act of adoration at the words of the Nicene Creed, "et homo factus est."

Our Founder may truly be called the twentieth century Apostle of the Incarnation, raised up by God to combat the false mysticism and superstition of this godless and unbelieving age. He assigned to us, his spiritual children, the mission of bringing his challenging, yet charitable, message to the world. It is simply this:

To those outside the Roman Catholic Church —

Believe in the Faith that Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles; accept His Vicar; and be baptized — otherwise you will surely perish.

And to all Catholics —

In the spirit of true Catholic Ecumenism, let it ever be your mission to make this message known to your non-Catholic friends and associates — otherwise you lack true charity.