The lord said " unless one is born again through water and spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God. That's why the holy Catholic church for centuries taught that babies needed to be baptized ASAP. For Centuries catechumens we not allowed in the mass of the faithful , that's why if you look in the missal book you will find the mass of the catechumens,why because they are not part of the faithful till they get baptized.
I would love to debate the liberals at the SSPX. They refuse to debate, knowing their theology is faulty and non-redeemable. To say God is not bound by His sacraments is such double-speak. Fr. Feeney crushes the modernists at the SSPX.
It appears that all of the examples given of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were taken from the early Church where it was very evident that the individuals “Saved” were either Catechumens or connected in some way with a devout Christian. To take the position that a person from a totally different culture far removed from the Catholic West can somehow gain Salvation from Baptism of desire is a massive leap ! Why then did the Catholic missionaries give their lives to catechize and Baptize the New World Indians ? On Baptism of Blood, Did not the Council of Florence address this and conclude that not all would be saved ? Please clarify .
They said it was *theoretically possible* for people in different religions to receive the actual grace required for a perfect act of contrition, not probable or even likely. It is only to say that God is not bound by the sacraments snd can give His graces to whomever, whenever. They used the early Church examples because they are the most traditional and the most explicit to illustrate the point.
The fact that God is NOT bound to The Sacraments is most wonderfully demonstrated in the book of Acts chapter 10 as you mentioned: Acts 10:43-48 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." 44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.” In the the Haddock commentary, it says of these verses “ Verse 44… The Holy Ghost fell upon all them, and made his coming known in some visible manner and exterior signs, as on the day of Pentecost. The Christians who had come with St.Peter, who before had been Jews, were astonished to see that such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were given to uncircumcised Gentiles.” “Verse 47… ‘Can any man forbid water’ or doubt that these, on whom The Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? SUCH MAY BE THE GRACE OF GOD OCCASIONALLY TOWARD MEN, and such their Great Charity and Contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, BEFORE the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter’s preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost BEFORE any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, not withstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosever CONTEMNETH can never be justified. “ It also says in the book of Acts 10:35 “ But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him” Also , Roman 2:13-16 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” The Haddock commentary says: “Verse 14-15 …When the Gentiles … do by nature, or naturally , that is, without having received any written law, THESE MEN ARE A LAW TO THEMSELVES, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of God, and the their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honoring their parents, etc.. not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve a supernatural reward in the Kingdom of Heaven; BUT God, OUT OF HIS INFINITE MERCY, will give them some supernatural grace, by which they come to know, and believe, THAT HE WILL REWARD THEIR SOULS FOR ETERNITY, such says St. Chrys. we’re the dispositions of Melchisedec, Job, Cornelius the Centurion.”
The essay "Reply to a Liberal" written by Raymond Karam in 1949 under the guidance of Fr. Feeney, says that Baptism of Water is the surest way to Salvation, both Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are rare, but legitimately possible. This purpose of the essay is to condemn the idea that there is "a second, invisible church" which endangers the souls of many by implying that as long as you have some vague implicit desire then you have achieved salvation. We see this with Karl Rahner and his "Anonymous Christians," the idea that as long as you follow your conscience you will be saved. This liberal opinion has unfortunately stymied evangelization efforts across the globe, since people wish to keep those who are ignorant in the dark.
In the Creed we say, " I confess in one baptism for the remission of sins." In Ephesians Chapter 4: 5 it states, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." In Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV states (Toward the end) : “…even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”. How do you fit these other baptisms in with the decree of Pope Eugene IV??
I gotta say I had no idea most of my life that sspx was so fully in line with truth....bad press and misunderstanding...I await the full regularization of your order 🙏
I must apologize, for I sympathized with Fr Feeney being attacked by the bishops at the time. Yet oh how we forget the Lord gave us His mother which is the crusher of all heresies as St. Anthony would say. Praise be God and St. Isidore pray for Fr. Robinson. God reward you all for this podcast!
Points up the importance, nay, necessity of infant baptism as children below the age of reason have neither the ability to desire baptism nor to die for Christ.
I find it some what strange to attribute the teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation to Fr. Feeny. When this is explicitly taught by our Lord in the Scriptures and by the Church at the council of Trent and many other councils. Fr Feeny didn't bind God to the doctrine of the necessity of water baptism for Salvation. Our Savior himself explicitly taught this and its infallibly defined. Baptism of desire as sufficient for salvation is an acceptable Theological speculation in my opinion but is not an infallible teaching of the Church. Fr. Feeny did not invent the distinction between justification and Salvation they are distinctions taught by the Church and taught explicitly in the council of Trent. Side note. How can someone commit an act of true supernatural Charity without Faith?, they can't according to traditional Catholic theology, members of false religions have no supernatural faith. "Amen amen I say to you unless a man is born again of water and the holy spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" these are the words of our Lord its a little disappointing to see a priest shy away from owning up to the words of his Lord in my opinion and attributing the idea to another priest who is a perceived extremist. Cannons of Trent on Baptism CANON II.-If any one 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.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema. Logical conclusion water baptism is necessary for salvation. These infallible cannons are pretty hard to get around logically, had Trent made an exception in these Canons for desire there would be no speculation. But it seems to have done the exact opposite and excluded metaphors. However I know Trent also did define Baptism or its desire puts 1 in the state of Justification in its section on the description of Justification. and therein left room for the Theological speculation for desire to potentially be salvific. But theres room for other speculation as well like miraculous intervention to get water baptism to someone who sincerely desires it. All in all most people who quickly and enthusiasticly embrace desire and blood as a loop hole to the necessity of the actual sacraments and the Catholic faith are just liberals full of human respect and who are to scared to offend their neighbors with the Truth of the Gospel and the actual words of our Lord. Thats what I've found. And its a slippery slope for them many times leading to a practical religious indifferentism which they try to deny but thats what it comes down to. Logically. Our Lord is clear Trent is clear, the Theological speculation of exceptions not so much. I've never personally understood the idea of God not being bound to his Sacraments its a bit confusing to me in a way, I mean I believe he's bound by his nature right? God cannot lie God cannot not know all things, God cannot do something that contradicts his nature. Theres mystery here for sure, could a validly ordained priest with valid matter form and intention pronounce the words of Baptism or consecration etc and the Sacrament not be conferred i believe not because God has in fact bound himself to His Sacraments in that regard. But is Sacramental absolution necessary in all cases for the forgiveness of sins the Church teaches in this regard God has not bound himself to his Sacrament but the Church is clear. I see Desire and blood as not so clear and thats due to the Church's own infallible definitions. No where has the Church officially clearly defined desire and blood as salvific theres a nod to desire at Trent but its very own cannons thereafter seem to Logically exclude the idea. There is ample supporting evidence in the writings of some of the greatest saints and in some papal encyclicals and yet those same sources more frequently express in exclusive Language the necessity of water Baptism and the Church. I am open to feed back and "explicitly desire" to accept the Catholic Faith whole and entire.
God Bless you Salvador for speaking the truth. Most Church Fathers rejected BOD and cited OUR LORD (not their own opinion like Augustine) for the belief.
Again, I repeat what I commented in the last episode...the correct phrase is...desire for baptism...not baptism of desire...then the distinction remains between explicit desire (catecumens) and implicit desire (which archbishop Lefebvre speaks of eloquently)
@@SSPX I have some potentially helpful resources and information related to sedevacantism that I’d be happy to send your way if interested. As a former sedevacantist, it seems that many become sedevacantist because they don’t understand exactly what it is.
@@SSPX About 8 or 9 years ago, I was directed to a house where an SSPX Priest resides and celebrates Mass in the living-room Chapel. He is a sedevacantist. Up until recently, I thought this was the functionality of SSPX, thus the reason for Church Militant Michael Voris and some Opus Dei members doing all they can to have people avoid the SSPX. Now, I'm beginning to realize, the attacks are simply Modernism. What else is behind their motives? God bless. 😇
Please discuss this idea promulgated by Rahner of the 'Anonymous Christian.' I know you have previously addressed Neo-Modernism, but in regards to Ecclesia Nulla Sallus the post-conciliar church opens up a broad definition of those who would be saved without being proper Christians throughout their lives.
This episode makes it sound like a good, believing Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., is saved because they believe that whatever God wants, they will do, and therefore without knowing they require baptism, they essentially desire baptism. How is this different from Nostra Aetate?
It's not different in the slightest. The same people who excommunicated and shunned Fr. Feeney are the ones who wrote and voted "placet" to Nostra Aetate only ten years later.
If some cooperate with God’s grace and some don’t, and we said that even outside catholic church they will be saved, does this mean that when they by staying outside the church have cooperated with grace? Fr Robinson, my mind is so simple but your explanation surely confuses me.
No, that is not the case. Here are some scenarios that perhaps can clear things up: A person cooperates with grace and enters the Church: such a person is saved (assuming they stay in grace) A person cooperates with grace and does not enter the Church: such a person is saved, because, if they were cooperating with grace and did not enter, it was because they did not have the opportunity to do so. Those who are saved by baptism of desire are precisely those who have cooperated with grace but, for whatever reason, were not able to enter the Church. It is clear that there are many people in this world who are receiving grace but do not have access to Catholicism (or want baptism, but die before receiving it). A person does not cooperate with grace and does not enter the Church: such a person is damned. Perhaps they learned about the Church and refused to join, in which case they are culpable. Perhaps they never knew about the Church, but lived in a state of mortal sin. Either way, they would not make it. Your question seems to anticipate a situation where someone cooperates with grace, has the opportunity to enter the Church, and yet refuses to do so. What I am saying is that this is impossible. If someone cooperates with grace, they will want to enter the Church, once they know about it. This is what Abp. Lefebvre mentioned when he said that a Buddhist woman who was cooperating with grace would want to be baptized, once she realized that was what God wanted.
@@SSPX thank you, now this is much clear. In the world however today Catholic Church is already in all the corners of the world, with exception of course of those that cannot be reached by electricity or media. Thus, on the presumption that a non catholic in someway have watched or heard about catholicism by media or word of mouth and yet stayed being non catholic, we can therefore conclude that he will not be saved. Am I correct? because for us ordinary folks it would be difficult for us to answer with deepest trench of theology this very same question unless we answer it in laymans basic understanding. My protestant friends would ask me this and I said absolutely no salvation outside catholic church, on my assumption that the one asking and people refered to as outside have knowledge of catholic faith yet remain outside of it.
Isn't the fact of receiving grace is an indication of one is saved? How then do you know someone has received grace? If there is no external tangible indicator of grace, Then it is all speculation on our part. We making presumption of God, if no such grace had been received even if it is reasonably logical.
The Holy Innocents are baptised by blood and the beauty of their baptism for Our Lord when He was a holy baby or toddler as well as being God Himself is God's love for the Holy Innocents. I haven't been confirmed in the SSPX yet due to COVID 19. Does this mean I am a catechumen? I was Received into the Church by one of our SSPX priests in 2019.
No you are not a catechumen. You become a member of the church at baptism. As you stated you were received into the church in 2019. I don’t know if you were baptized in some other religion and renounced your errors to an SSPX priest in 2019 and he received you into the church or you were baptized in 2019 by an SSPX priest. Either way you are a member.
So can a person with literally any set of beliefs (atheism, laveyan satanism) have an implicit baptism of desire? Wouldn't they cease to be those things if this was truly the case?
Baptism of Desire is an act of perfect contrition in one not yet baptized (which includes at least an implicit desire for Baptism). Since it is an act of perfect contrition (which implies supernatural Charity) this implies at least SOME explicit supernatural faith. Faith cannot be entirely implicit. Implicit faith in some doctrines can only be present THROUGH EXPLICIT FAITH in other doctrines. Ignorance, vincible or invincible does not save anyone! It is Faith informed by Charity that saves. What must be believed explicitly? The theologians and Doctors are not unanimous. All agree that the two prime credibles - “God is” and “He rewards those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6) - must be believed explicitly for an adult to obtain eternal salvation. In addition to these two revealed truths, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori and many others maintain that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity is also absolutely necessary for salvation. For example, St. Thomas says: “After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation…” (ST, II-II, q. 2, a. 7.) St. Thomas also says: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (ST, II-II, q. 2, a. 8.) How is this Faith acquired? Through a missionary; through a Protestant leaving behind a bible; through a personal revelation, (e.g. Job did not belong to chosen people; yet his knowledge of Redeemer and Resurrection of body was extremely clear - and this knowledge, it seems, was given to him in visions while asleep, according to Job 33:15-16) In any case, supernatural Faith that God is, and rewards the good (so, a GOOD God is!) is held by all to be absolutely necessary to a desire for baptism. Thus, neither atheists, LaVeyans nor Satanists could have a desire for baptism, even implicit.
Same thing the Diamond brothers teach in one video Peter Diamond talks about someone dying on a cross for Christ but was not Catholic so he went to hell just crazy. No baptism of desire and no blood just no love full of hate.
Here comes the same old heretical rubbish,,completely denying the solemnly defined salvation doctrine of the authentic Catholic Magisterium, that persons CAN be saved practicing and dying in any religion whatever: that is, without being born again and regenerated through recception the Sacrament of Baptism and (in adults and infidels) without confessing the integral Catholic Faith. There is no salvation outside actual living membership in the mystical body of Christ, and incorporation into that body (the Church ) is effected only by the above.That is what the Chruch teaches and has always taught. Your error is that people can be saved "in" those religions but not "by" them. This is an example of the diabolic double speak so severely condemned by Our Lord. So: Pope Leo XIII: "Satis Cognitum" "Finally, some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic Religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life." Council of Trent Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism: "If anyone shall say that Baptism is optional, that is, NOT NECESSARY for salvation, let him be anathema." Pope Eugenius IV, "Cantate Domino" Council of Florence: "NOBODY can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms, and EVEN IF HE HAS SHED HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, unless he has joined himself to the Catholic Church before the end of his life, and persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Leo XIII "Satis Cognitum" "...But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed Truth, ABSOLUTELY rejects ALL Faith." It is really strange that you people still cannot (or will not) see that the heresy you hold is the true source of all that you reject in Vatican II and deplore in the Novus Ordo Apostasy. But the realilty is that you do hold and teach heresy - the above heresy - and that puts you all outside Catholic Church and party to the apostasy, regardless of the Mass you say, and joins you for the same reason to the men who hold and teach the same heresy in word and action; The Assisi events of these men are the embodiment of your heresy. Can't you see that? Or is it just that you cannot bear the idea that Abp. Lefebvre was wrong? "Cursed be that man that trusts in man." - Psalms; I am pretty sure that the Archbishop was shown his error by an Angel before he died, and repenting, was carried into heaven. Fr. Feeney, SJ simply upheld and taught the true doctrine of the Church on salvation (as above); nor was he condemned and excommunicated for his doctrine, but ONLY for refusing to appear before the Signatura. And why did he refuse? Because he was refused the right, enshrined in canon law, to be informed by official letter of the charges against him. He asked for a statement of those charges a number of times and criminally was never informed of them. Why? Because his doctrine was perfect, and the Vatican did not want to go on record as denying it. That is why Pius XII neither wrote or signed the Protocol "Suprema Haec Sacra" containing the theological opinions (Which Cardinal Ratzinger called " marginal") which was sent to the Abp. Of Boston, and which was never entered in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Therefore, the Protocol had/has absolutely no Magisterial authority. However, Pius XII allowed that Abp. Cardinal Cushing, who boasted that he had "never converted one person to the Catholic Faith in his life", to give out that the Protocol was in fact the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church on salvation. This was a great crime against the Faith and the Faithful, and was in fact "the crack", or better, the open door through which Satanhas entered the sanctuary; Why then did Pope PIus XII allow this? I believe erroneously for "pastoral reasons", (since there can be no authentic pastoral praxis if it is not founded on and strictly faithful to Catholic orthodoxy), fearing that American Catholics, who had finally attained to some acceptance and success in American society would be set back and even hated and persecuted for this doctrine that was and is anathema to liberal democratic ideology, and the 'American Dream' - an ideology founded on the protestant claim that all "christian" religions (sects) are acceptable to God because faith alone in Jesus is salvific. Of course most of the fundamentalist (or so called evangelical) sects would violently disagree with you because they would never accept that salvation can be had without EXPLICIT faith in Jesus as one's personal Saviour and the universal Saviour of mankind, while you claiming to be faithful to Catholic dogmatic tradition insist that faith in Jesus ,and in general belief in the entire Deposit of Catholic Faith is not necessary for salvation.
Some authors cite that as an example. It would only work if one held that Christian baptism was already instituted and promulgated by the time of Calvary. If the need for baptism were only promulgated on the day of Pentecost, then I don't think the fact that someone is saved before Pentecost without baptism in water really proves baptism of desire. Thus, I personally avoid using that as an argument. Fr. Franks
As a mother grieving the loss of a miscarried child, this gave me so much hope and consolation. Thank you.
Praying for you Bridget 🙏
The verse after he says " whoever lives and believes in me shall never die" .
Pray for the conversion of souls to the one and holy apostolic Church, especially those who don’t know about Jesus Christ and the Church. Amen.
The lord said " unless one is born again through water and spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God.
That's why the holy Catholic church for centuries taught that babies needed to be baptized ASAP.
For Centuries catechumens we not allowed in the mass of the faithful , that's why if you look in the missal book you will find the mass of the catechumens,why because they are not part of the faithful till they get baptized.
I would love to debate the liberals at the SSPX.
They refuse to debate, knowing their theology is faulty and non-redeemable.
To say God is not bound by His sacraments is such double-speak.
Fr. Feeney crushes the modernists at the SSPX.
It appears that all of the examples given of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were taken from the early Church where it was very evident that the individuals “Saved” were either Catechumens or connected in some way with a devout Christian.
To take the position that a person from a totally different culture far removed from the Catholic West can somehow gain Salvation from Baptism of desire is a massive leap ! Why then did the Catholic missionaries give their lives to catechize and Baptize the New World Indians ?
On Baptism of Blood, Did not the Council of Florence address this and conclude that not all would be saved ?
Please clarify .
They said it was *theoretically possible* for people in different religions to receive the actual grace required for a perfect act of contrition, not probable or even likely. It is only to say that God is not bound by the sacraments snd can give His graces to whomever, whenever. They used the early Church examples because they are the most traditional and the most explicit to illustrate the point.
@@slickmechanical It is not possible for someone in a false religion to be saved. Read Cantate Domino.
The fact that God is NOT bound to The Sacraments is most wonderfully demonstrated in the book of Acts chapter 10 as you mentioned:
Acts 10:43-48
43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47 "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
In the the Haddock commentary, it says of these verses “ Verse 44… The Holy Ghost fell upon all them, and made his coming known in some visible manner and exterior signs, as on the day of Pentecost. The Christians who had come with St.Peter, who before had been Jews, were astonished to see that such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were given to uncircumcised Gentiles.”
“Verse 47… ‘Can any man forbid water’ or doubt that these, on whom The Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? SUCH MAY BE THE GRACE OF GOD OCCASIONALLY TOWARD MEN, and such their Great Charity and Contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, BEFORE the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter’s preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost BEFORE any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, not withstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosever CONTEMNETH can never be justified. “
It also says in the book of Acts 10:35
“ But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him”
Also , Roman 2:13-16
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
The Haddock commentary says:
“Verse 14-15 …When the Gentiles … do by nature, or naturally , that is, without having received any written law, THESE MEN ARE A LAW TO THEMSELVES, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of God, and the their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honoring their parents, etc.. not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve a supernatural reward in the Kingdom of Heaven; BUT God, OUT OF HIS INFINITE MERCY, will give them some supernatural grace, by which they come to know, and believe, THAT HE WILL REWARD THEIR SOULS FOR ETERNITY, such says St. Chrys. we’re the dispositions of Melchisedec, Job, Cornelius the Centurion.”
The essay "Reply to a Liberal" written by Raymond Karam in 1949 under the guidance of Fr. Feeney, says that Baptism of Water is the surest way to Salvation, both Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are rare, but legitimately possible. This purpose of the essay is to condemn the idea that there is "a second, invisible church" which endangers the souls of many by implying that as long as you have some vague implicit desire then you have achieved salvation. We see this with Karl Rahner and his "Anonymous Christians," the idea that as long as you follow your conscience you will be saved. This liberal opinion has unfortunately stymied evangelization efforts across the globe, since people wish to keep those who are ignorant in the dark.
In the Creed we say, " I confess in one baptism for the remission of sins." In Ephesians Chapter 4: 5 it states, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
In Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV states (Toward the end) : “…even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.
How do you fit these other baptisms in with the decree of Pope Eugene IV??
It’s one baptism, but God can give the effects of baptism ( sanctifying grace ) to anyone
They simply can't accept what our lords says or what the popes define from the chair of Peter
I gotta say I had no idea most of my life that sspx was so fully in line with truth....bad press and misunderstanding...I await the full regularization of your order 🙏
Trads await the full regularization of yours!
I must apologize, for I sympathized with Fr Feeney being attacked by the bishops at the time. Yet oh how we forget the Lord gave us His mother which is the crusher of all heresies as St. Anthony would say. Praise be God and St. Isidore pray for Fr. Robinson. God reward you all for this podcast!
Points up the importance, nay, necessity of infant baptism as children below the age of reason have neither the ability to desire baptism nor to die for Christ.
I find it some what strange to attribute the teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation to Fr. Feeny. When this is explicitly taught by our Lord in the Scriptures and by the Church at the council of Trent and many other councils. Fr Feeny didn't bind God to the doctrine of the necessity of water baptism for Salvation. Our Savior himself explicitly taught this and its infallibly defined. Baptism of desire as sufficient for salvation is an acceptable Theological speculation in my opinion but is not an infallible teaching of the Church. Fr. Feeny did not invent the distinction between justification and Salvation they are distinctions taught by the Church and taught explicitly in the council of Trent.
Side note.
How can someone commit an act of true supernatural Charity without Faith?, they can't according to traditional Catholic theology, members of false religions have no supernatural faith.
"Amen amen I say to you unless a man is born again of water and the holy spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" these are the words of our Lord its a little disappointing to see a priest shy away from owning up to the words of his Lord in my opinion and attributing the idea to another priest who is a perceived extremist.
Cannons of Trent on Baptism
CANON II.-If any one 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.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Logical conclusion water baptism is necessary for salvation.
These infallible cannons are pretty hard to get around logically, had Trent made an exception in these Canons for desire there would be no speculation. But it seems to have done the exact opposite and excluded metaphors. However I know Trent also did define Baptism or its desire puts 1 in the state of Justification in its section on the description of Justification.
and therein left room for the Theological speculation for desire to potentially be salvific. But theres room for other speculation as well like miraculous intervention to get water baptism to someone who sincerely desires it. All in all most people who quickly and enthusiasticly embrace desire and blood as a loop hole to the necessity of the actual sacraments and the Catholic faith are just liberals full of human respect and who are to scared to offend their neighbors with the Truth of the Gospel and the actual words of our Lord. Thats what I've found. And its a slippery slope for them many times leading to a practical religious indifferentism which they try to deny but thats what it comes down to. Logically. Our Lord is clear Trent is clear, the Theological speculation of exceptions not so much. I've never personally understood the idea of God not being bound to his Sacraments its a bit confusing to me in a way, I mean I believe he's bound by his nature right? God cannot lie God cannot not know all things, God cannot do something that contradicts his nature. Theres mystery here for sure, could a validly ordained priest with valid matter form and intention pronounce the words of Baptism or consecration etc and the Sacrament not be conferred i believe not because God has in fact bound himself to His Sacraments in that regard. But is Sacramental absolution necessary in all cases for the forgiveness of sins the Church teaches in this regard God has not bound himself to his Sacrament but the Church is clear. I see Desire and blood as not so clear and thats due to the Church's own infallible definitions. No where has the Church officially clearly defined desire and blood as salvific theres a nod to desire at Trent but its very own cannons thereafter seem to Logically exclude the idea. There is ample supporting evidence in the writings of some of the greatest saints and in some papal encyclicals and yet those same sources more frequently express in exclusive Language the necessity of water Baptism and the Church. I am open to feed back and "explicitly desire" to accept the Catholic Faith whole and entire.
Excellent commentary Salvador, lets see if the Good Fr Robbins responds to it.
God Bless you Salvador for speaking the truth. Most Church Fathers rejected BOD and cited OUR LORD (not their own opinion like Augustine) for the belief.
I would like to see a whole series on sin, please!
Again, I repeat what I commented in the last episode...the correct phrase is...desire for baptism...not baptism of desire...then the distinction remains between explicit desire (catecumens) and implicit desire (which archbishop Lefebvre speaks of eloquently)
I guess Fr. Feeney skipped over the dialogue between Our Lord and Dismas when he read St. Luke's Gospel.
Thank you so much, Father and Andrew. This series never disappoints.
I would like a talk about Sedvacanism
It is coming the episode after next!
@@SSPX I have some potentially helpful resources and information related to sedevacantism that I’d be happy to send your way if interested. As a former sedevacantist, it seems that many become sedevacantist because they don’t understand exactly what it is.
@@SSPX Thank You. I love your series.
@@TheDeanMachineTV link?!?
@@SSPX About 8 or 9 years ago, I was directed to a house where an SSPX Priest resides and celebrates Mass in the living-room Chapel. He is a sedevacantist. Up until recently, I thought this was the functionality of SSPX, thus the reason for Church Militant Michael Voris and some Opus Dei members doing all they can to have people avoid the SSPX. Now, I'm beginning to realize, the attacks are simply Modernism. What else is behind their motives? God bless. 😇
Thanks, Fr Robinson!
And thanks to Andrew, too.
Thank you Fr. Robinson!
Please discuss this idea promulgated by Rahner of the 'Anonymous Christian.' I know you have previously addressed Neo-Modernism, but in regards to Ecclesia Nulla Sallus the post-conciliar church opens up a broad definition of those who would be saved without being proper Christians throughout their lives.
I asked this as well, would be interested to hear what the SSPX or other traditionalists have to say about this.
This episode makes it sound like a good, believing Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., is saved because they believe that whatever God wants, they will do, and therefore without knowing they require baptism, they essentially desire baptism. How is this different from Nostra Aetate?
In the first place, the inspiration or the grace would have to come from the true God, not from their false Muslim god.
@@philcortens5214 Amen to that!
It's not different in the slightest. The same people who excommunicated and shunned Fr. Feeney are the ones who wrote and voted "placet" to Nostra Aetate only ten years later.
Fr. , the reality of strict adherence to "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is indeed harsh; as was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Lord.
The door will be closed, there is one sole salvation, catholic religion. They must convert. Ashes.
If some cooperate with God’s grace and some don’t, and we said that even outside catholic church they will be saved, does this mean that when they by staying outside the church have cooperated with grace? Fr Robinson, my mind is so simple but your explanation surely confuses me.
No, that is not the case. Here are some scenarios that perhaps can clear things up:
A person cooperates with grace and enters the Church: such a person is saved (assuming they stay in grace)
A person cooperates with grace and does not enter the Church: such a person is saved, because, if they were cooperating with grace and did not enter, it was because they did not have the opportunity to do so. Those who are saved by baptism of desire are precisely those who have cooperated with grace but, for whatever reason, were not able to enter the Church. It is clear that there are many people in this world who are receiving grace but do not have access to Catholicism (or want baptism, but die before receiving it).
A person does not cooperate with grace and does not enter the Church: such a person is damned. Perhaps they learned about the Church and refused to join, in which case they are culpable. Perhaps they never knew about the Church, but lived in a state of mortal sin. Either way, they would not make it.
Your question seems to anticipate a situation where someone cooperates with grace, has the opportunity to enter the Church, and yet refuses to do so. What I am saying is that this is impossible. If someone cooperates with grace, they will want to enter the Church, once they know about it. This is what Abp. Lefebvre mentioned when he said that a Buddhist woman who was cooperating with grace would want to be baptized, once she realized that was what God wanted.
@@SSPX thank you, now this is much clear. In the world however today Catholic Church is already in all the corners of the world, with exception of course of those that cannot be reached by electricity or media. Thus, on the presumption that a non catholic in someway have watched or heard about catholicism by media or word of mouth and yet stayed being non catholic, we can therefore conclude that he will not be saved. Am I correct? because for us ordinary folks it would be difficult for us to answer with deepest trench of theology this very same question unless we answer it in laymans basic understanding. My protestant friends would ask me this and I said absolutely no salvation outside catholic church, on my assumption that the one asking and people refered to as outside have knowledge of catholic faith yet remain outside of it.
Thank you Fr. Robinson
God’s great mercy!
Thanks Father Robinson.
Do you have a position in the matter of limbo or heaven for the aborted? If you do, can you explain your reasoning?
Isn't the fact of receiving grace is an indication of one is saved?
How then do you know someone has received grace? If there is no external tangible indicator of grace,
Then it is all speculation on our part. We making presumption of God, if no such grace had been received even if it is reasonably logical.
Thank you
Thank you so much father!
I love this man.
The Holy Innocents are baptised by blood and the beauty of their baptism for Our Lord when He was a holy baby or toddler as well as being God Himself is God's love for the Holy Innocents.
I haven't been confirmed in the SSPX yet due to COVID 19. Does this mean I am a catechumen? I was Received into the Church by one of our SSPX priests in 2019.
No you are not a catechumen. You become a member of the church at baptism. As you stated you were received into the church in 2019. I don’t know if you were baptized in some other religion and renounced your errors to an SSPX priest in 2019 and he received you into the church or you were baptized in 2019 by an SSPX priest. Either way you are a member.
So can a person with literally any set of beliefs (atheism, laveyan satanism) have an implicit baptism of desire? Wouldn't they cease to be those things if this was truly the case?
No.
You wouldn't be an atheist if you desired to become a baptized Christian
Baptism of Desire is an act of perfect contrition in one not yet baptized (which includes at least an implicit desire for Baptism).
Since it is an act of perfect contrition (which implies supernatural Charity) this implies at least SOME explicit supernatural faith. Faith cannot be entirely implicit. Implicit faith in some doctrines can only be present THROUGH EXPLICIT FAITH in other doctrines. Ignorance, vincible or invincible does not save anyone! It is Faith informed by Charity that saves.
What must be believed explicitly? The theologians and Doctors are not unanimous.
All agree that the two prime credibles - “God is” and “He rewards those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6) - must be believed explicitly for an adult to obtain eternal salvation.
In addition to these two revealed truths, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori and many others maintain that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity is also absolutely necessary for salvation. For example, St. Thomas says: “After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation…” (ST, II-II, q. 2, a. 7.) St. Thomas also says: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (ST, II-II, q. 2, a. 8.)
How is this Faith acquired? Through a missionary; through a Protestant leaving behind a bible; through a personal revelation, (e.g. Job did not belong to chosen people; yet his knowledge of Redeemer and Resurrection of body was extremely clear - and this knowledge, it seems, was given to him in visions while asleep, according to Job 33:15-16)
In any case, supernatural Faith that God is, and rewards the good (so, a GOOD God is!) is held by all to be absolutely necessary to a desire for baptism. Thus, neither atheists, LaVeyans nor Satanists could have a desire for baptism, even implicit.
@@SSPX Thank you. That explanation was perfectly clear.
This video seems to require a study unto itself.
Is there any recources on Neo-Modernists like Rahner and his ideas on other religions? (Anonymous Christians, etc.)
Credo Atanasiano
Same thing the Diamond brothers teach in one video Peter Diamond talks about someone dying on a cross for Christ but was not Catholic so he went to hell just crazy. No baptism of desire and no blood just no love full of hate.
Here comes the same old heretical rubbish,,completely denying the solemnly defined salvation doctrine of the authentic Catholic Magisterium, that persons CAN be saved practicing and dying in any religion whatever: that is, without being born again and regenerated through recception the Sacrament of Baptism and (in adults and infidels) without confessing the integral Catholic Faith. There is no salvation outside actual living membership in the mystical body of Christ, and incorporation into that body (the Church ) is effected only by the above.That is what the Chruch teaches and has always taught. Your error is that people can be saved "in" those religions but not "by" them. This is an example of the diabolic double speak so severely condemned by Our Lord. So:
Pope Leo XIII: "Satis Cognitum" "Finally, some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic Religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life."
Council of Trent Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism: "If anyone shall say that Baptism is optional, that is, NOT NECESSARY for salvation, let him be anathema."
Pope Eugenius IV, "Cantate Domino" Council of Florence: "NOBODY can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms, and EVEN IF HE HAS SHED HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, unless he has joined himself to the Catholic Church before the end of his life, and persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Leo XIII "Satis Cognitum" "...But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed Truth, ABSOLUTELY rejects ALL Faith."
It is really strange that you people still cannot (or will not) see that the heresy you hold is the true source of all that you reject in Vatican II and deplore in the Novus Ordo Apostasy. But the realilty is that you do hold and teach heresy - the above heresy - and that puts you all outside Catholic Church and party to the apostasy, regardless of the Mass you say, and joins you for the same reason to the men who hold and teach the same heresy in word and action; The Assisi events of these men are the embodiment of your heresy. Can't you see that? Or is it just that you cannot bear the idea that Abp. Lefebvre was wrong? "Cursed be that man that trusts in man." - Psalms; I am pretty sure that the Archbishop was shown his error by an Angel before he died, and repenting, was carried into heaven.
Fr. Feeney, SJ simply upheld and taught the true doctrine of the Church on salvation (as above); nor was he condemned and excommunicated for his doctrine, but ONLY for refusing to appear before the Signatura. And why did he refuse? Because he was refused the right, enshrined in canon law, to be informed by official letter of the charges against him. He asked for a statement of those charges a number of times and criminally was never informed of them. Why? Because his doctrine was perfect, and the Vatican did not want to go on record as denying it. That is why Pius XII neither wrote or signed the Protocol "Suprema Haec Sacra" containing the theological opinions (Which Cardinal Ratzinger called " marginal") which was sent to the Abp. Of Boston, and which was never entered in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Therefore, the Protocol had/has absolutely no Magisterial authority. However, Pius XII allowed that Abp. Cardinal Cushing, who boasted that he had "never converted one person to the Catholic Faith in his life", to give out that the Protocol was in fact the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church on salvation. This was a great crime against the Faith and the Faithful, and was in fact "the crack", or better, the open door through which Satanhas entered the sanctuary; Why then did Pope PIus XII allow this? I believe erroneously for "pastoral reasons", (since there can be no authentic pastoral praxis if it is not founded on and strictly faithful to Catholic orthodoxy), fearing that American Catholics, who had finally attained to some acceptance and success in American society would be set back and even hated and persecuted for this doctrine that was and is anathema to liberal democratic ideology, and the 'American Dream' - an ideology founded on the protestant claim that all "christian" religions (sects) are acceptable to God because faith alone in Jesus is salvific. Of course most of the fundamentalist (or so called evangelical) sects would violently disagree with you because they would never accept that salvation can be had without EXPLICIT faith in Jesus as one's personal Saviour and the universal Saviour of mankind, while you claiming to be faithful to Catholic dogmatic tradition insist that faith in Jesus ,and in general belief in the entire Deposit of Catholic Faith is not necessary for salvation.
Canon law ? Which one ?
Unless this is Dogma , it should not be teached but only mentioned as an idea.
About implicit desire
Another great episode. Thank you Father Robinson for your clarity on this topic.
Isn’t the penitent thief an example of BOD and BOB
Some authors cite that as an example. It would only work if one held that Christian baptism was already instituted and promulgated by the time of Calvary. If the need for baptism were only promulgated on the day of Pentecost, then I don't think the fact that someone is saved before Pentecost without baptism in water really proves baptism of desire. Thus, I personally avoid using that as an argument. Fr. Franks
Father Feeney doctrines reminds me of Donatism