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 1
The 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 2
The 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 3
The "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 Dissidents

Holds 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 4
The "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 5
A 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 6
The 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 7
The 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 8
The 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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. John Chrysostom . . . . . 407
St. Basil the Great. . . . . . .
St. Augustine . . .. . . . . . . . 430
379
St. Prosper of Aquitaine. .. . 463
St. Cyril of Jerusalem. .. . .
St. Fulgentius . . . . . . . . . . . 533
386
St. Bede . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 735
St. Gregory Nazianzen. . .
389
St. Ambrose. . . . . . . . . . .
397
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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 9
A 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 10
Father 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.