Feeneyism – Error incompatible with Catholic doctrine

THE ERROR OF FEENEYISM

ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

The dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,

baptism of desire and baptism of blood

 

Table of contents

 

1. Introduction
2. The dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
3. The teaching of the Council of Trent on the votum baptismi
4. The solution of Saint Thomas Aquinas
5. The testimony of Saint Alphonsus Liguori
6. The testimonies of the patristic tradition
7. The Roman Catechism
8. The teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi
9. The letter Suprema haec sacra of the Holy Office
10. Capital distinctions to avoid errors
11. Concrete cases of the catechumen and the martyr
12. Why strict Feeneyism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine
13. Conclusion

List of sources

 

 

1. Introduction

 

Strict Feeneyism maintains that the material reception of water baptism is absolutely indispensable for salvation in every case, even when a man perfectly disposed truly desires to receive baptism but dies involuntarily before being able to receive it. This position claims to defend the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. In reality it defends it in a manner incompatible with the certain teaching of the Catholic Church prior to 1964. The present study sets forth this incompatibility from the sources themselves. It is certain that the Council of Trent, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori explicitly teach the efficacy of the votum baptismi with regard to justification. It is certain that the absolute denial of this efficacy contradicts these authorities.

 

2. The dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

 

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Catholic dogma. There exists only one Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ: the Catholic Church. No false religion constitutes, as such, a way of salvation. Every man who is saved is saved by Our Lord Jesus Christ, by His grace and in a salvific relation to His unique Church. The problem of strict Feeneyism is not that it affirms this dogma too strongly, but that it gives it an interpretation incompatible with other certain teachings of the Church, notably on the votum baptismi, baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Two propositions must be distinguished. First: baptism is necessary for salvation. Second: the material reception of water baptism is absolutely indispensable in every case, even when a man perfectly disposed truly desires to receive baptism but dies involuntarily before being able to receive it. The first proposition is Catholic. The second is incompatible with the teaching of the Council of Trent, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, of Saint Alphonsus Liguori and of the Catholic tradition. It is certain that this distinction follows directly from the texts cited below.

 

3. The teaching of the Council of Trent on the votum baptismi

 

The Council of Trent, session VI, chapter IV, in the decree on justification of 13 January 1547, describes the passage from the state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as children of God through Jesus Christ. It teaches: “Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest.” Translation: “This translation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or its desire.” The decisive words are “aut eius voto” — “or its desire.” The Council speaks here precisely of justification, that is, of the passage from the state of sin to the state of grace. It therefore does not say simply “sine lavacro regenerationis.” It expressly adds “aut eius voto.” It is certain that this text of the Council of Trent teaches the votum baptismi as a means of justification. Source: Concilium Tridentinum, Sessio VI, Decretum de iustificatione, cap. IV, Trent, 13 January 1547, Latin.

 

The same Council, session VII, canon 4 on the sacraments in general, promulgated on 3 March 1547, condemns the one who affirms that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and that men obtain from God, by faith alone, the grace of justification “sine eis aut eorum voto.” Translation: “without them or without their desire.” The principle of the votum sacramenti belongs fully to conciliar doctrine. It is certain that this canon confirms the principle already stated in session VI. Source: Concilium Tridentinum, Sessio VII, Canones de sacramentis in genere, can. 4, Trent, 3 March 1547, Latin.

 

4. The solution of Saint Thomas Aquinas

 

Saint Thomas treats exactly the Feeneyist objection in the Summa Theologiae, IIIa, q. 68, a. 2. He distinguishes the case in which baptism is lacking “re et voto” — “in reality and in desire” — from the case in which it is lacking “re, sed non voto” — “in reality, but not in desire.” Then he gives precisely the case that concerns us: “sicut cum aliquis baptizari desiderat, sed aliquo casu praevenitur morte antequam Baptismum suscipiat.” Translation: “as when someone desires to be baptized, but by some chance is prevented by death before receiving Baptism.” And Saint Thomas concludes: “Talis autem sine Baptismo actuali salutem consequi potest, propter desiderium Baptismi…” Translation: “Such a man can obtain salvation without actual Baptism, on account of the desire for Baptism…” Saint Thomas explains that this desire proceeds from faith working through charity, by which God sanctifies man interiorly. It is certain that Saint Thomas explicitly resolves the case of the catechumen prevented by death. Source: S. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIIa, q. 68, a. 2, Latin.

 

5. The testimony of Saint Alphonsus Liguori

 

In his Theologia Moralis, Liber VI, Tractatus II, cap. I, Saint Alphonsus expressly distinguishes “baptismum fluminis, flaminis et sanguinis” — baptism of water, baptism of desire and baptism of blood. He specifies that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not themselves sacraments. At number 96 he defines the baptismus flaminis: “Baptismus autem flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem vel amorem Dei super omnia cum voto explicito vel implicito veri baptismi fluminis, cuius vicem supplet […] quoad culpae remissionem…” Translation: “Baptism of desire is the perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire of the true baptism of water, whose function it supplies […] as regards the remission of fault…” He immediately adds: “De fide autem est per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari…” Translation: “It is however of faith that men can also be saved by baptism of desire…” He bases this affirmation notably on the Council of Trent, session VI, chapter IV, of which he recalls the formula “sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto.” It is certain that Saint Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, qualifies as “de fide” the possibility of salvation by baptism of desire. Primary source: S. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Liber VI, Tractatus II, cap. I, nn. 95–96, Augustae Taurinorum [Turin], ex typis Hyacinthi Marietti, 1879, Latin.

 

In the following number, Saint Alphonsus defines the baptismus sanguinis as the shedding of blood or death endured for the faith or for another Christian virtue. He writes: “Hic autem baptismus aequiparatur vero baptismo, quia quasi ex opere operato ad instar baptismi remittit culpam et poenam…” Translation: “This baptism is equated with true baptism, because, as by a quasi ex opere operato, after the manner of baptism, it remits fault and punishment…” He invokes the Holy Innocents: “ideo martyrium prodest etiam infantibus, dum ecclesia ss. Innocentes prout veros martyres colit.” Translation: “Therefore martyrdom also benefits infants, since the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs.” It is certain that Saint Alphonsus also teaches the reality of baptism of blood. Source: same work, nn. 97–98.

 

6. The testimonies of the patristic tradition

 

Saint Ambrose, in De obitu Valentiniani, treats the case of the emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen who died before his baptism. He asks: “Non habet ergo gratiam quam desideravit, non habet quam poposcit? Et quia poposcit, accepit.” Translation: “Does he then not have the grace which he desired? Does he not have what he asked for? And because he asked for it, he received it.” Saint Thomas invokes this case. It is certain that Saint Ambrose refuses to conclude that Valentinian was necessarily deprived of grace by the mere material absence of the sacrament. Source: S. Ambrosius Mediolanensis, De obitu Valentiniani, nn. 51–53, Latin.

 

Saint Augustine, in De Baptismo contra Donatistas, supplies a capital distinction: “Baptismus quidem potest inesse ubi conversio cordis defuerit; conversio autem cordis potest quidem inesse non percepto Baptismo, sed contempto Baptismo non potest.” Translation: “Baptism can indeed be present where conversion of heart is lacking; but conversion of heart can indeed be present without Baptism having been received; it cannot, however, be present when Baptism is despised.” It is certain that conversion of heart without contempt of baptism can exist without material reception of the sacrament. Source: S. Aurelius Augustinus, De Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. IV, cap. 25, n. 32; J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, t. XLIII, Paris, 1841, Latin.

 

Tertullian already treats baptism of blood in De Baptismo, cap. XVI, in connection with martyrdom. The fundamental principle is that the martyr who dies for Christ before having received baptism can receive the salvific effect of baptism. It is certain that this doctrine belongs to the ancient tradition. Source: Tertullianus, De Baptismo, cap. XVI; J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, t. I, Paris, 1844, Latin.

 

7. The Roman Catechism

 

The Catechismus Romanus, published in 1566 under Saint Pius V following the Council of Trent, likewise applies this doctrine to adults. In explaining why the baptism of adults may be deferred during their instruction and preparation, the Catechism distinguishes their situation from that of children. The properly disposed adult who desires to receive baptism but is prevented by an unforeseen circumstance must not be assimilated to the one who refuses the sacrament. It is certain that the Catechism teaches the same fundamental doctrine as Trent. Source: Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos, Rome, 1566, Pars II, De Baptismi Sacramento, Latin.

 

8. The teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi

 

Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis Christi of 29 June 1943, maintains very clearly the conditions of effective membership in the visible Body of the Church. He nevertheless distinguishes from this effective incorporation the situation of those who are ordered in a certain manner to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a desire. This doctrine in no way means that all religions save or that visible membership in the Church would be useless. On the contrary, Pius XII specifies that these persons remain deprived of many helps which are enjoyed in the Catholic Church and invites them to enter into its unity. One must distinguish effective and visible membership in the Church and ordination to the Church by the votum or desiderium. It is certain that Pius XII maintains this distinction. Source: Pius XII, Litterae Encyclicae Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XXXV, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano, 1943, pp. 193–248, Latin.

 

9. The letter Suprema haec sacra of the Holy Office

 

On 8 August 1949 the Holy Office addressed to Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, the letter Suprema haec sacra, protocol 122/49. The document affirms that the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus must be understood in the sense in which the Church herself understands it and not according to a private interpretation that would destroy other Catholic truths. It then applies to the necessity of the Church the doctrine of the votum and refers notably to Mystici Corporis Christi. It is certain that this letter constitutes a confirmation and an application to the Feeney controversy, and not the original foundation of the doctrine, since Trent, Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus had already taught it. Source: Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Epistula Suprema haec sacra, Prot. n. 122/49, 8 August 1949, Latin; approval of Pius XII in the audience of 28 July 1949.

 

Leonard Feeney was declared excommunicated in 1953. The decree of excommunication formally concerns his persistent disobedience to ecclesiastical authority after warnings. It does not itself constitute a dogmatic definition of baptism of desire. It is certain that one must distinguish the doctrinal document of 1949 and the disciplinary decree of 1953. Source: Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Decretum concerning Leonard Feeney, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XLV, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano, 1953, p. 100, Latin.

 

10. Capital distinctions to avoid errors

 

Ignorance is not a cause of salvation. It is neither a grace, nor a sacrament, nor a supernatural virtue, nor a positive principle of justification. The absence of culpability for invincible ignorance and the possession of sanctifying grace are two different questions. Every man who is saved is saved solely by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is never saved by his ignorance. It is certain that invincible ignorance does not save of itself.

 

A false religion never saves as such. A Protestant is not saved by Protestantism. A Muslim is not saved by Islam. A pagan is not saved by paganism. A Jew is not saved by the rejection of Jesus Christ. If a person exterior to the visible communion of the Church finally obtains salvation, the cause of his salvation is never his false religion: it is exclusively Our Lord Jesus Christ and His grace, in relation to the unique Church of Christ. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus therefore remains absolutely intact. It is certain that no false religion saves as such.

 

Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism. Saint Alphonsus specifies that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not sacraments. Baptism of desire does not administer water materially, does not imprint the baptismal character, does not dispense from receiving the sacrament when it becomes possible, and never justifies the voluntary refusal of baptism. Anyone who would say “I can receive water baptism, but I refuse it because my desire suffices” would by his refusal destroy the very votum to which he claims to appeal. It is certain that baptism of desire is not a sacrament and authorizes no voluntary refusal.

 

11. Concrete cases of the catechumen and the martyr

 

A pagan hears the Gospel preached. He converts. He receives Catholic instruction. He believes. He repents of his sins. He expressly asks for baptism. The ceremony is fixed for the following day. During the night he dies accidentally. Saint Thomas treats precisely this hypothesis and answers that such a man can obtain salvation without actual Baptism, on account of the desire for Baptism. Saint Alphonsus teaches the same thing and qualifies the principle as “de fide.” It is certain that the material impossibility of receiving water does not necessarily entail the damnation of an adult who truly possesses the required supernatural dispositions and the votum baptismi.

 

A catechumen arrested during a persecution awaits baptism. His persecutors order him to deny Jesus Christ. He refuses. He publicly confesses the Catholic faith. He is executed for this confession. Catholic tradition recognizes here baptism of blood. Saint Alphonsus explicitly teaches that the baptismus sanguinis remits fault and punishment. It is certain that the absolute denial of baptism of blood would lead to consequences contrary to traditional doctrine.

 

12. Why strict Feeneyism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine

 

What is explicitly taught by the Council of Trent cannot be rejected by a Catholic. The Council of Trent teaches, relative to justification: “sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto.” One cannot absolutely deny the efficacy of the votum baptismi without entering into contradiction with the teaching of Trent. To this is added Saint Thomas: “sine Baptismo actuali salutem consequi potest, propter desiderium Baptismi.” Then Saint Alphonsus: “De fide autem est per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari.” We therefore have an extremely strong convergence: the Council of Trent, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Common Doctor, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, the patristic tradition, the Roman Catechism, Pius XII and the Holy Office under Pius XII. It is certain that strict Feeneyism contradicts these authorities.

 

The testimony of Saint Alphonsus excludes three evasions. First, to claim that baptism of desire would be only a theological opinion: Saint Alphonsus writes “De fide autem est.” Second, to claim that only an explicitly formulated desire to receive water could come into consideration: Saint Alphonsus writes “cum voto explicito vel implicito.” Third, to claim that baptism of desire would simply be another name given to water baptism: Saint Alphonsus formally distinguishes baptismus fluminis, baptismus flaminis and baptismus sanguinis and specifies that the last two are not sacraments. It is certain that one cannot honestly attribute to Saint Alphonsus a doctrine exclusively limited to water.

 

Baptism of desire does not mean that water baptism would be optional, that all religions save, that subjective sincerity suffices, that ignorance produces grace, that every person of good will is automatically saved, that every non-Catholic automatically possesses an implicit votum, or that visible membership in the Church is useless. None of these propositions follows from Trent, from Saint Thomas or from Saint Alphonsus. The baptismus flaminis requires a determined supernatural reality: a perfecta conversio ad Deum comprising contrition or love of God above all things and the votum of true baptism. One must therefore avoid both the modernist broadening of baptism of desire and its Feeneyist denial.

 

One thing is to demonstrate that a proposition is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Another is to declare a determined person formally heretical. For the personal qualification of formal heresy, pertinacity must be established. One can objectively establish that the absolute denial of baptism of desire collides with the Council of Trent and with the traditional interpretation illustrated notably by Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus. But the personal application of the canonical qualification of heretic to a given individual requires a further demonstration concerning his pertinacity. One must distinguish the qualification of the proposition from the qualification of the person.

 

13. Conclusion

 

Catholic doctrine must be preserved integrally, without suppressing one truth in order to defend another. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is true. There exists only one true Church: the Catholic Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the unique Saviour. No false religion saves as such. Baptism is necessary. No one may voluntarily refuse or despise water baptism. But the Council of Trent expressly teaches “sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto.” Saint Thomas explicitly teaches that the one who desires to be baptized but dies before being able to receive the sacrament “sine Baptismo actuali salutem consequi potest, propter desiderium Baptismi.” And Saint Alphonsus Liguori brings a particularly explicit confirmation: “De fide autem est per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari.” He likewise teaches the reality of baptism of blood. The conclusion is therefore clear: one does not defend Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus by denying baptism of desire and baptism of blood. One then opposes a particular interpretation of the dogma to other certain elements of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic position simultaneously conserves all the truths. Outside the Church, no salvation. No salvation without Jesus Christ and His grace. No false religion saves. Baptism is truly necessary. Water baptism may not be despised. The true votum baptismi can supply for its effective reception with regard to justification when the latter is involuntarily impossible. Martyrdom can produce the salvific effect traditionally designated as baptism of blood. This is neither indifferentism nor an attenuation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Catholic doctrine as it appears in the sources themselves. It is certain that this conclusion follows directly from the texts cited.

 

List of sources

 

1. Concilium Tridentinum, Sessio VI, Decretum de iustificatione, cap. IV, Trent, 13 January 1547, Latin.
2. Concilium Tridentinum, Sessio VII, Canones de sacramentis in genere, can. 4, Trent, 3 March 1547, Latin.
3. S. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIIa, q. 68, a. 2, Latin.
4. S. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Liber VI, Tractatus II, cap. I, nn. 95–98, Augustae Taurinorum [Turin], ex typis Hyacinthi Marietti, 1879, Latin.
5. S. Ambrosius Mediolanensis, De obitu Valentiniani, nn. 51–53, Latin.
6. S. Aurelius Augustinus, De Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. IV, cap. 25, n. 32, in J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, t. XLIII, Paris, 1841, Latin.
7. Tertullianus, De Baptismo, cap. XVI, in J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, t. I, Paris, 1844, Latin.
8. Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos, Rome, 1566, Pars II, De Baptismi Sacramento, Latin.
9. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XXXV, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano, 1943, pp. 193–248, Latin.
10. Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Suprema haec sacra, Prot. n. 122/49, 8 August 1949, Latin; approved by Pius XII in the audience of 28 July 1949.
11. Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, decree concerning Leonard Feeney, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XLV, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Città del Vaticano, 1953, p. 100, Latin.