Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Explanation Please

[DJim]

From the Fr. Feeney Fact Sheet:

Feeney was disobedient locally before he was disobedient to the Holy See. He disobeyed the local censure before disobeying the summons to Rome…

No he didn’t. His status was reconciled and he was never required to recant his position. Much more recently the CDF in the regularization of one of the St. Benedict groups determined that it allows the same latitude towards the more rigid understanding of EENS as it does the more liberal interpretation.

He preached doctrinal error. He refused to let the Magisterium interpret the Magisterium.

No. It speculates on theological ideas. Ultimately, there will have to be yet another ex cathedra declaration clearing this up.

The 1949 letter is not speculation–as will later be shown when the “theological ideas” expressed there are taught again and definitively in the documents of Vatican II…

It amazes me that people seem to think that God is a liar by stating that something is necessary and then it turns out that it’s only contingent or that he would decieve others by stating something as necessary and then not mean it.

Do you feel that way about the TORAH also??? I don’t recall God saying anywhere in the Old Testament that it is “contingent” upon something else. Only that it is necessary…Doest Christianity make the God of the Jews a “liar”???

I’m also amazed that people think God is too busy or too weak to provide a saint in a miraculous way as he brought Timothy to the Ethiopian eunuch and somehow that is too much to believe nowadays.

Uh–that was the Deacon, Philip. And that was via direction by an angel to go to the eunuch. What if Philip had said “NO” and not gone–would the eunuch have remained in original sin and damned at death?

Why should Our Lady appear to anybody? What was the point of Padre Pio’s bilocation? Why has St. Michael appeared to save the day any number of times?

Well, since presumably the only bodily Christians in Heaven are Jesus and his Mother Mary, they are the only two who are able to validly baptize…

DJim

 

[GerardP]

Uh–that was the Deacon, Philip. And that was via direction by an angel to go to the eunuch. What if Philip had said “NO” and not gone–would the eunuch have remained in original sin and damned at death?

Thank you for that correction. I realized that but the 20 minutes available for editing had expired.

Regarding your point about the Angel. Boy these angels sure are bad at their jobs aren’t they? Sometimes they just don’t have what it takes to provide for God’s children.

Philip mysteriously disappears from the scene:

*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. *

On your question on if Philip had said, “No.”

It’s a silly line of argumentation you’re making but how do you know that Philip was the first person God asked to go? How do you know that he wasn’t the fifth in a list of 20?

And by your reasoning, there was no need for God to do anything. The Eunuch would have been saved by his ignorance and good will.

Why did God waste his time and energy with Philip at all?

 

[GerardP]

Neither an angel nor a disembodied saint can validly administer Baptism.

Valid Baptism requires not only water but human hands and a human voice.

Saints won’t be corporeal again until the Final Judgement. Angels aren’t human.

So where is the “priest” you mention supposed to come from?

When has this ever been shown to have happened?

DJim

St. Thomas disagrees with you.

From the Summa:

"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments.** And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid,** because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, **certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels **[See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are “lying spirits,” were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid. "

 

[GerardP]

St. Thomas Aquinas discuess this issue too:

8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:

“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”

This is St. Thomas’ reasoning at work. He didn’t have the Magisterial pronouncement of Cantate Domino to submit to. Just as Thomas couldn’t wrap his mind around the Immaculate Conception. He did his best to work with Baptism. He obviously speculated on both Baptism of Desire as is popularly known and the administration of Sacraments by miraculous events and the intervention of Angels.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Thomas disagrees with you.

From the Summa:

"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments.** And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid,** because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, **certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels **[See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are “lying spirits,” were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid. "

As I stated above, St. Thomas also held that a desire for Baptism sufficed. Notice he says “without actually being Baptized”–he’s not talking about angels administering the sacrament instead.

 

[GerardP]

St. Thomas Aquinas discuess this issue too:

8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:

Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”

On this issue, it’s still possible to understand that Valentium obtained the graces through some other minister than Ambrose.

Or, Ambrose could have been wrong altogether and Valentium didn’t make it.

Which could also be a mercy of God since perhaps God knew that Valentium would not persevere in his faith and the pains of Hell would be less severe for someone without the mark of Baptism on them.

Whatever the case, God provided what was sufficient and his judgement was perfect.

 

[GerardP]

As I stated above, St. Thomas also held that a desire for Baptism sufficed. Notice he says “without actually being Baptized”–he’s not talking about angels administering the sacrament instead.

See what I posted above. Since St. Thomas speculated on the possibilities, the Magisterium of the Church has ruled definitively on this. Even Pius IX did not put the full weight of his authority on Baptism of Desire in a way that redefined or opened up speculation that Pope Eugene in Cantate Domino.

 

[DJim]

Sorry, GerardP, St. Thomas’s “Summa” can’t trump the Council of Florence any more than my Pius text on “invincible ignorance” can trump Trent…right?

Here is precisely who the Council of Florence (Decree for the Armenians, 1439) INFALLIBLY says can validly administer Baptism:

“The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom by reason of his office it belongs to baptize, but in case of necessity not only priests or deacons, but also laymen or laywomen, or even pagans and heretics may baptize, provided they observe the Church’s form and intend to do what the Church does.”

Nowhere in this precise infallible statement does it say that anyone except a living human being can validly baptize.

Your Aquinas quote loses to the clear and precise declaration of the Council of Florence.

That is, unless you want to declare the Florence statement to be “contingent” and not necessary…

DJim

 

[DJim]

The million-dollar question:

Why do those who insist on binding God to provide for a miraculous Baptism by real water only bind God to HALF of what is necessary for valid Baptism?

Why must God miraculously provide real water but NOT miraculously provide a real living human being as minister???

The infallible Magisterium teaches that both are necessary for valid water Baptism.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

Feeney was disobedient locally before he was disobedient to the Holy See. He disobeyed the local censure before disobeying the summons to Rome…

That’s a little vague on details. “Disobedience” is often a smokescreen for avoiding the facts.

He preached doctrinal error. He refused to let the Magisterium interpret the Magisterium.

Actually he refused to let Jesuits like Fr. Jean Baptiste Janssens
teach against the Magisterium of the Church at the St. Benedict Center.

The 1949 letter is not speculation–as will later be shown when the “theological ideas” expressed there are taught again and definitively in the documents of Vatican II…

Terms like “may” and “can” are speculative. There was nothing definitive in Vatican II.

Do you feel that way about the TORAH also??? I don’t recall God saying anywhere in the Old Testament that it is “contingent” upon something else. Only that it is necessary…Doest Christianity make the God of the Jews a “liar”???

What specifically are you referring to? As far as I know, the 10 commandments are permanent and unchangeable.

Well, since presumably the only bodily Christians in Heaven are Jesus and his Mother Mary, they are the only two who are able to validly baptize…

There are a couple of saints who speculated that St. Joseph may have been assumed after his death. No one knows where St. Micheal took Moses’ body. Where is Elijah?

And I’m legitimately curious on this, what happened to the people that were raised from their tombs after the Resurrection? Did they get to ascend or did they die again like a zombie movie?

 

[GerardP]

The million-dollar question:

Why do those who insist on binding God to provide for a miraculous Baptism by real water only bind God to HALF of what is necessary for valid Baptism?

Why must God miraculously provide real water but NOT miraculously provide a real living human being as minister???

The infallible Magisterium teaches that both are necessary for valid water Baptism.

DJim

I believe you are wrong on this. The requirement for an extraordinary minister of Baptism is a person. Angels and Saints are living persons.

 

[GerardP]

Sorry, GerardP, St. Thomas’s “Summa” can’t trump the Council of Florence any more than my Pius text on “invincible ignorance” can trump Trent…right?

Here is precisely who the Council of Florence (Decree for the Armenians, 1439) INFALLIBLY says can validly administer Baptism:

“The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom by reason of his office it belongs to baptize, but in case of necessity not only priests or deacons, but also laymen or laywomen, or even pagans and heretics may baptize, provided they observe the Church’s form and intend to do what the Church does.”

Nowhere in this precise infallible statement does it say that anyone except a living human being can validly baptize.

Your Aquinas quote loses to the clear and precise declaration of the Council of Florence.

That is, unless you want to declare the Florence statement to be “contingent” and not necessary…

DJim

The Council of Florence quote you’ve provided doesn’t make the claim to be a comprehensive list of ministers. Show me a statement that says “that if anyone says an Angel can in extraordinary circumstances administer some sacraments. Let him be anathema.” And I will submit.

 

[DJim]

I believe you are wrong on this. The requirement for an extraordinary minister of Baptism is a person. Angels and Saints are living persons.

We have now reached the point of absurdity, haven’t we?

The Council of Florence infallibly defines the minister of Baptism–priests, deacons, laymen, laywomen, pagans, heretics.

Funny, the Council simply does NOT mention either angels or DEAD PEOPLE.

Nor does it say “persons.”

Odd isn’t it? We can’t baptize the dead–but they can baptize us???

Heightening the absurdity is the notion that disembodied human souls or noncorporeal angels can pour real water and utter the baptismal formula…

Of course, if we go with your insistence that all that is required for Baptism is water and a living person, then mustn’t you admit that, if an angel can do it, then GOD could also do it all by Himself? And if GOD can minister Baptism as a “living person”, since it’s God doing it, couldn’t He also dispense with His own command to use water since He’s the one who created water?

Oh, but to say that brings you dangerously close to Baptism of Desire without water, doesn’t it?

And much closer to common sense.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

The million-dollar question:

Why do those who insist on binding God to provide for a miraculous Baptism by real water only bind God to HALF of what is necessary for valid Baptism?

I’m not the one binding God to His word. He is. And he can neither decieve nor be decieved.

Why must God miraculously provide real water but NOT miraculously provide a real living human being as minister???

First, we don’t even know if the circumstances have ever actually existed for the supposed “Baptism of Desire” according to the most recent standards of “following your conscience”.

Second, God isn’t “obliged” to provide for anyone, anything. It’s through His mercy that he will not fail to provide for those who truly seek Him.

Third, I’m sure that God provides His miracles in forms that are designed to give the person witnessing the miracles the best affirmation of faith. Sometimes it may be a living corporeal saint. Sometimes it may be Our Lady, Sometimes it may be an Angel who’s particular splendor may be what is required. It may even be Our Lord himself who appears.

 

[DJim]

The Council of Florence quote you’ve provided doesn’t make the claim to be a comprehensive list of ministers. Show me a statement that says “that if anyone says an Angel can in extraordinary circumstances administer some sacraments. Let him be anathema.” And I will submit.

Oh, I get it now.

An infallible ecumenical council of the Church only intended to teach the universal church a partial and incomplete list of who could minister Baptism.

Makes perfect sense to me.

You’re saying this teaching does NOT cover “extraordinary” circumstances.

Funny, that’s the same principle you REJECT when it is applied to the necessity of water baptism…

If someone tells you the canon on water baptism is to be understood as applying to what is “ordinary” and not what is “extraordinary”, you say they are wrong and are believing heresy.

You can’t have it both ways.

Which way do you want it?

Either way, you are stuck with the truth–the necessity of water baptism applies to what is “ordinary”, what is “possible”. God can bring us to eternal life through other means when water Baptism is not possible.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

We have now reached the point of absurdity, haven’t we?

No. It appears we’ve reached the point where you resort to ridicule.

The Council of Florence infallibly defines the minister of Baptism–priests, deacons, laymen, laywomen, pagans, heretics.

Funny, the Council simply does NOT mention either angels or DEAD PEOPLE. Nor does it say “persons.”

Councils answer and address particular aspects of theological questions. This is one that will eventually have to be dealt with if there is a debate over it that continues.

St.Thomas clearly leaves room open for Angels and speculates on the validity of an Angel administering a Sacrament.

“Dead People” is the Protestant attitude towards Saints. I won’t even bother to address that lack of respect for those living in Christ.

Odd isn’t it? We can’t baptize the dead–but they can baptize us???

We can’t cure disease in them but they sure do that for us as well.

Heightening the absurdity is the notion that disembodied human souls or noncorporeal angels can pour real water and utter the baptismal formula…

Hey, if you don’t believe in miracles just say so and stop being arbitrary about what you believe. If you don’t believe in a Virgin Birth or Resurrection or water being turned into wine or Manna from Heaven or a human body being assumed into Heaven just admit it and you can stop being a Catholic.

Of course, if we go with your insistence that all that is required for Baptism is water and a living person, then mustn’t you admit that, if an angel can do it, then GOD could also do it all by Himself?

Yes. I pointed that out above.

And if GOD can minister Baptism as a “living person”, since it’s God doing it, couldn’t He also dispense with His own command to use water since He’s the one who created water?

No. Because then God would be a liar. God can’t go against His Nature. Jesus couldn’t change one jot or tittle of His Father’s word.

Oh, but to say that brings you dangerously close to Baptism of Desire without water, doesn’t it? And much closer to common sense.

Nonsense you mean.

 

[GerardP]

Oh, I get it now.

An infallible ecumenical council of the Church only intended to teach the universal church a partial and incomplete list of who could minister Baptism.

Makes perfect sense to me.

You’re saying this teaching does NOT cover “extraordinary” circumstances.

I’m saying this teaching doesn’t cover every possibility of all extraordinary circumstances.

Funny, that’s the same principle you REJECT when it is applied to the necessity of water baptism…

Not at all. I’m saying that the Church teaching that God provides sufficient grace for all men for salvation and the absolute necessity of water Baptism makes the wishful thinking that God will provide the grace without the water results in the necessary conclusion that water is a metaphor for the sacrament. In that case, there would be no reason not to baptize with milk or wine or some other symbolic liquid.

If someone tells you the canon on water baptism is to be understood as applying to what is “ordinary” and not what is “extraordinary”, you say they are wrong and are believing heresy.

Necessary means necessary. Period. If the Council of Florence had said that human beings were necessary for the administration of Baptism, that would rule out Angels.

Water is necessary. Wishes are not water. You don’t get Holy Orders by desire or Confirmation by Desire, you can’t confect the Eucharist by Desire.

You can’t have it both ways. Which way do you want it?

You tell me that miracles are absurd. Yet you are supposed to be Catholic. You can’t have it both ways. Which way do you want it?

Either way, you are stuck with the truth–the necessity of water baptism applies to what is “ordinary”, what is “possible”. God can bring us to eternal life through other means when water Baptism is not possible.

Infallibly the Church has stated that water is necessary. God is the author of that necessity. God will not be a liar. Water Baptism is always possible because NOTHING is impossible for God.

It’s an insult to say that God will not provide and it’s such a declaration of a lack of faith to say that miracles are beyond Him.

The whole attitude displayed is riddled with skepticism about God and His limitless power and the actions He takes in order to bring us to Him.

Also it’s a deliberate attack on the Unity of the Church and the dogma of the Church. The long distance aim of this attitude is the dissolution of religion and the heresy of universal salvation.

Deny the miraculous.

Deny the necessity of the Church.

Deny the unity of the Church.

Make a set of criteria for culpability unreachable for the masses.

Promote universalist hopes.

And you have the dissolution of the Church, dogma, the family and all morality.

The Devil is willing to wait Centuries if not Millennia to bring his plans to fruition.

Read St. Pius X encyclical against the Sillon and you can see how prophetic he was.

 

[DJim]

No. It appears we’ve reached the point where you resort to ridicule.

I am not intending to ridicule anything except a viewpoint that would on one hand limit the interpretation of an infallible teaching to uphold an erroneous belief while at the same time liberalize the interpretation of a different infallible teaching to uphold the same erroneous belief.

You restrict Trent to mean “water and always water” while simultaneously liberalizing Florence to mean "priests, deacons, laity and SOMETIMES angels and noncorporeal saints…

Why do you do that?

St.Thomas clearly leaves room open for Angels and speculates on the validity of an Angel administering a Sacrament.

“Leaves room” and “speculates” are the key words there. Aquinas’ speculation never made it into the Decree from the Council of Florence…

“Dead People” is the Protestant attitude towards Saints. I won’t even bother to address that lack of respect for those living in Christ.

No lack of respect–just emphasis. I’m sure they would agree they are both dead and living. And that they are as noncorporeal as angels right now…

Hey, if you don’t believe in miracles just say so and stop being arbitrary about what you believe.

I actually believe in the “miracle” of God saving with grace alone when it is impossible to save with grace and water.

In contrast, you interpret a teaching contrary to the interpretation given by the living Magisterium and consequently bind God to have to supply water each time someone is saved through grace. But that’s only half of valid Baptism…

If God can do it by Himself, contrary to the Council of Florence’s statement regarding who is the minister of Baptism (Florence doesn’t include “God” as a potential minister of Baptism), then why can’t God do it without water, contrary to the Council of Trent’s canon on the necessity of water baptism???

No. Because then God would be a liar. God can’t go against His Nature. Jesus couldn’t change one jot or tittle of His Father’s word.

Operating outside the boundaries of the Council of Florence doesn’t make God a liar, right?

Why does operating outside the boundaries of the Council of Trent make God a liar?

DJim

 

[DJim]

GerardP writes:

Infallibly the Church has stated that water is necessary. God is the author of that necessity. God will not be a liar. Water Baptism is always possible because NOTHING is impossible for God.

If nothing is impossible with God, why can’t He save without water?

If you say God won’t save without water, then you are saying that, for God, saving without water is impossible…

DJim

 

[Teflon93]

GerardP writes:

If nothing is impossible with God, why can’t He save without water?

If you say God won’t save without water, then you are saying that, for God, saving without water is impossible…

DJim

God is not bound by His sacraments. Why do we keep trying to bind Him thus?

Clearly, when Christ told the thief on the cross he would be in Paradise with him that very day, the thief could not climb down off the cross for a baptism, and yet we know he was saved because Christ said so.