Some commenters below are claiming that some of *my* comments below are erroneous and suspect--yet these accusers will not cite their evidence--they merely adorn other comments, from those who seem to support the substance of my article above, with calumnious claims. These "gotcha" commenters aren't interested in real understanding and communication. Apologies to those readers/commenters who must wade through the "gotchas" for any real substance in the combox. I've opted to spend a great deal of time in the combox in order to aid in readers' understanding of a very complex issue. I'll happily continue to do so and won't be cowed by the calumny expressed by some. Thanks for reading.

Thanks for taking the time, as they say, "the devil is in the details".

"Brother Andre Marie, emphasizes that this is "only" a privately held theological opinion."

Private opinions should not be promulgated as though they are the teaching of the Church. No priest, including the pope should abuse their position of authority to do so.

Surely a belief at variance with what a Catholic must accept with divine and Catholic Faith is a material heresy?

Thank you Church Militant for publishing this view. I recall studying these points in seminary about Feeney and that his positions were not condemned, but rather he was asked to clarify. It seems that clarification is still needed! Any theology students interested in thesis topic?

Jim Russell. I am not knowledgeable enough to make a comment on your April 23 article, but want to sincerely thank you for all the wonderful, meaningful, thoughtful, and inspiring contributions you have made to CM. I took a look at all your past articles on CM and was overwhelmed and also read a lot of great comments you received for them. Today was a little rough, so please don't get discouraged and continue writing great articles. Thank You

Au contraire. As a self-made "theological journalist," Mr Russell demonstrates himself to be highly incompetent. The number of assumptions, errors & condescending obiter dicta contained in this short piece are the stuff as gives rise to the term "sophomore."

Support your claim with actual evidence, please--not mere assertion.

Others have done so, you choose ignore that.

Baloney. You're committing calumny as of now.

'Theological journalist' Russell. It sounds about right.

"However, in the infallible 1964 council document Lumen Gentium,"
"infallible"?

Yes, of course. The Church's universal teaching on faith and morals cannot be in error. Whatever the Council asserted doctrinally cannot be in error, and assuredly is not on the point at hand (LG 14).

I am not refuting LG 14 specifically.
Can you cite for us your claim that the VII documents are infallible?
What exactly constitutes the "Church's universal teaching", I thought Vatican II was more of pastoral thing with no new doctrine being posited.
Have there not been calls for a syllabus of errors concerning the Vatican II documents, Bishop Athanasius Schneider comes to mind?

Russell, the wholesale slaughter of Catholics around the globe by terror minded muzies is directly linked to VII false ecumenism and religious liberty documents. Nostra Aetate rehabilitated false gods of other religions and sterelized the mindset of most Catholics.

So do you really claim that the Holy Spirit *abandoned* the Second Vatican Council and therefore LG 14 is *erroneous*? And therefore the *only* position a faithful Catholic can hold on EENS is the position held by Feeney and his adherents?? Is that *really* your claim???

Calling John Calvin! God creates souls with the knowledge and intent to damn them?

Catholics seem to have a problem with distinguishing between the ORDINARY means of salvation - the sacraments. We are talking baptism but what about the Eucharist (Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you)?

The Pharisees had a mechanical view of salvation - press the buttons, turn the cranks, and you're saved! Jesus condemned them as sons of the devil.

Jesus did NOT come to replace one machine with a different one, he changed everything. God is mercy and truth.

Those who follow the ordinary path to heaven are more certain and better off, but that does not exclude those who follow a different path - when the ordinary path is NOT available - to heaven.

This parallels the protestant objection that Mary was virgin UNTIL she had Jesus. They would say that "until" means she wasn't virgin long afterward. Catholics say that "until" is limited to Jesus' gestation and makes no comment later.

Just as Mary was Virgin while she had Christ in her womb, and we are saved by Baptism, it doesn't mean that outside the predicates, things are the opposite.

'Jesus did NOT come to replace one machine with a different one, he changed everything.'
This is a very basic protestant error.

Jesus did not change anything. Exactly the opposite. He fulfilled everything and made it complete.

Further, Jesus condemned the Pharisees, not for over acting according to the Law but for NOT acting enough according to it.
This is another basic protestant error.

This leads to the worst error.
The Blessed Virgin Mary was absolutely and completely transcendent in nature. She was born without sin. Her existence was therefore a miracle in itself. It follows that anything and everything She did subsequently was also a miracle. The specific nature of this miracle is specifically and exactly Her virginity.

To claim that The Blessed Virgin was not a perpetual miraculous virgin is like claiming that the lame man who Jesus Made to walk was a miracle on the day it happened , but just an ordinary occurrence the next day when he went to the market to get bread!

Once a miracle always a miracle.

Your lack of understanding has caused you to grievously insult the Mother Of God and God Who Blessed Her.

You should apologise.

Um, the Catholic Church has always believed Mary to be EVER Virgin, even says so in the Novus Ordo Confiteor. Before Vatican II the Confiteor also said semper virginem. It also has always described her elsewhere ever virgin, as intact, even AFTER giving birth to Our Savior, etc.

Are you arguing that Jesus meant something other than "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you"?
So, He didn't really mean that we had to really eat and drink but rather there are some other paths He just neglected to mention in His definitive statement on the matter?
I worry these days that we are deconstructing the faith to a point where all are excused from the path Jesus laid out, that being Baptism and the Eucharist, dangerously approaching the point of Universalism.

This one-sided and undeserved attack on the St. Benedict Center should have been noted as a view contrary to the stated view of Michael Voris and Church Militant. It reads like propaganda from a person with an axe to grind.

Please cite passages where I'm "attacking" the SBC. I did no such thing. See--this is the problem with many who choose to adhere to "theological opinions"--they can't seem to grasp that the *Church* permits and tolerates more than one view. Even Brother Andre Marie seems to clearly accept that the entire Church need NOT adhere to the SBC's publicly stated "private theological opinion." So why accuse me of attacking SBC when I've been quite careful *not* to do so?

Is your own 'theological' opinion in any way complimentary to SBC? We Catholics don't need VII new church of apostasy which slobbers at the feet of 'religion of peace'.

Fr. Feeney died in the graces of the Church well after Vatican II. He was not required to recant his teachings. The bishops who regularized him must have been ignorant of Vatican II?

The Diocese of Worcester defended the regularization of the Sisters of St. Ann, writing, "In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] 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." Who was head of the CDF in 1988? Possibly someone ignorant of Vatican II?

There are two other communities in Still River who hold the doctrine as Fr. Feeney did, both recognized as Catholic by the diocese. One is a community of Benedictines.

Ven. Pope Pius XII must have been ignorant when he wrote in Mystici Corporis, “only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith.” Or Mr. Russell is wrong in his interpretation of Vatican II.

Readers should find and read the popes, doctors and councils over the centuries. The present article is not reliable.

Joseph Ratzinger was head of the CDF from 25 November 1981 until 2 April 2005, the death of Pope John Paul II. You may know him as Pope Emeritus Benedict. He was not only *not* ignorant of Vatican II, he actually participated in the Council and served as a peritus (theological consultant) to Cardinal Frings of Cologne. Just saying, regarding this point only for those following along at home. Please, do carry on.

Please do not lie about what I say. Not cool.

News flash--the quote above from the diocese Worcester used to *defend* Feeney can ALSO be used to defend my "theological opinion."

The present article IS reliable. Just because it differs from the Feeney-inspired theological opinion does NOT mean the view I express is any less acceptable. The faithful *can* believe what is taught by Vatican II AND the Church's Catechism and--surprise!--still be in full communion with the Church.

I can't believe I actually had to write that last sentence.

I'm not angry in the least. I am pretty amazed that people are willing to criticize fellow Catholics for adhering to the clear teachings of the Church in council documents and in the catechism.

You just try to wriggle out of your blunder and place it on the shoulders of of those who refuse to be fooled by you. Why do you poke your nose into the business of those poor religious monks and nuns? They don't do any harm.

My view isn't a "blunder"--it's completely coherent with Church teaching and utterly okay for Catholics to hold.

Jim Russell, it would have been a wise and graceful act on your part to stay back and let the readers draw their own opinions on the subject. You've chosen to quarrel instead and you ended up with an egg on your face.

That's total nonsense. I don't have "egg on my face" by simply accepting Church teaching as it's presented to Catholics. Ridiculous.

Jim Russell, false ecumenism and religious liberty as taught by VII are liberal marxist doctrines foisted upon unsuspecting Catholics and ramed down their throats. Whom the hell do you try to fool, Russell?

As far as I am aware the Church also teaches that salvation is possible through baptism by desire and baptism by blood.

There are some catechisms that will tell you that. But you can't just go by those.

What about the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas? you going that route as the author did down below?

or the Catechism of St. Robert Bellarmine, another Doctor of the Church? As you say, "Can't just go by those", you saying the teachings of Pope St. Pius V, and the Doctors of the Church are out of date?

So speaks Opus Dei. Let's consult Chirst's words, the Council of Trent, and at least three Popes who unequivocally supported Father Feeney's "strange interpretation" in a clearly ex cathedra, irrevocable pronouncement. There is absolutely no real confusion here. No one has ever declared the "doctrine" of Baptism of Desire because they can not. In order to do so they would have to deny the long standing truth and historical interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church."

A man wanted to convert to the Catholic Church and signed up for RCIA. He was scheduled to be baptized on the Easter Vigil. A couple of days before the vigil he suddenly died ~ before he could be sacramentally baptized. He was given a Catholic funeral. This was a case of Jesus taking over the whole operation.

The man publicly proclaimed he wanted to be baptized. Through no fault of his own he wasn't. That is baptism of desire.

St. Thomas was not a Pope.

Nope--that's all false.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Tertia Pars Question 68, Article 2:

"Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (Article 1; III:65:4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments,
and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible
sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible
sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

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 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 grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)."

easy Jim, pull back on the reins, you calling a Doctor of the Church wrong, saying his teaching is false? Explain why then.

Saying the above comment is false does not contradict Aquinas....

yes it does, he, the commenter only asked about that section in the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas on Baptism, which i posted, by you saying the comment is false, you are saying Thomas Aquinas is false.

By you saying that section in the Summa is false, you also go against Holy Scripture and St. Augustine of Hippo, another Doctor of the Church! Take your modernism and go away, I will stick with the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church!

Please stop the lies--I do NOT claim Aquinas' teaching to be false. Stop the false claims.