---

St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing 1 the expression "extra ecciesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation").

In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, 2 would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."

Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding (in eodem sensu eademque sententia)" 3 as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.

Saint Augustine concurs with St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others in specifically denying that the State of Sanctifying Grace is sufficient to save anyone without the actual reception of the Sacrament of Water Baptism. He makes this statement explicitly in his essay On Baptism, Against the Donatists, in Book IV, Chapter 21, number 28. We must also modify the alleged support of St. Ambrose (if any) for salvific baptism of desire by pointing out that it is based solely by certain interpreters on his Eulogy to Emperor Valentinian. This conjecture on their part is expressly contested by one of our greatest patristic historians, Father Jacques-Paul Migne (PL, vol.16, p.412, no.19) and the Eulogy itself is invariably mistranslated by modern heretics and their willing editors.

In fact, St. Ambrose declares explicitly that the royal twenty-year-old emperor actually did receive the sacrament he so earnestly desired, and in no place declared otherwise. His speech on the occasion of the Emperor's death acknowledged the congregation's lament that Valentinian had not received the sacramenta of Baptism, not the Sacrament thereof. "Sacramenta" is the plural form of a Latin word which means the formal oaths (or "forms" of the sacrament as explained by Fr. William Jurgens in his conscientious translation of this eulogy), that is: the formal and external rituals provided for in a Catholic liturgy in church, for which, of course, no one had time. This was the most prudently logical conclusion Ambrose could reach, considering that the he was also aware of the virtual certainty that the emperor had long since already been baptized validly, although as an Arian, having been raised by his mother Justina in this sect for many years - thus rendering altogether moot the entire contention of modern quibblers such as Fr. Laisney and his followers.

It is also very questionable whether Ss. John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Prosper, and others who brought up what today is called "Baptism of Blood" can be held literally from their statements to have meant salvation by martyrdom short of the font, for several were manifestly and expressly speaking of the martyrdom of those already baptized with water. In various places, St. Prosper of Aquitaine as well as St. John Chrysostom equate the term "baptism of blood" explicitly and specifically with justification, not salvation. Nevertheless, it is not altogether uncharacteristic - although self-negating as viable witness on behalf of Liberal heretics - that several of these Fathers waffled diametrically back and forth, sometimes within the very same document under discussion.

Along with the mass of the early Fathers of the Church who held explicitly to baptism of water for salvation must necessarily be added the overwhelming preponderance of those Fathers, Doctors, and Ecclesiastical Writers of the first centuries of the Church catalogued by Father Tixeront in his masterful Handbook of Patrology, which lists over five hundred authentic witnesses to the true Faith, and whose cumulative testimony compelled the discerning Father William A. Jurgens to corroborate the witness of Tradition that "Unless a man be born again of water, etc., is to be taken absolutely."

The Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can only be said to have verified definitively the official and authentic teaching of the one true Church that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. And to exalt the personal theological opinions of a handful - even an impressive and well-known handful - to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition or even magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in sophomoric legerdemain, but also a specious brand of facile shortsightedness unconscionable in a serious study of Patristic Theology.

To repeat - this dogma of salvation by means of baptism alone is not something that has been dreamed up by radical, reactionary recalcitrants, nor by some lone Bostonian priest stumping a soap-box half-a-century ago, nor by any other ordained minister of Almighty God who has committed himself to preserve both his vows and his Faith in serving those over whom God has placed him. This De Fide proposition is constituted and established by the current, authentic and official Magisterium of the Church of Jesus Christ as part and parcel of the only true religion to grace the face of God's green earth. Therefore, Pope Paul , in his Apostolic Exhortation On the Fifth Anniversary of the Closing of Vatican II, proclaimed in 1970 -

If for whatever reason we deny the absoluteness of the law of God concerning the necessity of water baptism for salvation, or any other defined dogma, then we too excommunicate ourselves by our heresy from the Church.

Look at the Laisney citation once more. That "it belongs to the Catholic Faith," as St. Maria's Editor explains, can only mean that St. Alphonsus Maria did not consider it De Fide Definita. Hence, "that some men are saved by the baptism of the Spirit" is not to be found in any pronouncement of the Solemn Magisterium but only, if it exists at all, in the Ordinary Magisterium which must always be taken in the light of Tradition and not on the say-so of any individual Father or Doctor of the Church. Moreover, note well - nowhere in this very statement provided us by Fr. Laisney does St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori actually state that the men saved by baptism of the Spirit are not previously baptized with water! In fact, The washing free of sin produced by baptism of the Spirit and its accompanying acts of repentance, etc., can readily be admitted by all Catholics to fulfill all requirements necessary for entrance into Heaven, but only if a man has first received the Character of the Sacrament.

The reference given for this Footnote No. 4 is, simply, "On Baptism," Ch.1. Granted that Father Laisney may have access to a book by St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori by this name, but it does not appear in the "The Complete Works of Saint Alponsus de Liguori" published in twenty-two volumes by his own Order, the Redemptorist Fathers, in 1926, nor is it mentioned among his works by the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1903. In those Complete Works, St. Alphonsus Maria explicitly contradicts the contentions of the Laisneyites by saying: "The Catechism of Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for everyone without exception." Does this sound like a man who truly considers Fr. Laisney's exception of desire "De Fide"?

My own shelves are blessed by the presence of fifteen of the books written by this last of the Doctors of the Church to die (1787), and it is true that in one of them, "Instructions on the Commandments and Sacraments," St. Alphonsus Maria posits the notion that "ardent desire for baptism" can get a person to Heaven without the sacrament, so long as the person has the Catholic Faith (On The Sacrament Of Baptism, Chapter II:2); however, as Blessed Henro Suso points out in his Spiritual Discourses, "God never leaves unrewarded the ardent desires of holy souls.". Nevertheless, in this very work St. Alphonsus Maria does not say what Fr. Laisney says he said, namely, that such a speculation is De Fide - and nowhere does he declare that this is in any way at all a teaching of the Magisterium, Solemn or Ordinary.

In fact, St. Alphonsus Maria attests, in so many words, that this is merely his own private opinion when he declares: "I say" that an the unbaptized can be saved. He does not in this book claim that "the Church says" so. Besides - and this is of greatest import - no Father or Doctor of the Church as such is any more infallible than the next man in the pew. Not even all the Fathers of the Church put together can come up with an infallible proclamation of the Catholic Faith. As Fr. Jurgens points out -

The Fathers and early Christian Writers do not agree with each other with a precise mathematical unanimity, nor could it be expected that they would. And in any case, we must stress that a particular patristic text is in no instance to be regarded as 'proof' of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not "proved" by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and Writers is this: that in the aggregate they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and, again in the aggregate, they provide a witness to Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of Revelation.

And remember, this is the Father Jurgens who admitted that the teaching of the Fathers on the "absolute" necessity of water baptism was so "constant" as to constitute that "Revelation" of which he speaks. Note, however, that Father Laisney is once again Begging the Question by citing among all his authorities the Council of Trent, as though it corroborated his brand of the "traditional interpretation of this dogma." Trent nowhere interpreted the possibility of salvation for any single unbaptized person in the New Testament. In fact, they clearly defined that if anyone held that the Sacrament of Baptism (and this ineluctably necessitates the administration of it in water) is not necessary for salvation, they were accursed (Canon V, On the Sacrament of Baptism).

True, Trent defined that with the proper dispositions (which they defined elsewhere fourteen times) an individual could achieve the State of Justification prior to the actual reception of the Sacrament, and it is this and this alone which has come down to us De Fide from the year 99, and which no "follower of Father Feeney" ever contested. Yes, Catholics hold that a man can get into a state of grace prior to water baptism (after all, weren't all the Old Testament saints in the state of grace?), but no Catholic is permitted to argue that it is Church teaching a man in the New Testament can save his soul without it, as does Fr. Laisney.

The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."5 This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A.3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!

Here we go again, with Fr. Laisney Begging the Question. First, he expects his readers to believe that the traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church no salvation" should be interpreted that there is salvation outside the Church (by way of baptism of desire), then declares that the Council of Florence adopted St. Thomas' doctrine on baptism of desire for salvation as their own infallibly-stated position. As to the former presumption, we have only his conclusion (not only unsupported by, but also explicitly contradicted by Tradition, no matter how "traditional" he deems his opinion); and, as for the latter presumption, he can cite no single declaration from the Council of Florence that "the Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire." We are left solely with his own presumptions, conclusions, hypotheses, and opinions. Besides all of which, neither St. Thomas, Florence, nor Trent ever used the expression "baptism of desire." So how could Florence or anyone else adopt and promulgate the doctrine of St. Thomas on "baptism of desire"?

That infants indeed "have no remedy" other than the Sacrament of Baptism to attain Heaven has no bearing at all on the fact that they also have no other remedy but the sacrament to achieve Sanctifying Grace. As St. Thomas says in the reference cited by Fr. Laisney, "children should be baptized without delay - because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion."

Now, ask yourselves. Would "better instruction" or "fuller conversion" be an immediate remedy for the loss of Heaven or for the loss of Grace? It would serve only to increase Grace; therefore, delaying baptism would not in itself be as dangerous to adults as to children. Why? Because, and even Feeneyites admit this, adults can indeed attain Sanctifying Grace prior to the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism when properly disposed.

What the Council of Florence was talking about in the precise reference cited by Fr. Laisney is - precisely as the Council itself declared - simply that the baptism of infants should not be delayed, as it often was in those days, "for forty or eighty days" and not, as Fr. Laisney would mislead us into believing, because the Council fathers were trying to sneak baptism of desire for salvation into their decrees by a back door. The fact that St. Thomas refers "explicitly to baptism of desire" is in no way tantamount to the Council explicitly endorsing baptism of desire for salvation, because it obviously did not (or we would not be having this discussion at all!). Neither is there any clear proof that "the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas" in the matter at all. We have only Father Laisney's speculation on that, and here he is really stretching.

The Laisneyites, therefore, are manifestly attempting to get their followers to believe that Florence said something which it clearly did not say, just as those who add the exceptions of baptism of desire and blood to John 3:5 intend to make Jesus say something which He clearly did not say. We must logically respond to Father Laisney: You are "making void the Word of God by your own tradition" (Mark 7:13); in fact, Fr. Laisney, you are hinging your entire thesis on an undefined "exception." Or, to use your own words: It is astonishing to see you opposing this Council to Fr. Feeney!

None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.

Let us stop right here first, and examine the word of Fr. Laisney. He holds out Tradition as though (a) his arguments rest upon it, which we have proven fallacious, and (b) as though it were alone the Rock of Truth against which good Catholics are able to hold no other "value." But this is erroneous. Catholics do not believe simply in Tradition any more than they simply believe even a solitary word of Holy Scripture! Good Catholics are allowed by the Church to believe only one single thing: what the Church teaches. And the authentic teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church can never vary, in either its substance or in its interpretation, from that which has been held universally by the faithful the world over since the death of the last Apostle.

As a dogmatic theologian, Fr. Laisney should know (and long since have pointed out) that Scripture and Tradition are the two remote sources of our Faith, and that the immediate source is exclusively the voice of the Magisterium. Jesus said: "He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16) - He did not tell us to go back and double-check Scripture or Tradition after the Popes have defined infallibly a doctrine of Faith to be held by all Catholics universally. But this is precisely what Fr. Laisney is doing. He is reading the words of Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Eugene IV on the absolute necessity of actual membership in the Roman Catholic Church for eternal salvation, and then furiously researching Scripture and Tradition looking for loopholes to their plain and simple (and infallible) proclamations. Father Laisney is not holding the Faith, he is holding a bag of loopholes!

Our Divine Savior did not give to private judgment that which is contained from Scripture and Tradition in the Deposit of Faith, but to the ecclesiastical Magisterium of the one, true Church. "It is clear, therefore," Vatican Council II correctly and aptly informs us, "that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that not one of them can stand without the others" (Dei Verbum, no.10).

The Magisterium cites the two remote sources of Scripture and Tradition in giving support to its pronouncements; but, even in cases in which these sources may even seem silent, is enabled by Jesus Christ to define truths of Faith and Morals on its own, in the sense that the Magisterium alone is now the Voice of God on this earth. In fact, as St. Augustine wrote, "I myself would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so" (Against the Letter of Mani, V:6). This authority is precisely the power of the Magisterium to be forever excercised by the official teachers of the Church, to whom Our Lord's last words were: "All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me; go therefore you teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18).

In closing this section, we should remind ourselves of the danger of hanging our hats on the theological speculations of private Doctors of the Church, even one as eminent as St. Thomas. "The Angel of the Schools" was in error on many points and in many ways, as his editors and biographers point out. Saint Thomas wrote one hundred books, and as a wise man once pointed out so trenchantly: "The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never works." Thus, St. Thomas suffered from his share of mistakes.

For example, the book he was writing when he died in 1274 is called The Compendium of Theology. In it are found nine explicit errors and several others which must be called questionably so. He believed that "animals and plants are generated by the sun (no's. 43, 101, 127) and even that "the sun has some part in the generation of man" (no. 170) - virtually a tenet of modern Astrology! - but held that the sun itself was "incorruptible" (no's. 170, 74) - even though we know conclusively now that stars do burn out. He wrote that "semen is the product of surplus food" (no. 161), which all but reduces the generation of mankind to the eating of too many leftovers! Moreover, in what must have pleased the Manichean heretics even of his own day, St. Thomas wrote that every act of sexual intercourse "involves unclean infection" and that "the uncleanness of sexual intercourse signifies the uncleanness of Original Sin" (Summa Theologica I-II, q.102, art.5, ad 3).

Doctor André Daignes, Professor of Philosophy in Buenos Aires, pointed out twenty-four formal errors in the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas alone. For instance, in his Sum-ma, St. Thomas states that, in man's conception, he first receives an imperfect soul, and later a more perfect one (Summa Theologica, III, Q.33, art.3, ad.3); that a fetus receives first a "nutritive soul, then a sensitive soul, and lastly an intellectual soul"; and that the earlier souls are then destroyed or "corrupted" (Part 1, Q.118, Art.2, ad.2) - all of which would obviously serve to support the sinful errors of those who in our day promote evolution and abortion.

And of course we are all painfully familiar with his errors against the Immaculate Conception, in which he patently denied its possibility. Saint Thomas explicitly stated that "The Blessed Virgin was conceived in Original Sin" (Summa Theologica, III, q.31, art.8, ad 2) and that "she did indeed contract Original Sin" (III, q.27, art.2 ad 2 and art.3 ad 4); perhaps even more explicitly he twice denies the Immaculate Conception in his famed Commentary on the Hail Mary (cf. The Three Greatest Prayers, Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1990, p.166). He even states that "indeed, she had to be conceived with Original Sin" (The Compendium of Theology, no. 224).

Yet it is Saint Thomas himself who affirms: "The custom of the Church has very great authority, and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence, we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatsoever" (Summa Theologica, II-II, q.10, art.12). And it's a good thing, too, since he was joined by six other eminent authorities in denying the Immaculate Conception - St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard, St. Peter Damian, and St. Albert the Great - almost a fourth of the Doctors of the Church!

Leonard Feeney never taught any doctrine as being that of the Church which was not contained in the body of Divine Revelation and thus held De Fide even prior to any formal definition. Was not the Divinity of Jesus Christ De Fide before it was officially defined by the Council of Nicea in 325? Shouldn't Father Laisney or any other dogmatic theologian worth his salt be aware that there have always been doctrines of the Church infallibly held De Fide from the five or six magisterial sources other than definitive proclamation?

Saint Alphonsus Maria avows in his Exposition of Trent that "we must believe with the certainty of the 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 prior to the definition of the Church." It follows, then, that we are not allowed to doubt any truth clearly contained in Holy Writ, and that we are allowed to hold to the literal word of any doctrinal and moral truth found explicitly in Holy Scripture, even before they are defined by the Magisterium. Now, the faithful professed De Fide the belief in the absolute necessity of receiving sacramental baptism in order to attain eternal salvation during the centuries prior to its formal definition by the various Councils of the Church; and they did so precisely because of the manifestly literal declaration of Jesus Christ as recorded in St. John's Gospel: "Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Consequently, on the absolute necessity of sacramental water baptism for salvation, we not only hold that which has come down to us as De Fide from the very beginning, but now also that which has been defined. Rome has spoken, and the case is therefore closed.

The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

All Catholics agree to this statement; but not all Catholics, the world over, and at all times have "unanimously" considered non-aquatic "baptisms" salvific. For the Laisneyites to do so is to fall into grievous error by denying that which is De Fide, even though he does so before the formal magisterial condemnation of their specific heresies. For, no Catholics is required nor expected to wait until "baptism of desire or blood for salvation" is censured in a future Syllabus of Errors in order to abhor it as heretical.

Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, by the Feeneyites own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium." 7

Since when has the "common teaching of theologians" become the "unanimous" teaching of the Roman Catholic Church binding on all her members? And even if this theological opinion has been common only since "the early part of this millenium," it patently is not part of the Deposit of Faith delivered once and for all to the saints. Father Laisney has shot himself in the foot again. What is undeniably De Fide is that which was defined infallibly by Trent - that baptism of desire can get a properly prepared person into the state of Sanctifying Grace.

The Council went no farther, but Fr. Laisney insists on doing so, adding his own pretensions to the definition of Trent in the process. Such "theology" is both devious and duplicitous. Bear in mind that "it was the common teaching of theologians" - especially those called "Scholastics," such as St. Thomas - that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived, even though the man-in-the-pew held out for a papal definition that was long in coming and was, in fact, produced only in this last century.

We can only behold in utter awe both the clarity and virtue of infallibility, which is denied to Doctors and lavished on Popes, as well as the power with which that grace makes itself heard unerringly and unequivocally throughout the universal realm of Christendom. However, the Laisneyites worship the common teaching of theologians even when it serves to contradict that which has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium.

However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.

Father is at it again, begging the question. Some does not equal All. And although it is to be admitted that some writers argued for salvation without the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, not a single one of them has done so infallibly. If even one of them had, I would be the first to renounce my position and put down my pen. Since not a one of has, then in all honesty Father Laisney ought to do the same.

And - not one "single dissenting voice" in all those years? Apparently, Father Laisney has not fully read the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen, The Divine Theologian, who was a Father of the Church of the very early fourth century, and who is today a Doctor of the Universal Church called, by those in the Oriental Rites, "The Great Greek Doctor." Here is what this Doctor of the Church has to say, from his famous Oration on the Holy Lights, precisely and specifically on the issue of baptism of desire:

If you are able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention, and without there having been any act of murder, then you can likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism without having received baptism. But if you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it! If you prefer, we will put it like this: if, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory [salvation]. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as though that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!

Or examine closely the words of the great St. Augustine in his study of the thirteenth Chapter of St. John's Gospel (tract 7) on this very issue: "Of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow?"

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."

All Catholics are required believe in the doctrine of the three baptisms, true, but only "as it belongs to the Catholic Faith," and not as Fr. Laisney misinterprets it. Baptism of Desire for remission of sins must certainly be held De Fide (and, since Trent, De Fide Definita), but nowhere can salvation by baptism of desire be found as taught infallibly by any organ of the Catholic Church. In point of theological fact, such a definition would constitute just as much a literal contradiction to what has already been defined infallibly by the Magisterium as is the "common opinion of theologians" held by the Laisneyites.

We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire.

It is this precise concession, of course, which excuses those seven Doctors of the Church from being formal heretics in denying the Immaculate Conception. However, it is an insidious denial of defined dogma for Fr. Laisney to imply, as he does here, that the Catholic Faith is not explicitly required for the remission of sins in desire for baptism. Trent has taught definitively that there are several very purposeful and explicit Acts required for the bestowal of sanctifying grace prior to the actual reception of water baptism - an Act of Catholic Faith (which can only be made by one who has reached the use of reason, and necessitates an express and conscious submission to the Pope of Rome), an Act of Perfect Contrition or Charity, etc., including an express intention, purpose, and avowed plan to receive sacramental water baptism. The awareness for such acts leaves no wriggle room for the haziness of an "Implicit" Act.

But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth.

Neither is any Catholic, Fr. Laisney included, ever allowed to reject the doctrine of the necessity of water baptism for salvation as taught infallibly by more than one Ecumenical Council, by holding to baptism of desire as in itself sufficient for salvation. And it is, of course, impossible for one infallible source to contradict literally another infallible source. It is possible only for theologians such as Fr. Laisney to do this, and then only by adding non-infallible innuendoes, emendations, and additions to the Word of God as heard throughout His Church since 99 A.D.

But does, in fact, "rigorism always tend to destroy truth"? No, but it often tends to destroy falsehood! Witness the killing of 850 heathen priests by St. Elias in the Third Book of Kings (18:40). I reckon those heathens deemed this a bit rigoristic. Elias sure wasn't very ecumenical! Or take the destruction of all mankind on the face of this earth with the exception of those mere "eight souls" (I Peter 3:20) during the Flood of Noah. It seems certain that these survivors must have considered God a Deity of supreme rigor. Bear in mind that Jesus Himself said: "I came not to send peace, but the sword" (Matthew10:34); " Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? I tell you no, but rather division" (Luke 12:51). "If any man hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters ... he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). Do you suppose any thinking man deems this anything other that arrant "rigorism"?

Pope Paul IV declared: "Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him at the stake!" (James Laynez, Jesuit, Fr. Joseph Fichter, SJ, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1944, p.179). Mercy me! Is it a dishonorable species of rigor to punish heresy and uphold the Catholic Faith? The saints have always detested heresy with every ounce of rigor they could muster! Saint Francis de Sales, a 17th Century Doctor of the one, true Church, noted for his sweet docility, did not begin his career as anything but a swordswinging crusader for the Faith. He lopped off the heads of Protestants verbally, and without any show of what today's liberals might call politically-correct mercy, particularly in his famous Catholic Controversies (TAN, 1989). The following excerpts which bear on Baptism of Desire, are copied verbatim from that book.

Either you had the true Faith, or you had it not. If not, O unhappy ones, you are damned! - Or else men can be saved outside the true Church, which is impossible! Here is the definition of the Church: The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the profession of the one same Christian Faith; in the participation of the same Sacraments and Sacrifice; and in obedience to the one same Vicar and lieutenant General on earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Successor of St. Peter; under the charge of lawful bishops. Thank God we are not Jews; we are Catholics! We would deserve to be shipwrecked if we were to cast ourselves out of the ship of the public judgment of the Church, to sail in the miserable rowboat of these new, discordant, private inspirations. Our faith would not be Catholic, but private.

The Word of God is infallible; the Word of God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore, Baptism is necessary for salvation. Holy Scripture is a most excellent and profitable doctrine. everything contrary to it is falsehood and impiety! Holy Scripture is so much the rule of Christian Faith that we are obliged to every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever-so-little contrary to it. When God says to Joshua: "Let not the Book of this Law depart from thy mouth," He shows clearly that He willed him to have it always in his mind, and to let no persuasion enter which might be contrary to it. Are not the Holy Scriptures the true testament of the eternal God? Being such, how can we alter even the smallest point without impiety? For Our Lord, having duly expressed in Scripture His will, if we add anything of our own, we shall make the statement go beyond the will of the Testator. If we take anything away, we shall make it fall short. If we make changes, we shall set it awry and it will no longer correspond to the will of the Author nor be a correct statement. Our Lord puts a value on the iotas, yea, the mere little points and accents of His holy words. Whoever alters or adds the slightest accent in Scripture is a sacrilegious man and deserves the death of one who dares to mingle the profane with the sacred!

Does this sound like a Catholic overcome by "rigorism," one who might consider Fr. Laisney worthy of death? You make the call!

---

He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).

Please bear in mind that Dz 799 is a citation from Trent on Justification, and pertains only to the above remarks in quotation marks. The introductory thinking is solely that of Fr. Laisney. But even in this, Feeneyites readily concur. However, it is Fr. Laisney and his ilk who are denying the doctrine of the Church as taught De Fide in Tradition. And it has been defined that the Sacrament (not the "desire" for it) is necessary for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. We can scarcely see how anyone who now denies this in any fashion can ever be justified, ever be considered anything but a sinner against the virtue of Faith, and much less saved in eternity.

Error III. The Council of Trent Teaches That Baptism of Desire Is Sufficient for Justification "But not for Salvation."

How can Fr.Laisney class this as an "error" when it is demonstrably true? Read the Canons for yourself!

Let us preface this section by saying the Council of Trent clearly teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification. The Council anathematizes anyone believing the contrary. It is very explicitly stated in Session VII Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the Sacraments are necessary for each individual; let him be anathema." (The Church Teaches, 668; Dz 847).

No Catholic has any problem whatsoever with this, but only with Fr. Laisney's lamentable oversight in equating Justification with Salvation, and in his incorrect translation of the Latin from Trent when he erroneously the Council of Trent teach desire, when that is not what Trent said at all (more on this below). Meanwhile (and again), Fr. Laisney is putting his own words into the mouth of the Magisterium.

Go back and re-read Fr. Laisney's citation above. Trent defined that the justice of God is the single formal cause of our own justification, but the Council in no way suggested that Sanctifying Grace is the solitary cause of our eternal salvation, for there is an ontological difference between Sanctification and Salvation which has escaped the likes of Fr. Lais-ney. As a matter of Canonical fact, the Council of Trent itself differentiates between getting into Grace and getting into Heaven:

If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, without them or without the votum for them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification ... Let him be anathema.

In other words: (a) the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, and (b) the Sacraments or the vowed intention to receive them are necessary for justification. The Sacraments of the Church can produce salvation; the votum for certain of them can produce justification. These productions cannot be theologically equalized.

We must be wary of ambiguous translations from the original Latin. The accuracy of Latin is supreme and must be respected.

This being the self-admitted case, why is it that Fr. Laisney does not respect supremely the accurate correct translation of Trent? It is not (as he renders it) "without the sacraments or the desire of them" (Canon IV, On the Sacraments) or "this translation [into Justice] cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it" (Chapter Four of the Decree on Justification). In every instance, Trent uses the word votum not desire.

So now go back and "read carefully" Fr. Laisney's selection from this Chapter, and you will see that "the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works" - and ask yourself this: How can a man "be regarded as having completely satisfied the Divine Law" prior to receiving baptism into the Church established by God for our eternal salvation? Didn't Jesus Christ make the Sacrament of Baptism a Law to be fulfilled by all men on this earth?

Dare any devout Catholic, who trusts in God to keep His promises, suggest with Fr. Laisney that, in exceptional cases, He might not? Do we honestly believe that God would give a man the grace to desire the Sacrament of Baptism with all his heart, and then not see to it that the man does not in eventual fact receive it? "Delight in the Lord and He will give thee the requests of thy heart; commit thy way to the Lord and trust in Him, and He will do it" (Psalm 36:4-5).

Ss. Augustine and Alphonsus Maria Liguori deemed the Character, received exclusively in the actual reception of sacramental baptism, the greatest effect of the Sacrament - not Sanctifying Grace. Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori says: "Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders have for their chief effect the impression of Character, that is to say, a sort of spiritual Mark which becomes identified with the soul, and is forever indelible" (Commandments and Sacraments, Part II:2). In agreement with St. Alphonsus Maria, St. Augustine speaks as though there were scarcely any result other than living incorporation into Jesus as His very Self which is achieved when we are Marked as such: "The effect of baptism is to make those who are baptized incorporated into Christ as His members" (De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, I; cf. also St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q.68, art.5).

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (On Baptism, Lecture III:4) and St. John Chrysostom (Homily III on Philippians), Fathers and Doctors of the Church, write that no man can possibly enter into the kingdom of Heaven without the Character of Christ which even Fr. Laisney admits is bestowed exclusively in sacramental baptism. It is for this reason that Fr. Matthias Scheeben, one of the greatest theologians of last century, declared in his masterpiece, The Mysteries of Christianity: "We must realize that, in the Sacraments by which the Character is produced, it is the center of their entire causality and significance, and that in the other Sacraments it is the basis and point-of-departure of their entire activity."

Objection: Baptism is given in order that man may, through grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb obtain this without Baptism. Thus they are not bound to receive Baptism.

Reply: Those sanctified in the womb indeed receive grace, which cleanses them from Original Sin, but they do not therefore receive the Character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if anyone were sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the Character.

In precisely the same way, Fr. Laisney holds up to us the authority of St. Cyprian, whose testimony on the Sacrament of Baptism he himself then repudiates as official witness to the Catholic Faith (just check out his End Note no.2). Likewise, Fr. Laisney frequently produces quotations taken from a book called The Church Teaches (TCT), which contains not only the genuine article when it comes to infallible decrees, but also heretical errors purposely slipped in here and there by its Jesuit compilers, including the hateful and heretical Protocol Letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani considered by the Laisneyites as a definitive argument against the Faith of Fr. Feeney. This utterly assinine and heretical "Letter of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office" was even included in Fr. Heinrich Josef Dominicus Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum in 1963.

Father Laisney and I both cite copiously from this Handbook of the Creed compiled originally by Fr. Heinrich Josef Dominicus Denzinger (Dz), the thirtieth edition of which was revised and edited by none of than Fr. Karl Rahner, SJ, certainly one of the most notorious and diabolical arch-heretics who ever disgraced our day, and who took great care to insert several non-infallible private presumptions and speculations into his own version of Denzinger. However, although Satan is "a liar and the father thereof" (John 8:44), even "the devils believe and tremble" (James 2:19) and can therefore be forced, during exorcism for instance, to profess the truth. Not even heretics are wrong all the time! And, when they speak the truth, we can use their own words against them in other areas.

But can any Church official, Father, Doctor, or theologian presuming to speak for the Church ever contradict himself? Popes or Councils defining infallibly cannot, of course, but a Pontiff and his Council preaching privately and without calling on the virtue of infallible definition can - and has, rather often. Church History demonstrates that Ecumenical Councils have condemned Popes as heretical (Constantinople III, 681), and that Popes have in turn condemned Ecumenical Councils as heretical (Chalcedon, 451).

Pope Honorius I was condemned by Pope St. Martin I in the Lateran Council of 649, and by the Council of Constantinople III in 681, for refusing to define true Catholic dogma against a satanic controversy over the Monothelite heresy, a form of Monophysitism. Pope St. Agatho "The Miracle-Worker" (elected Pontiff at the age of 103), presiding over this latter Ecumenical Council, specifically censured Honorius as a "profane, treacherous, impious heretic" for his ambiguity and hesitance in defending the proper notion of the Incarnation. Two years later, Pope St. Leo II publicly confirmed this condemnation of poor Honorius, as did Pope St. Benedict II in another two years. Thus, Honorius came to be anathematized by the Council of Trullo, the Council of Toledo, the Second Council of Nice in plenary session, an Ecumenical Council, four canonized Pontiffs, by the Divine Office (read by all priests) until the eighteenth century, as well as falling under the publicly-vowed anathema taken by all Popes at their coronation for the next three hundred years!

In the year 451, the Ecumenical Council Chalcedon drafted thirty "Dogmatic Canons," and all except one were formally approved St. Leo the Great, and ultimately proclaimed to the waiting world of Catholics. The solitary item which St. Leo refused to ratify was the notorious Canon 28, which would have made the Patriarch of Constantinople a secondary Pope! Incredibly, the bishops of Constantinople attempted this identical ploy on three subsequent Pontiffs, but to no avail. Providentially, Pope St. Leo had unmasked their specious duplicity, and thus only twenty-nine of the Canons of Chalcedon can actually be considered part of the Faith.

Again, in 1445, Pope Eugene IV was careful to approve only those portions of the Ecumenical Council Constance which preserved the rights of the papacy, for in the Fifth Session it had ruled that a Council could depose a Pope. It was later reconvened at Basle but disbanded by order of the Pope within five months, then re-authenticated as "Ecumenical" two years later. Four years of sessions intervened before the Holy Father transferred the Council to Ferrara, whereupon the bishops remaining at Basle went publicly into schism and elected the last of the anti-Popes in the history of the Church, Felix V. It was the periti, presiding as theological experts for these bishops at Basle, who had only that very year condemned St. Joan of Arc to the stake. Meanwhile, Pope Eugene transferred the sitting members of this Council once more to Florence, and ultimately removed it to Rome for its final two years, where it was successfully. This Ecumenical Council, which had commenced at Constance in 1414 and gone through five separate venues, finally adjourned in the year 1445.

This damning and counter-damning could never have taken place had the ecclesial authorities in question made strict use of the Virtue of Infallibility granted by God to His Church. All of which serves to demonstrate positively that proclamations of a doctrinal nature by councils are never binding on the Church unless they specifically define dogmas of Faith or Morals, and are confirmed and universally promulgated as such by our Holy Father the Pope. In the event that the decree of a Pope or a Council lacks this status, it consequently lacks the necessary note of magisterial authenticity which alone can be considered infallible and binding on all members of the faithful.

Therefore, with these precedents as our guides, why may not any Catholic employ infallible citations and ignore non-in-fallible statements to the contrary, no matter if expressed by the most prestigious luminaries on Vatican hill? We are soldiers of Christ in a Church militant, and we therefore have the right and the God-given duty to choose only the strongest of our weapons when going into battle, even if they come out of an arsenal that has otherwise produced a mixed bag.

For instance, the same can be said for the vagaries of the New Catholic Catechism and even the deplorable ambiguities of Vatican Council II. As Fr. Richard O'Connor explains in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review in its July, 1981 issue ("How Binding is Vatican II?"): "What is more important is to make clear the kind of assent demanded of the faithful. What this means, as Pope John Paul II never tires of emphasizing when referred to Vatican II, is that it is to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, of other Councils, and papal Encyclicals; and, where found to be in conflict with these, disregarded."

Catholics therefore dismiss and disregard as inadmissible the testimony of any authority whose words contradict that which has always been held by the faithful the world over. Clement XIII concludes that none of the faithful should have "extraordinary opinions proposed to them, not even from Catholic doctors; instead, they should listen to those opinions which have the most certain criteria of Catholic truth: universality, antiquity, and unanimity" (In Dominico Agro), and Pope John Paul II has only recently reiterated this truth. The position of the Laisneyites fall flat on each and every count: It is neither world-wide, apostolic, nor held by all Catholics from the very beginning. Worse, it literally contravenes Divine Revelation as found in Holy Scripture.

Saint Thomas Aquinas assures us that "argument from authority, based on Divine Revelation, is the strongest" (Summa Theologica I, Q1, art.8, ad 2), and Divine Revelation has never let us down. It does not, however, support the Laisneyites in their contention that any conceivable non-water "baptisms" can get you to Heaven. Hence, if "the very persons we quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire," this in no way connotes that they are, in this instance, repeating what has infallibly come down to us in Divine Revelation, but are giving us merely their own private opinions. And there exists no such thing as a "common teaching" in the corpus of Catholic Faith at all! If there were, it would be Catholic, not common. Theologians can get together and concoct anything they like but, until it is taught explicitly by the Church, it remains mere speculation on their part. And the Church has never taught that a man can get to Heaven on baptism of desire or blood without the actual and personal reception of baptism of water.

---

These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water.

Father Laisney wishes to impose on you his pretention that the Catholic Church has "always understood" water baptism to mean non-water baptism, and consequently no salvation outside the Church to mean some salvation outside the Church. If this were truly the sense in which the Church had genuinely understood the doctrines of baptism and salvation, She would have let us know it with egregious clarity by this late stage in the game.

This mistaken notion (of what the Church really means when She teaches) is a trademark technique of the Laisneyites. It is also a frequent gambit for heretics to accuse traditionalists of precisely the very strategies they themselves profess, and by means of which they deviously hope to make proselytites of the faithful. On the contrary, "we have the mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:16), when we simply preach His literal Word, not words from the minds of Modernists. And it was Jesus Christ Himself who solemnly declared: "Amen, amen, I say unto thee: Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). "What further need have we of witnesses? We have heard it ourselves from His own mouth!" (Luke 22:71).

This solemn expression of a double Amen by Our Lord is prologue to a formal stipulation of an infallible prerequisite for salvation, veritably reminiscent of future and forthcoming decrees from Popes and Councils of the Church, who so often initiate their infallible proclamations with expressions such as "We define, declare, and pronounce," or "The Holy Catholic Church believes, preaches, and teaches," and so forth. Such sworn pronouncements likewise bespeak the "mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:16) on the subject of the incontrovertible necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for eternal salvation. Furthermore, as Father James O'Kane assures us:

The word water in this text (John 3:5) has always been understood by the Fathers of the Church in the literal sense, and the Council of Trent has anathematized those who, with Calvin, distort its meaning by taking it metaphorically. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation. Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as a fulfillment of a precept is necessary because its voluntary omission would be a sin (necessitate precepti), but that it is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary (necessitate media). This is shown by the universality of the form "Nisi quis" [unless everyone], by which it extends to all.

Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, Dublin: Duffy & Co., 1922, p.60

It is very interesting to note at this point that the Canon of Trent which stipulates the necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation begins with these very same words - Nisi Quis. Permit a brief consideration of the language of Holy Scripture here. The baptismal requirement for salvation as usually given us here from St. John's Gospel is "Unless a man is born again ..." Technically, this is a somewhat poor production from the Douay-Rheims. Saint John wrote in Greek, of course, and in that ancient idiom the expression is rendered Tis, which is translated in any reputable Greek lexicon as:

Every man

Any person

Any man at all

Any person whatsoever

Every man whomsoever

"Tis," then, is in the Greek of St. John an indiscriminate pronoun, not restricting itself in any way to any specific individual, but denoting any and all men without distinction. This expression was produced by St. Jerome in the only translation of Holy Scripture ever authorized by the Roman Catholic Church, the old Latin Vulgate, as "quis" - which is rendered in all reputable Latin dictionaries as "anything, anything at all."

The Tis and Quis of the matter, therefore, mean simply "anyone at all" or "everyone" without distinction or restriction to any determinate person, age, class, or gender. To emphasize the transparent literalness of these dramatic words, St. Augustine translates them: "Whoever is not born again" (in his famous Forgiveness And Just Deserts of Sins). Even The New American Bible has it "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (notice that the editors leave out the word "again" - maybe the official translator was out to lunch that day). Nevertheless, that God allows no solitary exception to the Rule of Water is therefore the declared testimony of witnesses both ancient and modern. Patrick Kenrick, who sat as Archbishop of Baltimore before the advent of that city's dreadful catechism, assures us in his Treatise on Baptism that:

The term Tis has already been shown to imply anyone, and to regard every member of the human family. Tis - "anyone" - is the most general word that could be used, and there is nothing in the context of John 3:5 to restrict it.

So why does Fr. Laisney?

---

Lack of Proper Thomistic Theology Is the Root of the Error of the Feeneyites.

---

To remedy the errors of Modernism, St. Pius X ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy and theology. A book like Desire and Deception, 10 authored and published by Feeneyites, is very dangerous for its opposition to St. Thomas.

Pardon me, but since when is it "very dangerous" to oppose St. Thomas Aquinas, the scholar whom his fellow-classmate, St. Bonaventure (also a Doctor of the Church), complained of being "the father of all heresies"? (The Final Conclave, Fr. Malachi Martin, NY: Pocket Books, 1978, p.393). Is St. Thomas, then, to be followed religiously (as though infallible) or studiously (for what he has to offer that squares with what is infallible)?

Please re-examine the many errors of St. Thomas as catalogued earlier, and tell me why we should not be opposed to swallowing his thinking whole! In "prescribing the scholastic philosophy" of St. Thomas, did our Canonized Pontiff (1) thereby assure us that Thomas was infallible in all matters of Sacramental Theology? (2) that he never made a mistake at all, even in his Metaphysical Philosophy? This is precisely what the Laisneyites would have you believe!

Eighteen Pontiffs in thirty-eight Bulls praised the teaching of St. Thomas; and, when Pope Leo XIII introduced into Canon Law the stipulation that the theology taught in the Church was to follow that of Thomas, he specified (twice therein) that in general it was his methodology, doctrine, and principles, not his every argumentation, speculation, nor conclusion which were so vital and sound. In fact, if St. Thomas had more carefully followed his own principles, he could scarcely have made as many mistakes in his Sacramental Theology as he did. As Nobel Laureate François Mauriac explains in his magnificent mediation called Holy Thursday -

No human philosophy can claim to be Catholic philosophy. Inasmuch as it is a human doctrine, Thomism is not a dogma; for, any truth which became a dogma was already contained in Revelation. Such a truth should not be identified with ... the formulas of Saint Thomas Aquinas. But the pressing, almost imperious invitation of the Church [to study St. Thomas] must be enough for the faithful to have recourse to the writings of the Angelic Doctor ... Hence, we have reverential recourse to the writings of St. Thomas without granting that they represent true Catholic doctrine or philosophy when they veer from that Divine Revelation which has come down to us from the last of the Apostles in the year 99.

---

He [St. Thomas] distinguishes three elements in each sacrament:

1) the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum - sacrament itself signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament.

2) An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res - sacrament and reality, which, in the case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element.

3) The ultimate reality, res sacramenti the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e., sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as a child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.

Surely, all Catholics can appreciate the writings of St. Thomas (if such Catholics are not too "simplistic" and have enough advanced degrees); for he is not really easy to understand. Saint Paul was another such theologian, and our very first Canonized Pontiff said of him: "in all his epistles ... are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrestle with, as they also do with the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (II Peter 3:15). I am not sure that St. Peter would have considered St. Thomas Aquinas any easier to understand than St. Paul, just as I am not certain how unstable Fr. Laisney's argument here might sound to you - but the above schema on the Sacrament of Baptism seems far removed from the patently simple command of John 3:5, doesn't it?

Besides, we must remember that we are listening here to what Fr. François Laisney says that Thomas means, and if Thomas is in error, why believe either him or his interpreter? It has been clearly demonstrated that St. Thomas cannot be considered perfectly Catholic in some of his utterances; therefore, how can we take Fr. Laisney's position on St. Thomas's utterances as Gospel Truth? As the old Indian saying has it: "Ali Baba will go bail for Abou Rah, but who will go bail for Ali Baba?"

Moreover, we should always bear in mind that St. Thomas, like all saints, was canonized not for his theological acumen nor philosophical expertise, nor indeed for any single one of his writings (which he quit in disgust, calling them nothing but "chaff"), but for his Heroic Virtue. I pray that, somehow, the Laisneyites will likewise discard their worthless chaff and become likewise Canonizable for such virtue.

---

A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person attached to his sin, for example, a person who has stolen and refuses to render that which he stole, places an obstacle which deprives his baptism of its ultimate effect, that is, sanctifying grace.

Who, then, is left? Ah yes, the catechumen runover by a Greyhound bus. Now, what makes you think this catechumen merited the ultimate effect of salvation which can come only by way of the Character and the Grace in tandem? If a man dies on his way to the baptismal font, wouldn't it look suspiciously as though God had already judged him as reprobate? It is much more likely that God didn't want him to receive the Character - which can be bestowed solely in sacramental Baptism - and thus go deeper into the fires of Hell. Remember, too, the words of St. Augustine (Sermon 27:6):

How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever? When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: "Why did He help this one, and not that one? Why was one led by God's direction to be baptized while the other, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized?" Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments!

 

No wonder St. John Chrysostom lamented those who died unbaptized. As Patriarch of Constantinople, he declared: "It is obvious that we must grieve for our catechumens should they depart this life without the saving grace of Baptism." Obvious, that is, to all but the Laisneyites who believe the Almighty cannot handle a runaway bus.

---

It is a fact that one can go to hell despite having the character of baptism. Yet, we know there are saints in heaven, such as the saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) who do not have the character of baptism.

How does anyone know this for sure? How can Fr. Laisney proclaim that the saints of the Old Testament lacked the Character unless it has been Divinely Revealed? And if Divinely Revealed, where in any Church document is it proclaimed? The logical truth is that it is just as certain to say that all the saints who died sanctified in the Old Law did, in fact, receive the Character of Christ, not by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism (although certain Fathers of the Church actually argued that they did), but in a manner proportionate to their spiritual and unembodied state at the time Our Lord descended to their place of containment in the Limbo of the Fathers on Good Friday afternoon. Perhaps they were awaiting not only his sacrificial death on the cross (which opened the gates of Heaven for them and for all men who would cooperate with His grace), but also to be Marked by Him (in a non-sacramental manner befitting their spiritual state at that time) as members of His Mystical Body. After all, it seems sufficiently clear from Holy Scripture itself that this Body is the only means of getting back to Heaven. Jesus declared: "No one has gone up into Heaven except Him Who came down from there, the Son of Man" (John 3:13).

We must all become Jesus Christ to be saved; we must all "be made partakers of the Divine Nature" of God Himself (II Peter 1:4) in Grace, but we must also become Marked and "made partakers of Christ" (Hebrews 3:14) by becoming actual members of His Body. It is for this reason St. Augustine assures us that, in Heaven, "there shall be only one Christ, loving Himself" (Epistle to Parthos., PL 35:2055). How can any soul become the one and only Christ unless he is marked and Characterized as such? And now, in the New Covenant, we know definitively that the Character of Christ is bestowed exclusively in the actual reception of sacramental water baptism.

---

But nobody, however, dying with sanctifying grace goes to hell, says the Council of Trent. Contrariwise, nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to heaven.

It would be proper for Fr. Laisney to cite us the precise source from Trent upon which he makes this assertion. The fact is, all the saints of the Old Covenant (a) died in Grace, yet (b) went to Hell. Saint Joseph died and went straight to Hell! They all went to a place designated, both in Scripture, Tradition, and The Apostles' Creed as "Hell."

And as for his final statement, it is not true either. Several Saints in the New Law have raised souls from the dead who died in mortal sin. Saint John Bosco raised did so twice, in the case of two of his Oratory students, to hear their confessions of mortal sins. Many of those who died as pagans were raised for Baptism; in fact, many who died in Sanctifying Grace but without Baptism were raised to receive the Sacrament, such as King Echu O'Neill of Ireland by St. Patrick, and the slave-girl, Augustina, by St. Peter Claver in Colombia, here in our own hemisphere.

Astoundingly, Saint Athanasius, Father and Doctor of the Church, writes that St. James the Greater, Apostle to Spain, "recalled to life Peter, the son of the prophet Urias (Jeremias 26:20), and ordained him the first Bishop of Braga, six hundred years after his death." Again, as Church law (currently, Canon 1024) demands: "no one but a baptized male can be raised to Holy Orders." Therefore, it must be said that this man was brought alive out of the Old Testament specifically for sacramental baptism. As we know, there is no problem of "time" with God, for our notion of time is meaningless to One Who is eternally Pure Act. Time keeps things from happening all-at-once for us creatures; but for God everything is all-at-once. Thus, we behold saints justified in His grace who were:

Conceived in grace, such as Our Lady Mary.
Conceived in sin, but born in grace, as was John the Baptist.
Conceived and born in sin, but who died in grace without baptism, such as St. Joseph and the saints of the Old Law.
Conceived and born in sin, but died in grace with baptism, like those of the New Testament. And ..
Conceived and born in sin, but died in grace without baptism, and then were later raised from the dead in order to be baptized.

So what point is Father trying to make with the above statements, except to insist on his speculation that a man can die justified, but without Baptism, and still go to Heaven? - despite the clear and infallible definitions of the Church contrariwise!

---

For the third element of baptism, i.e., the infusion of sacramental grace, the necessity of baptism for salvation is absolute.

This is perfect self-contradiction. Note that Father Laisney here states in literal effect that "for ... the infusion of sacramental grace, the necessity of baptism ... is absolute." Yet, he has already defined sacramental grace as Sanctifying Grace (see no.3 above). Therefore, he is inescapably saying that you absolutely have to be baptized for grace and salvation. However, his fundamental error is that he says you can "be baptized" without actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism in order thus to be saved. If this were true, a man could consequently become a Catholic without actually becoming a Catholic; he could have steak and potatoes by desire without having them in fact. You could receive Matrimony by Desire and Holy Orders of Blood and ... but why go on?

The young St. Stanislaus Kostka is a case in point. When he lay dying in his Jesuit noviate, he openly lamented the fact that he had never been confirmed. The rector reassured him that the desire for the Sacrament of Confirmation was sufficient! For what? Certainly neither for the Character nor the special Sacramental Grace received only in actual reception of the sacrament! Stanislaus was noted for a love of God so overpowering that his breast literally burned with fevered palpitations, so much so that even today there still stand statues showing him with damp cloths at his breast. Nevertheless, Holy-Communion-by-Desire was never sufficient for this teenaged Polish nobleman; twice angels came and administered the Eucharist to him - once even in an abandoned Lutheran church! Ask yourself - which is preferable, that a man receive Jesus actually in Holy Communion, or that he merely be granted the Sanctifying Grace of that Sacrament? That he eat the Body and Blood of God in reality or only in moderate reality? Maybe the angels sent by God to communicate St. Stanislaus knew more about what was necessary than his rector - or even Fr. François Laisney!

Our Lord Jesus said: "Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, there is no life in you" (John 6:54). If this Life is not Sanctifying Grace, and if maintaining it for any length of time does not normally require the actual reception of His Body and Blood in Holy Communion, then why in the world did He immediately add: "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (John 6:56)? Jesus never said: "Amen, and in all formality, I assure you that unless you earnestly desire to receive Me you cannot stay in the State of Grace," for this would necessitate a continuous non-stop bestowal by God Himself of a grace which He intends from all eternity never to fulfill in you!

And when was Our Lord ever heard to say: "My flesh is truly meat, but only by desire; and My blood is genuine blood, but only if you decide to desire it"? By selecting only a single effect of a sacrament and making it stand for the entirety of the sacrament, the Laisneyites not only offended Logic, but have also effectually doubled the number of sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ. The Church has never taught this! On the contrary, Trent defined that there are only seven sacraments. You either receive them, or you do not. You have either been baptized (and the sacrament absolutely necessitates the application of water), or you remain unbaptized.

There is absolutely no salvation outside the Body of Christ, even for those who would like to become Catholics by desire. If you can "receive baptism" without actually receiving it, then you could "become Catholic" without actually becoming Catholic, or "become married" without bothering to post the bans. Trent declared infallibly that the "Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered it through the gateway of baptism" (Session 14, ch.2) and that "by the laver of baptism we are made members of Christ's own body. (Dz 895).

To argue that a man can be "within" the Church by mental desire and yet "outside" the Church in physical fact is a denial in Logic of the Principle of Identity (or Non-Contra-diction), in which a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. Were the "eight souls saved by water" (I Peter 3:20) in the days of Noah inside or outside the Ark? Were all the rest of humanity saved by their earnest desire and fervent wish that they could be "within" the Ark of Noah? Every single thing that subsisted upon the earth perished! Genesis (7: 21-23) clearly states:

And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men. And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth died. God destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast and the creeping things and fowls of the air; and they were destroyed from the earth. And Noah alone remained, and they who were with him in the Ark.

Consequently, Fathers of the Church such as St. Gregory of Nyssa declared: "You are outside Paradise, O Catechumen! You share the exile of Adam!" (Patrologiæ Græcæ 417c). The position of the Laisneyites therefore follows the self-contradiction of utter insanity. If words have any meaning left at all, and if the doctrine of infallibility means what it must to the Roman Catholics, then the clear definition of the infallible dogma of salvation by Pope Eugene IV in the Bull "Cantata Domino" issued at the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church must end their sophomoric silliness:

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 eternal life, but that they will go into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined to Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical Body that only those abiding within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal reward for their fasts, their almsgiving, and their other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may be, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

So. Whom shall we believe? Eugene IV or Frank Laisney?

---

This third element is found in each of the "three baptisms," and even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church. Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism 12 includes the "three baptisms."

A) Pope Eugene IV defines infallibly that a man cannot be saved outside the Church "even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ." Father Laisney says he can.

B) Pope Eugene IV declares infallibly that no soul on earth "can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation" outside the Church. Father Laisney claims they can and, indeed, this is the most fundamental aspect of his teaching.

C) Pope Eugene IV proclaims infallibly that what he says is what "the most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches," and Fr. Laisney offers us "the common teaching of theologians."

Surely, this is as simple as ABC. Doesn't it strike you as the least bit ironic that Fr. Laisney is presented as the theological representative of a Society founded by an Archbishop who publicly renounced and repudiated the Decree on Ecumenism of the recent Vatican Council? The Laisneyites are filled with the spirit of ecumenism, for it is based on the "common teaching" that non-Catholics can go to Heaven simply by virtue of their "good will."

If Marcel Lefebvre is now in Heaven (as we are all permitted to hope), do you believe that he would agree with Pope Eugene IV or with his modernist spokesman, Fr. François Laisney?

---

The necessity of the exterior element (#1 above) of baptism, i.e., the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element as the only means at our disposal to receive the third element, that is, living Faith.

Again, self-contradiction in action. Father Laisney has already admitted (in #1 above) that "This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament." He now declares that this "exterior element of baptism, i.e., the sacrament itself, is ... the only means at our disposal to receive the third element," an element he has defined as Sanctifying Grace, which alone and in turn produces a living Faith. If "water and words" constitute our "only means" to receive this Grace, and thus bring our Faith to life, why does he feel constrained to add that these are the only means "at our disposal"? Precisely because he is attempting to demonstrate that God has other ways not at "our disposal.". It must be asked, therefore - What sort of God bleeds to death on a cross in order to give us sacraments as our only means of salvation if He has a "back-up" remedy, just in case His Scenario No.1 doesn't pan out? Last I heard, God cannot make a mistake.

The Laisneyites are saying, in effect, "the sacraments are nice to have around, but who really needs them when the chips are down?" This is not good theology; in point of fact it results in calling God an impotent liar.

---

The sacrament itself is "...the sacrament of faith; without faith no one has ever been justified," says the Council of Trent (TCT 563). See how the Council of Trent clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element, i.e. living faith, faith working through charity?

No. No, we do not, Father. We see you making this assertion, but not Trent. The Council "clearly sets the absolute necessity"of the Faith for Justification, and not the other way around! Trent is defining infallibly (and not as a mere "common teaching of theologians") that one cannot get into the State of Sanctifying Grace without the Catholic Faith. Possession of the true Faith, then, is one of the requirements for the votum necessary for justification in advance of actual reception of water baptism, precisely as defined by Trent in several places. It is not Grace, then, which brings about "living faith, faith working through charity." It is Faith which makes that charity work!

---

One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, in St. John's Gospel (chap. 3). That which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, that is, the infusion of new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be reborn, "born of the Spirit."

In fact, Our Lord speaks in John Chapter 3 of being "born" eight times, but who's counting? The fact is, Father has gone completely overboard here in Begging the Question. It is he (not Our Lord) who defines the new birth produced in sacramental baptism as "the infusion of new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us." To be born again is not to come into Grace, but into Jesus. The rebirth of Baptism (which takes place solely in the actual reception of the Sacrament itself) makes and marks us as an Alter Christus - Another Christ - and, if we have Grace, a living Christ. If, for example, a Protestant receives a valid Baptism, he is still-born. He comes into possession of the Character of Christ rather like the dead body of Jesus in the tomb. He is eternally branded with the "appearance" of Jesus, whether or not he ever lives the life of Grace, just as a Catholic once in Grace might now be in Hell. To be reborn into new life in the Sacrament of Baptism, then, can only mean to have both the Mark of Jesus and the Life of Jesus. And these two - the Character of Baptism and Sanctifying Grace - are the only absolute requirements necessary for admission to bliss.

---

The water is mentioned only once as the means for that rebirth, the only means at our disposal.

Since water is admitted by Fr. Laisney to be "the only means at our disposal," once should be enough! But shall we belittle and disparage the innocence of water as our solitary means of being inserted into the Body of Christ, and thus saved, merely because Sanctifying Grace appears to be mentioned more often? Gluttony is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments nor the Assumption of Our Lady in the Apostles' Creed at all. Shall we argue, then, that they are frivolous and optional considerations simply because they seem to lack the "importance" of other doctrines in the corpus of the Catholic religion?

This is not meant to limit God's power. He can infuse this new life (justification) even without water, as he did to Cornelius (Acts 10).

The history of Cornelius, his followers and family, demonstrates the obligation of receiving water baptism, even for those on whom God the Holy Ghost has already lavished His most grace-filled manifestations. "Can anyone forbid water," demands our first Pope, "so that these who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we should not be baptized?" (Acts 10:47). Can anyone - even Fr. Laisney and his followers? Indeed, can even God Himself? Does it limit God's power by binding Himself to His own sacraments? Yes, and He enjoys and infinite delight in doing so. Must we not say that God has limited Himself in the Holy Sacrament of the altar exclusively to bread and wine? Can Father Laisney consecrate coke and cornbread?

But let us ask ourselves - is it indeed possible that Almighty God can be tied, hand and foot, like some mighty Samson (whose story, by the way, is the classic type and symbol of this very truth!). So much is God bound to the wishes of His Church that the Church on earth rules over Heaven itself. Our Lord declared to His ministers: "What you bind on

earth is bound also in Heaven!" (Matthew 16:19). Therefore, God is truly bound. What! Can it be? "The Lord obeying the voice of a man!" (Joshua 10:14).

Yes. God is pre-eminently bound by His own arrangements and promises and sacramental system; and we know by Faith that "He cannot deny Himself" (II Tim.2:13). "God cannot do that which is against the Faith! He cannot do what is against Truth!" cries St. Ambrose (Commentary on Luke). Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori adds: "God 'will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of truth' (II Timothy 2:4); therefore, God has bound Himself to provide for all the means necessary to reach that truth and that salvation on His terms" (The Great Means of Salvation, p.124). And His terms have been spelled out definitively and infallibly by His Church. The Laisneyites cannot claim as much for their "common opinion of theologians."

---

There is an appalling confusion in the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with the sacramental character and with what they refer to as "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice." Their confusion regards the second and third elements (see above) of the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church.

These elements are described by Fr. Laisney himself as the Character of the Sacrament of Baptism and Sanctifying Grace (see above, no's. 2 & 3). These two ingredients constitute absolutely the most fundamental requirements for our eternal salvation, as has been demonstrated. For anyone to "confuse" them can only mean that they have equated them as being identical; yet, both Fr. Laisney and I have been careful to point out that they are not only separate, but distinct. A Protestant can be validly baptized into the Character of Christ, but never into the Grace of Christ, just as a validly-baptized Catholic will go to Hell for being Marked yet mortally sinful. The two requirements are neither confusable nor mutually identical; but both must be possessed in order to go to Heaven.

What Fr. Laisney refers to as "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice" must refer incipiently to those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ to St. John the Baptist, when He said of water baptism: "Thus it becomes us to fulfill all justice" (Matthew 3:15); for, all the sacraments and washings of the Old Dispensation brought nothing to "fulfillment." The Sanctifying Grace of the Old Law itself did not bring man to the fulfillment of his eternal destiny of being saved. As Jeremias lamented, "the harvest is over, the summer is ended, and we are not saved!" (8: 20). All the souls to be saved out of the Old Covenant had been harvested, the summer of their days had come to an end, and yet not a single one of them came into the Vision of God at their deaths, neither Jeremias nor any of the other patriarchs and prophets canonized by Jesus Christ Himself (Luke 13:28). No, not even St. Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church!

Likewise, over four centuries after God "spoke to Moses face-to-face, as to a friend" (Genesis 33:11) "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice; and he was called the friend of God" as well (James 2:23). Here, then, we behold the extent of Old Law justice - it rendered men friends of God. Nonetheless, it remained inherently handicapped - unfulfilled, imperfect - since "the Law brought nothing to perfection" (Hebrews 7:19). In fact, under the New Dispensation, "there is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Hebrews 7:18).

Friendship with God in the Old Law, even the most sublime therefore, did not accomplish the ultimate design of the Almighty, but represented only a vague and distant way-station, a preparation for "the better gifts" (I Corinthians 12:31) - those awesome "things to come" (Hebrews 10:1) through the incarnate mediation of Jesus Christ. Like Moses before him, who was permitted "to see the land with his eyes, but not to pass over to it" (Deuteronomy 34:4), Abraham, although justified and graced as an adopted son and heir of Heaven, had as yet no inheritance in the Promised Land of salvation - "No, not the pace of a foot; however, God promised to give it to him in possession" (Acts 7:5).

God thus promises salvation to all "who persevere unto the end" in justice (Mark 13:13); for, "the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be at rest" (Wisdom 4:7). Does this mean, as the Laisneyites contend, that the only thing required for salvation is to die in the justice of Sanctifying Grace? By no means! It merely signifies that God will get His absolutely necessary sacrament of water baptism to those who die in Justice in the New Covenant of Grace, even if He has to provide for it by miracle. Thus, as St. Bernard writes, "the remedy of Baptism has been made accessible to everyone, everywhere" (Epistle to Hugh of St. Victor; II:6). Consequently, St. Robert Bellarmine, like Ss. Bernard and Thomas a Doctor of the Church, writes (On Baptism, Book 1, Chapter 4):

There once was the heresy of the Pelagians, saying that Baptism was not necessary for the remission of Original Sin but only for the attainment of Heaven. But our heretics, more audacious than the Pelagians, deny that Baptism is necessary, not only for the remission of sin, but also for the attainment of the kingdom of Heaven. However, those who imagine that there is another remedy besides Baptism openly contradict the Gospel, the Councils, the Fathers, and the consensus of the universal Church. God provides Baptism for all His Elect.

Thus, St. Teresa of Avila wrote in her glorious Way of Perfection (No.19): "I feel sure that no one will fail to receive this living water, unless they cannot keep to the path." Consequently, Pope Paul VI declared: "If we, for whatever reason, deny the absoluteness of God's law concerning the necessity of water baptism for salvation, or any other defined dogma, then we too excommunicate ourselves by our heresy from Paradise, the Church" (Allocution On the Fifth Anniversary of the Closure of Vatican Council II).

Have I been overly-strict or "rigoristic" in assessing the Laisneyite position as heretical? Dare we deem it anything less? Their argumentation is downright sinful! Venerable Pope Pius declared that we must "hold firmly to our Catholic doctrine - one baptism. To try and inquire further is sinful" (Dz 1647).

---

Dare one add with St. Pius X, as the cause of their error, a certain pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the popes, fathers, doctors, and saints?

It has been proven that the absolute necessity for the actual reception of sacramental water baptism for the attainment of the kingdom of God in Heaven is the "age-old teaching of the popes, fathers, doctors, and saints." Bear in mind that the word "prove" in English means to demonstrate the validity of a position. It can only be argued that such demonstration has been sufficiently provided - at least, for those of good will, and for those who are truly humble.

But ask yourself at this juncture. Is the doctrine of the absolute necessity of water baptism to be called "the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors, and saints" - or is it, as Fr. Laisney & Co. pretend, merely a "novelty"?

---

Conclusion - "Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God,13 but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:1-2). How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error concerning baptism of desire and blood, they might embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith. Their error caricatures the Catholic Faith and gives easy weapons to the enemies of dogma!

In this, Fr. Laisney and I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, this is my daily prayer that they "they might embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith." Otherwise, they simply cannot have it at all. The word "Catholic" derives from the Greek kata-holos, "completely whole." And no one realizes how incomplete they are more than the Laisneyites.

"Not knowing the justice of God [interior sanctifying grace of justification by living faith] and seeking to establish their own [exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments], [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (cf. Romans 10:3).

True Catholics at all times submit themselves to the justice of God. It's simply that we must also hold that justice alone is only one of the requirements with which we must go to Judgment, and is therefore in itself and all by itself insufficient for eternal salvation.

---

We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace as inseparable from true faith, hope and charity, and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto in reality or at least in desire" as taught by the Council of Trent.

---

In this time of confusion in the teaching of the Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing what the Church has al-ways believed and taught "in the same meaning and the same words," not changing one iota to the right or to the left, for falling from the Faith on one side or the other is still falling from the true Faith, "without faith no one has ever been justified" (Council of Trent, TCT 563).

What a wonderful profession of Catholic Faith! If only it applied to the Laisneyites!

Let us pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ may give them the light to see and the grace to accept the age-old teaching of our holy Mother the Church by her popes, fathers, doc-tors and saints, and that, correcting themelves, they may serve the Church rather than change her doctrine.

And thus, we go to our eternal reward hoping the same for Father François Laisney and all his followers! Amen.

... There follow Fr. Laisney's references from his original article.

---

NOTES:

1 Letter no. 73 (21) to Jubaianus in 256.

2 Having received an invalid baptism outside the Church, and being received into the Church without being at least re-baptized under condition. It was a hypothetical case at the time of St. Cyprian (in this was he in error) but it probably happens in some cases today, due to the laxity when receiving converts.

3 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1800, Vatican I, de fide.

4 "Baptism of the Spirit" is another name for baptism of desire, by the grace of the Holy Ghost; De Baptismo, cap. 1.

5 In the very decree Cantate Domino to the Armenians so often quoted by the Feeneyites (Dz 712).

My brother went to New York in 1985 and made a million dollars in the garment district. Actually, it was't New York, it was in Chicago. And it wasn't my brother, it was my uncle. Also, it wasn't in 1985, but 1975. And he didn't make a million dollars, he lost a million. And it wasn't in garments, it was in a delicatessen. Other than that, you had it right!

The Decree Cantata Domino is spelled with an a, not an e; it is found not in Dz 712, but in Dz 714; and it was not to the Armenians, but to the Jacobites (in fact, the two decrees were promulgated at the Council of Florence two-and-a-half months apart). Other than this, Father Laisney is correct.

And, in saying that it is "often quoted by the Feeneyites" goes without saying, for the simple reason that, like all good Catholics, the Feeneyites hold to every iota, jot, and tittle of every infallible declaration ever promulgated by the Magisterium. In fact, this decree is just as De Fide as that mentioned by Fr. Laisney in No.3 above. In further fact, this decree of Pope Eugene IV is an Ex Cathedra definition of the Supreme and Extraordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church, whereas the proclamation of Vatican Council I in note 3, although infallible, is not.

Other than that, Fr. Laisney had it right.

6 Mancipia, July 1998, p.3.

7 Mancipia, July 1998, p.2.

8 Session VI, Chapter 16, Dz 809.

9 For instance, in regards of a sick person in the hospital who cannot accomplish the precept of assisting at Mass on Sundays and feast days, his will to fulfil the third commandment is sufficient (Summa Theologica IIIa, Q.68, A.2, ad 3).

Sufficient for what, it must be asked? It doesn't get him to Mass; however, his will to fulfill his obligation when sick in bed certainly nullifies any sin on his part. Father Laisney argues that, in this, "God takes the will as the fact. This means that God accepts the intention as equivalent to the actual" attendance at Mass! (see above). Is the negative aspect of nullifying sin genuinely as profitable as positively going to Mass and actually receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion? Is a negative as good as a positive?

Taking the will for the fact can get one into a lot of hot water, theologically. Try getting married "by will" and not "in fact" and see what both God and the local police think when they find you committing adultery with your "wife." Remember - God Himself tells us that the baptism in the New Testament denotes being "born, not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man" (John 1:13).

---

10 Is it through ignorance, or by projecting his preconceived ideas, that the author claims that the Council of Florence "passed non-Thomist decrees" (p.47)? Now to claim, as in Desire and Deception, that Cantate Domino rejects baptism of blood is simply to ignore that the passage in question is a quote of St. Fulgentius, who, in the very same book from which that quote is taken, explicitly teaches baptism of blood. Council Fathers never quote a Father of the Church against the mind of such holy authors.

---

All truth is of the Holy Ghost, while all errors (even if made "through ignorance") derive either from the Devil or from man himself. Why should a Pontiff, defining infallibly and Ex Cathedra as in Cantata Domino, not avail himself of the truths found in writings of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church? We are guaranteed that the infallible de-clarations of the Pope are absolutely true and consequently from God; we have no such guarantee of every word of even the most brilliant and holy Father, Doctor, or Saint of the Church.

In this, the Popes perform their God-given duties as the very fishers of men the Redeemer called them to be (Mark 1:17). They thus rule over "the kingdom of heaven [which] is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kinds of fishes; which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth" (Matthew 13:47-48).

---

11 Pascendi, Sept. 8, 1907.

12 As in the Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Canon 5: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema" (Dz 861, TCT 691). Canon 2 (Dz 858, TCT 688) does not deal with the necessity of baptism, but with the nature of the sacrament. It defines that real water, oat symbolic, is of the nature of the sacrament: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5): let him be anathema." Water, real water, belongs to the first element of sacrament, the exterior sign. Thus one sees clearly the sophism of the Feeneyite pamphlet where it is written: "to terms of a syllogism we have the infallible major premise: baptism is necessary for salvation and the infallible minor premise: true and natural water is necessary for baptism, and the infallible conclusion. true and natural water is necessary for salvation." Here one finds a classical error of logic: the middle term "baptism" is not taken in the same acceptation in the major and the minor. The major applies absolutely to the third element of baptism, res sacramenti, the ultimate reality of the sacrament, i.e., the new birth, the new life of sanctifying grace, which is found in the "three baptisms." It applies only relatively to the first element of baptism as explained above. The minor deals only with the first element of baptism, sacramentum tantum, of which the matter is real water and not symbolic water, as some Protestants were saying.

---

Father Laisney here has his metaphors mixed, inasmuch as there is no error in logic involved at all. Canon 2 of Trent is from their decree on the Sacrament of Baptism, not in the least on any such theological configurations cluttering up the mind of the Laisneyites as res sacramenti or sacramentum tantum, which never entered into any word of any Tridentine proclamation. Therefore, the syllogism not only holds true, but is perfect in its presentation -

The Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.
True and natural water is absolutely necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism.
True and natural water is therefore absolutely necessary for salvation.

---

13 The very saints the Feeneyites offer for admiration and imitation in their publications themselves taught baptism of desire! St. Alphonsus, and certainly all the holy Redemptorists after him is the most forceful in favor of baptism of desire, saying that it is de fide that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit.

---

To make such a "certain" statement, Father would have had in truth to have read every single book, prayer, hymn, and sermon published by every single Redemptorist since the late 18th Century. Does anyone in his right mind believe that he has? Nevertheless, the dogmas which constitute that which is De Fide Catholica are not subject to majority vote.

Bear in mind that, during the Arian heresy of the 4th Century (during which all but five heroic Catholic bishops in the entire world fell to this diabolical perversion), it was Saint Athanasius who, virtually alone among all the hierarchy of the Church championed the true Faith, wrote: "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." Venerable Anna Katherine Emmerich declared that: "If there were left upon earth but one Catholic, he would be the one, universal Church, the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ against which the gates of Hell shall never prevail."