Richard Salbato 3-18-2011
Goldwater once said that: “Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.” Now I will also say that: “Extremism in the defense of truth is no vice.” The problem is that truth is hard to find and many are uncertain about it. Some are very sure they have the truth because they use limited information to come to the truth they believe to be true. In the beginning of the Church it was called “The Way” but in the Second Century after many false truths (heresies) it was decided that truth was what the universal Church held to be true and so the word, “Catholic” came to be. The Catholic or Universal Truth is where the true Church is and anything that is not universal is not the Catholic Church.
Over the years the Church has placed in writing what the universal truth is and is not. These are Doctrines on faith and morals, but not on Canon Laws. Canons are how the Church runs and keeps some organization and discipline. The Canon change over time and are not infallible, and in fact, have often been wrong even in the first centuries. There have been times in Church history where the Church needed to put great emphasis on some doctrine to the point that it avoided the exceptions in order not to give heretics any argument for their heresy. But almost all doctrine has exceptions out of the Love of God, and the Logic of God.
The great heresies today (the extremes) are both liberal extremes and conservative extremes. These divide the Church in the same way that the Orthodox divided the Church at the turn of the first Century (extreme conservative) and the division of the Church in the middle of the Second Century by the Protestants (extreme liberal).
Since Vatican II, extreme liberals exaggerated the statements of VII by calling them the “spirit of VII” but this is nothing more than their interpretation of VII and these interpretations are false. There are many false interpretations of VII under the “spirit of VII” but I will show only one to prove my point of exaggeration and will choose a related one to show the same false interpretations of the exaggerated conservatives or what we now call Traditionalists, with a capital “T”.
VII asked that we refer to those who have separated from the Church as “separated brethren” instead of heretics so that we can enter into a dialogue towards unity of faith with them. I find nothing wrong with this as I used it myself before VII to convert them back to the faith and had a great deal of success. This does not mean that their beliefs are not heresies, it just means that we love them and want them to return to the whole truth.
However, extreme liberals within the Church including Bishops,
priests and nuns have taken this to the extreme and interpreted it as “pluralism”
which is also a heresy. These liberals are now preaching that all these
On the other hand the extreme Traditionalists have called even the
words, “separated brethren” a heresy and that VII is a heresy. They use the six
Council statements of “no salvation outside the Church” as their argument. This
statement is true, there is no salvation outside the
Church because not even Abraham could go to Heaven until the Church was created
at the death of
Just like when
The best example to this I have written about a few years ago. In
the early Church Father’s writings we read from the pen of St. Clement of
Peter was preaching in a town center and a young 15 year old girl
was listening from the window of her bedroom. Her parents had promised her in
marriage to the mayor of the city. In time Peter converted her and she told her
parents she could not marry this man as she was going to become a
When Peter was told the story, he took the body and gave her a Catholic Burial including Mass at his own hands. This is baptism of both desire and blood.
However, when I taught evangelization at
More complicated than this doctrine is another doctrine of faith
that is called “invincible ignorance”.
These are people who through no fault of their own have never come to know
All the above is heaven. It cannot be called doctrine but it may be close to the truth and does not contradict any doctrine.
Although I have written about this before the letter below by John C. Pontrello to Bishop Webster prompted me to write some more about it.
Other articles on these subjects:
March 3, 2011
Dear Bishop Webster,
Thank you for inviting responses from interested parties to your letter dated February 2, 2011 titled The
Magisterium and Baptism of Desire. Although this reply letter is a criticism of your letter and those who share your views, I think something positive should be said for your willingness to put it out there and invite refutations from your opponents. I believe your letter conveys your sincerity and shows you to have more than just your own interests at heart. Most importantly your letter showed at least a willingness to change your position if your arguments can be refuted. That of course is my ardent desire for you and all who hold to the same. Because I consider your belief to be heresy I will respond to your letter to the best of my ability. I am not a theologian, nor did I receive formal training and education in Church doctrine. Accordingly some people might not consider my reply seriously, but I am not interested in what most people think these days. My faith is honest and simple. Most importantly I am absolutely certain that I hold the Church’s position of what I prefer to call Baptism in Fire and Baptism in Blood. My learning in this area came by necessity, because I had also been a Rejecter (one who denies the baptism in fire and blood) and did not find rest with it. My eyes had been blinded and my mind seduced by the clever propaganda of heretics, some of whom provide mostly orthodox information on the traditional faith, but ultimately lead souls to a dead end by their wrong conclusions. With hard work, some help from others, desire to know the truth, and the grace of
God; I began to understand this doctrine. It remains to be seen yet how well I can explain it.
The premise for this reply letter of clarification on the Church’s infallible teaching on Holy Baptism is that there can never be a contradiction of doctrines within the Catholic Church. Baptism in fire and blood are of the faith, as are the canons you have quoted in this letter against them. There are no contradictions. The source of all confusion and heresy is within the minds and hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore Rejecters ought not to anathematize the faithful, nor carelessly declare that the Church, Her Doctors, saints, councils, and catechisms have been in grievous error for the past many centuries until they examine themselves in light of the magnificence of God whose ways are not men’s ways. In these times information is in great abundance, but what may be hidden from the learned may be revealed to simple. By Grace, Rejecters will see that all of the confusion they find among others is really within themselves, and that the Church has not been guilty of disseminating poison to Her Children. The method I chose for this reply was to insert my own text in between yours, using indented, Arial, and blue-colored font. I have selected certain points of your letter to address that I have separated by lines,
labeled each of my replies by what I found to be Errors that number 1-14 throughout, included a
commentary and short story scenario to your point 5, and added a conclusion at the end. I hope anyone who reads the following reply in defense of the Catholic faith will receive the grace necessary to recognize that yours is a malicious heresy, and then promptly abandon it for the salvation of their souls, the good of the Catholic faithful, and the Glory of Almighty God.
The Magisterium And Baptism Of Desire
Our Lady's Purification
February 2, 2011
Dear Bishops, Priests, Friends And Interested Parties:
The following is a clarification of BOD (Baptism of Desire) as taught by Fr. Feeney. These are the arguments which convinced me that there is no such thing as BOD or BOB. Hence if you can refute these arguments you can convince me to reverse my position. So far no one has been able to do that. Note well that the arguments come primarily from the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and do not rely upon quotes from saints or thumbnail sketches in the martyrology. I'm continually amazed that priests will attempt to refute an infallible pronouncement by a couple of sentences from the martyrology. It is an act of heresy to try and prove an infallible pronouncement false!!!
These arguments are not based upon implications or assumptions of the meaning of Canon Law or Encyclicals etc. For example many say that the law which allows catechumens to be buried in Catholic Cemeteries is "because of BOD. But Canon law does not say that is the reason. The reason for this law has not been given. You certainly cannot use a law like this to refute a pope speaking infallibly or to say the Magisterium is here teaching BOD when BOD is not even mentioned! And worse yet to use this as a reason to deny someone Holy Communion.
Error 1: Rejecters begin with an incorrect premise.
Those who understand the baptism in fire correctly do not “try to prove infallible pronouncements wrong” nor do they deny infallible teachings of the Church. On the contrary they hold and believe every dogma of the faith that you claim to uphold, every one without exception. The arguments against the baptism in fire or blood, and the arguments for them, are both advanced by way of the teachings of the same Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Consequently there can be no contradiction, only confusion.
From the correct premise should flow questions and their corresponding answers that will dispel all confusion and eradicate this heresy.
1 We begin with the most
misunderstood decree from the Council of Trent on the sacraments. All the
traditional priests including myself have misunderstood exactly what
Canon IV. If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, butsuperfluous; and that without them, or without the desire thereof men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
It is best understood when explained in parts.
Canon IV. If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, butsuperfluous; and that without them …
The above states very clearly that there is no salvation without the sacraments.
Error 2: A bad interpretation of this canon has been made.
Rejecters interpret this as, “No salvation without physical sacraments.” By this is implied that desire does not suffice unto salvation, but this is incorrect. I will get more into desire in the following errors below.
Now read it again please. This Canon does not say, “If anyone saith men can be saved without receivingthe physical sacraments let him be anathema!” If I said, “If anyone saith that brakes on a car are not necessary unto a safe destination, let him be called crazy.” Does that mean there is no possibility of reaching a destination safely? No, but that doesn’t mean we should try it because brakes are certainly a necessary function for driving.
Now I ask you to do something Rejecters fail to do: consider the
mind of the Church at the time of this council. This canon and many others like
it were put forth in defense of the Church against the Protestant “Reformers”
with anathema against those who deny
the necessity of the sacraments and the Catholic
Church. The necessity of the sacraments or their desire “unto salvation” which
Protestants deny, is on account of the grace of justification that they each
effect. This canon is speaking on the means for receiving the grace of
We can look deeper into the mind of the Church in this canon by considering another infallible statement used in Section 2 of your letter. Pope Eugene IV speaking infallibly at the Council of Florence states:
“For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it…” By these words, “helpful to salvation” the Holy Ghost speaking through His Holiness Pope Eugene IV indicates that He does not agree with the Rejecters’ interpretation as stated above. Thus we see how Rejecters do not consider the mind of the Church when they misinterpret Her teachings, because the only minds that seem to be of concern to them are their own.
Rejecters must be warned that anyone who attempts to distort and twist the doctrines of the Church, which results in dividing the faithful against each other, does so at the cost of their souls. All heresy has within itself certain malice.
Note well the word 'superfluous.' If you hold to BOD you make the sacraments not necessary but superfluous. Anathema follows at the end.
Error 3: A horrible conclusion drawn from a bad interpretation.
Those who accept the true teaching of the Church on baptism in fire (Catholics) do not deny that the “sacraments are necessary unto salvation.” As said above, this canon declares anathema to non-Catholic heretics who deny the necessity of the Catholic Church’s sacraments (e.g. Protestants), whereas Rejecters who think they know more than the Church use this canon to declare anathema against the faithful who always believe in the necessity of sacraments “unto salvation”, even for those souls who are deprived of receiving them in the prescribed manner of the Church.
Holy Baptism as celebrated with water is necessary for
justification for infants and children because neither are
capable of having the desire of baptism along with the other necessary dispositions as
explained in Session 6 of the Council of Trent. These dispositions include 1. A
willingness to receive Holy Baptism. 2. Faith in Jesus
Deus Caritas Est!
Let us consider more about charity in the workings of the
sacraments in so far as I understand it. Baptismin
water, baptism in fire, & baptism in martyrdom each receive their efficacy through the fire of the Divine
Charity, which charity is poured out to men in virtue of the Blood of Jesus
If Rejecters find it difficult to accept what I have tried to explain, it is not entirely because I didn’t do a good job of explaining it, but also because there is an obstacle to grace whereby they become confounded by words, and see contradiction where there is none. As I explained in the introductory letter, I understand where they are coming from. And so those who find their way out this trap can understand why interpretation of Sacred Scripture and dogmatic councils are entrusted to authority of the Church, whereas the faithful are given catechisms. But regrettably we see that Rejecters reject authority and the catechisms they author because all Rejecters have their own desire - to be their own authorities, to be interpreters of dogmatic councils, and to be the great deciders of who attains salvation.
Rejecters of these latter days, who think they can re-interpret councils, catechisms, canon laws, and the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, while declaring anathema against everyone who doesn’t agree with their mutilation of the above, are committing divisive and damnable heresy, infallibly confirmed within the canons of this very council. Therein all who are of the truth will find that justification can take place by desire (Fire derived of Charity) to receive Holy Baptism:
Session 6, Chapter 4 (copied in the conclusion of this reply) & Session 7, Canon 4. And therein is also found, for those who are not afflicted with this terrible blindness, a most important truth: If a soul is found to be Just before the Lord, she can surely be saved! Therefore, that a soul can be saved by desire is De Fide, just as St. Alphonsus De Ligouri taught the faithful over two hundred twenty-five years ago.
It has become evident to me that without thorough training & formation in the sacred sciences, the canons of the Church councils can become dangerous weapons in the hands of the wrong people, particularly laymen. For many such people it would be better that they do not wander beyond what is written in the catechisms. Additionally, learning is not enough when attempting to understand the inspired workings of the Holy Ghost; grace is necessary, especially during a time when legitimate Church authority is absent, silent, or unidentifiable.
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
The second part of the canon, below, says that you cannot obtain
justification without a desire for the sacraments. Read it again carefully. It
is a refutation of the Protestants who say that faith alone gives
Error 4: A Horrible & misleading implication.
Rejecters imply an exclusion from salvation that contradicts this very canon, “that there is no salvation by desire.” Canon IV does not say that desire cannot give a soul salvation. Rejecters say it, but Rejecters do not speak for the Church. Neither does it say that “sacraments will give a soul salvation” because it would be incorrect to state it that way. This canon is telling us that the sacraments or their desire, are a necessary means “unto” salvation – by way of the grace of justification that they each effect. We can know that this is what the canon means because this canon is speaking on justification, and as the writer of this original letter correctly observed, it is a refutation against the Protestant heresy of faith alone for attaining this grace. The grace of justification is exactly what canon IV is distinguishing. Please continue on to Error 5 for further clarification.
Error 5: This canon does not make a distinction between justification and salvation.
This canon makes a distinction between that which causes the grace of justification, and that which does not cause the grace of justification. In other words, the canon distinguishes between sacraments and their desire together on one side of the line of scrimmage - against faith alone on the other side of the line of scrimmage. Either or both of the former justify, while the Protestant heresy of justification by faith alone is condemned.
Justification alone does not equal salvation.
Error 6: Sacraments alone also do not equal salvation.
Salvation is made possible through the effect of the sacraments or their desire. Both are a means to the same end, salvation, by way of the grace of justification that is the effect of receiving the sacraments rightly, in the former, or of souls properly disposed in the latter (See Chapter 5-7 of Session 6).
The answer to the question "Where does a person go if he dies in a state of justification without having received a sacrament?" has not been answered by the Church. No one would say the justified soul, unbaptized would go to hell, but no one can say that that soul goes to heaven.
You can scream at the top of your lungs that a soul will go to heaven if he dies justified but if you do you go contrary to what Trent teaches here which is infallible!
Error 7: The Catholic Church has the authority to infallibly declare souls not baptized with water to be in heaven.
Rejecters ought to recognize where their heresy inevitably leads them: to an attack against the Church, Her liturgy & canonizations; the tearing out of pages of missals, catechisms, and other texts (as certain know-it-all, self-professed “prophets” are known to do); neglect of the Spiritual Works of Mercy (i.e. not praying for the dead); rejecting the possibility of deathbed conversions; and thinking they can determine the state of souls at the time of death. These are only some of the rotten fruits of heresy.
Fr. Feeney believed that God would not allow a justified unbaptized soul to die in that condition, but that was only an opinion. He also believed that such a soul would not remain in this condition for more than a few days.
1. Catholics who believe and profess the Church’s doctrine on baptism in fire and baptism in blood do not deny that the sacraments of the new law are necessary unto salvation, and there is no anathema. (Error 1 & 3)
2. It is disingenuous to say Canon IV reads “no salvation without the sacraments” and then to apply it against the faithful. (Error 2)
3. The Council of
4. Canon IV in Session 7 is on justification, and confirms that either sacraments or the desire to receive them produce the grace of justification – unto salvation. (Error 5 & 6)
When the above errors are considered Catholics may understand canon IV to read like the following:
If anyone saith that the sacraments, or at least the desire to receive them* are not necessary unto salvation, but that they are unnecessary; and that without the sacraments, or at least the desire to receive them, men obtain (this same grace) justification (unto salvation) from God through faith alone, let him be anathema.
* (Because both, sacraments rightly received, and souls properly disposed, can cause the same effect justification)
2 Secondly we have the highest authority in the Church, Pope Eugene IV speaking infallibly, 1441:
"The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that
no one remaining outside the CatholicChurch, not just
pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can
become partakers of eternal life;but
they will go to the 'everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before
the end of life they are joined
to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such
importance that the sacraments of the
Church are helpful to salvation only for thoseremaining
in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other
works of piety, and the exercise of
What could be more clearly stated and what could be said with more authority?! Yet this is ignored by almost everyone.
Note he says: …….the
union with the body of the Church……. Does
not this eliminate the 'soul of the Church' argument? Note also he says: in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." A person united to the 'soul' of the Church would not be in its
bosom. Also he says: even if he sheds his
blood for the name of
Error 8: Misconstruing a dogma of the faith.
Rejecters confuse un-baptized martyrs who having been disposed
unto justice do receive baptism by the shedding of their blood for Jesus
If we argue that the early catechumens were not baptized, we contradict an infallible pronouncement. We should therefore do our utmost to see if perhaps the early catechumens were indeed baptized and still remained a catechumen, which was the practice during the times of persecution, as I've read.
If we argue against this and we 'prove' it to be untrue, we make the Popes fallible! The Martyrology as written about the saints in the early Church consisted of only thumbnail sketches written by unknown authors over 1,700 years ago.
Error 9: Doubting the infallible Church.
Faithful Catholics accept that which
“all in error.” Astonishingly some Rejecters imply that had they been around to properly educate and instruct the Doctors of the Church on Catholic doctrine, they would have surely seen their errors and adjusted their teachings.
So understood and widely disseminated is the Church’s true teaching on baptism in fire throughout the centuries, that heretics in our times find that they must write several hundred-page books in their attempt to explain it away. This should speak plainly for itself. Yet, having been there I understand the blindness that my opponents are presently afflicted with. In conclusion to Error 9, the books of the Old and New Testaments were written before the Martyrology, yet we do not second-guess them. Nor should we second-guess the Martyrology. The Rejecters’ heresy is a slippery slope that will eventually have the faithful second-guess everything except their own propaganda.
How can we base a dogma on this? Why would the authors think it important to state that the martyr was baptized with water? Regarding the martyrology of St. Emerantiana wherein the phrase 'Baptized in her blood' is used can be compared to what Our Lord said before His passion: 'I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized.' Meaning his death on the cross. He had already been baptized with water. Because He said that does not deny His water baptism. It is an act of heresy to try and prove an infallible pronouncement false!!! It is an act of heresy to say an infallible pronouncement does not mean what it says.
3 The 1917 Code of Canon Law has dishonestly been used to argue that the Magisterium teaches BOD. The argument says that Canon Law is part of the Magisterium and is based upon dogma. Then they quote only half of the law which changes its meaning!! Why would a traditional priest do this?! Here is the first half of the law.
Baptism, which is the door and foundation for all other Sacraments, and which, either actually received or at least desired, is necessary for salvation to all,…
Below is the second half of the sentence and the law, normally omitted by traditional priests.
is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and pronouncing the pre scribed form of words.
Note this law is in one sentence. Hence it contradicts itself in the same sentence! It says you can receive baptism by desire, (without water), and then it says it is valid ONLY with water. This is double talk!!!
It can not possibly be both ways?! Hence this 'law' is meaningless. Yet many priests quote the first part about desire and leave out the second part about water and then say see, "The Church teaches BOD in its Canon Law." What could be more dishonest?!!
Error 10: There is no contradiction in Canon 737.
A person dying with a desire for baptism cannot be given the sacrament the way the Church prescribes it. Rejecters would have the un-baptized write to their local priest and schedule a baptism of desire for three months from today because he’s planning on dying then. Obviously the normal requirements of form and matter do not apply when they are missing!
Error 11: Rejecting Canons in the 1917 Code.
Once the 1917 Code is sufficiently undermined, there is no rule of law remaining for traditional sects.
Our Lord Jesus
……' Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Some say that this is a law and that God can make exceptions to
His law when He wishes. But this is not a law but a statement of fact. A
statement of fact is either true or false. A fact can be stated as such when a
person says the 'sky is blue.' That is not a law but a statement which is
either true or false. The sky is blue or it is not. So it would follow, if Jesus
Error 12: Using isolated Scripture texts to support heresy, like Protestants.
The Truth also says: Amen,
amen I say unto you: Except you eat
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in
Usually at this point rather than assenting to the necessity of
water BOD advocates quote saints who allegedly believed in BOD. So again they
go to sources outside of the Magisterium to deny the Magisterium. However here is what
Baptism - Ex Cathedra (Infallible)
"If anyone shall
say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that
account those words of Our Lord Jesus
Pope Paul III, The Council of
Need I mention that BOD advocates distort these words of Jesus
Error 13: This canon does not pertain to the baptism in fire and blood.
(See error 11 above). This Canon anathematizes those who would tamper with the matter of the sacred rite by using beer, milk, or applesauce in place of water.
5 We come to the 'Mercy Of God Argument.' This seems to be what's in the hearts of BOD advocates. The issue is what happens to a man who is on the way to the Church to be baptized and dies getting hit by a truck? The Mercy of God, they say, would not let that soul go into hell.
Regarding souls who perish on the way to the baptismal font, it is impossible know what God would or would not do with an individual soul. When we consider the most amazing and surprising things that God has already done who can say what He will do next? So many times God has done things and allowed things to happen, (such as the current crises in the Church), that beforehand no one would have predicted that God would have done this or ever allowed that.
Would anyone have predicted that God would destroy everyone on the face of the earth, except for the eight souls of Noah's family, by drowning them? Certainly, of the perhaps millions who died at that time, there would have been many
who would have repented if given more time. But God did not give it to them. God therefore let souls perish who could
have been saved! Hence would God damn someone who was intercepted by death on the way to being baptized with
water? Virtually everyone would answer no to this question upon first hearing it. But upon reflection the answer is yes!
God would indeed damn someone who died on the way to the baptismal font. There are good reasons for this.
Firstly, consider that the Church forbids an infant to be baptized if his parents are not Catholic. The reason as you know,
is that the child in all likelihood would fall into mortal sin soon after reaching the age of reason and not having the faith
would not go to confession and upon death would suffer much more in hell because of the mark on his soul and having
once been in a state of grace. The Church denies baptism to such an innocent infant with good reason and great wisdom.
Why is it any different for an unbaptized adult? God who knows the future, and knows if a person about to be baptized
will later fall into mortal sin and die in that state. Hence, just as for the infant, it would be much better for that person
not to have been baptized. He would suffer much less in hell for all of eternity. Therefore, it would actually be an act of
God's mercy to let that adult die on the way to the baptismal font. Scripture expresses it below.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to
turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. (2 Peter Ch.2 vs.21)
Secondly, God often will punish a soul or damn a soul as an example for others. Many in the Old Testament were killed
directly by God immediately after just one sin. The priests who used the unconsecrated matches at the altar, and the one
who tried to stop the Ark Of The Covenant from tilting over, and the act of Schism by Core and his followers. And then
this from scripture about
And reducing the cities of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhites into ashes, condemned them to be
overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly……. (2 Peter Ch.2 vs.6)
So it would not seem out of the realm of possibility that God would let a soul perish on the way to being baptized if only
to warn others not to procrastinate with their baptism. Or perhaps to warn others not to be guilty of the same sins that
person had committed. God's judgments are unfathomable.
In this context we often hear it said that you cannot shorten the hand of God. Well it is God that has shortened His own
hand not we His creatures. He is the one who said "unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost he SHALL NOT
ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN," not us. It is for us to humbly accept His words as absolutely true no matter
how hard they may be. Recall many walked away when Our Lord said to them 'Eat my flesh and drink my blood."
But as for God's hand being shortened there are numerous examples of Him 'shortening His own hand.' Here is just a
1) When Jesus said to Peter whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever
…… (Matthew 18:19)
2) Our infinite God, placed Himself under subjugation, strict obedience, to lowly man having to obey every command
of Joseph and Mary. (Luke 2:51)
3) Our loving Saviour shortened His own hand again when He gave His priests the power to consecrate bread and wine.
Is not He, the creator of the universe, then subject to the words of man!? Hence any priest, no matter how evil, no
matter the unholy state of his soul, nor the surroundings he may be in, such as a bar, will validly consecrate a host with
proper matter and form and intention!! Hence again even at a black Mass of Satan worshippers such an evil priest
would validly consecrate even when his intention after that is to desecrate the Eucharist!! Indeed God will not find a
way to make the host invalid and 'wiggle' His way out of the situation. He is faithful to His own words and institution.
IT IS WE WHO TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF HIS WORDS OR FIND EXCEPTIONS TO THEM, WHEN
WE FIND THEM TOO HARD FOR OURSELVES TO BELIEVE!!
Commentary: Point 5 & The Mercy of God.
I ask Rejecters, if you had a son or a daughter, who even after committing the most egregious injustices
begged for your mercy and forgiveness, would you grant it? And which of you, if he ask his father
bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he, for a fish, give him a serpent? (Luke 11:11).
Now imagine that you are an un-baptized man who recently accepted the Catholic Faith and are waiting
for Easter to receive the Holy Sacrament of Baptism – just 40 days away. This night you are driving your
car 72 mph on a poorly illumined highway, on a rainy night without wearing a seatbelt, and do not see a
truck and a passenger car projecting off of the shoulder into your lane just beyond the overpass.
Suddenly you see the rear of the truck - but it is too late! You jam the breaks while spinning your wheel
away from a collision as best you can. But despite your best efforts in this moment of desperation you
smash into the truck anyways, though steering so as not to hit it directly, and continue onward and off the
edge of the highway, over a ditch and finally crash into a huge steel post that rips your car completely in
half. As you come to consciousness you quickly realize, with shock and horror, that along with the car,
your body is now in two halves smashed up against a fence. You are now severed at the waist and
realize you are in the final moments of your life and will die without having received the Sacrament of Holy
Baptism as celebrated with water. Though you cannot speak you manage to make a positive act of the
moving your soul towards God and pleading the mercy of the Divine Savior Jesus
baptism with all of your heart and thinking these last thoughts to God who knows all things. In so doing
you have made a perfect act of contrition for all of the sins of your whole life, professed your faith in and
you and bring you into life everlasting. Within a few moments you black out and breathe your last breath.
The conclusion to this story is unfinished; I leave it for you and all Rejecters to think about. Will God hear
and answer your cry at the moment of your death, even though you did not receive water baptism? What
happens to your soul at the moment of your particular judgment? Does it matter that this may be an
unforeseen accident to you, although there are no accidents to God, who knows all things?
The truth is that God may or may not decide to save your soul. Besides the Church, who can know for
sure? But one thing is known with absolute certainty; God can save your soul if He so chooses to
- and the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this truth by infallibly declaring that souls may be brought
to justice before God without having received baptism by water; and this is a doctrine of the faith. But
what about you, the Rejecter who denies God’s mercy in this way, will God deny you that same mercy that
you failed to acknowledge towards others?
6 Some miscellaneous thoughts.
(A) A problem with this issue of BOD, is that BOD goes hand and glove with the new Church who teaches the
same on this question. They are preaching universal salvation and against water baptism, as the protestant
who says 'All you do is take Jesus into your heart and you are saved.' That is an example of BOD, (a desire
and traditional priests teach it but with different words. For example, below is what Archbishop Lefebvre
taught to his priests who now cover the earth.
Error 14: Correcting Modernism by Feeneyism.
The Rejecters’ heresy is an overreaction to the Modernists’ heresies and is equally destructive, because
where the Modernists falsify God’s mercy (among other things); Rejecters falsify God’s justice. Therefore
both of these errors are without the supernatural virtue charity, which can only be found in truth.
Baptism in fire and baptism in blood are indeed of the faith, but I do agree that it is an abused doctrine.
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will
of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the
whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it,
but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. ('Open Letter to Confused Catholics,' page 74. by
Agreed, this is Heresy!
This is actually less of a "desire" than the 'Born Again' who takes Jesus into his heart for salvation. The Born Again
makes an 'Explicit Act' of desire. But what A.B. Lefebvre is referring to is an 'Implicit Act Of Desire.' These are souls
even hate Jesus
had they known better.' I'm sorry but this is absolute heresy! It goes against
all of the above from
etc., as well as 2,000 years of tradition. With this kind of teaching no wonder the descendants of Vatican II have
embraced the teaching of universal salvation.
There is so much double think even in our traditional ranks that one priest even says that the dogma, 'No Salvation
Outside Of The Church' does not mean that you cannot be saved outside of the Church!!! This is how liberal or
ridiculous the thinking has become on this subject.
We must not forget that the agenda of the Modernist is to have a
one world DOGMA-
and they can and have caused wars, such as the Protestant revolt did at the time. Hence, to have a religion for the
whole world, that religion cannot have any strong beliefs. Nor can it exclude anyone from heaven for their belief if they
even acknowledge there is a heaven. BOD, is a perfect solution for them to push onto Catholics for the concept of an
'implicit Desire to do some good if they knew what it was' is a most universal catchall which lets EVERYONE into
heaven. Not only the ignorant but the evil, who would do good, they say, if they knew what it was etc.
(B) Note, that BOD advocates all say that the desire for a sacrament is not a sacrament. If you cannot be saved
without at least one sacrament then it is a contradiction to say that you can be saved by only the desire for it.
This has been addressed throughout this letter.
(C) Another point often ignored by BOD advocates is that the scriptures are very clear and say that 'without
faith it is impossible to please God.' (Hebrews Ch. 11 vs. 6) They will put many into heaven who have only implicit BOD
and without any faith at all. It's as though ignorance supplies for not having the faith. Baptism is not enough, you must
believe. Someone with implicit desire does not believe. Again
justification but a desire for the sacraments, which means a desire for baptism.
The introduction and conclusion to the Athanasian Creed very strongly condemns anyone who does not believe what's'
in the Creed as follows:
'Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one
do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we
worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance……..'
And the conclusion:
……..and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that
have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be
This dates from 325. Hence from at least that time the Church held that without the faith as stated in the Creed a soul
will perish. There are four points of our faith that are mentioned in the Creed. These are the same four points that St.
Thomas says is the minimum knowledge that a person must have to be
baptized. (No doubt
the Creed.) Hence, we should teach these to a man on his death bed who wants to be Catholic before pouring water over
him. After reading the Creed how can anyone say that the faith is not necessary?!
Thanks for taking the time to read this. If you can refute it please do so, but please address the points made here before
adding others. These come from the highest authority in the Church and it takes an equal authority to refute it. Hence,
please do not quote saints as they are not the Magisterium. And one last thought; I have never found the term BOD in
the Magisterium. If you can find it send it to me.
In all things, charity.
Most Rev. Neal Webster
of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of first Adam to
the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the
second Adam, Jesus
indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he
cannot enter the Kindom of God (
Rejecters who deny the Church’s infallible teaching on baptism in fire and baptism in blood as written in the
they teach, “that it is heresy,” St. Alphonsus De Liquori, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St.
of them believed, professed, and taught this very doctrine unto their deaths. Yet all three are declared to
be in heaven by the very Church whose doctrines they supposedly contradict! And what of all of the
countless souls who followed their inspired writings? Anyone foolish enough to claim that these saints
“didn’t understand” the Church’s teaching on this important matter pertaining to baptism and eternal
salvation, cannot be taken seriously. There can be no doubt whatsoever that all three understood very well
the Church’s teaching of baptism by water, by fire and by blood. Consequently if this teaching is heresy, as
Rejecters insist upon, then these saints are heretics without a doubt, and the Church’s canonizations are
worth nothing. It is especially worth noting that one of the above mentioned saints received her theology
education directly from the Highest Authority – God. Therefore she could not possibly have been mistaken
in her teachings on this doctrine, because her teachings are not claimed to be her own.
The canonizations of those who believed, taught, and professed this teaching, as well as the faithful who
were saved by it, prove that baptism in fire and by blood is a doctrine of the Catholic faith to be upheld by all
who wish to be counted among those joined to the unity and bosom of the Church, outside of which there is
no salvation! Therefore per the Rejecter’s insistence that baptism in fire is heresy, they prove that they
really do believe that there must be salvation outside the Church, and in so doing profess not only one, but
two heresies at the same time. It is my sincere hope that any Rejecter reading this letter will begin to think
and pray very hard about what they are doing, and whose doctrines they are following. “If anyone saith
that Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J. is a more reliable source for Catholic Doctrine than St. Alphonsus De
Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St.
In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,