There is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church

[Greg]

As you see it. Don't you see a problem set by precedence with that?

Less of a problem than seeing the faith as the Pope sees it.  Or the 3 Popes before him.

Those afraid to set a precedent did NOT save the Traditional Faith we have today.  Without Marcel Lefebvre there would be no ED, FSSP, nor any extraordinary form to enjoy.  It's perfectly clear, that the Church's hierarchy would have crushed Tradition under its jackboot; if it was not forced to tolerate it.

Lefebvre broke a precedent and was excommunicated for his troubles. 

[Miriam_M]

There's not much salvation inside it either.

Ah, British wit.

[Jayne]

Michael Wilson, when you post in these EENS threads you should make a disclaimer and let everyone know that you are a member of the sedevacantist church and not the Catholic Church whose current visible head is Pope Francis. Posters and lurkers alike should be aware when reading debates about the absolute necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation that you are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. It is natural for someone in your position, just as it is natural for an Eastern schismatic, to take issue with a literal understanding of EENS because neither of you are members of the Catholic Church.

I think most of us realize that Michael takes a sedevacantist position.  As he says, he has never made a secret of it.  While I disagree with him about that, I consider him a model of Catholic behaviour and am grateful for his example.

I encourage you to reread the forum rules and make special note of the part where it says, "insinuating that certain trads or groups of trads are not really Catholic will not be tolerated." (While I would prefer to leave this to moderators to deal with, the holidays may interfere with their ability to do this speedily.)

I reported this to Käse since you are breaking the rules yourself.

How am I breaking the rules?

[Counter Revolutionary]

St. Francis Xavier did not teach strict Baptism only, as when the residents of Yamaguchi misunderstood the true doctrine of Baptism and Faith in line with the Feeney-like doctrine, St. Francis Xavier calls this thought a "hateful and annoying scruple" because it caused the residents to misunderstand the truth and thus "God did not appear to them merciful and good". He corrects them by appealing to the same line of thought as St. Paul in Romans and St. Thomas in De Veritate, as to the natural law:

Before their baptism the converts of Yamaguchi were greatly troubled and pained by a hateful and annoying scruple---that God did not appear to them merciful and good, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese before our arrival, especially if it were true that those who had not worshipped God as we preached were doomed to suffer everlasting punishment in hell. It seemed to them that He had forgotten and as it were neglected the salvation of all their ancestors, in permitting them to be deprived of the knowledge of saving truths, and thus to rush headlong on eternal death. It was this painful thought which, more than anything else, kept them back from the religion of the true God. But by the divine mercy all their error and scruple was taken away. We began by proving to them that the divine law is the most ancient of all. Before receiving their institutions from the Chinese, the Japanese knew by the teaching of nature that it was wicked to kill, to steal, to swear falsely, and to commit the other sins enumerated in the Ten Commandments, a proof of this being the remorse of conscience to which any one guilty of one of these crimes was certain to be a prey.

We showed them that reason itself teaches us to avoid evil and to do good, and that this is so deeply implanted in the hearts of men, that all have the knowledge of the divine law from nature, and from God the Author of nature, before they receive any external instruction on the subject. If any doubts were entertained on the matter, an experiment might be made in the person of a man without any instruction, living in absolute solitude, and in entire ignorance of the laws of his country. Such a man, ignorant of and a stranger to all human teaching, if he were asked whether it were or were not criminal to kill, to steal, or to commit the other actions forbidden by the law of God, and whether it were right to abstain from such actions, then, I say, this man, so fundamentally without all human education, would most certainly reply in such a manner as to show that he was by no means without knowledge of the divine law. Whence then must he be supposed to have received this knowledge, but from God Himself, the Author of nature? And if this knowledge is seen among barbarians, what must be the case with civilized and polished nations? This being so, it necessarily follow that before any laws were made by men the divine law existed innate in the hearts of all men. The converts were so satisfied with this reasoning, as to see no further difficulty; so that this net having been broken, they received from us with a glad heart the sweet yoke of our Lord....

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1552xavier4.asp

St. Francis Xavier did teach strict Baptism exactly as Fr. Feeney taught it. In the quote you provided all St. Francis is saying is that God would not have punished their ancestors by allowing them to die ignorant of the truths that must be believed for salvation if they had lived up to the natural law. The "hateful and annoying scruple" he was talking about was the erroneous belief of the Japanese who thought that their ancestors were condemned to eternal punishment unjustly. He was explaining to them that their condemnation was just. As St. Thomas and other saints taught, invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin:

"Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate." - St. Leonard of Port Maurice http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

So again, why refer to Catholics who believe that Baptism and Church membership are absolutely necessary for salvation as "Feeneyites." Fr. Feeney was not the first Catholic to propose such a doctrine. Why not refer to us as "St. Gregory Nazianzenites" or "St. Francis Xavierites"?

Traditional Catholics have rightly called those to task who refer to the Immemorial Roman Rite of the Mass as the "Tridentine Rite." We have refused to accept that name for the Immemorial Rite because those in the Novus Ordo have refered to the traditional rite as such in order to give the false impression to people that the Latin Mass was invented at the Council of Trent; when the truth is that the traditional Roman Rite goes back much further than that.

It is very deceitful to refer to the belief that Baptism and Church membership are absolutely necessary for salvation as "Feeneyism" when that belief is as ancient as the twelve apostles. Fr. Feeney did not invent that doctrine.

[nmoerbeek]

St. Francis Xavier did not teach strict Baptism only, as when the residents of Yamaguchi misunderstood the true doctrine of Baptism and Faith in line with the Feeney-like doctrine, St. Francis Xavier calls this thought a "hateful and annoying scruple" because it caused the residents to misunderstand the truth and thus "God did not appear to them merciful and good". He corrects them by appealing to the same line of thought as St. Paul in Romans and St. Thomas in De Veritate, as to the natural law:

Before their baptism the converts of Yamaguchi were greatly troubled and pained by a hateful and annoying scruple---that God did not appear to them merciful and good, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese before our arrival, especially if it were true that those who had not worshipped God as we preached were doomed to suffer everlasting punishment in hell. It seemed to them that He had forgotten and as it were neglected the salvation of all their ancestors, in permitting them to be deprived of the knowledge of saving truths, and thus to rush headlong on eternal death. It was this painful thought which, more than anything else, kept them back from the religion of the true God. But by the divine mercy all their error and scruple was taken away. We began by proving to them that the divine law is the most ancient of all. Before receiving their institutions from the Chinese, the Japanese knew by the teaching of nature that it was wicked to kill, to steal, to swear falsely, and to commit the other sins enumerated in the Ten Commandments, a proof of this being the remorse of conscience to which any one guilty of one of these crimes was certain to be a prey.

We showed them that reason itself teaches us to avoid evil and to do good, and that this is so deeply implanted in the hearts of men, that all have the knowledge of the divine law from nature, and from God the Author of nature, before they receive any external instruction on the subject. If any doubts were entertained on the matter, an experiment might be made in the person of a man without any instruction, living in absolute solitude, and in entire ignorance of the laws of his country. Such a man, ignorant of and a stranger to all human teaching, if he were asked whether it were or were not criminal to kill, to steal, or to commit the other actions forbidden by the law of God, and whether it were right to abstain from such actions, then, I say, this man, so fundamentally without all human education, would most certainly reply in such a manner as to show that he was by no means without knowledge of the divine law. Whence then must he be supposed to have received this knowledge, but from God Himself, the Author of nature? And if this knowledge is seen among barbarians, what must be the case with civilized and polished nations? This being so, it necessarily follow that before any laws were made by men the divine law existed innate in the hearts of all men. The converts were so satisfied with this reasoning, as to see no further difficulty; so that this net having been broken, they received from us with a glad heart the sweet yoke of our Lord....

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1552xavier4.asp

St. Francis Xavier did teach strict Baptism exactly as Fr. Feeney taught it. In the quote you provided all St. Francis is saying is that God would not have punished their ancestors by allowing them to die ignorant of the truths that must be believed for salvation if they had lived up to the natural law. The "hateful and annoying scruple" he was talking about was the erroneous belief of the Japanese who thought that their ancestors were condemned to eternal punishment unjustly. He was explaining to them that their condemnation was just. As St. Thomas and other saints taught, invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin:

"Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate." - St. Leonard of Port Maurice http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

So again, why refer to Catholics who believe that Baptism and Church membership are absolutely necessary for salvation as "Feeneyites." Fr. Feeney was not the first Catholic to propose such a doctrine. Why not refer to us as "St. Gregory Nazianzenites" or "St. Francis Xavierites"?

Traditional Catholics have rightly called those to task who refer to the Immemorial Roman Rite of the Mass as the "Tridentine Rite." We have refused to accept that name for the Immemorial Rite because those in the Novus Ordo have refered to the traditional rite as such in order to give the false impression to people that the Latin Mass was invented at the Council of Trent; when the truth is that the traditional Roman Rite goes back much further than that.

It is very deceitful to refer to the belief that Baptism and Church membership are absolutely necessary for salvation as "Feeneyism" when that belief is as ancient as the twelve apostles. Fr. Feeney did not invent that doctrine.

St Gregory Nazianzen belived in baptism of blood, unless I misunderstand Fr. Feeney he did not. You might read St Gregory's Oration on Holy Lights.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

[Greg]

If I became a Bishop Williamson supporter,  really had a massive clear out of my house, calmed right down and became a saint they might name me St. Gregory Nazi & Zen.

That would cause a little confusion in the future.

[Michael Wilson]

 A good friend of mine did a lot of research on this issue of B.O.B./B.O.D. He told me that all of the Church Fathers believed in B.O.B. or B.O.D. Or Both. He even wrote a letter to the Feeneyite Superior showing him the results of his research, and never heard back.

[Counter Revolutionary]

Every Catholic dogma, if it is truly Catholic, is not only generally, but universally true. The language used by the Church in her dogmatic definitions and other dogmatic formulations affirms that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Catholic dogma in the sense that it is universally true:

     "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council)
     "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)
     "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith." (Athanasian Creed)

The formulation of the dogma at the Fourth Lateran Council refers to the Church as being composed "of the faithful." Those who do not possess the Catholic faith cannot be considered members of the one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. Furthermore, unbaptized catechumens also cannot be considered members of the "Church of the faithful." This is evident from the distinction made in the Missal between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful.

[Michael Wilson]

So now the testimony of the Church fathers no longer counts; or helps us to understand the full meaning of the Church dogmas. So why the reference to St. Gregory Nazianzen?He doesn't count after all.

[Greg]

Tomorrow evening we are having my autistic son's schoolteacher over for dinner with her husband.  A more selfless and caring woman you could not wish to meet.  She would put most Catholic nuns to shame.  Teachers are not paid much (survival money basically) and so she has literally made a life vocation out of looking after mentally handicapped people and doing her best to teach them.

She's not doing that job for money or fame.

There are plenty of these people in the world with natural virtue flowing out of them.  They have no affinity with Catholicism, no interest in Catholicism.  Mostly, they believe in God, I would imagine.  Sometimes they are just naturally virtuous people and somewhat agnostic.  I usually interrogate them to find out what makes them tick.   They are like Joe Gargery from Great Expectations or Mr. Fezziwig in A Christmas Carol.  They can remain like that over decades and perhaps because they are unselfish and virtuous they are happy and content with whatever religion or spiritual values float their boat.  They don't have a dark night of the soul or an episode which motivates them to seek out a new religion.

Perhaps 1 in 100 people are like this.  Perhaps 1 in 500.  But that still adds up to millions of people around the world.

1.  I find it very difficult to comprehend how someone like this ends up in Hell without it being a gross injustice.

2.  I find it impossible to believe that such a person could or would have the time and inclination to study the Catholic faith and conclude, (especially today), that it was what it claimed to be and held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  The degree of knowledge you need to make those judgments, in a fair and balanced way is enormous and requires you to have a researchers mind and the time to eek out historical facts.

It's not reasonable to expect a person who is content with their conscience and feels they are doing good in the world by helping those less fortunately then themselves, to spend years studying the claims of a religion.  I haven't studied Islam or the claims of the Mormons.

Nearly all of us admit that the situation in the RCC is FUBAR.  So how could they possibly make the determination it was God's authority on earth.

3.  If conversion comes about because of God's will and faith being given as a gift to some, but not others, then what do we make of these naturally virtuous people who are never given the gift of faith but carry on virtuous lives without it?  Seems awfully similar to Calvinistic pre-determination of an elect to me if such people are damned to Hell.

[nmoerbeek]

Tomorrow evening we are having my autistic son's schoolteacher over for dinner with her husband.  A more selfless and caring woman you could not wish to meet.  She would put most Catholic nuns to shame.  Teachers are not paid much (survival money basically) and so she has literally made a life vocation out of looking after mentally handicapped people and doing her best to teach them.

She's not doing that job for money or fame.

There are plenty of these people in the world with natural virtue flowing out of them.  They have no affinity with Catholicism, no interest in Catholicism.  Mostly, they believe in God, I would imagine.  Sometimes they are just naturally virtuous people and somewhat agnostic.  I usually interrogate them to find out what makes them tick.   They are like Joe Gargery from Great Expectations or Mr. Fezziwig in A Christmas Carol.  They can remain like that over decades and perhaps because they are unselfish and virtuous they are happy and content with whatever religion or spiritual values float their boat.  They don't have a dark night of the soul or an episode which motivates them to seek out a new religion.

Perhaps 1 in 100 people are like this.  Perhaps 1 in 500.  But that still adds up to millions of people around the world.

1.  I find it very difficult to comprehend how someone like this ends up in Hell without it being a gross injustice.

2.  I find it impossible to believe that such a person could or would have the time and inclination to study the Catholic faith and conclude, (especially today), that it was what it claimed to be and held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  The degree of knowledge you need to make those judgments, in a fair and balanced way is enormous and requires you to have a researchers mind and the time to eek out historical facts.

It's not reasonable to expect a person who is content with their conscience and feels they are doing good in the world by helping those less fortunately then themselves, to spend years studying the claims of a religion.  I haven't studied Islam or the claims of the Mormons.

Nearly all of us admit that the situation in the RCC is FUBAR.  So how could they possibly make the determination it was God's authority on earth.

3.  If conversion comes about because of God's will and faith being given as a gift to some, but not others, then what do we make of these naturally virtuous people who are never given the gift of faith but carry on virtuous lives without it?  Seems awfully similar to Calvinistic pre-determination of an elect to me if such people are damned to Hell.

My mother converted to the Catholic Faith having grown up in a poor irreligious household, she was also a low paid councilor for people trying to find jobs after having incurred a serious disability as a young women(blind people, cripples, and so forth) at that time such a job was also not a lot of money.  She did begin to look into religions on her own, when she befriended a protestant Christian neighbor who encouraged her in her search, and I believe gave her a copy of the Imitation of Christ.  One thing led to another and she was baptized in the Catholic faith during the height of the decline in the Church here in the States, the Priest who baptized her would leave the priesthood with a women.

1.  Okay, but at the end of days all of us will get a chance to see the reason why people are saved and damned and no one will view anyone who is sent to hell as having not received justice.
2.  Perhaps, but I have spoken to a number of converts and most start with an uneasiness about whatever current situation they are in and this leads them to seek the truth, and normally through a series of providential incidents they wind up converting.  I don't think most people do wind up studying in depth each religion, but normally rely on one or two strong things that attract them and go from there.
3.  It is also a part of Catholic dogma that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation.  We could speculate on what that means for someone whom is isolated from the knowledge of the Gospel, but I confess with firm conviction that this is true. 

God is the greatest lover of mankind and I hope in him for my salvation and my neighbor.   If I am uneasy for another it is easier to pray for them than it is to rationalize how and when God will visit them with His truth, and if I think they are open an invitation to watch a religious oriented movie, participate in a family feast celebration or even attend Mass can be an effective way of sharing the hope of the Gospel with them, but you know all of that as you have been doing this longer than I have.

[Counter Revolutionary]

Tomorrow evening we are having my autistic son's schoolteacher over for dinner with her husband.  A more selfless and caring woman you could not wish to meet.  She would put most Catholic nuns to shame.  Teachers are not paid much (survival money basically) and so she has literally made a life vocation out of looking after mentally handicapped people and doing her best to teach them.

She's not doing that job for money or fame.

There are plenty of these people in the world with natural virtue flowing out of them.  They have no affinity with Catholicism, no interest in Catholicism.  Mostly, they believe in God, I would imagine.  Sometimes they are just naturally virtuous people and somewhat agnostic.  I usually interrogate them to find out what makes them tick.   They are like Joe Gargery from Great Expectations or Mr. Fezziwig in A Christmas Carol.  They can remain like that over decades and perhaps because they are unselfish and virtuous they are happy and content with whatever religion or spiritual values float their boat.  They don't have a dark night of the soul or an episode which motivates them to seek out a new religion.

Perhaps 1 in 100 people are like this.  Perhaps 1 in 500.  But that still adds up to millions of people around the world.

1.  I find it very difficult to comprehend how someone like this ends up in Hell without it being a gross injustice.

2.  I find it impossible to believe that such a person could or would have the time and inclination to study the Catholic faith and conclude, (especially today), that it was what it claimed to be and held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  The degree of knowledge you need to make those judgments, in a fair and balanced way is enormous and requires you to have a researchers mind and the time to eek out historical facts.

It's not reasonable to expect a person who is content with their conscience and feels they are doing good in the world by helping those less fortunately then themselves, to spend years studying the claims of a religion.  I haven't studied Islam or the claims of the Mormons.

Nearly all of us admit that the situation in the RCC is FUBAR.  So how could they possibly make the determination it was God's authority on earth.

3.  If conversion comes about because of God's will and faith being given as a gift to some, but not others, then what do we make of these naturally virtuous people who are never given the gift of faith but carry on virtuous lives without it?  Seems awfully similar to Calvinistic pre-determination of an elect to me if such people are damned to Hell.

"No one, no matter whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." - The Council of Florence

"Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that 'there is one God, one faith, one baptism' may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that 'those who are not with Christ are against Him,'and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore 'without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.'" - Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical on Liberalism

It is a divinely revealed dogma that no one can merit the initial grace of justification. If a man were to attempt to baptize himself with water the sacrament would be invalid. In cases of necessity anyone can validly baptize (and this consideration shows how necessary Baptism is), even a Jew or a Muslim, provided he has the right intention. Anyone can baptize another, but no man can baptize himself. God has arranged things thus so that no man attribute the initial grace of his justification to his own almsgiving or other good works, no matter how great they be. Man has to recognize his dependence on God to provide a minister for him. He has to recognize that he cannot save himself solely by his own efforts. The fact that no one can validly baptize himself with water should give pause to those who think that man can perform lots of good deeds and baptize himself by "desire". Read up on the heresy of Pelagianism.

St. Dismas the Good Thief was able to find faith in the divinity of Christ during His Passion. There are still souls converting to the Catholic Church today even while the Mystical Body is going through her own crucifixion. Some of these converts have even discovered the traditionalist movement. God is omnipotent and can lead any soul to knowledge of the truth. You are essentially proposing either that God does not will that all men to come to knowledge of the truth, or that God is unable to give some this knowledge. Both propositions are false.

[Greg]

If one or two things can attract them then why can't one or two things put them off?

Like the wholesale institutional cover up of sexual abuse for example?

Example.  You die and find the Muslims were right.  Loads of Islamic suicide terrorists are in Heaven.  Allah gives you a chance to ask questions.  Do you try to discover how he found the capture and rape of women to be a justifyable act?

I would be curious as to why Allah was such an asshole.

[Counter Revolutionary]

St. Francis Xavier did not teach strict Baptism only, as when the residents of Yamaguchi misunderstood the true doctrine of Baptism and Faith in line with the Feeney-like doctrine, St. Francis Xavier calls this thought a "hateful and annoying scruple" because it caused the residents to misunderstand the truth and thus "God did not appear to them merciful and good". He corrects them by appealing to the same line of thought as St. Paul in Romans and St. Thomas in De Veritate, as to the natural law:

Before their baptism the converts of Yamaguchi were greatly troubled and pained by a hateful and annoying scruple---that God did not appear to them merciful and good, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese before our arrival, especially if it were true that those who had not worshipped God as we preached were doomed to suffer everlasting punishment in hell. It seemed to them that He had forgotten and as it were neglected the salvation of all their ancestors, in permitting them to be deprived of the knowledge of saving truths, and thus to rush headlong on eternal death. It was this painful thought which, more than anything else, kept them back from the religion of the true God. But by the divine mercy all their error and scruple was taken away. We began by proving to them that the divine law is the most ancient of all. Before receiving their institutions from the Chinese, the Japanese knew by the teaching of nature that it was wicked to kill, to steal, to swear falsely, and to commit the other sins enumerated in the Ten Commandments, a proof of this being the remorse of conscience to which any one guilty of one of these crimes was certain to be a prey.

We showed them that reason itself teaches us to avoid evil and to do good, and that this is so deeply implanted in the hearts of men, that all have the knowledge of the divine law from nature, and from God the Author of nature, before they receive any external instruction on the subject. If any doubts were entertained on the matter, an experiment might be made in the person of a man without any instruction, living in absolute solitude, and in entire ignorance of the laws of his country. Such a man, ignorant of and a stranger to all human teaching, if he were asked whether it were or were not criminal to kill, to steal, or to commit the other actions forbidden by the law of God, and whether it were right to abstain from such actions, then, I say, this man, so fundamentally without all human education, would most certainly reply in such a manner as to show that he was by no means without knowledge of the divine law. Whence then must he be supposed to have received this knowledge, but from God Himself, the Author of nature? And if this knowledge is seen among barbarians, what must be the case with civilized and polished nations? This being so, it necessarily follow that before any laws were made by men the divine law existed innate in the hearts of all men. The converts were so satisfied with this reasoning, as to see no further difficulty; so that this net having been broken, they received from us with a glad heart the sweet yoke of our Lord....

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1552xavier4.asp

St. Francis Xavier did teach strict Baptism exactly as Fr. Feeney taught it. In the quote you provided all St. Francis is saying is that God would not have punished their ancestors by allowing them to die ignorant of the truths that must be believed for salvation if they had lived up to the natural law. The "hateful and annoying scruple" he was talking about was the erroneous belief of the Japanese who thought that their ancestors were condemned to eternal punishment unjustly. He was explaining to them that their condemnation was just. As St. Thomas and other saints taught, invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin:

"Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate." - St. Leonard of Port Maurice http://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

So again, why refer to Catholics who believe that Baptism and Church membership are absolutely necessary for salvation as "Feeneyites." Fr. Feeney was not the first Catholic to propose such a doctrine. Why not refer to us as "St. Gregory Nazianzenites" or "St. Francis Xavierites"?

Traditional Catholics have rightly called those to task who refer to the Immemorial Roman Rite of the Mass as the "Tridentine Rite." We have refused to accept that name for the Immemorial Rite because those in the Novus Ordo have refered to the traditional rite as such in order to give the false impression to people that the Latin Mass was invented at the Council of Trent; when the truth is that the traditional Roman Rite goes back much further than that.

It is very deceitful to refer to the belief that Baptism and Church membership are absolutely necessary for salvation as "Feeneyism" when that belief is as ancient as the twelve apostles. Fr. Feeney did not invent that doctrine.

St Gregory Nazianzen belived in baptism of blood, unless I misunderstand Fr. Feeney he did not. You might read St Gregory's Oration on Holy Lights.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

I am glad to see that you hold the teachings of the Church Fathers in high esteem. Fr. Feeney never would have made such an issue over the "three baptisms" if we were only talking about the unbaptized who shed their blood for the true faith and the catechumens who die before reaching the font. The canonized Church Fathers universally taught that all those who die outside the Catholic faith will be eternally lost. Over the last two hundred years the theory of "baptism of desire" has been broadened considerably and with disastrous consequences. Why make the sacrifice to be a missionary of the religious kind - not a layman "missionary" who does his own will where he wants and when he wants - but a religious missionary who takes the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, who leaves behind father, mother, and all the comforts of home to go to foreign lands and endure all kinds of privations, why make the sacrifice if non-Catholics can be saved by leading good lives and baptizing themselves by desire? There is an excellent sermon on YouTube by an Institute of Christ the King priest who points out that the dogma of the absolute necessity of Church membership for salvation should inspire young Catholics to seriously consider vocations to the priesthood and religious life.


[yt]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AxlfAcCEbok[/yt]


The very serious practical effects of the liberalizing of the theory of "baptism of desire" led Fr. Feeney and others to give the theory a closer look. Fr. Feeney never held that it was heretical for someone to believe in baptism of desire or baptism of blood in the relatively limited sense many of the Church Fathers believed those baptisms. He did find, however, that there are strong arguments in favor of the absolute necessity of the sacrament. He writes about his position in his book Bread of Life. The St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire also published an article that is a must read for anyone who wants to inform himself on the topic http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

[Gardener]

As you see it. Don't you see a problem set by precedence with that?

Let's not eat the feather in our cap and pretend it's macaroni. You know as well as I that the FSSP priests we have known employ a recognize and resist position which has problematic implications. This is exactly why we scoff when people start ranting about FSSP adherence to, celebration of, etc., the Novus Ordo and its Feast days, etc. They, the FSSP, see this as obedience to the See of Peter, and by extension to the Apostles in the person of the local Bishop. Any directive not in line with Tradition is as water off the back of a duck. Thus, obedience is external but internally all prelates not in adherence with Tradition are ignored and thus the position is just a more lax version of the Society's. In short, we too, whether we are FSSP all the time, or whenever convenient/able, etc., essentially have the same position. Because who are we to decide that X directive is contra Tradition and thus not to be followed? We simply do it as we see it.

For example, the normative manner of receiving the Eucharist in the US is standing and in the hand. This is directed by the USCCB. When I fulfill my obligation at the NO or TLM Mass, do I receive in this manner? Not only no, but HELL NO. I'd rather have my hands chopped off and shoved down my throat for a horrible, painful choking death. Do I know better? I certainly act like it. I suspect, if honest, you do too.

To simply say, "well, this wasn't the norm in 1962, so we go with the 1962 norms of kneeling/tongue" is teetering on the edge of playing a part in a period drama rather than worship in the modern context. But rather we recognize the detriment of such action and so we do not receive standing/hand. Because as we see it...

I don't mean to snipe you brother, but let's not pretend that Michael is doing anything essentially different.