The Fundamental Error

Suppose you say this to a Feeneyite:

Your position is absurd because it means that all the bishops and theologians for centuries failed to grasp the true meaning of Biblical and conciliar texts; in fact, according to you they got it so wrong that in teaching baptism of desire and blood they contradicted the solemn magisterium and thus were materially heretical. That scenario is incompatible with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, which makes the Church’s teaching reasonable and safe even when it is not infallible. It is also incompatible with common sense, to think that so many pastors and doctors were incapable of reading and understanding the many conciliar texts that Feeneyites cite in opposition to baptism of desire. It calls into question whether language itself is an adequate tool for conveying thought.

This is particularly applicable to the Council of Trent. In the Feeneyite view, the Council itself taught the absolute necessity of water baptism, thus ruling out any possibility of baptism of desire or blood. But there is every indication that the Church’s pastors and doctors at that time believed in the baptisms of desire and blood, or at least regarded them as acceptable opinions. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, which teaches the three baptisms in detail, was well known and highly respected at that time, as it is today. The Roman Catechism, which was commissioned by the Council of Trent and approved by Pope St. Pius V, teaches the concept of baptism of desire, though without using that phrase. Given that the authors of the catechism had close ties to the council itself, and were instructed to keep especially in mind the decrees of the Council of Trent (McHugh-Callan preface to the Catechism), it’s not credible that the catechism contradicts the council regarding baptism. Rather, the catechism bears witness to the intended meaning of Trent, and the doctrine of the universal Church at that time, both of which affirmed baptism of desire.

The Feeneyite reply is this:

The solemn magisterium is absolutely without error. It alone can produce a text that has this special quality of infallibility. To rely on anyone’s explanation of magisterial texts would practically ruin their infallibility, because the explanation would be fallible. This is true whether the text is explained by a pope (not ex cathedra), by a Roman congregation, or by bishops and theologians – that is, by anyone other than the solemn magisterium itself. Thus, logic dictates that the only way to really be taught infallibly by the solemn magisterium is to adhere to its literal meaning. The true meaning must be literal, because if it could be figurative, people could interpret it however they pleased and it would not be an effective means of teaching.

I have read the texts from Trent and other councils, and I am certain that the literal meaning of the texts, according to the rules of language, is that first justification can only occur by actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. This rules out baptism of desire and blood. It doesn’t matter who thinks differently; they are wrong. There is no place for interpretation, or for making up exceptions that are not stated in the text. One must simply read the text and gather its obvious meaning.

And this is the Fundamental Error. It is similar to the Protestant error regarding the Bible: that the text is infallible, but it has no infallible interpreter; thus each person must read and understand it for himself, making a right use of human reason. The fundamental error gives Feeneyites a basis for rejecting the universal doctrine of Catholic pastors and doctors, under the plea that nothing can be true that contradicts the solemn magisterium. It makes them deaf to the simplest and clearest argument in favor of baptism of desire and blood: that they belong to the Church’s ordinary teaching.

There are several arguments against the Feeneyite fundamental error: (1) it’s not actually reasonable, (2) there are counterexamples, (3) Church teaching disagrees with it, (4) Church practice disagrees with it, (5) it leads to absurd conclusions.

(1) It is impossible to read what the words say, without interpreting. Words do not carry meaning like buckets carry water. One must think about the overall sense of the statement, which often is not perfectly clear or literal, and in doing so one can be mistaken. The best guide to the true meaning, besides asking the author himself, is what the author says in other places; one must assume that the author doesn’t mean to contradict himself.

If you think reading comprehension comes naturally by using reason, I challenge you to take some SAT reading comprehension tests (here) and see how you do. You’ll probably miss a lot of questions, including some that in hindsight you shouldn’t have gotten wrong. Why? Because reading comprehension is a skill, and there are higher levels of it that most people never achieve.

When it comes to understanding the solemn magisterium, there are two extra difficulties: the originals are in Latin, and the style is very different from ordinary written English. If you can’t read Latin – and I mean read it fluently, not stumble your way through it with a dictionary and Google Translate – then you don’t have the mental preparedness that is expected in order to read such texts. So you have to rely on the English translation. That usually works fine, but it’s not acceptable from a scholarly point of view, i.e. you can’t claim to be an expert on a text you can’t even read in its original language. The very idea is absurd. Also, there are many passages in Latin theological works that are clear and concise in Latin, but are the opposite when you try to translate them to English. They just don’t fit well with the grammatical conventions of English, so you have to change the grammar around and still express the same idea. The point is, it makes no sense to base your position on literal reading of the text itself, when you are forced to rely on a translation. That’s not the text itself.

(2) There are counterexamples to the Feeneyite theory of interpretation. That is, there are statements from the solemn magisterium whose true sense is different from the literal meaning. For example:

[W]e declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; Denzinger 469).

If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but an empty service of pronouncing and declaring to the one confessing that his sins are forgiven, provided only that he believes that he has been absolved, or even if the priest does not absolve seriously, but in jest; or says that the confession of the penitent is not required, so that the priest may be able to absolve him: let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 9)

The statement by Pope Boniface VIII literally means that everyone must be the slave of the Roman Pontiff or else be lost; but this is clearly not what the pope meant. The true meaning is that one must be subject to the legal authority of the pope, but can resist him as a temporal sovereign without necessarily committing a sin; also, subjection need not always be explicit, but may be implicitly contained in the will to do all that God commands. There is no reason to suppose that Pope Boniface VIII meant to contradict either of these points in spite of his literal meaning.

In fact, King Philip IV of France protested that this bull extends the pope’s dominion over temporalities beyond its true limits, but Boniface VIII replied that such was obviously not his intention. This exchange is described in a footnote in Denzinger.

As to the passage from the Council of Trent about confession, the obvious literal meaning is that the penitent must confess his sins to the priest before he can be absolved. But the practice of the Church is to absolve a dying man if he has given any outward sign that can be taken as expressing sorrow for sin and at least a general accusation of himself as a sinner.* Thus one should understand the council to agree with the Church’s practice, as meaning that the confession of the penitent is required, but not literally in every case. To interpret the council correctly requires prior knowledge of the Church’s practice, on this issue as with baptism of desire.

* See Schieler, Theory and Practice of the Confessional, pp. 645-51 and the Roman Ritual, chap. 1, n. 25 on penance.

(3) The Church’s teaching disagrees with the “literal reading” theory. The Church never says that each person should read the solemn magisterium for himself to get its literal meaning; rather, she says that the meaning understood by the Church must be preserved.

For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. “Therefore … let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.”

3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. (Vatican Council, Denz. 1800, 1818)

It doesn’t say that the “literal meaning of the text” must be preserved, as the Feeneyites would have it. Rather, it says that the understanding of the Church is the key to the true meaning.

(4) The Church’s practice disagrees with the “literal reading” theory. She reserves to herself the right to interpret magisterial texts without invoking infallibility; in fact, she established a Roman Congregation to interpret the Council of Trent. This shows that interpretation was needed, and that it was not left up to each individual using human reason.

Pope Pius IV, Bull Benedictus Deus, confirming the Council of Trent:

Furthermore, in order to avoid the perversion and confusion which might arise, if each one were allowed, as he might think fit, to publish his own commentaries and interpretations on the decrees of the Council; We, by apostolic authority, forbid all men, as well ecclesiastics, of whatsoever order, condition, and rank they may be, as also laymen, with whatsoever honour and power invested; prelates, to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others whomsoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact, to presume, without our authority, to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of the said Council; or to settle anything in regard thereof, under any plea whatsoever, even under the pretext of greater corroboration of the decrees, or the more perfect execution thereof, or under any other colour whatsoever. But if anything therein shall seem to anyone to have been expressed and ordained in an obscure manner, and it shall appear to stand in need on that account of an interpretation or decision, let him Go up to the place which the Lord hath chosen; to wit, to the Apostolic See, the mistress of all the faithful, whose authority the holy Synod also has so reverently acknowledged. For, if any difficulties and controversies shall arise in regard of the said decrees, We reserve them to be by Us cleared up and decided, even as the holy Synod has Itself in like manner decreed; being prepared, as that Synod has justly expressed Its confidence in regard of Us, to provide for the necessities of all the provinces, in such manner as shall seem to Us most suitable; declaring that whatsoever may be attempted to the contrary in this matter, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by anyone, by what authority soever, is, notwithstanding, null and void.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (text) (book):

Congregation of the Council

When the Council of Trent had brought its gigantic work to an end, the Fathers were greatly concerned for the practical application of their disciplinary decrees. The council therefore made a strong appeal to the sovereign pontiff to make provision for this important end, as is shown by the last (the twenty-fifth) session of the council, entitled De recipiendis et observandis decretis. Pius IV, in his zeal for the execution of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, besides other measures taken by him to this end (see the Constitution “Benedictus Deus” of 26 January, 1563), by a Motu Proprio of 2 August, 1564, commissioned eight cardinals to supervise the execution of the Tridentine Decrees and gave them ample faculties to that end, providing however, that cases of doubt or of difficulty, as he had already decreed in the Constitution “Benedictus Deus”, should be referred to him. In this Motu Proprio, Pius IV referred to the congregation of cardinals thus created as “Congregatio super exsecutione et observatione S. Concilii Tridentini“. As time went on, and in view of the interpretation of frequent doubts, the congregation received from the successors of Pius IV the power also to interpret the Decrees of the Council of Trent, so that Sixtus V, in his Constitution “Immensa”, already calls it “Congregatio pro exsecutione et interpretatione Concilii Tridentini”, a title given to it before his time. Gregory XIV afterwards conferred upon it authority to reply to questions in the name of the pope.

(5) The Feeneyite fundamental error leads to absurd conclusions. First, that the Church contradicted herself, in that all the Catholic bishops and doctors for centuries affirmed baptism of desire and blood in their ordinary teaching, while also claiming to adhere to the Councils of Trent, Vienne, and Florence which, according to Feeneyites, ruled out baptism of desire and blood. Thus the Teaching Church contradicted herself and was not just wrong but even heretical, which is incompatible with the Church’s indefectibility and with the practical credibility and safety of her teaching.

Second, it is absurd to say that all the Catholic popes, bishops, saints, and doctors weren’t able to grasp the “obvious meaning” of conciliar texts on the very important subjects of baptism and of first justification. These were men of great intellect and learning, many of whom were also giants in the order of grace. There’s no way they were so wrong about the councils. Also, according to the Feeneyites, all these scholarly Catholics were not only wrong, but they blatantly contradicted themselves by teaching that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all men for salvation, and then on the next page teaching baptism of desire and blood. But that’s even more absurd. The only non-crazy explanation is that they did not contradict themselves; rather, it’s the Feeneyites who misunderstand both the theologians and the councils.

At this point it is clear that the Feeneyite fundamental error is totally wrong. That being so, the whole Feeneyite position collapses. Once you grant that (1) the true meaning of the solemn magisterium is that which the Church herself understands, which she explains by means of hundreds of non-infallible but more or less authoritative teachings, and (2) any given sentence or paragraph from the solemn magisterium may not say everything that one must know in order to understand it properly – then there is no basis for insisting that the solemn magisterium must rule out baptism of desire. One should instead look to the Catholic pastors and doctors to find out the true sense of magisterial texts on this matter, as with any other. Anyone who does that will find that baptism of desire and blood have been common and certain teachings for centuries, which means they cannot contradict the solemn magisterium; also, one will learn from saints and doctors that the Council of Trent, sess. 6, chap. 4, should be understood as affirming baptism of desire.

Also it should be a tremendous relief to find oneself in agreement with centuries’ worth of Catholic pastors and doctors, rather than being forced to say that they were material heretics. Any Catholic who would not vastly prefer the former position is mentally ill. But there is a spirit of contradiction behind Feeneyism, leading people to exult in disagreeing with everyone, especially with scholarly Catholics. Ask yourselves, Feeneyites: is it love of truth that drives you, or a bad motive such as intellectual pride or the spirit of contradiction? If you relish brotherly agreement and peace, you should much prefer for the Church to not have misunderstood her own teaching for centuries, and for her doctors to not have been self-contradicting idiots, so you should wish to be proved wrong about baptism of desire and blood. The good news is, you are indeed wrong, and now you can get straightened out.