The Great Theologians vs. Feeneyism: Necessitas Medii...
Feb 2, 2023 13:20:23 GMT -5
Pacelli, Clotilde, and 1 more like this
Post by Caillin on Feb 2, 2023 13:20:23 GMT -5
veritatisstella.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/the-great-theologians-vs-feeneyism-two-different-understandings-of-the-necessitas-medii-and-necessitas-praecepti/
The Great Theologians vs. Feeneyism:
Two Different Understandings of the Necessitas Medii and Necessitas Praecepti
DECEMBER 30, 2016 ~ M.B.
That sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation cannot be doubted. The Council of Trent infallibly proclaimed in its canons on the sacrament: “If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema” (Denzinger, 861).
But in what sense is sacramental Baptism necessary for salvation? Theologians have understood Baptism to be necessary by a necessitas medii, (necessity of means), and a necessitas praecepti, (necessity of precept). A definition of these terms can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on necessity, which states:
There is a clear distinction here between two ways a thing can be necessary by a necessity of means. It can be either 1) absolutely necessary; or 2) relatively necessary. Sacramental Baptism is said to fall under the category of relative necessity, because in certain cases people may be saved through baptism of desire or baptism of blood, which are held to be sufficient to replace the primary effect of the sacrament.
Nonetheless, there are a small number of Catholics who, following the teachings of the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney, believe that Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation. Feeneyites hold that no one can be saved without actual reception of the sacrament, not even through baptism of desire or baptism of blood. One argument they commonly put forward as to why no one can be saved through baptism of desire or baptism of blood is the fact that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. However, this rests on their interpretation of a necessity of means as being an absolute necessity.
Many Feeneyites do not seem to be aware of how the term necessitas medii has long been understood and defined by theologians as not always signifying an absolute necessity. This article will demonstrate that at lest since the late 1500s, theologians have understood Baptism of water to be relatively necessary for salvation as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The theologians’ definitions of necessitas medii will then be contrasted with that of Father Feeney and his followers. After this will be demonstrated the error in the Feeneyite argument based on the premise that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means.
The Theologians
Below are various citations from theologians to demonstrate how the term “necessity of means” was defined by them. Although earlier theologians do not use the terms “absolute” and “relative” to distinguish between the two ways a thing can be necessary by a necessity of means, they clearly understand this distinction in the same sense it is set out in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
In instances where the original works are in Latin, the translations provided are my own. So that readers may verify their accuracy, I have provided links to the works the citations are taken from, in addition to a transcript of the original Latin of the sections I translated.
Francisco Suarez
Francisco Suarez, (1548-1617), was a Spanish Jesuit who was a very well-known theologian at his time. In his work on faith, hope and charity, Suarez distinguishes between the necessitas medii and necessitas praecepti. He understands a necessity of means as in some cases being able to be supplied by desire, and in fact attributes to Confession the same kind of necessity Baptism has:
The Latin:
Respondetur imprimis non esse universim verum, necessitatem medii posse per votum suppleri; interdum enim medium est in re ipsa necessarium, ita ut etiam propter ignorantiam invincibilem non excusetur, nisi in re ipsa adhibeatur, quod in necessitate praecepti nunquam invenitur. Exemplum est in fide, ut infra videbimus. Deinde, quando necessitas medii suppletur per votum, est per se necessarium votum illius medii, quod in re ipsa pro tunc omittitur, et in ordine ad illud, et quasi sub fide et promissione implendi illud, si fieri possit, confertur salutis effectus, ut in confessione et baptismo videre licet. At vero in praeceptis non ita est; nam si semel per ignorantiam invincibilem excusatur obligatio praecepti, per se non est necessarium propositum quasi supplendi praeteritum defectum, sed solum est necessarium propositum implendi praeceptum illud in futurum, quando similis occasio seu necessitas occurrerit.
Robert Bellarmine
Bellarmine, (1542-1621), who is a canonized saint and a doctor of the Church, understands that a necessity of means does not always signify an absolute necessity. In his Disputationes, he states:
He further elaborates on the necessity of means:
Bellarmine also ascribes to the sacrament of Penance, in the case of those who have sinned mortally after Baptism, the same necessity as Baptism:
The Latin:
Quia vero Baptismus in re, vel in voto est praeceptum, et medium; ideo qui non baptizatur; aut certe non desiderat Baptismum, non salvatur, licet ex ignorantia, vel impotentia id accidat.
Rursus necessitas medii; aut est necessitas simpliciter, quomodo alae necessariae sunt ad volandum; aut ad bene esse, quomodo equus necessarius est ad iter faciendum. Deniq; utraque necessitas…
Baptismus, et Poenitentia necessaria sunt, posita institutione divina, necessitate medii simpliciter; Baptismus quidem omnibus, Poenitentia iis, qui post Baptismum lethaliter delinquunt.
Alphonsus Liguori
Liguori, (1696-1787), is, like Bellarmine, a canonized saint and doctor of the Church. He mentions the necessity of means and precept several times throughout his Moral Theology.
Here he provides a rather strict definition of a necessity of means, regarding which articles of faith must be believed for salvation:
However, regarding the sacraments, he holds that a necessity of means can be a necessity of means in voto, or in desire:
Liguori, like Bellarmine, states that the sacrament of Penance is necessary by a necessity of means for all who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism:
The Latin:
Ex iis, quae fideles explicite credere tenentur, quaedam necessario credenda sunt necessitate medii, seu finis; sine quibus, etiam inculpabiliter ignoratis, finis ultimus obtineri nequit; alia necessitate praecepti, sine quibus, inculpabiliter omissis, finis potest obtineri. (Book III, n. 1)
Alia sacramenta sunt necessaria necessitate medii ad salute, saltem in voto implicito, ut baptismus, et poenitentia: alia vero tantum necessitate praecepti. (Book VI, n. 6)
Poenitentia ut virtus fuit omni tempore necessaria necessitate medii ad salutem; in lege autem Evangelica, ut Sacramentum, est pariter necessitate medii necessaria omnibus lapsis in mortale post Baptismum, saltem in voto, si non possit suscipi Sacramentum in re. (Book 6, n. 434)
Adolphe Tanquerey
Tanquerey, (1854-1932), composed numerous works in theology, several of which received great renown at the time. In his Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, he defines the term “necessity of means” and, like the previously cited theologians, does not understand it to always mean an absolute necessity. He states:
The Latin:
Duplici modo aliquid potest esse necessarium ad salute, scilicet necessitate medii vel praecepti. (a) Id necessarium est necessitate medii, quod positive conducit ad salutem, et quidem ita ut sine eo, etiam inculpabiliter omisso, salus obtineri nequeat; in hoc casu igitur, neque ignorantia, neque impotentia excusare potest. Aliquid autem potest esse necessarium necessitate medii dupliciter: 1) intrinsece, quando ex natura sua ita ordinatur ut per aliud suppleri nequeat, v. g., fides pro adulto in sacr Baptismi vel Paenitentiae, etc.; 2) extrinsece, quando solum ex positiva Dei institutione requiritur ad salutem, ita ut per alia media, Deo volente, suppleri possit: v.g., Baptismus aquae, sacr. Paenitentiae. Haec proinde necessitas non est absoluta, sed tantum relativa aut hypothetica.
Ludwig Ott
Ott, (1906-1985), was a German priest and theologian. In his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he provides as de fide the following proposition:
He further elaborates:
The passage Ott cites from the Council of Trent contains the following: “This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated.”
Feeneyite Theologians
Now it will be shown in what way Feeneyites understand the necessitas medii and necessitas praecepti.
Father Leonard Feeney
In chapter seven of his 1952 book Bread of Life, Feeney defines a necessity of means in the sense of an absolute necessity, and argues from this that Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation.
He clearly does not understand a necessity of means and precept in the same sense as defined by the theologians previously cited. He states:
Necessity of means means, if you have not got the requirement, it is just too bad for you, whether you are to blame or whether you are not to blame. If you are not to blame, it is just too bad. And if you are to blame, so much the worse!
Necessity of precept means, that if you have not fulfilled a requirement, and you are not to blame for not fulfilling it, then it is all right, provided you have taken care of it in another way, and provided there is another way to take care of it.
Feeney’s definition of “necessity of precept” encompasses both a necessity of precept and a relative necessity of means as defined by other theologians. His definition of “necessity of means” refers exclusively to an absolute necessity.
Brian Kelley
Kelly is an adherent of the Feeneyite position, and in a 1987 article reprinted online by the religious order founded by Father Feeney, he claims:
Kelly does not appear to recognize the fact that Father Feeney’s definitions of “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” differ from those given in traditional theological textbooks.
The Error in the Feeneyite Argument
In strategies to prove their position, some Feeneyites will bring up the fact that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. This argument can be stated formally as follows:
1. Baptism of water is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means.
2. A necessity of means makes something so necessary that without it, even if its omission is inculpable, the end cannot be reached.
3. Therefore: No one can be saved without Baptism of water, and baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot substitute for Baptism of water.
In and of itself, this argument is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. The first premise is at first glance agreed upon by all the theologians cited in this article. The second premise, however, defines the term “necessity of means” in a different sense than that in which these theologians understood it. Because it does not define it in the same sense they did, it fails to refute their position that people can be saved through baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
If Father Feeney were to employ these terms according to the theologians’ definitions, he would hold Baptism to be necessary by an absolute necessity of means. It ought to be noted that Baptism being absolutely necessary follows as a logical consequence from Feeneyism, and the only way to prove it is absolutely necessary is to prove Feeneyism.
Likewise, Baptism being relatively necessary follows as a logical consequence from the possibility of salvation through baptism of desire, and the only way to prove it is relatively necessary is to prove that people can be saved through baptism of desire. Theologians held Baptism to be relatively necessary because they took baptism of desire as a given. None of them tried to prove salvation through baptism of desire by asserting that Baptism is relatively necessary for salvation. Such an argument would prove nothing, just as arguments attempting to prove Feeneyism by asserting that Baptism is absolutely necessary prove nothing.
Conclusion
This article has demonstrated that Father Leonard Feeney and his followers define the terms “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” in a different sense than other theologians have for centuries. It has also demonstrated that the Feeneyite argument based on the necessity of means fails to prove Feeneyism.
I hope this article has cast doubt on the ability of Father Leonard Feeney as a theologian, in addition to the truth of Feeneyism as a whole. Of course, the line of argumentation mentioned here is not the only strategy Feeneyites use to prove their position. Their strongest argument is one based on the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or outside the Church there is no salvation. In the interest of promoting truth, a refutation of this argument will be forthcoming.
~Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam~
The Great Theologians vs. Feeneyism:
Two Different Understandings of the Necessitas Medii and Necessitas Praecepti
DECEMBER 30, 2016 ~ M.B.
That sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation cannot be doubted. The Council of Trent infallibly proclaimed in its canons on the sacrament: “If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema” (Denzinger, 861).
But in what sense is sacramental Baptism necessary for salvation? Theologians have understood Baptism to be necessary by a necessitas medii, (necessity of means), and a necessitas praecepti, (necessity of precept). A definition of these terms can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on necessity, which states:
"in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end."
There is a clear distinction here between two ways a thing can be necessary by a necessity of means. It can be either 1) absolutely necessary; or 2) relatively necessary. Sacramental Baptism is said to fall under the category of relative necessity, because in certain cases people may be saved through baptism of desire or baptism of blood, which are held to be sufficient to replace the primary effect of the sacrament.
Nonetheless, there are a small number of Catholics who, following the teachings of the Jesuit Fr. Leonard Feeney, believe that Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation. Feeneyites hold that no one can be saved without actual reception of the sacrament, not even through baptism of desire or baptism of blood. One argument they commonly put forward as to why no one can be saved through baptism of desire or baptism of blood is the fact that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. However, this rests on their interpretation of a necessity of means as being an absolute necessity.
Many Feeneyites do not seem to be aware of how the term necessitas medii has long been understood and defined by theologians as not always signifying an absolute necessity. This article will demonstrate that at lest since the late 1500s, theologians have understood Baptism of water to be relatively necessary for salvation as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The theologians’ definitions of necessitas medii will then be contrasted with that of Father Feeney and his followers. After this will be demonstrated the error in the Feeneyite argument based on the premise that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means.
The Theologians
Below are various citations from theologians to demonstrate how the term “necessity of means” was defined by them. Although earlier theologians do not use the terms “absolute” and “relative” to distinguish between the two ways a thing can be necessary by a necessity of means, they clearly understand this distinction in the same sense it is set out in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
In instances where the original works are in Latin, the translations provided are my own. So that readers may verify their accuracy, I have provided links to the works the citations are taken from, in addition to a transcript of the original Latin of the sections I translated.
Francisco Suarez
Francisco Suarez, (1548-1617), was a Spanish Jesuit who was a very well-known theologian at his time. In his work on faith, hope and charity, Suarez distinguishes between the necessitas medii and necessitas praecepti. He understands a necessity of means as in some cases being able to be supplied by desire, and in fact attributes to Confession the same kind of necessity Baptism has:
"In the first place, it is not always true that a necessity of means can be supplied by desire; for sometimes the means is in and of itself necessary, such that one cannot be excused even on account of invincible ignorance if the thing itself is not employed, which is never found in the necessity of precept. An example is in faith, as we will see later on. Then, when a necessity of means is supplied by desire, the desire of the means, which means is in actuality omitted for then, is in itself necessary, and is ordered towards that means, and, as it were under the faith and promise of fulfilling that means if possible, the saving effect is conferred, as can be seen in confession and baptism. But in precepts it is not like this; for if at some point invincible ignorance excuses the obligation of a precept, the intention, as it were, of supplying the past defect, is not in itself necessary, but only the intention of fulfilling that precept in the future, when a similar occasion or necessity occurs."
The Latin:
Respondetur imprimis non esse universim verum, necessitatem medii posse per votum suppleri; interdum enim medium est in re ipsa necessarium, ita ut etiam propter ignorantiam invincibilem non excusetur, nisi in re ipsa adhibeatur, quod in necessitate praecepti nunquam invenitur. Exemplum est in fide, ut infra videbimus. Deinde, quando necessitas medii suppletur per votum, est per se necessarium votum illius medii, quod in re ipsa pro tunc omittitur, et in ordine ad illud, et quasi sub fide et promissione implendi illud, si fieri possit, confertur salutis effectus, ut in confessione et baptismo videre licet. At vero in praeceptis non ita est; nam si semel per ignorantiam invincibilem excusatur obligatio praecepti, per se non est necessarium propositum quasi supplendi praeteritum defectum, sed solum est necessarium propositum implendi praeceptum illud in futurum, quando similis occasio seu necessitas occurrerit.
Robert Bellarmine
Bellarmine, (1542-1621), who is a canonized saint and a doctor of the Church, understands that a necessity of means does not always signify an absolute necessity. In his Disputationes, he states:
"For since Baptism in re, or in voto is a precept and a means, therefore whoever is not baptized, or at least does not desire Baptism, is not saved, whether this happens out of ignorance or incapability."
He further elaborates on the necessity of means:
"Again, a necessity of means is either a necessity simply, in the way that wings are necessary for flying; or for well-being, in the way that a horse is necessary for making a journey. In short, each necessity is either absolute and natural, as in the examples given, or [necessary] by the institution and choice of another…"
Bellarmine also ascribes to the sacrament of Penance, in the case of those who have sinned mortally after Baptism, the same necessity as Baptism:
"Baptism and Penance are necessary by divine positive institution, by a necessity of means simply; Baptism indeed for all people, Penance for those who after Baptism err lethally."
The Latin:
Quia vero Baptismus in re, vel in voto est praeceptum, et medium; ideo qui non baptizatur; aut certe non desiderat Baptismum, non salvatur, licet ex ignorantia, vel impotentia id accidat.
Rursus necessitas medii; aut est necessitas simpliciter, quomodo alae necessariae sunt ad volandum; aut ad bene esse, quomodo equus necessarius est ad iter faciendum. Deniq; utraque necessitas…
Baptismus, et Poenitentia necessaria sunt, posita institutione divina, necessitate medii simpliciter; Baptismus quidem omnibus, Poenitentia iis, qui post Baptismum lethaliter delinquunt.
Alphonsus Liguori
Liguori, (1696-1787), is, like Bellarmine, a canonized saint and doctor of the Church. He mentions the necessity of means and precept several times throughout his Moral Theology.
Here he provides a rather strict definition of a necessity of means, regarding which articles of faith must be believed for salvation:
"Of those [mysteries of faith], which the faithful are held to believe explicitly, some must necessarily be believed by a necessity of means, or end; without which, even if they are unknown inculpably, the final end cannot be obtained; others by a necessity of precept, without which, if they are omitted inculpably, the end can be obtained." (Book III, n. 1)
However, regarding the sacraments, he holds that a necessity of means can be a necessity of means in voto, or in desire:
"Some sacraments are necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, at least through an implicit desire [voto implicito], such as baptism and penance: but others only by a necessity of precept." (Book VI, n. 6)
Liguori, like Bellarmine, states that the sacrament of Penance is necessary by a necessity of means for all who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism:
"Penance as a virtue has at all times been necessary for salvation by a necessity of means; but in the law of the Gospel, as a Sacrament, it is equally necessary by a necessity of means for all who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism, at least in voto, if the Sacrament cannot be received in re." (Book 6, n. 434)
The Latin:
Ex iis, quae fideles explicite credere tenentur, quaedam necessario credenda sunt necessitate medii, seu finis; sine quibus, etiam inculpabiliter ignoratis, finis ultimus obtineri nequit; alia necessitate praecepti, sine quibus, inculpabiliter omissis, finis potest obtineri. (Book III, n. 1)
Alia sacramenta sunt necessaria necessitate medii ad salute, saltem in voto implicito, ut baptismus, et poenitentia: alia vero tantum necessitate praecepti. (Book VI, n. 6)
Poenitentia ut virtus fuit omni tempore necessaria necessitate medii ad salutem; in lege autem Evangelica, ut Sacramentum, est pariter necessitate medii necessaria omnibus lapsis in mortale post Baptismum, saltem in voto, si non possit suscipi Sacramentum in re. (Book 6, n. 434)
Adolphe Tanquerey
Tanquerey, (1854-1932), composed numerous works in theology, several of which received great renown at the time. In his Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, he defines the term “necessity of means” and, like the previously cited theologians, does not understand it to always mean an absolute necessity. He states:
"A thing can be necessary for salvation in two ways, namely, by a necessity of means or of precept. (a) That is necessary by a necessity of means which positively leads to salvation, and even such that without it, even if it is omitted inculpably, salvation cannot be obtained; in this case therefore, neither ignorance nor inability can excuse. A thing can, however, be necessary by a necessity of means in two ways: 1) intrinsically, when by its nature it is so ordained that it cannot be supplied by another thing, e.g., faith for an adult in the sacrament of Baptism or Penance, etc.; 2) extrinsically, when solely from the positive institution of God it is required for salvation, such that, God willing, it can be supplied through other means: e.g., Baptism of water, the sacrament of Penance. Hence this necessity is not absolute, but only relative or hypothetical."
The Latin:
Duplici modo aliquid potest esse necessarium ad salute, scilicet necessitate medii vel praecepti. (a) Id necessarium est necessitate medii, quod positive conducit ad salutem, et quidem ita ut sine eo, etiam inculpabiliter omisso, salus obtineri nequeat; in hoc casu igitur, neque ignorantia, neque impotentia excusare potest. Aliquid autem potest esse necessarium necessitate medii dupliciter: 1) intrinsece, quando ex natura sua ita ordinatur ut per aliud suppleri nequeat, v. g., fides pro adulto in sacr Baptismi vel Paenitentiae, etc.; 2) extrinsece, quando solum ex positiva Dei institutione requiritur ad salutem, ita ut per alia media, Deo volente, suppleri possit: v.g., Baptismus aquae, sacr. Paenitentiae. Haec proinde necessitas non est absoluta, sed tantum relativa aut hypothetica.
Ludwig Ott
Ott, (1906-1985), was a German priest and theologian. In his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he provides as de fide the following proposition:
"The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin."
He further elaborates:
"The Council of Trent draws a parallel between the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance and the necessity of Baptism (D 895). Each must be regarded both as a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti) and a necessity of means (necessitas medii). The necessity of precept is by Divine institution; the necessity of means derives from the purpose of penance, i.e., the reconciling of lapsed Christians once more with God. In case of necessity actual reception can be replaced by the desire of the Sacrament (votum sacramenti)."
The passage Ott cites from the Council of Trent contains the following: “This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated.”
Feeneyite Theologians
Now it will be shown in what way Feeneyites understand the necessitas medii and necessitas praecepti.
Father Leonard Feeney
In chapter seven of his 1952 book Bread of Life, Feeney defines a necessity of means in the sense of an absolute necessity, and argues from this that Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation.
He clearly does not understand a necessity of means and precept in the same sense as defined by the theologians previously cited. He states:
Necessity of means means, if you have not got the requirement, it is just too bad for you, whether you are to blame or whether you are not to blame. If you are not to blame, it is just too bad. And if you are to blame, so much the worse!
Necessity of precept means, that if you have not fulfilled a requirement, and you are not to blame for not fulfilling it, then it is all right, provided you have taken care of it in another way, and provided there is another way to take care of it.
Feeney’s definition of “necessity of precept” encompasses both a necessity of precept and a relative necessity of means as defined by other theologians. His definition of “necessity of means” refers exclusively to an absolute necessity.
Brian Kelley
Kelly is an adherent of the Feeneyite position, and in a 1987 article reprinted online by the religious order founded by Father Feeney, he claims:
"as the traditional theological textbooks unanimously demonstrate…the sacrament of Baptism has always been designated as having that necessity about it that the Church has described as necessitas medii — that is, a necessity of means. In contradistinction, Confirmation and Penance have about them a necessitas precepti — that is, a necessity of precept…on pages 126-128 of Bread of Life Father Leonard clearly explained what the Church has taught about these two degrees of necessity. Basically, it is this: that which is necessary by means is absolutely necessary. There is no way to attain the end without this means. That which is necessary by precept only, is necessary conditionally. The end cannot be attained if the means are voluntarily rejected or ignored."
Kelly does not appear to recognize the fact that Father Feeney’s definitions of “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” differ from those given in traditional theological textbooks.
The Error in the Feeneyite Argument
In strategies to prove their position, some Feeneyites will bring up the fact that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. This argument can be stated formally as follows:
1. Baptism of water is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means.
2. A necessity of means makes something so necessary that without it, even if its omission is inculpable, the end cannot be reached.
3. Therefore: No one can be saved without Baptism of water, and baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot substitute for Baptism of water.
In and of itself, this argument is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. The first premise is at first glance agreed upon by all the theologians cited in this article. The second premise, however, defines the term “necessity of means” in a different sense than that in which these theologians understood it. Because it does not define it in the same sense they did, it fails to refute their position that people can be saved through baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
If Father Feeney were to employ these terms according to the theologians’ definitions, he would hold Baptism to be necessary by an absolute necessity of means. It ought to be noted that Baptism being absolutely necessary follows as a logical consequence from Feeneyism, and the only way to prove it is absolutely necessary is to prove Feeneyism.
Likewise, Baptism being relatively necessary follows as a logical consequence from the possibility of salvation through baptism of desire, and the only way to prove it is relatively necessary is to prove that people can be saved through baptism of desire. Theologians held Baptism to be relatively necessary because they took baptism of desire as a given. None of them tried to prove salvation through baptism of desire by asserting that Baptism is relatively necessary for salvation. Such an argument would prove nothing, just as arguments attempting to prove Feeneyism by asserting that Baptism is absolutely necessary prove nothing.
Conclusion
This article has demonstrated that Father Leonard Feeney and his followers define the terms “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” in a different sense than other theologians have for centuries. It has also demonstrated that the Feeneyite argument based on the necessity of means fails to prove Feeneyism.
I hope this article has cast doubt on the ability of Father Leonard Feeney as a theologian, in addition to the truth of Feeneyism as a whole. Of course, the line of argumentation mentioned here is not the only strategy Feeneyites use to prove their position. Their strongest argument is one based on the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or outside the Church there is no salvation. In the interest of promoting truth, a refutation of this argument will be forthcoming.
~Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam~