Some words on the illogical heretic John Daly
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
IN THIS
ARTICLE:
INTRODUCTION
DALY IS NOT SPIRITUALLY COMPETENT
DALY’S IGNORANCE OF THE COUNCILS
DALY RUNS FROM ERROR TO ERROR –
UTTERLY BLINDED FOR 15 YEARS
DALY, LACKING WISDOM, JUMPS TO THE
OPPOSITE EXTREME
*REFUTING MORE OF HIS CLEARLY FALSE,
ILLOGICAL, IRRELEVANT AND PETTY CRITICISM
MORE COMMENTS ON HIS VIEWS
Introduction
Some of our readers are familiar with John
Daly. John Daly is a layman, a Latin, French
and English translator. Since some may
be influenced by his views, and since he’s had some negative things to say
about us, it is necessary to say a few things about him for those who may be
familiar with him.
Since John Daly hasn’t published much material on
the internet to study and critique, this analysis will be somewhat brief, but
it will be sufficient for its purpose nonetheless.
John Daly is a supporter of the heretical letter Suprema haec sacra (Protocol 122/49).
Suprema
haec sacra is the fallible, heretical letter of Cardinal
Marchetti-Selvaggianni (1949) against Fr. Feeney, which teaches that those in
invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith can be saved, and that those who are
not members of the Catholic Church can be saved. It also teaches that people who “do not
belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved – as assertion utterly
refuted by Catholic teaching. Daly publicly endorsed this heretical
letter at a conference in New York.
Daly also endorses groups and publications and priests
that hold that souls can be saved in false religions.
Daly
is not spiritually competent
John Daly has also arbitrarily declared that
certain people who don’t meet his “requirements” are not “competent” to write
on theological matters. To illustrate
how ridiculous this is, I will now do the same thing as Mr. Daly and
arbitrarily declare certain requirements one must meet to be fit to write on
these matters. We will see how Mr. Daly
is excluded. (Note: what follows is written to illustrate a point; I’m not
asserting that a married person cannot contribute to these issues.)
1 Corinthians 7:32-33-
“He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the
Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous
for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.”
Since John Daly is a married layman with many
children, and since St. Paul says that a married man’s heart is divided and
that he is “solicitous for the things of the world” and cannot devote himself
entirely to the things of God because he has a wife, Mr. Daly is not spiritually equipped enough to be writing on these
matters. He is not spiritually
competent, as a chaste religious is, to be writing on these important matters
which pertain to the things of God.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 24, Nov. 11,
1563, Can. 10 on Matrimony: “If anyone says that the married state is to be
preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity and celibacy than to be united in matrimony:
let him be anathema.” (Denz. 980)
Since Daly has chosen the lesser path, he hasn’t demonstrated the spiritual
dedication of his entire life (giving up the world and a wife) to contribute
in this very sensitive area of directing others on these important spiritual
and theological matters. In addition to
lacking these graces that come from this better vocation and this full
dedication of one’s life, Daly lacks the time to devote himself to a thorough
searching out of God’s will and the seeking of a pure intention for souls which
would allow him to see more clearly on these matters. Mr. Daly is not spiritually competent in
these areas.
Now, I have said these things to
illustrate how utterly ridiculous it is for this pompous, extremely
presumptuous, salvation-for-non-Catholics-endorsing heretic to – rather than
simply attempting to refute a person’s arguments if he could – arbitrarily
declare that others are not “competent” to write on these matters. This is simply a bad joke, especially when we
consider…
Mr. Daly’s ignorance of councils
In line with his dishonest and false
“pseudo-intellectualism,” rather than confronting head-on the arguments a
person makes, Daly dismisses as unfit for theological discussion anyone who
doesn’t meet his approval. One of Daly’s requirements is that a person
have what he deems to be a sufficient knowledge of the subject. Would that include the Council of Basel, Mr.
Daly?
John Daly,
May 20, 2006: “Thanks for this Hudson. The text you offer is indeed the same
one de Lugo refers to, known from its opening words in Latin as “Ad Evitanda
Scandala” and promulgated by Pope Martin
V as part of the Council of Constance (not Basle), but please allow me to intervene straight
away and point out that the text you give contains a serious mistranslation by
omitting several crucial words. And the word omitted completely change the
meaning of the part you put in bold print.
Here is the full and accurate
text:”
In the post above, Mr. Daly was commenting on
someone who had used something we found from the Council of Basel. It was a bull entitled Ad vitandum scandala from the Council of Basel, similar to but
distinct from the bull published by Martin V as part of the Council of
Constance. Without even checking himself, and presuming on his “knowledge” of
Catholic teaching, Daly proceeded to “correct” the person who wrote in. Daly confidently stated that the Council of
Basel made no such declaration. Mr. Daly
was completely wrong, for the Council of Basel indeed made the declaration that
the person quoted. Daly’s mistake
demonstrated that 1) he is blinded by his pride – failing even to check himself
before publicly correcting the person and accusing him of using a faulty
translation; 2) Daly lacks a profound familiarity with the councils of the
Church; when I read Daly’s claim I knew right away the declaration the person
quoted was from Sess. 20 of the Council of Basel and that Daly was wrong. Mr. Daly may know a lot about Latin, but for
him to accuse of “ignorance” people who do have a real knowledge of Catholic
teaching is, as we can see, quite ridiculous.
Mr. Daly runs from error to error – utterly blinded for 15 years
It’s also important to note that for 15 years
John Daly held the ridiculous and totally illogical position that
everyone who holds that John Paul II is the pope is to be considered schismatic
without exception. In other
words, Daly held that everyone who hadn’t
seen John Paul II’s heresies and the teaching proving that he couldn’t be
the pope was a schismatic. This is
false, totally illogical, and something we’ve always rejected. Here are his comments on this:
John Daly,
July 7, 2005: “The truth is that a
single error or erroneous tendency can do a lot of mischief and I was in one
from 1983-1998. That was the
tendency to see implicit heresy in every religious error and implicit
pertinacity in every failure to see truth that was clear to me. An utterly
poisonous attitude which I now regret and detest with every fibre of my being.
I have set out in several articles and studies the reasons and texts that led
me to hold the harsh, erroneous view on heresy and pertinacity, and the reasons
and authorities that led me to abandon it. Those articles are to be found on
the web and elsewhere, in English and French, and no serious attempt has been
made to answer them.
“Emerging from that trap in 1998 was like taking off a pair of borrowed
spectacles that had lent a
distorted view to everything else. Once cast aside, things returned to
their true perspective. It is not a secret that I have changed my views and I
am glad you have drawn public attention to it. I may still be wrong about many
things, just as you may. My views are as good as the reasons I advance for
them, no better.”
15 years is quite a long time to
hold such an illogical position, which anyone with faith and who considers
deeply should at least suspect as not making sense. For instance, if everyone without exception
who believed that John Paul II was the pope should be considered a schismatic,
then the adherents of antipopes during the Great Western Schism would also have
to have been considered schismatic. But
some of them are canonized saints.
Further, if everyone without exception who believed that John Paul II
was the pope should be considered a schismatic, then the same is true of
everyone who recognized Paul VI and John XXIII, which is clearly
ridiculous. The “logical rigor” of these
arguments, which demonstrate the illogical fallacy at the heart of his former
position, didn’t faze Daly for 15 years.
And now this same man has the audacity to declare others not fit to
write on these matters – rather than simply focusing on trying to refute their
arguments. Again, it’s just a bad joke.
During this long period of time, Daly was also was
affiliated with a priest named Fr. Egregyi, who held (and still may hold) the
laughable position that one may lawfully travel around the world administering
sacraments, but that it would be a violation of canon law to preach a
sermon! This is truly an example of book
knowledge gone awry. In 1998, it finally
hit Daly that his position on these matters was gravely wrong and he amended
it.
Daly, lacking wisdom, jumps to the opposite extreme
But now Daly has gone to the opposite extreme. Daly
still holds the sedevacantist position, but now he justifies as Catholics some
who should be considered heretics. This
is a false reaction to his former position.
Daly published an article on heresy which, while making some certainly
valid points on the necessity of pertinacity, goes too far and actually
endorses evil opinions. He writes:
John Daly:
“In 1907 (10th January), a parish priest requested the expert advice of
the moral theologian on the staff of the Ami du Clergé concerning two or
three families among his parishioners. Though
baptised as Catholics, they sent their children to the Protestant school and
from time to time went to the Protestant services of the same sect. They did
not go to the Catholic Church at all, it would appear, and blasphemed the
Blessed Eucharist to the parish priest, relying on typically Protestant
arguments. Nonetheless, they refused to be called Protestants themselves,
and requested the parish priest to baptise their children.”
Daly is presenting the case of a family baptized as
Catholics, but which went to Protestant services and blasphemed the Eucharist.
“The parish priest asked
whether the parents had incurred excommunication, whether they could be buried
as Catholics, and whether, if he should manage to convert any of them, they
would have to make a formal abjuration.
“Now according to the position of those who think that most
"traditionalists" today are excluded from membership of the Church,
only one answer is possible: the
culprits are manifest heretics and anyone who dares to consider them still
Catholics and remain in communion with them must himself incur excommunication
and be avoided by all true Catholics.
“However, the Ami du Clergé, a periodical
formally approved and encouraged at about this time by St Pius X himself, was
not at all of this opinion. Their moralist argued that there is no proof
that the culprits intended, by assisting at the Protestant ceremonies, to
apostatise from the Catholic Church - indeed they expressly denied it by
insisting that they were Catholics and not Protestants. Similarly, he held that
their stated wish to be Catholics gave to understand that these poor misguided
souls had no wish knowingly and willingly to reject the dogma of the
Church concerning the Holy Eucharist.
So in evaluating the questions posed by the parish priest, the Ami du Clergé replied that the culprits were still
members of the Catholic Church, were
not excommunicated, had no need to make formal abjuration of their
errors, but only to repair the scandal given, and that if, dying with no sign
of repentance, they were ineligible for Catholic burial (which would perhaps
need to be confirmed by the bishop) this would have been as public sinners and
not as heretics.
Now I have no doubt that it will be objected that in this instance the Ami
du Clergé did not play the part of a true friend of the clergy, but
rather showed evidence of laxism. That is my own opinion of the matter too.
I do not accept for a moment that the individuals complained of could have
failed to realise that they were denying the Catholic doctrine of the
Eucharist, and I imagine that when they claimed to be still Catholics, it was
because they had completely lost sight of what being a Catholic means -
imagining that their Catholic antecedents and baptism made them Catholics
irrespective of their beliefs, which were plainly Protestant, when they
knowingly rejected the faith of the Church.
So I have no difficulty in disagreeing with the Ami du Clergé. But what
is quite different and indeed patently absurd is to claim that by forming its
lax judgment of this case the moralist of the Ami du Clergé himself
incurred excommunication and ceased to be a Catholic along with all who
accepted his solution and therefore remained in communion with uncondemned
public heretics. Indeed such a theory would involve the excommunication of the
bulk of the clergy of France who all continued to remain in communion with the Ami
du Clergé...
Commenting on the case of this family, Daly refers
to a journal in the early 20th century which claimed that the
members of the aforementioned family were not heretics, even though they
abandoned the Catholic Church, attended Protestant services and blasphemed the
Eucharist. Daly says that he doesn’t
agree with the position of the journal, but he presents it in his article as
one which could be acceptable. This
is clearly ridiculous, for this family attended Protestant services and
blasphemed the Eucharist, thus demonstrating obstinacy in heresy – a knowing
rejection of Catholic teaching. It would
be offensive to Catholic teaching to present as acceptable the position that
such as family is Catholic, but that’s exactly what Daly did. So, after laboring for more than a decade in
a ridiculously false position which condemned as schismatics many who weren’t,
Daly has now jumped to another extreme and gone too far in the other
direction. He runs from error to error
because he is not anchored in a real relationship with God and a real
dedication to infallible Catholic teaching.
This explains why he is friendly with individuals such as John Lane, who
financially supports the SSPX after years of knowledge about their heretical
and schismatic positions. Would Daly
tell Lane that he is supporting the propagation of heresy and schism by
supporting the SSPX? I don’t think so.
More of his hypocrisy
As stated above, Daly has composed his “requirements”
for being fit to discourse on Catholic issues.
One of those is:
John Daly, “…e. It must
be mild and charitable in expressing disagreement with other Catholics on
controverted issues.”
Daly looks down upon those who are not acceptably
“mild” in his view. When convenient,
however, Daly abandons his own criterion.
This demonstrates his hypocrisy and that he has elevated himself above
his own contrived “requirements.”
John Daly, June 11,
2006: “Dear Dylan, I've had enough of this junk and the gloves are coming off. First, stop saying that priests who name
Benedict are telling a lie. A lie is a statement you know isn't true. They
don't know.
Boy, he is so mild when expressing his disagreement
with this gentleman, isn’t he? How
“sophisticated,” moderate and un-passionate his arguments are, no?
Refuting more of his clearly false, illogical, irrelevant and
petty criticism
When Daly cannot refute a person’s position, in
order to attempt to discredit him he will seize upon a sentence here or there
and go on and on about it, even when he agrees with the substance of the
person’s argument – and even when Daly’s own commentary on the issue is quite
illogical, as we will see. For instance,
Daly stated about issue 5 of our magazine:
John Daly: “Please do
not misunderstand me, XXXX: the vast
bulk of the JP2 texts Dimond has diligently collected in this issue are indeed
unorthodox, and taken as a whole they constitute an overwhelming case that JP2
does indeed habitually hold and teach a heresy according to which Christ's
incarnation directly divinised the whole of mankind, rather than merely
making possible the divinisation realised by grace in favour of the just.”
According to Daly, issue 5 of our magazine
constitutes an “overwhelming case” that John Paul II taught that man is
God. But even though he agrees that it
presents an “overwhelming case,” since he wants to dishonestly exaggerate
his criticism of us and find a way to attack us, he goes on and on about a
sentence here or there in the same magazine.
But as we will see, his petty criticisms are easily refuted:
John Daly:
“Four pages earlier you will find the following:
Commenting on JP2's words "Especially man must be given and restored to
God, if he is to be fully restored to himself." (Redemptionis Donum),
Dimond remarks:
"He says that man must be restored to God if he is to be restored to
himself. This clearly indicates that man is God."
Non sequitur. It indicates nothing of the sort. Neither clearly nor obscurely.
The inference is utterly unjustified by the text. A lost walking stick must be
restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be restored to the
elderly resident who lost it. Does that "clearly indicate" that the
elderly resident is the matron? Restoration to A is stated to be a condition of
restoration to B. Dimond pretends that this logically implies that A and B are
identical. It implies no such thing.
It is no defence to say that JP2 does indeed believe that man is God and has
said this elsewhere. He does not say it here.
There are a few things to be said in response to
this criticism. Before I get to the non sequitur in Daly’s own criticism, I
must emphasize that issue 5 of our magazine dealt with revealing a theme,
showing that there is a consistent pattern in John Paul II’s writings to
substitute man for God and to teach that man became God in the
Incarnation. The evidence in issue 5 was
to be taken in totality – in which quote after quote demonstrated that John
Paul II did the same thing, on purpose, over and over again.
Thus, if one pulls out a quote here or there from
that particular issue, especially if it’s not one of the best quotes to prove
the point, one will not find the case nearly as clear or convincing as if one
read it in context with the others. One
must see the code, so to speak, that John Paul II uses in inculcating
(sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly) that man is Christ and that man is to
be equated with God.
In this vein, upon analyzing a few of our comments
on John Paul II’s statement that man
must be restored to God if he is to be restored to himself, Daly
declares them illogical and compares the issue to the following example:
“A lost walking stick
must be restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be
restored to the elderly resident who lost it.”
A careful reader will see that Daly has employed a
non sequitur and an obviously false analogy.
Remember, John Paul II said: man must be restored
to God if man is to be restored to
himself. Suppose that A = man and B
= God in John Paul II’s statement.
According to JP2, A
(man) must be restored to B (God), if A is to be restored to A.
If one is going to analyze our comments by drawing
an appropriate analogy, as Daly attempted to do, it must fit: A must be
restored to B, if A is to be restored to A.
However, in criticizing our comments as illogical,
Daly uses as a comparison a walking stick being returned to the matron of a
hospital (a woman in charge of nursing) if it is to be restored to an elderly patient. One can see that his comparison is blatantly
faulty.
John Daly:
“Non sequitur. It indicates nothing of the sort. Neither clearly nor obscurely.
The inference is utterly unjustified by the text. A lost walking stick must be restored to the matron of the geriatric
hospital if it is to be restored to the elderly resident who lost it. Does
that "clearly indicate" that the elderly resident is the matron?
Restoration to A is stated to be a condition of restoration to B. Dimond
pretends that this logically implies that A and B are identical. It implies no
such thing.”
Daly’s analogy clearly lacks the “logical rigor” it
would need to prove his point. Daly
introduces a false analogy that incorporates C.
Daly’s analogy: A= the walking stick, B = the
matron of the hospital, and C = the elderly patient. Daly
says that A (the walking stick) must be restored to B (the matron) if A is to
be restored to C (the patient)!
Sorry Mr. Daly, but John Paul didn’t say that A
(man) must be restored to B (God) if A (man) is to be restored to C (someone or
something else)! Try to get that through
your head!! Considering this, his
attempted comparison is blatantly false, a blatant non sequitur which
lacks the very “logical rigor” that he arrogantly accuses others of eschewing.
If it followed rigorous logic, Daly’s analogy
should be: A (the walking stick) must be
restored to B (the matron) if A (the walking stick) is to be restored to itself. As one can clearly see in this rigorously
logical analogy, this would seem to indicate that the walking stick is equated
with the matron.
In fact, Daly’s attempted analogy to refute the
“illogic” of our words is so blatantly false that if we were to judge him by
this alone – as Daly seems to like to do with others by pulling out single
sentences here and there and going on and on about them – we would have to
dismiss Daly as someone who lacks even basic logic skills.
John Daly: “First a few
principles. 1. To write in public on matters of theological controversy it is
necessary to be competent. That competence comprises the following elements: a.
Correct use of the mind - thinking straight. Distinguishing between a valid and an invalid argument; identifying
a convincing proof, a probable proof, suggestive evidence, tenuous possibility
and outright sophistry.
Hmmm,
I guess that would dismiss you, Mr. Daly.
Daly is truly a blinded heretic, a false pedant, who is not nearly as
smart as he thinks he is.
More comments on Daly
Daly is also a fierce advocate of “baptism of
desire.” Of course, he cannot respond to
any of the arguments we have made which refute baptism of desire, as covered in
my book, such as how an unsacramentally baptized person could possibly be
subject to the Roman Pontiff, as every human creature must to be saved, when
the Church cannot exercise jurisdiction over the unsacramentally baptized. Nor can he answer how the unsacramentally
baptized can be part of the faithful, when universal liturgical and patristic
tradition hold that only the water baptized are part of the faithful, and all
must be part of the Church of the
faithful to be saved… and on and on and on…
Daly bases his position on baptism of desire
primarily on Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent.
But the section in my book (Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation)
which deals with Sess. 6, Chap. 4 (and which is appended to the end of this
article) quotes a Latin scholar to prove that this passage doesn’t prove their
point, and shows how the context of it proves our point, by declaring that John
3:5 is to be understood as it is written.
I refer the readers there for all of the issues pertaining to that
matter.
Daly’s lies on the baptism issue
John Daly: “First we
find him [Dimond] denying the de fide truth that Baptism of Desire suffices for
justification (which even Fr Feeney accepted!), and indeed for salvation. Trent
is quite clear. St Thomas is quite clear. The Doctors are quite clear. Canon
Law is quite clear. Historical examples of unbaptised canonised saints are
numerous and clear. The theologians are
unanimous.”
Sorry Mr. Daly, but the very passage of Trent which
you think proves that baptism of desire is de fide doesn’t state what you
claim, and in fact contradicts it by declaring that John 3:5 is to be
understood AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy
Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a
description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from
that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state
of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ
our savior; 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 kingdom of
God (John 3:5).”
As an aside, the man who posted Daly’s criticism of
us is a man named Lance Tardugno. In an
e-mail exchange a few years back, in order to illustrate to Lance that the
above passage doesn’t say that either water or desire is sufficient for
justification – it says justification cannot take place without water or desire
– I gave him a few different examples:
This paper cannot be written without pad or pencil.
This sacrament cannot take place without matter or form.
Lance fired back ferociously
declaring that he would “expose” me to his fellow “Catholics” because I didn’t
know English, for (according to Lance) I had used nouns in the place of desire,
and desire is a verb – which means to wish!
I wrote back to heretical Lance and
pointed out that desire is a noun and a
verb. It’s a noun, for instance,
when I say: I have a desire to go there… and a verb when I say: I desire to go
there. As used in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of
Trent, it’s used as a noun. Thus, Lance
was completely wrong on the very matter about which he accused me of not
knowing English and was ready to “expose” me to his “fellow Catholics.” I bring this up to illustrate how bad willed,
how pseudo-intellectually pompous these people are, who worship man and savor
the things of intellectual pride rather than the things of God – and don’t
even know what they’re talking about on top of it.
The answer to the above passage is
simple: it doesn’t say that either water or desire is sufficient for
justification; it says that justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (“sine”)
water or desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN (John 3:5).
The fact is that God made sure that the words
“as it is written” were included in that very sentence to ensure that the
Council was not teaching baptism of desire by its wording in that passage. The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again
of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And if
what baptism of desire
proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in
the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it
is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting
itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as
it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of course.
But I don’t want to get sidetracked on this
passage; please consult the appendix to this article for the full
discussion. But notice that, in the
quote above, Daly says that the theologians of the Church are unanimous on
baptism of desire. This is simply a lie.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses
in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one
of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of
Christ? A common element without any
sacramental effect. Nor on the
other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless
a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen
believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but,
unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient
of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to
be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are
foolish or wicked. This, I think, they
must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but
regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not
given them. Others know and honor the
gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable
desire. Still others are not able to
receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary
circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if
they desire it…
“If you
were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention
and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one
who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can
you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if
in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the
same judgment in regard to glory. You
will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were
glory. Do you suffer any damage by not
attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to
the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and
the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and
perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold
communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city
above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that
through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we
have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell,
and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
Daly endorses Fahey
John Daly: “Let's really
develop a taste for those encyclicals, for Dom Gueranger, for Fr Fahey, for St Thomas Aquinas, for St Alphonsus
Liguori, for the Gospel soundly commented, for the Fathers. After all, if these
men lead us astray we may safely say to our divine Judge - Lord I erred because
I followed those your Church most told me to trust.”
I wonder if Daly knows that Fr. Fahey taught that
Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace, and if he would call his
position heretical? Probably not.
Conclusion
What I’ve covered in
this brief look at John Daly shows that his writings aren’t reliably Catholic,
and that Catholics shouldn’t worry too much about him or his petty attempted attacks
on Catholics.
APPENDIX
– THE FULL DISCUSSION OF SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF TRENT
SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
OBJECTION- In Session 6, Chapter 4
of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification
can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it! So there!
ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4
of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it
isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at
least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved. It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any
unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for
water baptism. But 99% of the people
who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that
one must desire baptism to be saved!
They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who
don’t desire water baptism. Thus,
99% of those who quote this passage reject
even what they claim it is teaching.
Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most
baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were
devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are
in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire
water baptism.]
That being noted, this passage of the
Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can take place
by the water of baptism or the desire for it.
It says that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE
WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that
justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for
it.
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a
description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from
that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state
of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ
our savior; 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 kingdom of
God (John 3:5).”[i][251]
First
off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly
mistranslated in Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma. The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been
promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration
or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition,
once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through
the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…” This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine”
(without) to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to
favor the error of baptism of desire.
This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still
being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately),
including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI. That being mentioned, I will proceed to
discuss what the Council actually says here.
Looking
at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should
notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to
be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut
scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being
born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be
true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that
every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which
is what the theory of baptism of desire denies.
The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it
is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) –
and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt
for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
Fr. Francois Laisney
(Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is
Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our
Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again
of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John
3:5) mean the absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever…
The great question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our
Lord?”
Fr.
Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here that
John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is
written if baptism of desire is true.
He therefore holds that the true understanding of John 3:5 is that it
does not apply literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written. But how does the Catholic Church understand
these words? What does the passage in
Trent that we just discussed say: It
says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS
A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE
KINGDOM OF GOD.”
But what
about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use of the word “or”
(Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can
take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. A careful look at the correct translation of
this passage shows this claim to be false.
Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water
or the desire to take one.” Does
this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.
Or
suppose I said, “There cannot be a
Wedding without a Bride or a Groom.”
Does this mean that you can have a Wedding with a Groom and not a
Bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the
Wedding. One could give hundreds of
other examples. Likewise, the passage
above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT
TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are
necessary. It does not say that
Justification does take place by
either water or desire!
AUT (OR) USED TO
MEAN “AND” IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNCILS
In fact,
the Latin word aut (“or”) is used in a similar way in other passages in
the Council of Trent and other Councils.
In the famous Bull Cantate Domino
from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word aut (“or”) used in a context which definitely renders it meaning
“and.”
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church
firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;
that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only
those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do
fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian
militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and
even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in
the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[ii][252]
Here we
see the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning that is equivalent to “and.” The Council declares that not only pagans,
but also Jews or (aut)
heretics and schismatics cannot be saved.
Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and
none of the heretics can be saved. Thus,
this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”
Similarly, in the introduction to the decree on Justification, the
Council of Trent strictly forbids anyone to “believe, preach or
teach” (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is
defined and declared in the decree on Justification.
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone
henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is
defined and declared by this present decree.”[iii][253]
Does
“or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach
contrary to the Council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to
teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or”
(aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just
like in chapter 4 above “or” means that justification cannot take place without
both water and desire. Another example
of the use of aut to mean “and” (or “both”) in Trent is found in Sess.
21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).
Pope Pius IV, Council
of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed
that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be
changed at will without the authority of the Church.”[iv][254]
Does aut
in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but
it may be changed? No, obviously it
means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another example of how the Latin word
aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning “and” or “both.” And
these examples, when we consider the wording of the passage, refute the claim
of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session
6 is one which favors baptism of desire.
But why
does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary
for Justification? In the past we did
not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants. But further study of the passage reveals that
in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis
impii – the justification of the impious (see quote above). The impii (“impious”) does not refer
to infants – who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess.
V, Denz. 791). The word “impii” in Latin
is actually a very strong word, according to a Latin scholar I consulted, and
he agreed that it is too strong to describe an infant in original sin
only. It is sometimes translated as
“wicked” or “sinner.” Therefore, in this
chapter, Trent is dealing with those above the age of reason who have committed
actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for
Justification. In fact, the next few
chapters of Trent on Justification (Chaps. 5-7) are all about adult
Justification, further demonstrating that the Justification of adult sinners is
the context, especially when the word impii
is considered. That is why the chapter
defines that Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it
(both are necessary).
Catechism of the Council
of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180:
“INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to
receive it…”[v][255]
AN INTERESTING E-MAIL REGARDING THIS PASSAGE OF
TRENT
Interestingly, I
happened to e-mail a question about this passage from the Council of Trent and
its use of the word “or” (aut) to a
Latin Scholar from England, just to get the person’s thoughts. I do not even know this person whom I
e-mailed, and I don’t think that she is even a Catholic. She is a Latin Scholar from Oxford Latin and
I believe she answered honestly and impartially. Her response is very interesting and very
important, especially for those people who are convinced that the Council of
Trent taught “baptism of desire.” I
wrote to her as follows:
“The
passage in Latin is this: ‘quae quidem
translatio ... sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest...’
“It
is translated: ‘This transition... cannot take place without the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it.’
”This literally says that the transition cannot happen without the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it (meaning you must have both). It does not
say that it can take place with either one, don't you agree? Is it not equivalent to my saying: This
shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one (meaning both
are necessary); and is it not equivalent to saying: this article cannot be
written without pen or pad (meaning both are necessary)? You can use aut in this way in Latin, can you not?
”Any thoughts you have I would be very interested in. Thank you.”
And she responded on
Dec. 1, 2003 as follows:
“This
is not easy! It is possible to make
sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'.
“Aut
as 'or' is more common, but here the
interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for baptism is enough
on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the desire as well as
the sacrament itself.
I'll leave it to you to decide!
Best wishes,
Carolinne White
OXFORD LATIN”
…Ms. White’s statement is very important
and very interesting in that it shows that in her professional opinion as a
Latin Scholar, the passage using “or” (aut)
can definitely be read as “and,”
something many baptism of desire advocates absolutely reject as impossible! She
further admits that the interpretation depends upon whether one believes that
the desire for baptism is enough – I believe a very honest statement in her
regard! And she said this without my
giving her the rest of the context; namely, where the Council of Trent
declares, immediately after using the words “or the desire for it,” that
John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “[Justification]… 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 kingdom of God (John
3:5).”[vi][256]
The point is, therefore, that, at the
very least, all baptism of desire advocates must admit that this passage
can be read both ways, and therefore that the
understanding depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is
enough or not. But if a baptism of desire advocate admits (as he must in honesty) that
this passage may not teach baptism of
desire, then he is admitting that the understanding of it must be garnered not
only from the immediate context (which affirms John 3:5 as it is written and therefore excludes baptism of desire),
but also from all of the other statements on Baptism and Justification in Trent. And what do all of the other passages in
Trent say on the necessity of Baptism?
Do they teach an understanding open to baptism of desire, or do they
exclude any salvation without water baptism?
The answer is undeniable.
Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex
cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional,
that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[vii][257]
Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin
entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed
away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For
unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”[viii][258]
Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex
cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for
baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let
him be anathema.”[ix][259]
The
interpretation of “or” in Sess. 6., Chap. 4 as “and” is not only possible (as
Ms. White admits), but it is perfectly compatible with all of these
infallible definitions, while the interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is incompatible with all of
these definitions, not to mention (most importantly) the words “as it
is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” which
come immediately after “or a desire for it” and in the same sentence.
The
interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also incompatible with the
teaching of the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and there cannot exist
disharmony between dogmatic councils.
Pope Eugene IV, The
Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to
the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it
we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe
through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit,
we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”[x][260]
The interpretation of “or” as meaning
baptism of desire is also incompatible with the Council of Trent’s extensive
definition just three chapters later on the causes of Justification. Just three chapters later, the Council lists
four causes for Justification in the impious.
Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The
causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God
and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the
meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the
sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one
is ever justified… This faith, in
accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens
beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith
which bestows life eternal…”[xi][261]
In
listing all of the causes of Justification, why didn’t the Council mention the
possibility of “baptism of desire”? It
had ample opportunity to do so, just as it clearly taught no less than 3
times that the graces of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the desire
for that Sacrament (Sess. 14, Chap. 4; and twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14). But “baptism of desire” is mentioned nowhere,
simply because it is not true. And it is
further interesting to consider that the
word “desire” shows up not in Chapter 7 on the Causes of Justification,
but in Chapter 4 where the Council is talking about what cannot be missing
in the Justification of the impious (namely, neither water nor
desire can be missing in the justification of the impious).
But some will say: “I see your point and I cannot deny it, but why didn’t the passage use the word ‘and’ instead of ‘or’; it would
have been clearer then?” This
question is best answered by considering a number of things:
First,
it must be remembered that the passage describes what Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (i.e., what
cannot be missing in Justification); it does not say that Justification does take place by either water or
desire.
Second,
the Council didn’t have to use “and” because “or” can mean “and” in the context
of words given in the passage, as shown already.
Third,
those who ask this question should consider another, namely: why in the world, if baptism of desire is
true and was the teaching of Trent, didn’t the Council say anywhere (when it
had so many opportunities to do so) that one can be justified without
the Sacrament or before the Sacrament is received just as it
clearly and repeatedly did in regard to the Sacrament of Penance? This amazing omission (obviously because the Holy Ghost didn’t allow the Council
to teach baptism of desire in its many statements on the absolute necessity of
baptism) simply confirms the points that I’ve made above, because if the
passage meant baptism of desire it would have said so.
Fourth,
the above question is best answered by a parallel example: In 381 the Council
of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The omission of the words “and the
Son” (filioque in Latin) caused
countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed
from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church. If the
Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the
Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand
years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which
still continues to this day. That little
phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, surely would
have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing
Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that
the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and
the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
So, did
the Council of Constantinople err? Of
course not. But could Constantinople
have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a
controversy? Absolutely. So why did God allow this controversy to
occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the Council
Fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase? The answer is that there must be heresies.
1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they
also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
God
allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who
will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert
things to suit his own heretical desires.
God never allows His Councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to
teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give
people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if
they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to
Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and
the Son.
In
fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the Council Fathers at
Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son;
and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Son. All that matters is what
the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says
nothing contrary to the fact that the
Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.
The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any
other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. All
that matters is what the actual dogma declares or finalizes in the Profession
of Faith.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: