St. Emerentiana and the Narrow Gate of Feeneyism

 

"Being baptized, not in water, but in her own blood, so freely shed for Christ",
She rose where rigid tongues would still insist.
Her martyr’s death shone brighter than their fear,
A living wound that proved God’s mercy near.

Prologue: 

My article on the feast day of St. Emerentiana, attracted a number of comments, some, the usual Feneeyite objections recycled over and over again through the years, some bordered on methodological slip escalated beyond proportions. It turns out that the disproportionate escalation has something to do with the fact of Feneeyite ideological security. 

No doubts, to err is methodology is easy, very easy. To acknowledge it when identified and effect correction bespeaks an unintended error. But to still insist on literary dishonesty and distortion of historical record after such correction speaks how affected the motive of the anonymous interlocutor is. Or does it not?

Yes, what proves to be really at stake is not quotation accuracy; but whether one accepts the Church’s living, analogical, principled mode of teaching, or demands a reductionist proof-text theology alien to Catholic Tradition.

Meanwhile, consider that if the Feeneyites have any value for literary honesty, they would have long ceased from their refusal of the doctrine of the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood which is a universal ordinary Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.. But what zeal they display in demanding "formal" retraction and apology! What mark of ideological anxiety… 

Not long ago, I published a retraction on account of canonical overreach which was pointed out by a conscientious reader, setting an example of what I demand of others: retraction in the face of obvious error. Yes, like St. Augustine: 

"I can err. I will not be a heretic" 

For the present case, even though I have rectified the methodological error identified and sent out notification on it, here, before I address the key points in the objections raised against my previous article, and in defense of the Feneeyite ideology, I shall reproduce the clarification made. 

The Feneeyite, as a Feneeyite, may never be satisfied, but those with duly informed Catholic common sense are sure to be edified. And that suffices. 

‎Methodological Slip Regretted And Corrected.

‎Under the subtitle “Baptized in Blood: The Church's Open Teaching”, a text suggesting a direct quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent read thus:

‎“The baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water.”

‎Such a methodological slip is totally regretted. There was no intention to mislead readers or to distort the historical record.

‎Now, here was the rectification effected:

‎Though one would search in vain from the Catechism of the Council of Trent the following sentence word for word

‎"The baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water"

‎ it is implied.

‎Speaking of Adults that "Ordinarily They Are Not To Be Baptized At Once "

‎The catechism (Callan/McHugh, p. 184) says:

‎"...Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, together with faith working by charity, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

‎i.e. the grace and righteousness which they would certainly have received in Baptism.”

‎This "unforeseen accident" can imply martyrdom, and therefore baptism of blood.

‎Though there is an explicit reference to desire here, it is easy to see that Baptism of Blood presupposes Baptism of Desire but adds the objective testimony of death for Christ.

‎So, martyrdom is an “unforeseen accident” in the highest and most dramatic sense.

‎So, instead of Catechism saying: “There is Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire,”

‎it explains:

‎how grace may be supplied when the sacrament is impossible,

‎without denying the necessity of Baptism itself.

‎The Council of Trent itself (Session VI, ch. 4) already presupposes this doctrine:

‎“…translation to the state of grace cannot occur without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.”

‎Martyrdom is the supreme form of that desire.

‎So? Emerentiana did not receive a “symbolic” baptism. She received real grace, real justification, and real salvation, sealed by martyrdom.

‎Can can this explanation of the sentence being implied, and never intended to be a verbatim quote, be justly accused of not being an “interpretation or paraphrase” but a “clear fabrication”? Can it be justly accused of being a “serious misrepresentation and constitutes literary dishonesty”?

‎Meanwhile, the principal, and logical question is:

‎Is the proposition 

“The baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water"

‎ implied is this:

‎"...Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, together with faith working by charity, will avail them to grace and righteousness”

‎Or not?

‎Well, for anyone with literary honesty, while the proposition “Baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water” is not a direct quotation, it is legitimately implied as a specific application of the Catechism’s general principle concerning impossibility, desire, faith, and grace.

Indeed, “Baptism of Blood supplies the place of Baptism of water” is a standard theological conclusion drawn for centuries. It is a theologically certain proposition from common teaching. 

2. ‎On Twin Errors Against Catholicism To-day

‎In an article published on September 1st 2025 titled “Modernism and Feeneyism: Twin Errors Against Catholic Tradition”

‎I exposed how the Catholic Faith is betrayed from two opposing extremes:

• ‎Modernism, which dissolves immutable dogma into subjective opinion, and
• ‎Feeneyism, which mutilates Tradition by denying God’s extraordinary mercy outside the ordinary reception of the sacraments.

‎Drawing from the Council of Trent, the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and the Church’s liturgy, I presented the authentic Catholic balance:

• ‎Baptism of water is ordinarily necessary, yet God may supply its grace through Baptism of Desire or Blood when reception is prevented by necessity.
• ‎Against Modernist relativism and Feeneyite rigorism alike, the article reaffirms the Church’s perennial teaching, firm in doctrine, merciful in application; and called the faithful to remain humbly docile to the living Tradition guarded by Holy Mother Church.

‎Anyone who carefully reads that article would see the clarification made about how Baptism of desire is a logically described doctrine from the Catechism's general principle as already noted.

‎

 Points From Feneeyite Comments

The following are the key points from the comments, arguing against the content of my article on St. Emerentiana, and in favor of the Feneeyite ideological framework.

I. Authority of Hagiography vs. the Magisterium

Breviary and hagiographic accounts are not infallible in their historical details.

They cannot be used to relativize, correct, or contradict defined magisterial teaching.

Therefore, uncertain hagiography cannot overturn dogma on baptism and Church membership.

II. Necessity of Sacramental Baptism (Water)

Magisterial teaching consistently affirms that:

Baptism with true and natural water is necessary for salvation (Trent, Leo the Great).

Membership in the Church requires reception of the laver of regeneration (Pius XI, Pius XII).

The Church is one visible body, and only the baptized are incorporated into it (Lateran IV; Mystici Corporis).

Baptism is the external rite that effects interior regeneration (Quas Primas).

III. Saint Emerentiana: No Proof Against Water Baptism

There is no certain historical proof that Saint Emerentiana was unbaptized.

Absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence.

Early Church practice under persecution often involved immediate baptism before martyrdom, even with minimal formation.

Therefore, it is entirely plausible she received sacramental baptism prior to death.

IV. Limits of Theological Opinion

Theologians (even saints) can err on matters not yet dogmatically defined.

Theories such as baptism of blood or desire are theological explanations, not dogmatic definitions.

When theological opinion conflicts with defined doctrine, the Magisterium prevails (Benedict XIV; Humani Generis).

V. Benedictus Deus and the Souls in Heaven

Pope Benedict XII teaches ex cathedra that those in Heaven are those who have received “the holy baptism of Christ.”

No explicit exception is made for unbaptized martyrs.

The definition consistently describes the blessed as baptized faithful, including martyrs and virgins.

VI. Conclusion

Saint Emerentiana’s case cannot be used as proof against the necessity of sacramental baptism.

Hagiography must be interpreted in harmony with infallible magisterial teaching, not against it.

The safest and most Catholic conclusion is:

Either Saint Emerentiana was sacramentally baptized, or

Her historical circumstances are insufficiently known to justify doctrinal conclusions.

Dogma, not speculation, governs belief.

At face value, the points, taken individually or together, sound profound, coherent and convincing. A point-by-point analysis, firmly rooted in the Pre-Vatican II Traditional Catholic theological consensus, shows where the listed arguments overstate truths and misapply them in a Feeneyite direction, even while using authentic Catholic sources.

The aim is not polemic, but clarity, proportion, and fidelity to the Church’s full teaching. 

I. Authority of Hagiography vs. the Magisterium

Here truth is stated but used selectively

"Breviary and hagiographic accounts are not infallible in their historical details.”

That is correct, as far as it goes.

Traditional theology has always held that:

• Hagiography is approved for devotion, not guaranteed historical precision.

Legendary embellishment is possible.

But the Feeneyite misuse begins here.

We must therefore insist on the traditional Catholic distinction.

The Church’s public cult of a saint is not a mere literary curiosity. While details may be uncertain, the fact of the saint’s salvation is morally certain, since the Church does not propose the damned for veneration.

We know that the canonization of saints is a judgment of the Church that the saint enjoys the vision of God

Thus:

• One may question how Emerentiana died,
• One may not question that she attained salvation.

Hagiography must be interpreted in harmony with doctrine, yes; but doctrine must also be interpreted as the Church herself has always understood it, not through later restrictive systems.

II. Necessity of Sacramental Baptism (Water)

True doctrine, but incomplete presentation

“Baptism with true and natural water is necessary for salvation.”

This is de fide, as defined by Trent.

But Trent itself already supplies the necessary qualification, ignored in Feeneyite argumentation.

Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4 (1547):

“…justification… cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof (aut eius voto).”

This is not a private theological opinion.

It is doctrine, taught by an Ecumenical Council.

And, as already seen, Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent), teaches that those who are prevented by death from receiving baptism, but who had the intention of receiving it, are justified.

Therefore:

• Water baptism is necessary as the ordinary means.
• Baptism of Desire and Blood are extraordinary means, universally taught by the Church long before the Modernist Vatican Council.

 To state necessity without these qualifications is materially misleading, even if verbally orthodox.

III. Membership in the Church

A correct text, misapplied

Feeneyite appeals to Mystici Corporis (Pius XII) are common; and often partial.

Mystici Corporis (§22):

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration…”

This refers to visible, juridical membership.

But Pius XII himself elsewhere makes the classical distinction between:

• Membership in re (full, visible incorporation), and
• Ordination to the Church (votum Ecclesiae).

This distinction was already standard long before him.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaching the mind of the Church explains:  (Summa Theologiae III, q. 68, a. 2):

“...the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." 

Thus:

• One may be ordered to the Church and receive sanctifying grace

without yet being a juridical member.

Feeneyism collapses this distinction, which the Church never did.

IV. Saint Emerentiana: The Historical Question

Correct premises, forced conclusion

“There is no proof that Saint Emerentiana was unbaptized.”

This is Correct.

But the Feeneyite leap is:

“Therefore she must have received water baptism.”

This does not follow, and traditional theology never required such a conclusion.

What is the Traditional Catholic Position? 

Given her martyrdom, three possibilities are admitted without doctrinal conflict:

1. She received water baptism.
2. She received Baptism of Blood through martyrdom.
3. She possessed Baptism of Desire, perfected by martyrdom.

Roman Catechism speaking of “unforeseen accident” which makes water baptism impossible certainly teaches, as we have seen above, that martyrdom supplies the place of baptism.

This was taught universally in catechesis, preaching, and manuals long before modernist Vatican council.

 To insist on water baptism alone here is not tradition, but restriction.

V. “Limits of Theological Opinion”

This is the critical error

"Baptism of blood or desire are theological explanations, not dogmatic definitions.”

This is glaringly incorrect according to perennial Catholic theology.

While not solemnly defined per modum definitionis, BoD and BoB belong to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible.

Pope Pius IX, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) teaches that God does not permit anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who has not the guilt of voluntary fault.

This principle undergirds BoD.

More so, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church teaches it is de fide that baptism is necessary, but it is also certain that the desire thereof suffices when the sacrament cannot be received. 

Feeneyism errs by:

• Downgrading universal teaching to “opinion”
• While absolutizing selected texts against the Church’s own interpretive tradition

VI. Benedictus Deus (Benedict XII)

Here we have the case of correct citation, but incorrect scope.

Benedictus Deus defines:

• The immediate Beatific Vision after death.

It does not define:

• The exclusive means of justification.

Traditional theology never interpreted this constitution as excluding Baptism of Blood or Desire : not in the 14th, 15th, 16th, or 19th centuries.

A dogma must be read as the Church has always read it, not through later controversies.

Summing Up 

A conscientious reader would readily see that:

• The charge of “clear fabrication” is unjust, and 
• The charge of “literary dishonesty” is false.

Now, a fully Catholic conclusion as well obvious is that:

• Baptism by water is necessary as the ordinary means.
• Baptism of Desire and Blood are extraordinary means, taught universally.
• Martyrdom can confer baptismal grace.
• Saints proposed by the Church are truly saved.
• Saint Emerentiana’s sanctity does not threaten the doctrine of the Baptism of water as the ordinary means.
• Feeneyism errs by isolating texts from the Church’s living teaching authority.

This must be reiterated as often as is necessary: the Church is not saved by narrowing dogma, but by believing it whole. 

If the Feeneyites would dare to listen and be taught, they would learn humbly that the infallibility of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood follows from their universal and continuous teaching as extraordinary means of salvation, for the Church cannot everywhere and always teach error concerning the necessity of grace and justification.