1.- The SSPX is neither schismatic nor heretical, Hietanen. I could equally say that you are a schismatic for being a home-aloner. You say that I am spiritually blind and that I do not care about upholding the Catholic faith, yet you are not even aware of your own faults. You make absurd excuses for not attending Mass on Sunday. I could understand if you literally did not have access to a TLM, but you have made it quite clear that you do have access to one but refuse to attend. There is a noticable difference between being in heresy and people only THINKING you are in heresy.

2.- I don't want to be condemned, and I do not appreciate you implying that I try to condemn myself. Nor have I rejected any Catholic dogma. You are the true liar, making up stuff about me that I never said or even implied. You are very rude and prideful. You condemn almost everyone else but refuse to point out your own faults.

3.- While it's true that Jesus did not have a high reputation amongst the Jews, this is a different scenario. You're posting on a forum, for starters. And God has the right to condemn people. But you are not God, so you have no right to tell people they are condemned before they even reach Judgement Day.

4.- You didn't answer another one of my questions. I asked you why you posted on an SSPX forum, one that is owned by a non-sede SSPX Traditional Catholic. I'd also like to know why you post here since Matthew has made it quite clear that home-aloners are NOT welcome.

To reject one dogma is enough for no longer being a Catholic.

St. Thomas did not believe Baptism with WATER was strictly necessary.  Can you explain how he is both a Saint AND a Doctor?

Agreed.  Now, let us discuss the matter at hand...

Hietanen
 The energizer Bunny!!!!!!   Keeps going and going.......and going and going! :heretic:

LOL! The energiser Bunny pouring forth much cyber diarrhoea!   :cussing:  :heretic:

I hope that this is the last post for this thread.

I would like to conclude (I hope) that it is most unfortunate that individuals like Hietanen are choosing to see a fundamental conflict between the teachings of Saint Thomas and those of Father Feeney where none, if fact, even exist.  While we can all acknowledge Saint Thomas as being the greatest theologian of the Church, it is an undisputed fact that his understanding of the Catholic Faith only deepened throughout his extraordinary life.  One need look no further than Thomas' understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which, after years of reflection, more or less reached the stage at which Holy Mother Church would, once and for all time, later define the dogma to be.

Father Feeney's development of Thomas' understanding of Baptism of Desire and Blood is, if you look at it in detail, very minor.  I do not believe that Thomas, if he sat down with Father Feeney (indeed, both are, I believe, in Heaven at this very moment), would find any major disagreements with Father Feeney's theology.

Remember that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not unanimous on every single point of dogma and doctrine.  Differences existed between them, but such differences were minor, and in many cases, superficial.  On the essentials, they were in complete agreement.  And none of them were at all opposed to genuine development in understanding more fully the Deposit of Faith.

You do not, of course, have to agree with Father Feeney's ideas, but he did not see his theology as being at all in conflict with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church nor in conflict with the Church's Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium.

"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

I would like to conclude (I hope) that it is most unfortunate that individuals like Hietanen are choosing to see a fundamental conflict between the teachings of Saint Thomas and those of Father Feeney where none, if fact, even exist.

First, Father Feeney was not a heretic as far as I am aware of. He upheld the dogma on no salvation outside the Church and believed that people had to be baptized to be Saved, although, he was wrong in baptism of desire. But people can be in error on that without for that very fact becoming a heretic.

Now. I am not entirely familiar with the doctrine you are trying to preach here. You agree with C.M.R.I? Do you agree with them and their rejecting of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church?

If I don't remember wrong, you also linked to an article by them where they said that justification could be achieved without water baptism by a mere desire for baptism, although this justification will not save you. I am not entirely familiar with this subject, but we can see already that it is illogical and contradictory.

God does not forgive sins except for the baptized as St Augustine explains below. However, I don't know for a certain fact that an unbaptized person couldn't be forgiven a sin he committed if he really and truly had contrition for his sin - I could be wrong here, and I will of course correct my self if someone could prove that God does not, ever forgive sins for an unbaptized person.
Either way, it's an infallible dogma that original sin is not cleansed and put away unless for the baptized, so they could never have heaven or state of justification so long as they have the stain of original sin.

St Augustine, 395 A.D.: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

Justification is remission of sins, especially that of original sin. This cannot occur without water baptism. St Ambrose explains this further:

St. Ambrose: "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."  

Furthermore, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as early as the year 451, had already defined this doctrine as St. Ambrose expressed it and as we believe it.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: "Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."

Now, in the section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with the sanctification by the Spirit. "Sanctification by the Spirit" is the term for Justification from the state of sin (the state of grace). No one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit, as everyone professing to be Catholic admits. Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood. It is only by receiving the blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification). It is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works. This dogma was also defined by the Council of Trent.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated."

It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified without the application the blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.

Pope St. Leo defined above that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! You must be baptized with water to receive the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.

A sinner cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be saved, without the water of Baptism. In light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.

I like how Hietanen won't say why he posts on an SSPX forum.  :rolleyes:

So if what he says is true about all SSPX Traditional Catholics here being heretics for being in communion with the SSPX, that would make Hietanen a heretic as well for posting on an SSPX forum. So Heitanen, as long as you continue to post here you might as well label yourself as a heretic.