CathInfo.com

Your claim of Padre Pio is mostly likely a fake quote, unbaptised people cannot enter heaven. Catholic DOGMA is very clear on this. The Council of Florence explicitly states that shedding your blood for Christ DOES NOT SAVE you if you aren't united to the Church.

Yeah, I'm so tired of the apocryphal Padre Pio fake quotes.  Between the fascination people have with Padre Pio's preternatural gifts, since "wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign", you combine that with the modern era of people attempting to monetize various social media using clickbait, it's a perfect storm for this deluge of fakery attributed to Padre Pio.  Just the other day someone posted some fakery about how Padre Pio predicted great things for Wojtyla, and we've exposed before the fakery around Padre Pio endorsing Garabandal and Valtorta and Medjugorje.  If there's ever been any controversial cause, people make up a Padre Pio quote to give it credibility.  It's only those quotes that deal with non-controversial subjects, such as prayer, devotion, penance, the spiritual life, etc. etc. that are likely genuine, since people have no ulterior motive to make up "banal" and "mundane" and "unexciting" material like that.

This has to be one of THE most idiotic "non sequitur" segues into an attack on Father Feeney that I've ever seen.  Pathetic.  So, if one wants to engage in personal attacks, then this priest might do well to practice a bit of mortification from the dinner table before lecturing others, don't you think?  He dishonestly butchers the "Baius" condemnation as if St. Pius V taught against Feenyism.  It's really a litany of lies and quotes taken out of context.  And, at the end he bumbles and fumbles into heresy, where he claims that the grace of the Sacrament can be given WITHOUT it.  Most you can say without heresy is that one can receive the Sacrament in voto, where the Sacrament remains the instrumental cause of the justification, but you can never say that justification can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament without directly contradicting Trent.  So it's quite laughable (if it weren't so tragic) that he accuses the "Feeneyites" of rejecting Trent, when he does so himself almost verbatim.

And, LMAO, this fool quotes a Scriptural backing precisely for Father Feeney's (and Melchior Cano's) distinction, citing from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans:  "with the heart, we believe unto justice [=justification]; but, with the mouth, confession [profession of faith] is made unto salvation."  What a dolt!  Then he finishes it off with some gaslighting, where Feeneyites are Pharsiees who believe in their own "specialness", as he touts HIS own specialness for being not like those Pharisees.  "Thank God I am not like that Pharisee!"  So, when you say people can't go to Heaven if they die in mortal sin after having committed adultery, are YOU "judging their souls" rather than God?  So, tell me ... who is this moron?

What pathetic seminary did this bad-willed incompetent train at?

So ... I ran through this at triple speed.  Of course, he worships "Suprema Fake", castigates Father Feeney for "disobedience" (since evidently his heretical superiors were exceptions to manifest heresy stripping them of authority), then adds to it a transmogrifying of EENS from no salvation outside the Church to no salvation except by means of or through the Church, which is in fact Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner's teaching, despite his denial of it.  Of course he distorts Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" teaching to distance himself from it (falsely) by claiming Rahner meant by this that everyone is an "Anonymous Christian".  He does in fact precisely believe the same thing Rahner does.

He claims that the reception of Baptism if necessary by necessity of precept rather than necessity of means, and then likens it to the necessity to receive Holy Commuinion.  Utterly false.  Even the manualists reject this crap.  Baptism is taught to be necessary by necessity of means, whereas Holy Communion is considered necessary by necessity of precept and by moral necessity.

In this, he contradicts even his own mentor, Bishop Sanborn, or maybe he was asleep in class that day (this is from +Sanborn's Anti-Feeneyite :

2. How necessary is baptism?

Baptism is necessary for infants as a means of salvation; for adults, it is necessary both as a means of salvation and as being of divine precept

So, no Father, Baptism is necessary by necessity of MEANS, for salvation, not just of precept, as you teach error and lies from the pulpit.  Even your mentor understands this.  Go back to school for remedial training please.  Father Dutertre makes up some nonsense about how Baptism is necessary by necessity of precept, while the desire for Baptism is necessary by necessity of means.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:  "Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii (means) and præcepti (precept)."

Of course, may that's not such a good idea.

+Sanborn:
Quote

5. Is baptism absolutely necessary?

Baptism is not absolutely necessary ...

Catechism "of Pope St. Pius X" (in quotes due to this being a misnomer) ...
Quote

Q1: Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A1: Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’

What is it about this dogma that causes otherwise-fairly-intelligent men to lose their wits, and then bumble, fumble, and stumble, from one self-contradiction and error to the next? ... to say nothing of the abject lies?

In one sense, however, Fr. Dutertre is correct, since these Anti-Feeneyites DO in fact hold that the Sacrament is only necessary by necessity of precept, whereas the desire is necessary by necessity of means.  He accurately characterizes the Anti-Feeneyites position ... except of course that he contradicts both the manuals and Bishop Sanborn.