Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 147 148 [149] 150 151 ... 153

Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com  (Read 97160 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptismofdesire.com
« Reply #740 on: May 24, 2025, 04:32:17 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on May 24, 2025, 04:18:07 PM
The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.
:laugh1: :facepalm:  The entire Traditional movement is based on "excommunicated" clerics who do things "without approval" from new-rome.

Your error is in not admitting that modernists rats who showed their true colors at V2 in 1962 didn't exist prior to 1962.  :laugh1:  They most certainly did.  And they most certainly were PREPARING for V2 LONG BEFORE it happened, by "shutting up" clerics like Feeney, ABL and Mueller, who the Modernists knew wouldn't go along with V2.
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Baptismofdesire.com
« Reply #741 on: May 24, 2025, 04:33:24 PM »
Quote from: WorldsAway on May 24, 2025, 04:27:48 PM
Who was going to give him permission to write on Exclusive Salvation, Yeti? Notorious heretic Archbishop Cushing? His Jesuit superiors who denied Exclusive Salvation?

Fr. Michael Muller was silenced by his superiors in the 19th century for defending EENS while heretic priests were allowed to attack him and his works while denying EENS. And Fr. Muller even held "BOD".


.

Well, if the Church isn't going to give Feeney permission to write about something, then that means it's erroneous. This is pretty simple.

Quote
"If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the infidel." -- Our Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 18:17.

I've never heard of Fr. Mueller being silenced. He certainly wrote many, many books. Do you have a reference for that?

Quote
Who is going to defend the most important dogma of the Church if the vast majority of the hierarchy deny it?

The Church teachers through her hierarchy. If the hierarchy denies something, then it is not a dogma of the Church.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptismofdesire.com
« Reply #742 on: May 24, 2025, 04:36:26 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on May 24, 2025, 04:33:24 PM
Well, if the Church isn't going to give Feeney permission to write about something, then that means it's erroneous. This is pretty simple.
If we lived in orthodox times, you'd be correct.  But of course, we don't.  You can't give most of these post-WW2 clerics the benefit of the doubt....they approved V2.  :laugh1:
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Baptismofdesire.com
« Reply #743 on: May 24, 2025, 04:36:48 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 24, 2025, 04:32:17 PM
:laugh1: :facepalm:  The entire Traditional movement is based on "excommunicated" clerics who do things "without approval" from new-rome.


.

You use the term "new-rome" in your first sentence. That's the difference. Traditional priests are excommunicated by a false church.

But Feeney was excommunicated by Pius XII, whom no one claims was a false pope, not even Feeney himself.

So this argument is apples and oranges.

Quote
Your error is in not admitting that modernists rats who showed their true colors at V2 in 1962 didn't exist prior to 1962.  :laugh1:  They most certainly did.  And they most certainly were PREPARING for V2 LONG BEFORE it happened, by "shutting up" clerics like Feeney, ABL and Mueller, who the Modernists knew wouldn't go along with V2.


None of this either addresses or refutes what I said. Catholics cannot write anything on theology without the approval of the Church; this is right in canon law. This law exists to guarantee the accuracy of the teaching. Feeney did not have this approval when he wrote on baptism. Therefore the Church has offered no guarantee to the correctness of his teaching; on the contrary, that teaching was given in contravention of Church law.

Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Baptismofdesire.com
« Reply #744 on: May 24, 2025, 04:37:45 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 24, 2025, 04:36:26 PM
If we lived in orthodox times, you'd be correct.  But of course, we don't.  You can't give most of these post-WW2 clerics the benefit of the doubt....they approved V2.  :laugh1:
.

Feeney lived in orthodox times. He lived in the 1940s. You can't make an argument based on the crisis in the Church today and apply it to those times, before the crisis existed.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 147 148 [149] 150 151 ... 153
« previous next »