No, they are clearly not talking about explicit faith in the Holy Trinity as necessary by precept.  McCork lies and distorts in order to twist the Catholic faith into his perverted little view of things.

Everybody else...fair game to be saved (as long as you don't know or are ignorant; then you can be saved).

Yes, this is pure undisguised Pelagianism.

Go away Desmond,

Ok I will stop posting on "your" threads.

you are just an admitted former rationalist

I never admitted to such a thing.

now in Novus Ordo attire,

How am I Novus Ordo? I was baptised as an infant and grew up in the N.O. back then.

who 6 weeks ago said here  thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years

Yes.

and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism.

Well at least I have the decency of remaining humble and admitting I might very well be wrong, and give others the benefit of the doubt as far as their personal/favourite flavour of theology being legitimate.

Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you.

Does this mean when I will conform 100% to your own position?

 Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.

What are you referring to?
But yes I agree with that. It's useless if not harmful for laymen, often simple souls, like myself to delve deeper and deeper in theologically troubled territory.
I have a few quasi-certainties and I'm very reluctant to doubt them.

Now, if you really cared, could have proposed counter-arguments yourself, quoting from such and such "catholic" book, instead of yet again trying to silence me using distasteful methods.

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: McCork

What you are doing is confusing whether someone is bound by obligation to have explicit belief in some mysteries of the faith, and the idea that the explicit belief must inherently be present in the soul upon death regardless of knowledge of that obligation.

Really. So you're now saying that every single person, at least as far as clerics, popes, theologians, saints,  has always believed of explicit faith as a mere necessity of precept.

If that were the case, as I am often forced to lay out with BODomaniacs, it would make Evangelisation a criminal act, and best strategy for the Salvation of Souls for the Apostles to lock themselves up in some basement immediately after the Resurrection.

Christ's preaching itself was dangerous, and He may very well have avoided it, and kept humanity in the dark.

Quote

Yes, you are confusing the two. Even with a baptized baby who doesn't explicitly believe in anything, true faith exists.

Is this true? True Faith exists even without Reason, etiam, in the complete absence of Reason before the Age of Accountability?

Quote

Catholic books speak of "passive infallibility" of the Church, and yes, I believe those Catholic books. Every sedevacantist really does.

What does passive infallibility (of the ecclesia discens?) have to do with your notion of "everything tolerated/not expressly condemned by the Church for a [arbitrary] amount of time is therefore orthodox" ?

Also, I do not believe in passive infallibility.

Go away Desmond, you are just an admitted former rationalist now in Novus Ordo attire, who 6 weeks ago said here  thatyou have been a Catholic for 3 years and still have not discerned the "basic tenets" of Catholicism. Come back when you have discerned the basic tenets and stop wearing pants that are too big for you. Someone who hears Catholic books teach something and then flagrantly don't even ask to see it, but decide you don't believe it, is pretty far gone.

He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.

Ah, now you declare all sedes are not Catholic! Not even you pope says that!  And you think rejecting Catholic books out of hand is somehow "better"?  You are a mental case.

Quote from: McCork

Go away Desmond,

Ok I will stop posting on "your" threads.

Quote

you are just an admitted former rationalist

I never admitted to such a thing.

Six weeks ago you posted here: "After decades of atheism/agnosticism/idontgiveahootism I've recently come back to "catholicism" (after an inner call of sorts). "

So, are you lying now, or did you lie then??

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn

He's been Catholic three years and knows his faith much better than you - heck, you've been sede for what 10, 20 or 30 years yourself so you haven't been one yet - so you have no room to talk, but that hasn't stopped you.

Ah, now you declare all sedes are not Catholic! Not even you pope says that!  And you think rejecting Catholic books out of hand is somehow "better"?  You are a mental case.

There has never been a Catholic who says the things you say. Your mission here has been to pit teaching against teaching, saint against saint and saints against popes with your confused theology. FYI, that is not Catholic.  

Hallucinations often accompany being a mental case.

John 3:5 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.

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: ihsv

Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.

It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".

This is one heck of a hallucination.

I think it is rather that you haven't seen the explanation yet.

For a Catholic, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the Church says it means.

For Protestants, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the individual thinks it mean regardless of the Church says it means.

The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.

Ihssv asked me his own question with an intention and meaning of his own. I know what his intent was, and I answered accordingly with the emphasis on the word "your".

Both you and ihsv, and most Feeneyites, are handling that Scripture like Protestants....private interpretation while disregarding what the Church says it means. Even Ladislaus seems to believe that catechumens can be saved without being physically baptized with water, if they die by accident before the ceremony. Anyway, canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?

Quote from: Stubborn

John 3:5 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.

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: ihsv

Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.

It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".

This is one heck of a hallucination.

I think it is rather that you haven't seen the explanation yet.

For a Catholic, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the Church says it means.

For Protestants, the meaning of Holy Scripture is what the individual thinks it mean regardless of the Church says it means.

The Church has told us what Jesus meant in John 3:5.

Ihssv asked me his own question with an intention and meaning of his own. I know what his intent was, and I answered accordingly with the emphasis on the word "your".

Both you and ihsv, and most Feeneyites, are handling that Scripture like Protestants....private interpretation while disregarding what the Church says it means. Even Ladislaus seems to believe that catechumens can be saved without being physically baptized with water, if they die by accident before the ceremony. Anyway, canon law officially recognizes this. Is canon law heretical?

Our Lord said without water and the Holy Ghost, no one gets to heaven.
The Church interprets John 3:5 as Trent decrees, " as it is written"; "from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (FYI, a BOD = "metaphorical baptism")
Trent decrees the sacrament is necessary unto salvation.
Trent decrees the sacrament is not optional.

McCork says they are all wrong, that Fr. Feeney is wrong, that I am wrong, that God Himself is wrong because; "yes", certainly a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost."

You've got the millstone securely around your neck, beware of jumping in a lake.

Now you have a book, you say, that agrees with you - which is as I said already - you exist on this site to pit teaching against teaching - you do this by twisting the true teachings and promoting false teachings.

Same o same o.