Here is something I wrote to a relative about 3 years ago. Feeneyites take note.
Take note, EENS-deniers, that EENS is most certainly
de fide, since it's been defined. There's no definition ever of BoD.
So those of you who deny EENS, you are in fact heretics, and it's also heretical to be a Pelagian and to deny that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation ... which nearly all BoDers do. Most of you therefore hit the Trifecta of heresy.
Of course, if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, which is distinct from BoD per se, but again few BoDers do not believe this, since it's the very point of their clinging to BoD with cold / dead brains, not because they're concerned about the rare case of a Catechumen who dies in a car crash on the way to his Baptism ... if you believe non-Catholics can be saved, you're a schismatic also, since every purported error of Vatican II depends on and derives from the ecclesiology that derives from this error, so in rejecting Vatican II, you're in schism, as it only teaches what you yourselves believe.
St. Alphonsus was wrong about the theological note, citing one source that was just a letter to a bishop, before Vatican I had made the necessary definition, and in a similar letter Pope Innocent also declared that Mass was valid if the priest merely thought the words of consecration, an error for which St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task. Father Cekada also did a survey of theologians and found that of about 27 or so that he could find at all, few of the sources agreed with St. Alphonsus that it was
de fide.
But what is meant by "Baptism of Desire" (a term that appears nowhere in any Magisterial source)?
Finally, explain how Feeneyites deny Trent, you dunce. Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without the laver or the
votum. "Feeneyites" believe this. They merely distinguish between justification and salvation.
Please explain where this distinction is "heretical", since, well, the respected Dominican theologian Melchior Cano, writing after Trent, made the exact same distinction, where he held that infidels could be justified but not saved.
So please produce the condemnation of Melchior Cano for teaching heresy.
Until then, shut your arrogant trap, ya moron. None of you can refute anything, but you regurgitate the same talking points that have been refuted a thousand times, even after it's demonstrated to you that it's false.
And 95% of you are in fact heretics who deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.
Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences (Read 10962 times)