Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

The true despisers and rejectors of dogma and doctrine are the Extra Sacramental Salvationists. Children of the council.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church. Not your new pseudo-church, that denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

To deny one point of the Faith is enough to throw away your soul.  

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

The true despisers and rejectors of dogma and doctrine are the Extra Sacramental Salvationists. Children of the council.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church. Not your new pseudo-church, that denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

To deny one point of the Faith is enough to throw away your soul.  

Yes, and to deny that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity for salvation, as you do repeatedly, is denying *the* fundamental point of faith.

To claim the Church teaches the sacrament of baptism is not a necessity is to deny the point of faith. To claim the Church teaches salvation can be had via a BOD or a BOB in place of the sacrament of baptism is to preach scandal. You already know what Our Lord said about those who preach scandal - if you don't understand what He meant, let me know and I will get you an interpreter.


 

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

The true despisers and rejectors of dogma and doctrine are the Extra Sacramental Salvationists. Children of the council.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church. Not your new pseudo-church, that denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

To deny one point of the Faith is enough to throw away your soul.  

You had best heed your own words.

He will not. He cannot. He has gotten himself to the point where unless he slanders those who, like Fr. Feeney, defend the necessity of the Church and sacraments under the guise of saying the Church teaches Her sacraments are optional (or as Ambrose puts it: "it is necessary in fact or in desire") he will never be able to heed his own words.

Question: What is the difference between an Ambrose variety BOD and the prot version below?

"Are you saved brutha? - jesus saves! - have you accepted the lord jesus as your personal savior today?"  

Answer: The prot version goes right to "jesus" without desiring baptism - - BUT - - the prot would surly desire it if only he knew!

 

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

The true despisers and rejectors of dogma and doctrine are the Extra Sacramental Salvationists. Children of the council.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church. Not your new pseudo-church, that denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

To deny one point of the Faith is enough to throw away your soul.  

Yes, and to deny that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity for salvation, as you do repeatedly, is denying *the* fundamental point of faith.

To claim the Church teaches the sacrament of baptism is not a necessity is to deny the point of faith. To claim the Church teaches salvation can be had via a BOD or a BOB in place of the sacrament of baptism is to preach scandal. You already know what Our Lord said about those who preach scandal - if you don't understand what He meant, let me know and I will get you an interpreter.
 

I keep defending the Traditional Teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments, but you will only hear your heretical understanding of this doctrine.

The Traditional Teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments has as a foundation the belief that only Catholics (who actually can take these sacraments dispensed by the Church) can go to Heaven and achieve life everlasting. It is so simple, a First Communicant can grasp it.

What the sedevacantists BODers of CI defend is the Modernist Cushinguite error of invincible ignorance so prevalent after Vatican II Council, which undermines the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church of salvation. All religions can be possible means of salvation, they think. They do so under the false pretension of " Tradition " (and nostalgic and naive reversion to the 50's era) while sharing the same exact fundamental error of the liberal Vatican Curia they supposedly reject. It is all about the externals, "the smells and bells" but the fundamental core remains the same of the conciliar newchurch, the one that precisely ends up with the prayers at Assisi, in which Our LORD Jesus Christ is treated just as another god among many and the Catholic religion, True Faith, put to the same level than other false religions. For these BODers sedevacantists, Our Lord can harmoniously coexist among the other gods (which are really demons). They are stained with the Modernist Heresy, but seriously aggravated by the risk of schism.  

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

The true despisers and rejectors of dogma and doctrine are the Extra Sacramental Salvationists. Children of the council.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church. Not your new pseudo-church, that denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

To deny one point of the Faith is enough to throw away your soul.  

Yes, and to deny that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity for salvation, as you do repeatedly, is denying *the* fundamental point of faith.

To claim the Church teaches the sacrament of baptism is not a necessity is to deny the point of faith. To claim the Church teaches salvation can be had via a BOD or a BOB in place of the sacrament of baptism is to preach scandal. You already know what Our Lord said about those who preach scandal - if you don't understand what He meant, let me know and I will get you an interpreter.
 

I keep defending the Traditional Teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments, but you will only hear your heretical understanding of this doctrine.

The Traditional Teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments has as a foundation the belief that only Catholics (who actually can take these sacraments dispensed by the Church) can go to Heaven and achieve life everlasting. It is so simple, a First Communicant can grasp it.

What the sedevacantists BODers of CI defend is the Modernist Cushinguite error of invincible ignorance so prevalent after Vatican II Council, which undermines the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church of salvation. All religions can be possible means of salvation, they think. They do so under the false pretension of " Tradition " (and nostalgic and naive reversion to the 50's era) while sharing the same exact fundamental error of the liberal Vatican Curia they supposedly reject. It is all about the externals, "the smells and bells" but the fundamental core remains the same of the conciliar newchurch, the one that precisely ends up with the prayers at Assisi, in which Our LORD Jesus Christ is treated just as another god among many and the Catholic religion, True Faith, put to the same level than other false religions. For these BODers sedevacantists, Our Lord can harmoniously coexist among the other gods (which are really demons). They are stained with the Modernist Heresy, but seriously aggravated by the risk of schism.  

Catholic Teaching is both simple and complex.  You are only focusing on the simple, but refuse to grasp the distinctions to this teaching.  

The Traditional teaching on Baptism of Desire is clear.  It is the teaching of the Church and Catholcs must believe it.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella

Thousands posts later, there are some here who still do not comprehend what the term Cushinguite is really about.  :kick-can:

JPII and Pope Francis are good examples of what a Cushinguite is. No further need of explanation.

Feeneyites and Cuahingites are two sides of the same coin, both despise doctrine.

The true despisers and rejectors of dogma and doctrine are the Extra Sacramental Salvationists. Children of the council.

I'll stick with the Catholic Church. Not your new pseudo-church, that denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

To deny one point of the Faith is enough to throw away your soul.  

Yes, and to deny that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity for salvation, as you do repeatedly, is denying *the* fundamental point of faith.

To claim the Church teaches the sacrament of baptism is not a necessity is to deny the point of faith. To claim the Church teaches salvation can be had via a BOD or a BOB in place of the sacrament of baptism is to preach scandal. You already know what Our Lord said about those who preach scandal - if you don't understand what He meant, let me know and I will get you an interpreter.
 

I keep defending the Traditional Teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments, but you will only hear your heretical understanding of this doctrine.

You keep defending Cushing's teaching, not traditional teaching - you think Cushing is the Church, but Cushing was and is the enemy who succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in fooling you hook, line and sinker -  as such, you defend the enemy's teaching.

Much like Prots everywhere, you believe all one need do is accept the lord as their personal savior and they'll be saved...............well, wait - - in your religion, the dying person doesn't even need to accept jesus, just belive that there's a god who rewards and punishes.

And this is what you claim the Church teaches.