CathInfo.com

As if the doctors of the Church never had a sufficient understanding of baptism and the Council of Florence! This whole thing is absurd.

Please show me anywhere in Church history that clergy were not only permitted but praised for teaching an erroneous interpretation of a Council, AFTER the Council, because this is what the logical conclusion is if we want to say all the saints, doctors, clergy post-Trent were just WRONG.

I've not posted in a long time and won't join this debate, since those who hate EENS dogma will not be convinced, but I can't let this lie stand and need to provide the following "Fact Check" (known as "Community Notes" on X).

You researched nothing ... but this is merely a truncation of Father Cekada's list.  Pathetic that you would steal it and claim that it's your research.  But that's what lying heretical slanderers like Scuмmage here do ... lie like it's going out of style.  And, you can't claim "mental reservation" that you "researched" Father Cekada's list when you made zero attribution in your post.

In any case, you'll find that this guy also excised the theologians, who happened to be the majority in even Father Cekada's list who are merely listed as "teaches", i.e. they mention it in passing as the vast majority of "manualists" do.  Manualists are not actually theologians nor do they claim to be, but are merely producing compendiums or summaries.

So, while the Church has never condemend BoD per se, these threads have been absolutely awash with heresy, from Pelagianism to Protestantism.  Now ... carry on.  Anti-BoDers who hate EENs dogma and the dogmatic SVs who claim that Pius XII was infallible every time he passed wind ... will never accept any reason or arguments on this matter, so you're wasting your time.

Of course, Scuмmage here is R&R (since he purports to be Resistance) ... so that's even more pathetic, where he cites some "majority theological opinion", but then thinks it's OK to reject teaching (Vatican II) and universal discipline (New Mass), that not only ALL theololgians (with one or two exceptions, such as then-Father Guerard des Lauriers), but all but a couple bishops AND, most importantly, the man whom they claim is the Pope, endorsed as fully Catholic ... that's it's prefectly fine to reject it when the "Pope" and all the "Bishops" and every single theologian have consistently taught something for 60+ years, but then you find a half dozen manualist and then it's dogma.  R&R clownism manifests itself most when they cite the authority of an Encyclical by a pre-Vatican II pope but then decide that all the teaching of the post-Vatican-II post can be safely ignored.  That of course makes them their own ultimate rule of faith, their own popes.

So I can see these arguments being made by dogmatic SVs (even if they're wrong) ... but by R&R, who reject 60 years of near-Universal teaching from what they hold to be the legitimate hierarchy, the actual Teaching Church, not a bunch of manualists.  PS:  Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejects "Cekadism" where such theological consensus has any kind of authority whatsover.

But, we know that the Pelagian-Protestant EENS-haters here on CI won't listen to it ... just had to take a moment to call out yet another lie by Scuмmage here.

You have a foul mouth for one who claims to care about the salvation of souls.