CathInfo.com

It's not open for discussion. It is at least a mortal sin, if not heresy to deny it.

You're balmy man. Heresy is the denial of any doctrine. A BOD has no doctrine.  So let's see.......

Can a man enter the Kingdom of God who has not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no? (ty ihsv)

You're balmy man. Heresy is the denial of any doctrine. A BOD has no doctrine.  So let's see.......

Can a man enter the Kingdom of God who has not been born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Yes or no? (ty ihsv)

The point of the original post was to show that nowhere is BOD considered a tolerated or EVEN A PROBABLE opinion. Do you understand what that means and how significant that is?

I enjoy her posts, but she fell off the plank on her earlier reply.

Thank you for your kind message. I enjoy yours as well. 

I was simply showing what is the logical conclusion of taking the writings of St. Alphonsus in their proper context.

St. Paul received the Faith before being baptized.

Writing about his conversion, St. Francis de Sales said that he fell off his horse a sinner, and rose up a saint. He was not baptized until later.

In children’s catechisms, the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, Incarnation and Redemption are given and one would not necessarily know about baptism from those teachings alone. Even in adult catechisms this is the case. The kind of enlightening that would take place that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus talk about, would be either an angel’s instruction or an interior enlightenment. 

Plus, the saint is not saying such a person would necessarily be left unbaptized. But Faith and charity is sufficient to justify a person, if the charity is perfect, because the effect of baptism consists in this very charity.

In fact Fr. Feeney taught this, and said that one who died without the sacrament would lose his soul. I think if we are to make sense of this apparent contradiction, we would have to say he taught that one may be justified by BOD but goes to hell by deliberately avoiding receiving the sacrament when they could have. It’s about obeying the law of God, just like Our Lady and Our Lord obeyed the law of sacrifice when presented in the Temple, without needing to be purified themselves since they were perfect.

Cardinal Cushing had a problem with Fr. Feeney not because of baptism but because of EENS. Cushing was well loved by the Jews of the day, received an award by them, and his sister was married to a Jew, so he had a lot to lose. Wretched liberal.

Plus, Fr. Feeney was never excommunicated for erroneous doctrine, but for not going to Rome when asked to, and he didn’t because who I believe was likely an infiltrator that asked him to come meet the Pope, did not give a reason for the invitation, which according to Canon Law is required. So Fr. Feeney rightfully refused. I’m guessing Pius XII was lied to.

Fr. Feeney’s sermons against the Jews and about EENS was a great consolation to young students in the 1940s, who were almost in despair at seeing their precious Faith destroyed in these universities.