CathInfo.com

I don't need to explain or justify myself to you, Ladislaus. You always do this when you run out of arguments, and can't stick to the topic.

I've not attacked Fr. Feeney. You're just misinformed on that point. I specifically said I have no objection to St. Benedict's Centre's doctrinal position.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

You're the one doing the devil's work in claiming Dimondite things like "BOD may be objectively heretical" (which St. Benedict's Centre) does not claim, whether you know it or not. I consider St. Benedict's Centre an ally in evangelizing and building up the Church. Neither you nor the Dimonds are real allies of the Church. You also claimed the "Dimonds have done a great service to the Faith". Actually, they've done terrible harm to the Faith.

They've led souls outside the Church, where there is no salvation, and they will answer for it, and for their "Ecclesia-Vacantism" heresy.

I am firmly a Thomist on explicit faith and have defended explicit faith over implicit faith many times. If the debate was on explicit faith, I would be firmly against implicit faith. Just like I am a Thomist on the Molinist issue and have argued against both implicit faith and Molinism many times, whether you've seen it or not. But in obedience to the Church, I don't consider Molinists or implicit faithers to be heretics as the Popes directed.

I suppose some of you would consider me guilty of "ecuмenism" because of this article I wrote: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ It took hours and lots of struggle to research and write it. But I was happy to do so, because I knew God would be pleased, and souls would be benefited. And accordingly, by the Grace of God, many non-Catholic Christians returned home to the Church. What I wrote was in full obedience to the decrees of Florence and that of Pope Pius XII on conducting "ecuмenism of return". If I'd just condemned every Orthodox Christian as a "formal schismatic", I doubt even one single Orthodox Christian would have come back. The principles based on which I write, as I've amply proven from many sources, are that taught by Popes, Saints and Doctors.

Also, as was quoted in one of St. Benedict's Centre's article, Fr. Laisney, of the SSPX maintained explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity. SBC said they agreed with that, but claimed the Holy Office Letter didn't agree with it. Well, I agree with the Holy Office Letter, in the sense it was understood by Msgr. Fenton. Both supernatural faith and supernatural contrition are necessary for an efficacious desire, and I hold with Msgr. Fenton, St. Alphonsus etc that explicit Catholic Faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for supernatural and salvific faith. If the debate was on explicit faith vs implicit faith, you'd see me arguing firmly for explicit faith.

As it is, the debate is with the Dimondite denial of BOD and especially of the claim that it is heretical. I've seen the very terrible fruits of Dimondism and the horrible lack of charity it leads to, and the presumptions of its followers in declaring everyone but their "Church of 10" to be heretics, and I'm not at all impressed with it and believe it to be heretical. So I will continue to oppose Dimondism, just as I would Jansenism. I will argue in favor of explicit faith and against implicit faith when that is the topic of debate.

Edit: I also agreed with Arvinger back when I was posting with my old acccount. I'm going to bump one of my old threads on the subject.

Saying "BOD is objectively heretical" would be like saying "the Immaculate Conception is objectively heretical" before it was formally defined. The Church had clearly shown it favor for many centuries before explicitly and formally defining it and closing the question. A similar thing happened here. BOD has already been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and is irreformable doctrine.

I notice no one answered this point: "The Roman Catechism says, "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

The Catechism says: (1) the danger present for infants, i.e. of being eternally lost in limbo, is not present for adults, contrary to what was claimed. (2) second, it is not talking of a miraculous water baptism. It says they are not washed in the salutary waters. (3) Third, it clearly explains the determination and resolution to receive Baptism, joined to contrition or repentance over past sins, avails to grace and righteousness, i.e. justification (4) It implies they will be saved, for the danger is absent. This is Trent's teaching on BOD here.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

How are they Jansenists (or neo-Jansenists) in your opinion?  Isn't it your opinion which is closer to Jansenism?  The first proposition of Jansenius which was condemned by the pope was:

1. Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men [CM: baptism anyone?] who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have: the grace by which these commandments may become possible is also wanting.  source: A Handbook of Heresies, M L Cozens, 1928

You, Nishant, say that it can be impossible for a JUST man to receive the Sacrament of Baptism which Our Lord commanded (John 3:5).  But MHFM says that all who are UNJUST but who assent to the Church's doctrines, and are sorry for their sins, and desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, Our Lord will indubitably grant them the grace of receiving the Laver of Regeneration which is the cause of their justification.

In Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year for the Friday of the First Week of Lent (today), we see that the Gospel is from John Chapter 5.  It is the story of the man who had been waiting at the Waters of Probatica for 38 years.  He said to Jesus, "Sir I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond;"  Dom Gueranger says that Jesus is that man.  And he makes the connection between the Waters of Probatica and the Sacrament of Baptism.

No one can validly baptize himself.  We need someone to represent Jesus Christ in order to baptize us into His Church, the Ark of Salvation.  And everyone admits that BOD does not cause one to receive the baptismal character, nor become a member of the Church,  nor remit the temporal punishment due to sins.  So there is absolutely nothing Jansenist about this.  It is another calumny on your part.

This is the "Feeneyism Ghetto" so I will not address the Ecclesia-Vacantist nonsense which has been dealt with at length in other threads in the Crisis forum.