Author Topic: Fr. Stepanich on Outside of the Church There is No Salvation (Read 6875 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #45 on:** July 20, 2009, 01:56:00 PM »

What about john23. Paul 6 and JPone? I do not understand why Stepanich attacks Fr Feeney if all the latter was doing is proclaiming EENS. Does Stepanich still feel the same way re: Fr Feeney?

CM · « **Reply #46 on:** July 20, 2009, 02:17:30 PM »

Quote from: caio

http://eens123.blogspot.com/2008/12/st.html

Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

Dawn, the ONLY saint I am aware of who held to baptism of desire AFTER it was defined that water baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation is Alphonsus.

Has it occurred to anyone that this type of thing could be allowed as a test of our faith? We know very well that the first and foremost source of Truth is God, and so we need to obey and believe the ex cathedra decrees, the dogmas above all other things.

Elizabeth, Protestant? Give me a break. There is a big difference between privately interpreting Scripture, and obeying the objective sense of ex cathedra decrees, which ARE THE FINAL INTERPRETATION of Scripture, by the highest earthly authority, the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Dawn, what the point? Again, get serious. The point it fidelity to God and working to convert people to His true Faith, the Faith in which we are completely faithful first and foremost to His infallible Magisterium, which is spoken by Him, through the popes.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." - Condemned.

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice..."

How much more so, then, the infallible decrees, which infallibly interpret Scripture for us, and as the decrees above state, are to be understood as objective truths to be believe according to how they are declared? According to their objective sense.

THIS is the Catholic Faith, and anything that runs contrary to it is a deception. Believe men or believe God, it really is THAT simple.

And these decrees are available for EVERYONE obviously. God is indeed just. He will reward those who believe Him and obey Him. Those who do not believe Him, how can they obey Him if they deny what He has commanded, by explaining it away, trying to change it as Stepanich does, or by blatantly contradicting it?

roscoe · « **Reply #47 on:** July 20, 2009, 02:53:21 PM »

What I want to know is why is Martin Stepanich attacking Fr Feeney and does he still feel that way?

roscoe · « **Reply #48 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:28:19 PM »

Apparently Martin Stepanich believes the fraudulent docuмent allegedly ex-communicating Fr Feeney. For what it's worth I would like to know if he attacks Card Rampolla. imo anyone who believes the calumny against this great man of the Church is basically referring to Leo XIII, Pius X and Pius XI( Card Raphael) as anti-popes-- talk about dangerous. Ciao

CM · « **Reply #49 on:** July 21, 2009, 04:25:47 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

It seems as if Stepanich was an adherent of the v2 anti-popes when the article was written. That would make him a heretic if he was conscious of what he was doing and only he can say that. Is he still of that mind?

That in itself would not make him a heretic, but a schismatic. And please do remember that Pius XII had no authority to excommunicate anyone from the Catholic Church, since he schismatically followed antipope Benedict XV, and was a public heretic, who taught baptism of desire and birth control in his Oct 1951 Allocution to Italian Midwives, and thus was not a Catholic nor was he ever a pope.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #50 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:04:44 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Apparently Martin Stepanich believes the fraudulent docuмent allegedly ex-communicating Fr Feeney. For what it's worth I would like to know if he attacks Card Rampolla. imo anyone who believes the calumny against this great man of the Church is basically referring to Leo XIII, Pius X and Pius XI( Card Raphael) as anti-popes-- talk about dangerous. Ciao

So it's "Martin Stepanich" not Fr. Stepanich? But our distinguished theologians are benevolent enough to use the term "Fr. Feeney"?

Fr. Stepanich has been a holy traditional priest for over 60 years.

Christ have mercy.

roscoe · « **Reply #51 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:37:06 PM »

I am confused because the man is attacking Fr Feeney. This is why I have asked if he still feels the same way as when he wrote the hit piece in 1974.

It has been stated that he believes JP2 and Ben 16 are illegal. What about John 23, Paul 6 and JP1? Does he recognise the election of Gregory XVII as Dawn, myself and PFT do? What about the v2 'council'?

roscoe · « **Reply #52 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:44:56 PM »

Dawn has just PM d me and I now know that Fr Stepanich does not recognise the v2 anti-popes beg w/ john 23.

If this is true (and I have no reason not to trust Dawn) then why is the v2 Eliz enamoured with the man?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #53 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:46:22 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Dawn has just PM d me and I now know that Fr Stepanich does not recognise the v2 anti-popes beg w/ john 23.

If this is true (and I have no reason not to trust Dawn) then why is the v2 Eliz enamoured with the man?

"why is the v2 Eliz enamoured with the man?"

V2 Eliz, now that's cute :baby:

roscoe · « **Reply #54 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:01:08 PM »

Is it correct that you accept Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Woyteka(sp) and Ratzinger as true popes or no?

roscoe · « **Reply #55 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:19:45 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: roscoe
It seems as if Stepanich was an adherent of the v2 anti-popes when the article was written. That would make him a heretic if he was conscious of what he was doing and only he can say that. Is he still of that mind?

That in itself would not make him a heretic, but a schismatic. And please do remember that Pius XII had no authority to excommunicate anyone from the Catholic Church, since he schismatically followed antipope Benedict XV, and was a public heretic, who taught baptism of desire and birth control in his Oct 1951 Allocution to Italian Midwives, and thus was not a Catholic nor was he ever a pope.

IMO Pius XIII(II) and Pius XII(I) did not follow the antipope Ben 15 but they succeeded the true Pope( Pius XI-- Card Raphael).

This will be known someday. The very 'election' of Della Chiesa is a fraud and it only follows that he would close the Sodalatium Pianum and condemn the La Sallette Prophesy.
Mc Nutt also hints that he was part of a plot to put the phony coryphee Mussolini into power and that Francis wanted nothing to do with it. ( Mussolini had a long careesr as a Radical Left Socialist and some saw the trick when he suddenly shape shifted into a right wing idealogue.

Ben 15 was also the first 'pope' to suggest publically that the Holy See would not necessarily have a problem with Judaics occupying the Holy Land. Yes he backtracked later but the fact is he was the first. Source-- Vatican and Zionism by Minerbi(J).

Elizabeth · « **Reply #56 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:36:21 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Is it correct that you accept Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Woyteka(sp) and Ratzinger as true popes or no?

Is it correct that you attempt to insult and goad other posters, and instead of having the grace and humility to wonder if you just might be way out of your league as a layman, switch back to interrogator mode?

And yet you still persist in the Grand Inquistor Mode to Fr. Stepanich, in case his years of Theology do not match your amateur pronouncements?

Why are you asking me about my opinion of the men whose names you mentioned? You mean you really don't know and you can't read my mind? :shocked:

roscoe · « **Reply #57 on:** July 22, 2009, 02:38:59 AM »

Do you believe that Earth rev around the Sun?

CM · « **Reply #58 on:** July 24, 2009, 05:01:32 AM »

The sun revolves around the earth, which neither orbits anything else, nor rotates.

Watch this.

Too bad he's a Protestant (and obstinately so, I tried to convert him)

roscoe · « **Reply #59 on:** July 25, 2009, 03:38:35 PM »

Yes he certainly is a Prot as they do believe Sun rev around the Earth. This clown does not even understand the difference between revolution and rotation so how is he suppose to be an authority on anything besides being a heretical, schismatic, apostate.

I do not deny that the Earth is the center of the universe. However the Earth still revolves around the sun as the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.