You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.

In correct again.  I learned it from Father Fenton.  I know better where I learned such a thing than you do.  Are you going to deny that as well.  What I have learned from the Feeneyites is their bitterness, anger, error and hate, plus an incredible intellectual pride that can only be matched by their blindness.  

So on second thought I guess I have learned from the Feeneyites.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

You may wish to make the appropriate attribution also, that it was the ignorant Feeneyites, who know nothing about Catholic theology, who nevertheless corrected your blunder of claiming that Baptism was necessary by a necessity of precept.  You go on then and pay lip service to "necessity of means" but then keep describing it as if it were necessity of precept anyway.  As with everything else.  You pay it lip service but then interpret it how you want anyway.

In correct again.  I learned it from Father Fenton.

Nonsense.  You published your erroneous view long after you had read Father Fenton and had promoted his papers.  We can quite clearly trace the timeframe for your retraction to shortly after we corrected you on your persistent attempts to characterize the necessity of Baptism as a necessity of precept.  You simply are not honest, LoT.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:

Quote

the lying hypocrite that he is

Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores?  This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?

Quote

rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1

There you have it.  He said it so it must be true.  Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.  

Very rich indeed.  

 :cheers:

Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.

You just keep trumpeting the same modernist teachings, invoking the names of great saints in your attempt to support your heresy of preaching the reception of the sacrament is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.

I understand the necessity of the sacraments for salvation as the Church does.  You don't.

Not true. You preach that you understand the sacrament to be optional, in direct contradiction of what the Church teaches.

If what you say were the truth, you would be able to defend the sacraments as the Church defends them, not continually promote that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, salvation through faith alone - this is not Church teaching, Trent anathematizes that teaching.

The biggest fraud perpetrated against the faith is the modernist teaching that says: "You must understand dogma as the Church Herself understand it" - - - - then they proceed to reduce dogma to a meaningless formula.

Per the First Vatican Council, the Church Herself understands the meaning "as once declared", not as explained by the likes of Fenton.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have not noticed the Feeneyites being capable of making such distinctions.  If I didn't mention the error you probably would not have noticed it.

As I said, I called you out on this several times before you made your retraction.  It is we who understand "such distinctions", while you Cushingites clearly do not.  I had to call out Don Paolo about 50 times on the same issue.

BTW - I don't recall you calling me out on such a thing.  But unlike you I do not accuse you of lying.  Accuse me of what you want.  That does not change the fact that I follow Church teaching on the issue and you do not.  You are straining a gnat for no good reason.  I know what I learned and who I learned it from.  Besides since when do Feeneyites teach that baptism is not necessary by intrinsic necessity?  I haven't heard it from them.

Take a seat sir and let those who have something to say on the issue have a turn.  I would like to know what part of my article people believe is in error.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

That does not change the fact that I follow Church teaching on the issue.

Sure, the Novus Ordo teaching.

Bingo!

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have not noticed the Feeneyites being capable of making such distinctions.  If I didn't mention the error you probably would not have noticed it.

As I said, I called you out on this several times before you made your retraction.  It is we who understand "such distinctions", while you Cushingites clearly do not.  I had to call out Don Paolo about 50 times on the same issue.

I either don't read you or don't lay weight onto anything you say because you are not a reliable source.  I learned the distinction from Fenton because he is a reliable source.  You cannot know where I learned the distinction from but can only call me a liar, seven times now, since you cannot refute the Catholic doctrine I present.

Why do you fight over petty things that you cannot be sure of such as the inner workings of my mind when I am sure of the contrary to what you claim?

Are you going to insist that I am liar for an eighth time or are you going to let it drop?

Certa bonum certamen fidei.