Author Topic: Is Feeneyism Catholic, Fr. Francois Laisney, book for sale (Read 6940 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2014, 11:22:38 PM »

Quote from: Ambrosia

The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.

Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.

This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
...

No, I just love the Catholic teaching, which you for some reason are unable to recognize.
...

I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes. You have been deceived by heretics. The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.

The relentless Ambrosia is at it again, as if he has nothing constructive to do with his life.
Pathetic.

"How long, O Lord, how long?"

.

Cantarella · « **Reply #16 on:** August 08, 2014, 12:27:59 AM »

Quote from: Marie Catherine

This is exactly why I'm not the least bit surprised to find modernism in the SSPX hierarchy.

Stubborn · « **Reply #17 on:** August 08, 2014, 05:09:06 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.

Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.

This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.

Yes yes yes, but can you do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?

No, of course you can't defend that which you despise - if only you could get yourself to admit it.

I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes. You have been deceived by heretics. The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.

You are an oversized weasel who cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments any more than any other compromiser.

I pray when your last hour comes, that God does not leave you to desire the sacrament of Extreme Unction - your desire will never save you.

Catholic Teaching is not what you want it to be, it exists outside of your mind.

More weaseling? Is there no end to your hatred of the necessity of the sacraments and those who defend it?

Your modus operandi is to weasel, but one thing you will never be able to weasel out of is that you STILL cannot admit that you are incapable of defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments for salvation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #18 on:** August 08, 2014, 05:12:36 AM »

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

JPaul · « **Reply #19 on:** August 08, 2014, 08:09:15 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

sssppaaammmmmmm..................................

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #20 on:** August 08, 2014, 08:48:32 AM »

Since when is Catholic teaching from the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Catechisms spam? Since the Feeneyites said so.

FEENEYITE: I disagree with all the following Catholic teachings but I'm still a Catholic:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** August 08, 2014, 10:10:37 AM »

So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #22 on:** August 08, 2014, 10:48:32 AM »

Since when is Catholic teaching from the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Catechisms spam? Since the Feeneyites said so.

FEENEYITE: I disagree with all the following Catholic teachings but I'm still a Catholic:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #23 on:** August 08, 2014, 12:45:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.

:roll-laugh1:

You call anything "masterful" that happens to reinforce your own thinking.

Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".

Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda.

And the book goes downhill from there.

It's crap.

Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.

Anybody wonders why Fr. Laisney is so eager to be "re-integrated"? Or Bp. Fellay, Rostand...? They have failed miserably to defend the faith against the Roman apostates and they still don't have a clue why.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #24 on:** August 08, 2014, 05:54:23 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrosia
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.

:roll-laugh1:

You call anything "masterful"
that happens to reinforce your own thinking.

[Wait...... isn't that what 'masterful' means???? :rolleyes: ]

Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".

Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda. [But legitimately follows Rahner's example by his insertion of the ellipses, at least! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA]

And the book goes downhill from there.

It's crap.

Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.

Anybody wonders why Fr. Laisney is so eager to be "re-integrated"? Or Bp. Fellay, Rostand...? They have failed miserably to defend the faith against the Roman apostates and they still don't have a clue why.

When you realize the root of the problem, all the mystery evaporates!

Fr. Laisney and the rest of the Menzingen-denizens are all birds of a feather. Should we wonder why they flock together?

They are totally on board with the Newchurch ecclesiology when it comes to the non-necessity of the sacraments, (which BTW is the only reasonably explanation for changing the form of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination in 1968, which is no longer any big deal to the Menzingen-denizens) and BoD and the salvation of non-Catholics. They scoff and fume at the necessity of supernatural faith (and in case you didn't notice, it's no longer GOD'S Church but the Church of Bishop B'nai Fellay, and the Church of Pope Francis), but perhaps this is obscured by their implicit denial of ALL OF the supernatural in the first place. It's traceable to Americanism, which is nothing but Liberalism with an American touch. "Saint" John Paul II is the one who got that ball rolling, by daring to put into words such things as "the dignity of MAN" and various quotes from Vat.II and other sources, mixed in with his TENS OF THOUSANDS of other USELESS words in his enyclicals which serve NO PURPOSE but to advance this agenda of MAN taking over GOD'S Church.

Karl Rahner is actually much more credible because MOST of the time, he has good scholarly tendencies. One glaring exception was his inclusion of the Mostaccioli-Spaghettiani letter into Denzinger (because it did not belong there at all, but maybe he just likes Italian food! HAHAHAHA) -- you get the feeling that he really stuck his neck out doing that because it was a very risky move, but somehow, he got away with it.

Just like how they all got away with Vatican II. Same principle in action.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #25 on:** August 08, 2014, 05:58:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.

A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:

You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** August 08, 2014, 07:08:04 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ladislaus

So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.

A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:

You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.

Done !

Ambrose · « **Reply #27 on:** August 08, 2014, 07:22:10 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Ladislaus

So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.

A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:

You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.

Done !

For those who want relief put Neil Obstat on HIDE. It will be well worth your time to not read his venom.

Ambrose · « **Reply #28 on:** August 08, 2014, 07:26:33 PM »

And you will also be free from his long winded blather from a man who cannot make a point, and must drone on for a whole page to say one thing.

HIDE button for "Mr." Obstat

Cantarella · « **Reply #29 on:** August 08, 2014, 07:47:47 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.

:roll-laugh1:

You call anything "masterful" that happens to reinforce your own thinking.

Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".

Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda.

And the book goes downhill from there.

It's crap.

Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.

Anybody wonders why Fr. Laisney is so eager to be "re-integrated"? Or Bp. Fellay, Rostand...? They have failed miserably to defend the faith against the Roman apostates and they still don't have a clue why.

It is because they all same the same liberal Cushing error with the modernists they reject: the teaching of "salvation by implicit desire" and its corollary, "salvation by justification alone" that apply to non-Catholics that do not even hold the Catholic Faith, which is the foundation of all justification. It seems that the SSPX can only point out to the errors in Vatican Il but cannot really provide an alternative since they act unaware of the Cushing Heresy (invincible ignorance -> denial of EENS) which is the cause of those errors.

The heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter is the doctrinal foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. However, nobody wants to accept the widespread Cushing heresy which has plagued the entire world. The Vatican as well as most traditionalist orders try to preserve their economical and political interests at the expense of EENS, which is the only dogma the world cannot live with.