CathInfo.com

So, let me get this straight: holding to the literal interpretation of John 3:5, clearly expounded by at least two Councils and the nigh-unanimity of the Fathers, is heretical.

But, reading into a Conciliar teaching while holding to the minority opinion of a few theologians, which by recent exaggerations contradicts John 3:5, is not heretical?

This is exactly why I never understood why there was a controversy surrounding EENS and Baptism. John 3:5 is self-evident. And only when a few opinions (no matter how holy or authoritative the theologian) got bounced around, then it became controversial to hold such an orthodox position?

There's no other explanation than madness and diabolical disorientation.

Very clear indeed.
________________________

CHAPTER IV.  A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, – as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.  And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
__________________________

Also, I like it how the Feeneyites say that the common teachings of the theologians failed so soon after the Council of Trent, and even the Catechism of the Council of Trent failed, despite having St. Charles Borromeo as overseer of the catechism! I suppose St. Ambrose, Innocent III, and St. Thomas Aquinas failed as well, just being mere theologians! What a bunch of incompetents and Fr. Feeney was there to correct us all!:facepalm:

You use the term "Feeneyite" as if that was a pejorative but I don't think you understand Fr Feeney very well at all.  Fr Feeney's position agrees with the canon you have cited above.  Fr Feeney affirmed in his writings (books) that the translation to the state of grace (i.e. justification) is possible through the so-called Baptism of Desire.  He also affirmed with the Council of Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  He also affirmed with Trent that water is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism.  He also affirmed with 3 different popes that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  So what crime are you trying to convict Fr Feeney of?

He was asked what would happen to those souls who had been justified by Baptism of Desire if they died before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism and he replied that he didn't know.  He speculated that God would make it possible for every one who was justified to also receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

I would argue along with Most Holy Family Monastery that Fr Feeney was in error about the possibility of being justified without (or before) receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.  Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the popes rules it out.  Pope Leo the Great explicitly condemned the idea that one could be justified apart from the Sacrament of Baptism.  Theologians have tried to make an analogy between BOD and the possibility of being justified apart from Sacramental Confession. However, that sacrament presupposes that the penitent has already received the Sacrament of Baptism.

You don't have any case against Fr Feeney.  He never denied any Catholic Dogma whatsoever and on top of that, he didn't even deny the pseudo-dogma of BOD.  MHFM does deny the pseudo-dogma but they have made a bullet-proof case for their position.  They will be vindicated in the end.