Author Topic: Matthew: Please define Feeneyism and explain why its allowed (Read 3287 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #30 on:** August 20, 2014, 11:31:22 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

So should he read the SSPX website articles that also condemn Feeneyism?

Or maybe he should read the many websites in union with "Pope" Francis that also debunk Feeneyism?

Do a google search and heal your ignorance, there are more articles exposing and condemning Feeneiyism from your own fellow "Pope" Francis supporters.

It is OK. God is not concerned with numbers. God works through remnants when He says, "Many are called but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14). The constant focus of God's action, in the Old and New Testaments, is on the remnant. God works through remnants, He is only concerned with His people. If needed be, he will wipe everything out and start over if He has to. He had done precisely that before. It is the way He operates.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2014, 12:01:53 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Clarification for those out there confused:

Genuine Fenneyites HAVE NOTHING TO DO with Dimond Brothers or any lunatic sedevacantists for that matter. They have "stolen" the focus of our crusade: the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was taught and solemnly proclaimed before the heresy of Modernism and courageously defended by Fr. Leonard Feeney and they have twisted it to fit an unholy purpose.

This is taken so seriously, that sedevacantists cannot be part of the SBC Third Order. They are not welcome.

Authentic "feeneyites" cannot ever be sedevacantists. The comparison or relation to the Dimond Brothers is an insult for which only ignorance is a justifiable excuse.

But according to Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, in a speech that he delivered and was recorded, and now the CMRI proudly repeats several times a year, "We are saved not by our understanding, but by our ignorance... it is our ignorance that saves us, not our knowledge."

Therefore, based on Sheen and the CMRI repetition of his works, they go about blatantly ignoring the facts so as to compare and relate "feeneyism" to the C-Z Dimond Brothers, even while the two are about one universe apart in their theology, give or take a few light years. :cool:

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2014, 12:24:45 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: lover of untruth
Quote from: J.Paul
Lo?,
Quote
You have plenty in common with the Dimonds. Calling people who disagree with you lunatics for instance. The unwomanly, unbecoming, angry, bitter repeated manifestation of your ignorance as well. The SBC is worse than the brothers in regards to theological positions. They got a lot wrong while the brothers have less wrong. Both are uncharitable and bitter and wrong. The SBC is more inconsistent rejecting the NO while still being in it.

A continuation the gospel of a semi-universalist apostle given this the Twentieth Day of August 2014.

:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:

Quote

Quote from: lover of untruth
Blah, blah, blah...

"The infallible Catholic Doctrine of BoD" for which not a single dogmatic statement in all Church history is ever found.

Problem with that:
so-called baptism of desire is not doctrine.

Hardly anyone really knows what it is you're talking about when you mention it.

That's not the way doctrine works.. Maybe go back to theology 101 and pay attention this time.

Quote

The sedevacantist BoDers of CI have ventured to go where not even the conciliar Popes they reject have ever gone: to declare that BoD is actually a dogma. Not even the Post Vatican II Curia has gone this far.

Correction: they have not even gone so far as to say it's "doctrine," because it isn't.

Quote

The infallible Canons of Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire and actually anathematizes anyone who would "make a metaphor" of Christ's words in John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again...".

Correct.

But that matters nothing to sedes like the troll sedes here on CI. They keep saying their hollow, silly self-contradictions, such as their ridiculous claim that "St. Thomas did not deny the Immaculate Conception," when it is a fact of history that he did, without question.

In this way, they would ostensibly like to take sides with Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity -- so long as it's convenient, that is; but when it comes to recognizing him as a pope, they just can't abide by that, even though THEY AGREE WITH HIS THEOLOGY wholeheartedly. Sedevacantists are a tangled morass of self-contradiction and scrambled mutually exclusive platitudes.

Sedevacantists in thinking mode: :idea:

.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2014, 07:29:00 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: lover of untruth
Quote from: J.Paul
Lo?,
Quote
You have plenty in common with the Dimonds. Calling people who disagree with you lunatics for instance. The unwomanly, unbecoming, angry, bitter repeated manifestation of your ignorance as well. The SBC is worse than the brothers in regards to theological positions. They got a lot wrong while the brothers have less wrong. Both are uncharitable and bitter and wrong. The SBC is more inconsistent rejecting the NO while still being in it.

A continuation the gospel of a semi-universalist apostle given this the Twentieth Day of August 2014.

:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:

Quote
Quote from: lover of untruth
Blah, blah, blah...

"The infallible Catholic Doctrine of BoD" for which not a single dogmatic statement in all Church history is ever found.

Problem with that:
so-called baptism of desire is not doctrine.

Hardly anyone really knows what it is you're talking about when you mention it.

That's not the way doctrine works.. Maybe go back to theology 101 and pay attention this time.

Quote
The sedevacantist BoDers of CI have ventured to go where not even the conciliar Popes they reject have ever gone: to declare that BoD is actually a dogma. Not even the Post Vatican II Curia has gone this far.

Correction: they have not even gone so far as to say it's "doctrine," because it isn't.

Quote
The infallible Canons of Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire and actually anathematizes anyone who would "make a metaphor" of Christ's words in John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again...".

Correct.

But that matters nothing to sedes like the troll sedes here on CI. They keep saying their hollow, silly self-contradictions, such as their ridiculous claim that "St. Thomas did not deny the Immaculate Conception," when it is a fact of history that he did, without question.

In this way, they would ostensibly like to take sides with Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity -- so long as it's convenient, that is; but when it comes to recognizing him as a pope, they just can't abide by that, even though THEY AGREE WITH HIS THEOLOGY wholeheartedly. Sedevacantists are a tangled morass of self-contradiction and scrambled mutually exclusive platitudes.

Sedevacantists in thinking mode: :idea:

.

Do you believe the ordinary infallible magisterium can teach infallible doctrine?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #34 on:** August 31, 2014, 02:15:22 AM »

.

There are a lot of things that are not doctrine that get taught anyway.

Go to a NovusOrdo "catechism" class and see for yourself.

In fact, it is a principle of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to abhor the mere mention of doctrine.

Well, it's perfectly fine to drabble on and on about so-called baptism of desire, and never broach the topic of doctrine, therefore, it's fair game in NovusOrdo classrooms. It's quite common, actually. But it's not doctrine.

Anyone who thinks that so-called baptism of desire is doctrine either doesn't know what doctrine is, or, they've been listening too much to Modernists (perhaps without realizing that's what they are) and have become confused.

Perhaps BOTH.

It's a pitiful state to be in, but it's very common today, and such members of CI, for example, the one posting above this post, are typical examples.

Pathetic.

.