Fr. Feeney echoed Trent. You have no flaming clue what Church teaching even is. For those who want to know what Trent taught in this matter, read Bread of Life.

You do not talk about Trent because you do not know what Trent taught, because you reject what Trent taught while falsely accusing others of the same. Nothing new among BODers.

Fr. Feeney taught non-Catholic heresy. The Bread of Life needs to be burned alongside with Calvin's treatise on predestination in the same garbage bin.
I already shared the Bull on Trent.


You are an excommunicated schismatic heretic who is not even part of the Church much less to be able to talk about it.

LOL

Always remember this papi:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am
preaching to you". - Fr. Feeney, "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright

You might as well quote Calvin, Stubby.

Feeney was a non-Catholic heretic.

Just always remember the quote. It helps BODers realize their iniquitous ways.

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water..." - Fr. Feeney, "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today." — John Cardinal Wright

Just always remember:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Pope Pius XII

It is so simple when you here the Voice of Christ say..


“Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5


And from the Church in the Nicene Creed said by the priest at Mass:

“Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum..”

“I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..” 

According to Christ and The Church, there is only One Baptism, (not three) and it is with water and The Holy Ghost


The idea there is accidental death of God’s Elect without the Sacraments is just plain silly. 
God is, and always was, the Author of Life and Death, and it is He who grants the Sacrament of Baptism, to ALL of His Elect.. 

John 18:9

9That the word might be fulfilled which he said: Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one.

Just always remember:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority.

Pope Pius XII

Except for those encyclicals and teachings by Popes who I, Papa Pius V, as a non sedevacantist, accept as pope but disagree with. I do not consent to the teaching of those.

One problem with R&R is that it posits two kinds of Popes, the ones to be believed and the ones to be disbelieved. As a non-sede it is hard to argue honestly or consistently with those who treat all the popes the same and question all their teachings, or who put different Popes, such as Pius XII who you quote, into the category of popes to be disbelieved.

Indeed. It is a contradiction I am attempting to solve. I have no answer to this. I am undoubtedly guilty.
I might end up eventually adopting the Cassiciacuм thesis.

I honestly trouble with this also. I don't see the sede options as being better after knowing about the arguments for about twelve years, and I do not want to become a Russian Old Believer, so I stay with my SSPX chapel and pray the Rosary.

The article was written by a Feeneyite organization, funny enough. Anyway its not a bad article. It is fair and well balanced, but again St. Augustine is not the Catholic Church.

If you want Augustinianism then become a Calvinist or an Old Roman Catholic (Jansenism).

That's utterly idiotic.  You're now equating anti-Pelagianism with Calvinism, effectively declaring St. Augustine to be objectively heretical.  You might as well be promoting Pelagius, man.

We finally have someone coming out in the open admitting that it's Pelagianism that is behind BoD.