CathInfo.com

Steve Speray posts a blog on WordPress.
...
Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it.

So did Father Feeney, Speray, you blithering moron.  After this sentence early on, your entire blog post can be ignored since you haven't the slightest clue about what "heresy" it is that you think you're attacking.

This guy doesn't even know what the "Feeneyism" he's condemning as heretical actually is and what propositions it adheres to.  He's battling the "Dimondite" opinion, namely, an alternative reading of the Council of Trent and falsely labeling it "Feeneyism".

Now, with that said, you have the notable example of St. Peter Canisius, who was a Father at Trent, not some later interpreter, who read this passage in the Dimondite manner.  Secondly, the sum total of "literally every single theologian" amounts to about two dozen that Father Cekada could find (in 500 years), the majority of whom simply mention BoD in passing and never study the actual passage in Trent, say "yep, BoD" without clearly having given a significant amount of consideration to the question and simply repeating (manual-style) the notion that there's BoD.  That hardly constitutes some kind of dogmatic consensus.  "Literally every single theologian ..." for about 700 years also adhered to St. Augustine's position regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, until Abelard and then St. Thomas overturned the theological consensus on the matter and nearly all theologians have now abandoned the Augustinian "severity" on the question.  So this is the error of Cekadism, claiming that the consensus of theologians at any given time constitues some kind of "rule of faith", a theory explicitly rejected as "absurd" by an actual theologian (unlike Cekada), Msgr. Fenton.

I am not going to read this wall of text I'm sure lad or someone else might be willing. But just wanted to point out this is wrong and an assumption.

If what he said were true we would have seen St. Peter Canisius mention it, a person who was at Trent...

So did Father Feeney, Speray, you blithering moron.  After this sentence early on, your entire blog post can be ignored since you haven't the slightest clue about what "heresy" it is that you think you're attacking.

This guy doesn't even know what the "Feeneyism" he's condemning as heretical actually is and what propositions it adheres to.  He's battling the "Dimondite" opinion, namely, an alternative reading of the Council of Trent and falsely labeling it "Feeneyism".

Now, with that said, you have the notable example of St. Peter Canisius, who was a Father at Trent, not some later interpreter, who read this passage in the Dimondite manner.  Secondly, the sum total of "literally every single theologian" amounts to about two dozen that Father Cekada could find (in 500 years), the majority of whom simply mention BoD in passing and never study the actual passage in Trent, say "yep, BoD" without clearly having given a significant amount of consideration to the question and simply repeating (manual-style) the notion that there's BoD.  That hardly constitutes some kind of dogmatic consensus.  "Literally every single theologian ..." for about 700 years also adhered to St. Augustine's position regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, until Abelard and then St. Thomas overturned the theological consensus on the matter and nearly all theologians have now abandoned the Augustinian "severity" on the question.  So this is the error of Cekadism, claiming that the consensus of theologians at any given time constitues some kind of "rule of faith", a theory explicitly rejected as "absurd" by an actual theologian (unlike Cekada), Msgr. Fenton.

I just realised I misread this as baptism not justification... the BoD reading is getting to me.