I actually provided the wrong time in the previous post.  At min 34 he starts talking about an eens related topic, and at minute 52:30 he talks about feeneyism.  

The defiance of these modernists are inconceivable.

The dishonesty to not call the Novus Ordo church a false church, but to label it the "Modern Church" and those who attend it "clinging for dear life" is hypocrisy.

But then again, how could he call the "Modern church" a false church when he proclaims the same ecclesiology and soteriology that the false church manifests.

Notice the lack of conviction when this man speaks, it is almost like he doesn't believe what he is saying, or trying not to offend someone.

Exactly.

Question: Does Fr. Jenkins possess a saving Faith?

This is a serious question.  For divine faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God who reveals. Fr. Jenkins does not believe in dogma as the literal revelation of God that is a universal truth that constitutes a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, but rather only as a general axiom, a theological principle, a truism, a general principle, etc. devised by men which requires the theological expert to divine the true understanding as applied in various circuмstances.

Protestants who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ believe it on human authority on not on the authority of God who reveals.  Theirs is a human faith and not the virtue of Faith alone which is pleasing to God.

We have discussed in detail before how Modernism always as its final end has the direct destruction of dogma.  We have also discussed how Neo-modernism is a much more subtle heresy because it again has as its final end the overthrow of dogma but employs an indirect means in doing so.  Neo-modernism treats dogma either as a law, injunction or command and then applies the moral restrictions that govern laws to restrict the authority of the dogma OR they corrupt the dogma by changing the meaning of the terms or the universality of the copula.  They never deny the dogma directly as the Modernist do.

There is no difference in method between Fr. Jenkins and Benedict/Ratzinger, only one of degree. Let me give a simple example of the method of corruption of terms of the dogmatic proposition with regard to the term substance:
 

“…the medieval concept of substance has long since become inaccessible to us. In so far as we use the concept of substance at all today we understand thereby the ultimate particles of matter, and the chemically complex mixture that is bread certainly does not fall into that category.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and the Future, p. 14

It is impossible to affirm the Catholic dogma of that "Lord Jesus Christ... is consubstantial with the Father" or the Catholic dogma of  Transubstantiation if the concept of "substance" is rejected in the sense as used by scholastic theologians found in the perennial realist philosophical tradition.  And so we have Benedict/Ratzinger writing:

“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”
Joseph Ratzinger,  Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz

Fr. Jenkins in this apologetic video cites the gospel of John and then accuses the "Feeneyites" of giving their own private personal interpretation to this text.  The fact is that Fr. Feeney and those who agree with him interpret the words of Jesus Christ literally.  They are confirmed in their interpretation because the dogma that imposes a literal interpretation on all the Faithful as a truth of God revealed by God on the authority of God. That is why Fr. Feeney believed it and those who agree with Fr. Feeney believe it because God has revealed it. Fr. Jenkins does not believe it. He appeals to a Catholic catechism to overthrow the literal meaning of Jesus and the dogma. Whatever he believes, it is on the authority of man and not the authority of God who reveals. He does the same thing that Benedict/Ratzinger does.

In the gospel when Jesus instructs about the jot and title, He says that those who lessen even one of these divine revelations will be "least in the kingdom."  According to Cornelius a Lapide and the Church Fathers he cites, "least in the kingdom" means that they will not be in the kingdom at all but eternally lost.

So, does Fr. Jenkins or Benedict/Ratzinger possess the virtue of Faith?

I'm following the exact Dogmatic statements that leave absolutely NO room for this crap.....so If I send my soul to hell based on that but an individual who is totally ignorant of Christ can go to hellheaven the what good are  the Dogmatic definitions?

Ignorance is a bliss in NewDoctrine. Spreading the Gospel is a criminal act, as it leads directly to the endangerment of souls.

Quote from: umblehay anmay

I'm following the exact Dogmatic statements that leave absolutely NO room for this crap.....so If I send my soul to hell based on that but an individual who is totally ignorant of Christ can go to hellheaven the what good are  the Dogmatic definitions?

Ignorance is a bliss in NewDoctrine. Spreading the Gospel is a criminal act, as it leads directly to the endangerment of souls.

Indeed, because only those who explicitly reject what they KNOW to be the true Church are lost.  All others are saved, you know.  So teaching them about the true Church becomes an obstacle to their salvation.

I think Fr. Jenkins did a splendid job re: Feeneyism.

But of course you do, McCork.  Your unfounded opinion has been duly noted.

There is No such thing as 'feeneyism'....