Quote from: Matto

Saint Alphonsus Liguori, "enemy of Christ and traitor of the One True Faith."

Was st. Alphonsus Liguori speculating about a "Jew, Moslem, a Hindu, or any other non-Catholic" or a dying pious catechumen dying with an EXPLICIT Faith in Jesus Christ and desire to enter the Church?

I am pretty sure that any speculation on a salvific last-minute BOD ever made by saints were strictly in the hypothetical cases of justified catechumens who already had the Catholic Faith.    

I started to watch the video--curious about what they were going to say.  I turned it off when the narrator started to talk about "the heretic, Father Fenton."

Well, if you admit that Vatican II's teaching that all the baptized members of Protestant sects, even those who dissent from the Papacy, etc., are in the Church of Christ, is heretical, then why do you consider it absurd that Fenton was a heretic, considering that Fenton identified Vatican II's heretical teaching as orthodox and even as an 'improvement' (as the video shows)?  If you believe that Vatican II's teaching was heretical or constituted false doctrine, then you must admit that Fenton defended heresy or false doctrine and that he didn't understand ecclesiology.

I’m showing that anyone who considers Vatican II’s heretical teaching on the Church of Christ to be heresy or false doctrine, as it most certainly is, must admit that Fenton defended[/i] [/b]heresy or false doctrine.  TKGS probably wouldn’t even admit that Fenton defended heresy, which shows his inconsistency (assuming he rejects Vatican II) or his lack of familiarity with Catholic truth (assuming he accepts Vatican II).  So, consistency would require one to acknowledge that Fenton defended heresy on the Church.  Once it is admitted that he defended heresy, a reasonable person can see why it’s not absurd, but quite plausible, that Fenton was a heretic and a dissenter from Catholic dogma; for Fenton purported to be an expert on ecclesiology, and Vatican II’s teaching on the Church did not reject Catholic dogma on some finer point, but ran contrary to a host of pronouncements on the most basic dogmatic matters.

Second, you are totally wrong when you claim that MHFM and the Dimonds are inconsistent to hold that 1) after the definition of papal infallibility and in light of all the dogmatic arguments available, one must not teach BOD under pain of heresy, but that 2) saints who erred on this matter, prior to the definition of papal infallibility, etc. were not heretics.  Your claim is addressed and refuted in this video: (‘How Can Baptism of Desire Be Contrary to Dogma?’)  You should listen to it.  It discusses the matter in detail.  It covers numerous examples in Church history where Catholic authorities were totally wrong about the theological status of truths, and either failed to recognize that something was a definite truth of faith or they wrongly identified as definite truths of faith things that were not.
For example, St. Robert Bellarmine, the members of the Holy Office, and popes at that time condemned the denial of geocentrism as HERESY.  But later popes, theologians and Roman congregations took the opposite view and allowed it to be taught.  Pope Benedict XV even gave explicit support for a position that was previously identified as HERESY.

According to your elementary argument, which is refuted in the aforementioned video, you would have to hold that St. Robert Bellarmine, the members of the Holy Office, and popes at that time were schismatics for wrongly condemning the denial of geocentrism as a heresy, or that later theologians and a pope were heretics for teaching what St. Robert Bellarmine and the popes at the time rightly identified as heresy.  Which one is it?  This alone shows that you don’t understand these matters, and it destroys your claim of inconsistency.

But with basic matters that constitute a notorious rejection of dogmatic language (such as whether Protestants who reject the Papacy are in the Body of Christ – i.e. the heresy of Vatican II – or the false doctrine that animists, Muslims and Jews can be saved, directly contrary to Florence), to clearly maintain or teach such a position in the face of one clear dogmatic pronouncement (such as Cantate Domino) warrants the conclusion of formal heresy and separation from the Church.

Since you lack a Catholic sense, you can’t see this distinction.  Further, according to your false understanding of heresy and related matters, you hold that anyone who thinks his position is Catholic, no matter how notoriously heretical it is, cannot be an actual (formal) heretic.   That’s nonsense.  

According to your logic, Clinton’s VP pick Tim Kaine, who thinks he’s a traditional Catholic and therefore that his position is consistent with Catholic teaching (and he’s accepted at his ‘parish’), is not a heretic.   But according to Catholic teaching, he is a heretic, since he clearly departs from the teaching of the Magisterium, and he does not profess the true faith.  

Arvinger, most, if not almost all, of what you wrote in your recent post is false.  As just one illustration, you conclude that my points demonstrating something to be 'plausible' means that I know I can't prove it.  You are quite wrong.  You obviously don't have a good grasp of what 'plausible' means or how the word can be used in the context of responding to someone who thinks a position is totally inadmissible or absurd.  To show, in such a context, that it's 'plausible' that Fenton was a heretic is to demonstrate that there are good reasons to believe it, and that it's not absurd.  It is not to concede that it's not certain.  The conclusion that Fenton was, indeed, a heretic is not only based on his defense of Vatican II but also on his made up theology on Church membership, his acceptance of the heresy that people can be saved without the Catholic faith, etc., which contradicts numerous dogmas on salvation.

Is Tim Kaine (who supports abortion, gαy 'marriage', etc. ad nauseam) an actual (formal) heretic, yes or no?  If yes, then how do you know that he's a formal heretic?  If not, then you hold that he's one of the faithful - indeed, one who 'professes the true faith' (for only those who 'profess the true faith' can be considered in the Church).  There are only two possibilities for Kaine.  Either he is to be considered an actual heretic, and therefore separated from the Church, or as someone who is not an actual heretic, and therefore one of the professors of the true faith.  Which is it?  A heretic or a person who professes the true faith?

Quote from: TKGS

I started to watch the video--curious about what they were going to say.  I turned it off when the narrator started to talk about "the heretic, Father Fenton."

Exactly. If Fr. Fenton is a "heretic" then no one is a Catholic.