Coming from the perspective that V2 is a valid council begs the question.  Your Pope, SBC, who in your eyes enjoys higher authority than the one you claim to be Vicar of Christ, is a perfect example of vehemently embracing contradiction.  

I showed you contradiction between "The Letter" and the First Vatican Council. That is the contradiction you are willfully blind to.

You act as if Pope Pius IX's infallible decree is a novel idea or he was not a true pope so you don't have to believe him.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

Now address the post and show how you make the two teachings agree with each other:

Thanks again to Father Feeney we have the clearest authoritative teaching on the issue to date from the Holy Office approved by Pius XII which is as follows:

Actually, thanks to Fr. Feeney, we know The Letter helped pave the way for your Novus Ordo ecclesiology.

   However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For Our Saviour gave the things that are contained in the deposit of faith to be explained by the ecclesiastical magisterium and not by private judgments.

                                                                                      vs

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Why would anyone believe "The Letter" is a teaching of the Church in light of the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council?

If you believe what you are saying, then you believe that dogma's mean exactly what they say, as such, they are not subject to interpretation.

Are you now admitting that the Church itself understands it exactly as She  declared it?

 

Only reason we're even having this discussion is due to LoH's disingenuous trumpeting of Fenton's "authority" ... trying to make it seem impious for anyone to disagree with him.  Same self-serving sanctimonious hypocrisy as always from LoH ... finding "authority" only in those sources that agree with his positions.

You are to Denzinger what the Protestants are to the Bible.  You quote it but don't understand what it says.  But this is not good enough for you.  You have to spread your errors all over the place.  You will have to answer for this.

You cannot even answer a clear question.

But at least we know you do not believe that they both say the same thing.

Only reason we're even having this discussion is due to LoH's disingenuous trumpeting of Fenton's "authority" ... trying to make it seem impious for anyone to disagree with him.  Same self-serving sanctimonious hypocrisy as always from LoH ... finding "authority" only in those sources that agree with his positions.

But that is what all the dogma refiners do, each one trumpeting his take EENS, there are as many opinions among them as there are dogma refiners.

That one can't convince the dogma refiners with the clear dogma of the Athanasian Creed, is clear proof that they speak a different language. They will never understand any dogma as it is written, they will forever be in search of "truth", each one with his own take on it. Their faith is grounded on moving sands. Hence it comes as no surprise that a Fr. Fenton would call Vatican II ecclesiology on EENS an improvement.

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of the need for belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity:

But when dealing with Baptism of [desire] the Spirit he speaks thusly:
Quote:

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

If Aquinas posted that here he would be called all the names I'm called by those who more or less embrace the Feeneyite novelty.  

I understand as the Church understands and you do not.