Quote from: Disputaciones

So all this time you were reading the Fathers and Trent, you had never seen anything in favor of Feeneyism? You're saying you came to Feeneyism organically?

Yep.  I obviously had heard of Feeneyism, but I blew it off, never giving it a single thought because a priest (a sedevacantist in fact) once told me that Trent taught BoD.  If that were the case, there's really no discussion of the subject; it's case closed.  And so I never read anything written by Father Feeney or any "Feeneyites".  So my big light came as I was reading "On Justification" in Trent.  And I thought to myself, "Wait a minute.  This isn't teaching BoD at all."

This is similar to my experience. Back in '96 my family and I were forced to address the issue and dug through the Church docuмents only to discover that in order to believe in what the Church taught, believe what the popes and councils taught, we had to reject bod which rested on the testimony of men.  Later, after much prayer, we had to accept that many popes and bishops were teaching heresy and that the Novus Ordo was nothing more than the ape of the true mass. When the contradictory statements had all been compared, it became very clear there is no authority behind bod and all authority stands behind the necessity for Baptism and Church membership for salvation.  Family members argued back and forth for the next 5 years and of the ones who accepted that truth, all became traditional and practice the true Faith to this day.  Those who did not, which includes my brother, who is a Novus Ordo priest, now live in a crisis of faith.  Those of us who understood the problems with bod rejected the SSPX at first because they taught bod. It cost us the true mass for some years, but we came to understand the mass exceeds the value of men's heresy and followed that hope into tradition.  We finally attended SSPX Churches rediscovering the Latin Mass, until Fellay pulled his stunt and we had to go Resistance.  It appears almost no group holds the truth in its entirety, but that doesn't mean individuals cannot.  There is much to appreciate from different groups defending aspects of the Faith today: groups like the Remnant calling out Francis, the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre defending the Latin Mass, even the annoying Michael Voris does a decent job exposing the lavender clergy.  Brothers Dimond and the Feeneyites were non-issues for us having discovered the truth independently of them, but we later appreciated their defense of Baptism. While each of these Catholic groups suffer from one defect or another, something easily attributable to the great apostasy, there are good masses available for anyone interested in finding them. For now.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Would each Feeneyite here recount how he/she adopted Feeneyism?

What exactly is "Feenyism"?

There is no such thing as 'Feenyism'.... :detective:

Quote from: Ladislaus

You mean, how did I come to believe in the necessity of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and in the Incarnation for salvation and the necessity of Baptism for salvation?

I was a graduate student at The Catholic University of America in Greek/Latin (with Patristic emphasis).  I read hundreds and hundreds of pages of the Church Fathers in the original languages, and so I imbibed their spirit.  I saw that no Church Father ever entertained the notion that someone who did not know Jesus Christ could ever be saved.  I saw how all the Church Fathers believed strongly in the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  My impressions were exactly those related by Father Juergens (a Patristic scholar).

Quote from: Father William Jurgens

If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.

Even then, I still believed in Baptism of Desire for those with explicit faith, catechumens in particular.  I saw no evidence anywhere in the Magisterium for the extension of BoD to those without this explicit faith.  I believed in this BoD mostly because I was under the impression that Trent taught it.

But then something happened.  I actually READ the entire treatise "On Justification" in Trent, in the original Latin, and it suddenly became quite clear to me that Trent was not teaching BoD at all.  Instead, if Trent meant to teach ANYTHING, it was EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.  When I saw the context in which the "or the desire thereof" passage existed, I immediately realized that Trent was teaching that BOTH the Sacrament and the votum must exist for justification.

Then I went back through the Patristic evidence and found that there in fact was nearly ZERO support among the Church Fathers for BoD, just a tentative idle speculation of a young, immature Augustine, who later vehemently rejected the same.  That was it.  And I saw that all subsequent BoD theory rested on the foundation of this "authority".  It was all smoke and mirrors.

In the end, I realized that all the V2 errors are founded on the subjectivist ecclesiology held by nearly all Cushingite BoDers and that if you accept that ecclesiology, then there's nothing wrong with Vatican II.  And they use BoD as THE weapon of choice to pretend that this ecclesiology has some theological backing.

So all this time you were reading the Fathers and Trent, you had never seen anything in favor of Feeneyism? You're saying you came to Feeneyism organically?

I ACCEPTED the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that there is no salvation outside of her 35+ years before I ever heard of Fr. Feeney.

BTW--I am a Roman Catholic who lacks the patience for casting pearls before swine, and thus avoid the BOD sub-forum.  Why isn't this rubbish there so I am least annoyed by it and can more easily avoid it?

All of you self-made pope dogma-makers like BODers and dogmatic (try not to laugh) flat-earthers are going to have a hell of a time recognizing a legitimate pope and the end of the crisis if it comes in your day.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Would each Feeneyite here recount how he/she adopted Feeneyism?

It's amusing how you dumbasses dub a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church "Feeneyism," and give Fr. Feeney credit for a coming up with it, even though the dogma pre-dates Fr. Feeney by several centuries.  Oh well--I guess y'all are just like the modernists who reprimanded Fr. Feeney for not playing nice with the main cog paving the way for, and upon which is based, new church--"All Dogs Go To Heaven."  Those of you holding that new church idea who are sedes really boggle my mind--that is one of the greatest heresies causing me to doubt the validity of the conciliarist "popes."

Just what in the hell is your goal in seeking to make everybody BoD believers?  Shall we cease seeking converts?  Was Frank correct, "Proselytizing is solemn nonsense?"  If you believe this hogwash so firmly, perhaps you can get a VIP slot at the next Assissi.  You shouldn't bitch about Wojtyla kissing the Koran and accepting pagan blessings, nor the touchy-feely manure Frank orally sprays.

Weren't you an anti SV not too long ago?

Quote from: Disputaciones

Would each Feeneyite here recount how he/she adopted Feeneyism?

It's amusing how you dumbasses dub a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church "Feeneyism," and give Fr. Feeney credit for a coming up with it, even though the dogma pre-dates Fr. Feeney by several centuries.

You see no problem in the fact that the Church has been teaching millions of faithful, through Her catechisms, what you perceive as heresy?

If i would believe that, then i would believe the Church is not infallible, but that it is all hogwash, because that is what the faithful at large learn, the catechism. This is what ALL the faithful are obliged to learn by heart.

It would mean that the faithful have to look elsewhere other than the Church, to find the truth, because officially, the Church teaches what you say is heresy.

Oh well--I guess y'all are just like the modernists who reprimanded Fr. Feeney for not playing nice with the main cog paving the way for, and upon which is based, new church--"All Dogs Go To Heaven."

How does BOD=universal salvation?

Those of you holding that new church idea who are sedes really boggle my mind--that is one of the greatest heresies causing me to doubt the validity of the conciliarist "popes."

BOD/BOB is not a "new church idea."

Just what in the hell is your goal in seeking to make everybody BoD believers?

Because it is official Church teaching, just like any other teaching.

Don't you believe one must believe all the Church teaches? Well then?

Shall we cease seeking converts?  Was Frank correct, "Proselytizing is solemn nonsense?"  If you believe this hogwash so firmly, perhaps you can get a VIP slot at the next Assissi.  You shouldn't bitch about Wojtyla kissing the Koran and accepting pagan blessings, nor the touchy-feely manure Frank orally sprays.

Why would you draw those conclusions from BOD and what does any of that have anything to do with BOD?

Last time i checked, not one of the V2 popes has ever mentioned BOD to justify anything they do, nor is Bod in V2 either.

Reading the Boston Hersey Case.