Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic: +Sanborn's Anti-EENS (aka "Anti-Feeneyite") "Catechism  (Read 90375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: +Sanborn's Anti-EENS (aka "Anti-Feeneyite") "Catechism
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2025, 09:48:02 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2025, 09:44:40 AM
Trent also condemns the idea that an unbaptized person can have 'perfect love of God' because this act of love requires the supernatural virtue of charity, which you ONLY get AFTER baptism. 

Same idea with the necessity of supernatural Faith, being required for salvation.  You only get this AFTER baptism.  An unbaptized person does not, and cannot, have supernatural Faith.  You cannot WISH for supernatural Faith.  You cannot WILL to have it.  It only comes from God, through the Church, through Baptism.

Both of these examples are just protestantism repackaged into a catholic version of 'sola fide'.

Baptism of desire is basically 'baptism by faith' or 'baptism by love'.  It's heresy either way.

Yep, there are myriad contradictions in the land of "BoD Theory" to Catholic doctrine ... but these folks have blinders on, for various reasons.  God will judge their internal forum.

I know that the SVs are the most militant because, in their batttles against R&R, they have so badly exaggerated papal infallibility that a docuŠ¼ent like Suprema Fake might as well be a solemn dogmatic definition similar to that regarding the Assumption.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: +Sanborn's Anti-EENS (aka "Anti-Feeneyite") "Catechism
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2025, 09:50:51 AM »
SVs also contradict themsleves in this way.

They say that manifest heretics lose office, but then attack Father Feeney for disobedience.  Well, if anyone was a manifest heretic, it was +Cushing ... "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense."  That's one of myriad heretical statements that Cushing made.  So, by their own standards, +Cushing was a non-bishop and so Father Feeney was not being disobedienct to him.  Similarly, Father Feeney's Jesuit superior was also a manifest heretic, and therefore also deposed from being his superior (Dimond Brothers cite numerous heresies from that superior in their writeup).

Which is it, SVs?  Does manifest heresy depose or doesn't it?  Calling EENS "Nonsense", i.e. directly contradicting defined dogma is about as manifest as you get.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: +Sanborn's Anti-EENS (aka "Anti-Feeneyite") "Catechism
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2025, 09:56:54 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2025, 09:41:50 AM
for infants, baptism is necessary by necessity of means
for adults, baptism if necessary by necessity of precept
Yeah, the contradiction is appalling.  He has to say that infants/means are connected because of Pelagianism and the direct words of the Church saying thus.

But he can say adults/precept (in his mind) because the Church has said similar things and hasn't directly condemned it, same as Pelagianism.
Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: +Sanborn's Anti-EENS (aka "Anti-Feeneyite") "Catechism
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2025, 10:08:13 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2025, 09:50:51 AM
SVs also contradict themsleves in this way.

They say that manifest heretics lose office, but then attack Father Feeney for disobedience.  Well, if anyone was a manifest heretic, it was +Cushing ... "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense."  That's one of myriad heretical statements that Cushing made.  So, by their own standards, +Cushing was a non-bishop and so Father Feeney was not being disobedienct to him.  Similarly, Father Feeney's Jesuit superior was also a manifest heretic, and therefore also deposed from being his superior (Dimond Brothers cite numerous heresies from that superior in their writeup).

Which is it, SVs?  Does manifest heresy depose or doesn't it?  Calling EENS "Nonsense", i.e. directly contradicting defined dogma is about as manifest as you get.

The doctrinal part letter was from the Holy Office with Pius XII's signature. Cushing did not write the doctrinal synopsis himself. So whether he was a heretic or not is irrelevant.

Let it be known that every "trad" bishop is a heretic according to the Council of Feeneyite Elders on Cathinfo:

The Holy Office of Pius XII, anathema!
Bishops of the RCI, anathema!
Bishops of the CMRI, anathema!
Bishops of the SSPV, anathema!
Bishops of the SSPX Resistance, anathema!
Bishops of the SSPX, anathema!
Etc.

You guys are such a joke. 
Logged

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: +Sanborn's Anti-EENS (aka "Anti-Feeneyite") "Catechism
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2025, 10:58:07 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2025, 09:56:54 AM
Yeah, the contradiction is appalling.  He has to say that infants/means are connected because of Pelagianism and the direct words of the Church saying thus.

But he can say adults/precept (in his mind) because the Church has said similar things and hasn't directly condemned it, same as Pelagianism.

In the world of traditional Catholicism, people with your anti-Magisterial viewpoint on EENS make up a tiny number of people. Many chapels specifically ban people who call themselves Feeneyites because they are known to be so obnoxious.

But if a person stumbles onto Cathinfo and doesn't know any better, he would think that Fr. Feeney is the rule of faith and that anyone who is not a Feeneyite is a "heretic."

Can you people at least be honest enough to admit that your position is the fringiest of the fringe? 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
« previous next »