And bosco can say this with a straight face while promoting the condemned error that someone can be saved in any religion whatsoever (condemned by Pius IX).  According to bosco, from the standpoint of soteriology, one creed is as good as another.

And yet he claims that Feeneyites are "liberals"?

It's just shocking that they can't see this.  Just shows how deep the malice and bad will run in these.

 
Ah, the Liberals are now coming out of the woodwork!
 
Try actually reading the book Ladi and you will see for yourself what Rome has approved of. R&R and the like are plainly condemned in the book. Funny you should make the malice/bad will accusation as the book goes into great detail on how Liberals love to whine about this. You stepped right in it!
 

Ah, the Liberals are now coming out of the woodwork!

Says the heretical religious indifferentist. 

Not that anyone needs further proof of your bad will and heresy, but this is very telling that you cannot see that this applies very specifically to you as I pointed out in my last post. Instead, you chose to ignore the content and post lies.

 
The bottom line here is:
 
1. The book "Liberalism Is a Sin" very specifically lists Liberal traits that should not be found in any Catholic
2. Rome has highly praised the book so we know it is correct and contains good advice
3. Many of the traits listed in the book happen to be used heavily by recognize and resisters, and also Feeneyites
4. If you see any traits that apply to you, don't shoot the messenger, take the occasion to learn from it and to improve yourself as a Catholic
 

"Signs that a Catholic is tainted with Liberalism (false Catholicity)

• He subjects commands and teachings of the Pope to the scrutiny of his own intellect"

Wouldn't everyone in here still be in the novus ordo if this was the case? or does this just apply to pre-Vatican II teachings and not the recent pope?

Actually RA, not only is this above quote is not from the book, it is an adulterated version of what actually is in the book, adulterated to suit the specific, corrupted agenda of bosco.


What the book actually says is:

Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in
general, naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas in whole or in part, as circuмstances
present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgement. Thus, for instance, it denies the validity
of faith by baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies
the sanctity of marriage, when it sanctions so called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of
the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings, and
 subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect, not to assure itself of their authenticity, as
is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgement upon their contents.

The OP is the one who adheres to the denial of particular dogmas and refuses to accept as the law, the popes' infallible teachings and commands, but in keeping with his agenda of slandering those who accept and bind themselves too, and accept as law those infallible teachings of popes, he necessarily must adulterate what the book actually says. The man is iniquitous.   

Wow.