That was a stretch CM.

St. Thomas not only teaches BoD, but IMPLICIT BoD -- though I believe this is not what we now know of as implicit faith.  Unfortunately he left it very vague.  

Isn't it possible that St. Thomas hadn't read St. Gregory nαzιanzen's anti-BoD jeremiad?  Remember, there was no Internet access back then, you can't just type something in to Google.  He may not have had ALL his writings at his disposal.

Also, if BoD is de fide today, which is debatable, then it became de fide at the Council of Trent.  Therefore at the time of St. Thomas it was allowable to not believe in baptism of desire, and may very well still be allowable.  It goes without saying that at the time of St. Gregory nαzιanzen it was allowable.  What is not allowable is calling those who do believe in it heretics.  Even St. Gregory nαzιanzen never said that -- has that occurred to you?

This is all up to the next Pope.  If Sts. Peter and Paul elect me, BoD and BoB will become dogma, right away.  If they elect you, they will be dubbed heresies.  That's about the size of it!  And it doesn't count if you are elected by David Hobson as a successor to Siri...  :scratchchin:  For now, you can be more charitable on this one.

However, since the "traditional" priests you and I bemoan not only teach BoD, but that you can be saved in false religions -- which they call BoD, but which is really cleverly disguised Americanism -- it's all the same anyway.  As I said, Fr. Feeney would have been the Athanasius of his time if he had gone up solely against the errors of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Cushing, and the Americanists, a rogues' gallery of evil, but instead he went too far and started a useless controversy, which may very well have been part of some Satanic grand design hatched among Jesuits.  

What do you think about the fact that Cardinal Gibbons helped elect Pius X, CM, and that Pius X did nothing to stop the pernicious Baltimore Catechism?  I am aware that information about the Baltimore Catechism and other heresies running rampant in the Church were probably hidden from him by the Freemasons around him.  He did all he could do -- spoke the truth from the Chair.  Right?  Please God, leave me ONE semi-recent figure to look up to!

CM believes only in actual water baptism---if you want to get baptized and die in a wreck on your way to Church-or whereever-then so sad, too bad...obviously you were not meant to get baptized and also, obvioulsy not meant to go to Heaven........

No BoD or BoB for CM....

apparently, Raoul is working on Pius X being anti-pope, guilty by association for him.....

Well, I am curious since the Baltimore Catechism was part of what caused me to go to the Bishop with complaints about a fanatical "Formation Director" trying to interfere with my return to the Catholic church ( I suspect the real objection was agism)

After going through the normal steps of introducing myself to the pastor as a lapsed Catholic, I followed his instructions to go to confession and made an appointment for a lengthy (20+ yrs) one. I then had a very nice conversation with a priest who covered all the bases and began to receive Communion.

I was then told that I should interview with the "Formation Director" to see what church activities I might volunteer in, and he was a young man who told me I needed to go through RCIA to learn what the Catholic faith is about.

I told him I know all about being Catholic and he asked me a few doctrinal questions which I answered correctly, and he looked upset that he could not catch me in a heresy and he asked me how I knew these things (I'd already told him I grew up in the parochial school system, but he apparently did not think the nuns taught us the faith!) and I said, well, we did use the Baltimore Catechism, don't you still use that? and he said no, but he could not refute my answers on doctrines.

I was more than a little offended but decided to get a copy of the new catechism and I signed up for a regular class in Catechism for regular Catholics.

I saw in that new Catechism that there are some differences in tone, and a LOT more detail, but no essential differences. I met with the pastor about this and he said I was right, there were no essential changes, and he was also a little concerned that I was being pressured to go through RCIA instead of the regular Catechism study, which of course is a sacrilegious denial of the Sacraments' relation to any Catholic's soul. We don't believe in re-Baptizing sinners among us, after all, that's why we have Confession (or Reconciliation, as some prefer). Both Sacraments are violated by Formation Directors who follow Hahn's training to re-indoctrinate innocent laity.

The Bishop's office also supported me when it was raised to a point of that Formation Director and a few of his cult-followers attacking me with personal questions and making it clear no one participates in any parish activity without becoming part of their movement.

In all of this, the Baltimore catechism was held by every religious ordained person I spoke to, to be valid and the use of RCIA to screen existing Catholics out of the Church was criticized, but they did nothing to stop it. That particular Formation Director moved on, but it was treated as his personality problem and not as a deeper doctrinal schism within the Church, which I believe it to be. He was obnoxious, but he was only doing what he was trained by Scott Hahn to do. His resume made that very clear.

That was a stretch CM.

It's not a stretch at all, Mike.  Note the word "inadvertently".

Also, if BoD is de fide today, which is debatable, then it became de fide at the Council of Trent.

I have addressed this, and you have failed to respond to my points on the matter, continually avoiding the discussion.  You say things like "you'd just be banging my head against the wall," but why do I keep bringing it up?  Because you have never addressed the actual argument behind the issues Mike.

Any angle you come at baptism of desire from shows it to be contrary to more than half a dozen decrees of the solemn Magisterium, it is in fact even contrary to the ONE decree that you think supports it.

Therefore at the time of St. Thomas it was allowable to not believe in baptism of desire, and may very well still be allowable.

After the decrees mentioned above it is not allowable to believe in BoD Mike.

It goes without saying that at the time of St. Gregory nαzιanzen it was allowable.  What is not allowable is calling those who do believe in it heretics.

What else do you call a person who holds a belief in opposition to the solemn Magisterium of the Catholic Church Mike?  Especially when this person has seen the ex cathedra decrees numerous times and been admonished numerous times?  In the case of such a person, material, rather than formal heresy no longer seems to be a possibility.

Even St. Gregory nαzιanzen never said that -- has that occurred to you?

St. Gregory lived NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO YEARS before the first decree that eliminated the possibility of believing in salvation for those who had not received water baptism you inventor of red herrings.

This is all up to the next Pope.

Sure, if you reject or twist the infallible dogmatic definitions of Popes Clement V, Eugene IV, Paul III, and especially Pius IX on infallibility.

If Sts. Peter and Paul elect me, BoD and BoB will become dogma, right away.  If they elect you, they will be dubbed heresies.  That's about the size of it!  And it doesn't count if you are elected by David Hobson as a successor to Siri...  :scratchchin:  For now, you can be more charitable on this one.

I want nothing to do with David Hobson, thank you very much!  As for being charitable, there is nothing charitable about saying that something that is contrary to the infallible Magisterium is nevertheless allowable.

However, since the "traditional" priests you and I bemoan not only teach BoD, but that you can be saved in false religions -- which they call BoD, but which is really cleverly disguised Americanism -- it's all the same anyway.  As I said, Fr. Feeney would have been the Athanasius of his time if he had gone up solely against the errors of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Cushing, and the Americanists, a rogues' gallery of evil, but instead he went too far and started a useless controversy, which may very well have been part of some Satanic grand design hatched among Jesuits.

Feeney was right that one cannot be saved without water baptism, but he was wrong to think one can be justified without it (how can salvation be denied to the just, who die in that state - it cannot).  This stemmed from his misreading of the decree in the link above.  He made an illogical leap as to  it's meaning.  If you hold it to mean that one can be justified by the desire alone, then you are in an illogical and inconsistent position.

What do you think about the fact that Cardinal Gibbons helped elect Pius X, CM, and that Pius X did nothing to stop the pernicious Baltimore Catechism?  I am aware that information about the Baltimore Catechism and other heresies running rampant in the Church were probably hidden from him by the Freemasons around him.  He did all he could do -- spoke the truth from the Chair.  Right?  Please God, leave me ONE semi-recent figure to look up to!

You're betting on the wrong horse, barking up the wrong tree, the ball is going straight in the gutter.  You have to look at the teachings of the man, what he actually uttered PUBLICLY HIMSELF.  Anything else is idle speculation.  Has it not occurred to you that the wolves can deceive a pope?  The pope has one supernatural ability, the gift of infallibility when teaching from the Chair of St. Peter.  The pope does NOT have any superHUMAN abilites.

CM, I agree with what you said on Pius X.  But your combative nature is shown in that you speak as if you're correcting a wayward child, while if you look at what I said, and what you said, it's exactly the same!  We both came to the conclusion that he spoke truth from the Chair, that the Holy Ghost protected him from teaching error from the Magisterium, yet you proceed as if I'm contradicting this.

It is like ramming my head against a wall to argue with you, because you don't see that the papal decrees do not mean what you think they mean.  
After you toned it down a bit, you are now worse than before.  Now you say that desire doesn't even suffice for justification?  So you deny the Council of Trent?  I think you have another kind of baptism of desire -- a desire for baptism by fire.  You are intractable; incorrigible; you keep choosing more and more untenable positions.

This Polish Feeneyite is here to teach you a lesson.  Though he's una cuм with an anti-Christ, he at least can recognize that it isn't heresy to believe in BoD.  This is God giving you another chance -- take it.  Then we can be on the same side.  I don't ask that you believe in BoD ( yet ), just that you acknowledge it isn't a heresy.

Is repeating my name supposed to be hypnotic?

Raoul has already declared Pius X to be an anti-pope by saying the Pope knew Card Rampolla was a 'secret occult mason on the OTO' and did nothing about it.

I see, more gnostic-like insights, huh....does he believe in anything negative he reads? Peter knew Judus, guess he was an anti-pope too!

Proof, apparently to some comes rather cheap....