Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 03, 2012, 12:00:36 PM

Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 03, 2012, 12:00:36 PM
http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm

The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
Reprinted with permission from The Four Marks
 
[Editor's foreword: I have asked Mrs. Kathleen Plumb, the editor of The Four Marks newspaper, for permission to post this article on the matter of the proper interpretation of the Catholic doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, outside of the Church, there is no salvation. As a whole variety of individuals who have never been trained formally in theology make their own false interpretation of this doctrine to be the litmus test for determining who is Catholic and who is not, I believed it to be very important to publish Father Martin Stepanich's article, which was, it appears, a letter he wrote to one of his many correspondents, on this site. I thank Mrs. Plumb for giving me permission to post this article.

[Mrs. Plumb provided the following brief background on Father Martin:  "Father Martin was born in Kansas in 1915. Baptized 'Francis,' he was to become a 'son' of Saint. Francis on September 2, 1934 and was ordained in 1941. Fr. Martin, has given The Four Marks readers a wide array of fine writing. A Doctor of Sacred Theology from pre–Vatican II days, Father Martin has been a seminary professor and wrote for other newspapers like The Wanderer and The Remnant, (as he says, 'in their better days')."

[I would add that it is our privilege to know Father Martin, whose religious name was taken in honor of the family name of the Little Flower, our dear Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, and to have profited from his wisdom and erudition, which used to be well recognized and respected in Catholic circles prior to his becoming "persona non grata" for recognizing that heretics and apostates cannot hold ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately. I will be posting soon another letter of Father Martin's, one dealing with the case of the late Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo, which he wrote at my behest and after a considered review of the facts and the controlling moral principles.

[Those who are the recipients of Father Martin's correspondence should treasure them as real jewels of Catholic scholarship. Anyone who wants to dismiss the Catholic scholarship of Father Martin Stepanich is a fool of the highest order, and that is written in complete charity for those who are so misguided as believe that they know have studied as much or know as much as this true son of Saint Francis of Assisi.

[Here is Father Martin's letter to a correspondent named "John".]

 

Dear [Letter Writer]:


Your one-page letter was accompanied by a seven-page greatly misleading article bearing the title, “UnBaptized Saints,” by some unnamed author. That deceptive title tells you immediately that the article was the work of some Feeneyite who was bent on ridiculing the belief that any Saints honored by the Church could have been admitted into Heaven solely by being “Baptized in their own blood.” To the Feeneyites, Baptism of Blood is an impossibility, as is also Baptism of Desire. To them, only Baptism of Water can admit anyone into Heaven.


The fundamental error, and enormous sin, of the Feeneyites is that they do not give God credit for being able to save souls without the use of water in the case of those who, through no fault of their own, are prevented by death from being baptized with water. The Feeneyites make it look as if all things are not really possible with God.


If some Feeneyite should hurriedly concede, “Sure, sure, sure! We know that nothing is impossible with God!” what good does that do when they make a quick getaway from that infallible truth with this plainly untruthful protestation, “But we know that God does not save anyone except through Baptism of Water!”


The honest truth is that they do not “know” anything of the kind. If they really believe that nothing is impossible with God, let them honestly admit that God can, and in His mercy and goodness, does save souls by way of Baptism of Blood, as well as Baptism of Desire, in the cases of those prevented by death from being baptized with water.


We will yet get to the correct understanding of what is meant by Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, but let’s first take up certain other considerations that will prepare us for the correct understanding.


Father Feeney himself tried to pull off on me his Salvation by Baptism of Water Alone argument after he read the first of my seven articles on the church’s salvation doctrine that appeared in The Remnant (of better days!), from November 3, 1973, to June 7, 1974. In great haste, he put out a white covered pamphlet bearing the miss fitting title, Dogma of Faith, that was undated and had no page numbers.


In that erratic smear pamphlet, Father Feeney gave me and Walter Matt, editor of The Remnant, the ugly business. Among his nonsensical declarations was the untruthful assertion that he just “knew” that God somehow or other has seen to it that those said to be “baptized in their own blood” were in reality, baptized with water, even if it was done invisibly by the hand of an Angel. He did not explain, nor could he, just why God should go to the bother of getting someone at death’s door Baptized with water when He can give the grace of Baptism directly, without any use of water. The truth is that Father Feeney did not “know” anything of the kind. He created that one out of nothing.


By the early 1970s, Father Feeney had been at it many years already, preaching his false Salvation doctrine. It had been some time in the late 1940s, after I had been working for my doctoral degree in sacred theology (S. T. D.), and when some of today’s uneducated high-profile Feeneyites were not yet born, that Father Feeney first began to ventilate his false Salvation Doctrine, thus creating a storm of controversy. When two of my well-known Catholic University (Washington, D.C.) professors, Father Francis Connell, CSSR, and Father (later Monsignor) Joseph Fenton, were among those who publicly refuted Father Feeney’s errors.


Father Feeney eventually incurred excommunication for refusing to obey the command of Pope Pius XII to come to Rome and to let himself be questioned about his salvation doctrine. As his bishop told me in a private letter, modernist Paul 6 “absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication sometime in the 1960s.


It was a mystery as to why Father Feeney came up with the mistaken notion that no one at all could enter into heaven except after being baptized with water and why he ignored the possibility of direct cleansing and sanctifying action of God, without any use of water, in the case of those prevented by death from being baptized with water.


One thing we found out was that Father Feeney was rightly disturbed that modernists mixed all religions together and insisted that one could be saved in just any religion, and that they rejected the Church’s “Outside the Church there is no salvation” dogma. But, believe it or not, he himself showed how mixed up he was when he imagined that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were inventions of the modernists and that such forms of baptism allowed into Heaven those who were still “outside the Church.”


It was said that Father Feeney had nifty talent for writing poetry, and about such topics as “fish on Friday”, but if he had at least some talent as a theologian, he certainly did not show it when handling the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood issues. His basic theological shortcoming was that he failed to give God credit for being able to save souls either with Baptism of Water or without any use of water, by simply having recourse to his almighty power and mercy. Feeneyites perpetuating his errors, not being in the slightest real theologians, are woefully mixed up about the baptism and salvation issues and should have sense enough to leave those issues alone.


We were told long ago, by pleading Feeneyite “Salvation by Water Alone” defenders that Our Lord’s words to Nicodemus, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5), or absolute proof that none but those “born again of water” could be saved. And those kind of Feeneyites were persistent in repeating, “those words of Our Lord to Nicodemus mean exactly what they say!”


We could not help but think of other words of our Lord that supposedly “mean exactly what they say.” Thus, for example, Our Lord said in His sermon on the Mount, “If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee” (Matthew 5: 29). And he said the same about the right-hand. Later on, some time after His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Our Lord repeated the same kind of admonition (Matthew 18:8-9), mentioning this time the hand and the foot and the eye.


Our Lord could have just as easily mentioned the tongue also. How surely it would have applied to the Feeneyites if He had said, “If thy tongue scandalize thee by misinterpreting My words and contradicting the teaching of My Church, cut it out and throw it away!”


A fatal mistake made by Father Feeney, and is still being made by Feeneyites to this day, was to resort to the Protestant way of handling the Sacred Scriptures—that is, to resort to a private, do-it-yourself interpretation of Our Lord’s words to Nicodemus, so as to make them fit the false Feeneyite idea about how souls are to be saved by God. St. Peter, in the second of his two epistles (3:16), quoting St. Paul, warned about how “the unlearned and unstable wrest... to their own destruction” certain hard to understand passages of Sacred Scripture. And that, without a doubt, is a fair warning to the “unlearned and unstable” Feeneyites.


As the words of Our Lord to Nicodemus stand, there is not the slightest reason to think that he intended to exclude from all possibility of salvation those properly disposed unbaptized souls, who, through no fault of their own, are prevented by death from being “born again of water.” Nor has the Church ever understood Our Lord’s words in that way. The Church has always recognized the fact that worthy souls prevented from being “born again of water” can nevertheless be “born again of the Holy Ghost,” without any use of water. That is in no way impossible for God to accomplish, nor is it beyond His mercy and goodness. That is how the Church has always understood it.


We can now turn our attention once more to the author of that “Unbaptized Saints” article, which was certainly not the work of some Jolly Joker, who was only trying to have some playful, though irrelevant, fun in teasing, as it were, those Saints, who were admitted into Heaven because of being “baptized”, not with water, but “in their own blood.” No, that writer was diabolically serious about ridiculing Baptism of Blood, which, to Feeneyites is supposedly “another baptism” and which, together with Baptism of Desire supposedly adds up to “three baptisms.” We will in due course get back to that Feeneyite “three baptisms” fabrication.


The main concentration of the “Unbaptized Saints” writer is on the Roman Martyrology in which certain Saints are said to have been “baptized in their own blood.” That writer quotes at length from a 1995 book by one Brother Robert Mary, of St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, but it is all worthless in supposedly “proving” that all those Saints were baptized with water, and not just “in their own blood.” So-called Brother Robert Mary strains and fumbles around, and chases himself around in circles, and runs himself into a dead end corner, while trying to “prove” that the Saints “Baptized in their own blood” were supposedly saved by being baptized with water. But he was never able to provide any definite proof for that mistaken Feeneyite notion.


A shameless attempt was made by that author to discredit the Roman Martyrology as supposedly being full of errors, and therefore untrustworthy and unreliable for providing the real facts. No attention is paid to the fact that the Church long ago accepted the Roman Martyrology as worthy of being one of the official liturgical books, one that was assigned to be read by priests and religious in the Divine Office, during the Hour of Prime.


While Feeneyites have obstinately persisted in telling us that Our Lord’s words to Nicodemus “mean exactly what they say,” the words, “baptized in their own blood,” on the contrary, do not “mean exactly what they say.” The Feeneyites maneuver those words around to suit their dishonest purpose of supposedly “proving” their false notion that souls are saved only through Baptism of Water, but never through Baptism of Blood, nor ever through Baptism of Desire.


Since the Feeneyites did not give God credit for being able to save souls through Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, without any use of water, it followed easily that they would disregard also the constant teaching of the Church in regard to those two forms of baptism.


The evidence is overwhelming that, in accepting the reality of Baptism of Blood already in the early centuries, the Church has always, all through the following centuries and into our own times, recognized the undeniable fact that God can, and in his mercy and goodness does provide the grace of baptism and salvation for worthy souls who are prevented by death from being baptized with water. The same holds also for Baptism of Desire. Such constant teaching of the Church all through the centuries is a clear indication that it is the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and is therefore infallible. How can those who deny the fact be anything but heretics?


Many of the acts of the early martyrs were written up by those assigned to the task, either by popes or bishops, gathering together all the information they could about the martyrs and their deaths. It is in no way honest on the part of the Feeneyites to accuse the writers of the acts of the martyrs of “errors”, just because they could not always get complete and accurate details about every martyr. The Church, whose judgment is surely more reliable than that of the confused Feeneyites, eventually saw fit to put shortened accounts of the innumerable martyrs’ deaths into what became the official Roman Martyrology.


If the Church had ever condemned Baptism of Blood, as well as Baptism of Desire, it would have amounted to condemning God himself for giving the grace of baptism and of salvation to well-disposed souls who were overtaken by death before their baptism with water could take place.


As for the Early Fathers of the Church, St. Ambrose is one example of those Fathers who gave testimony to the prevailing belief in Baptism of Desire when he acknowledged the salvation of Emperor Valentinian II who was well prepared for baptism with water, but was overtaken by sudden death before he could be baptized. And later on, in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas, being one of the great theologians of the Church, gave testimony to the reality of Baptism of Desire, as well as of Baptism of Blood, in the teaching of the Church, when he declared that “a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism.” (Summa Theologica III, 68.2)


Speaking of the teaching of theologians on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, the exceptionally competent Father Anthony Cekada found time to examine the writings of as many as 25 prominent pre-Vatican II theologians who taught at great theological schools of Europe—a very laborious and tiresome task. [Thomas A Droleskey note: See Father Cekada's Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles.] Every single one of those 25 clearly taught the reality of both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, making it plain that it was the common teaching of theologians, and that it was the certain belief and teaching of the Church. Seven of those 25 theologians did not hesitate to declare Baptism of Desire to be a truth of the Faith—that is, de fide, as it is expressed in Latin. Father Cekada published his findings in a 125-page spiral bound volume some time in the year 2000. His correct conclusion was that “belief in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is required of all Catholics.” But the considerably less than Catholic Feeneyites are much too far gone to pay any attention to that.


The definite and clear teaching of the Council of Trent, as well as of its authoritative, follow-up Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the reality of Baptism of Desire, is beyond any doubt. At its 6th session (January 13, 1547) the Council of Trent infallibly declared that the justification of the sinner and his translation from the state of original sin to the state of grace “cannot... be effected except through the laver of regeneration (i.e., baptism) or its desire...” And the Catechism of the Council of Trent, clearly referring to Baptism of Desire, declared, “... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive baptism, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”


Coming closer to our own times, we can add that the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly indicates what the constant belief at teaching of the Catholic Church is and always has been, in regard to Baptism of Desire in two of its canons: namely, Canon 7371. “Baptism... if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired...”; and, Canon 1239: “... catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism... are to be regarded as among those baptized”—the reason being that such catechumens had the desire and intention to be baptized before they died.


Since it is so clear that belief in Baptism of Desire, as well as Baptism of Blood, was firmly established in the Church all through the centuries, it cannot be honestly doubted nor denied that such belief has always been the definite teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and is therefore infallible.


Before going further on the issue of infallibility, it is good to mention here that The Reign of Mary magazine (year 2004, Vol. 35, No. 116) published a detailed compilation of quotes (21 of them!) on “Baptism of Desire and of Blood” from the Council of Trent, and the teachings of the Popes, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and various theologians.


Faced with all the evidence of what the true mind and teaching of the Church is on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and has been all through the centuries, the bewildered Feeneyites saw that they could not deny the evidence, so they readjusted their strategy to make themselves think that they had no obligation to accept the Church’s position on those two forms of baptism, because it was supposedly “not infallible.” But it was a dishonest strategy. They deceptively asserted all that evidence to be “non-infallible.”


Thus, for example, the Roman Martyrology, in telling us about those martyr Saints, who got to Heaven by being “baptized in their own blood,” is “not infallible,” so the fallible Feeneyites have asserted. And St. Ambrose was “not infallible” in maintaining that the Emperor Valentinian II, despite being prevented by death from being baptized was nevertheless saved because of his desire and intention to be baptized. And St. Thomas Aquinas was “not infallible,” nor is the Catechism of the Council of Trent “infallible,” nor the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and so on. But worst of all, not even the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent was infallible in the eyes of fallible Feeneyites, in regard to its statements on Baptism of Desire.


What the fallible Feeneyites fail to tell you is, that even though the Roman Martyrology, for example, as well as all the other sources of evidence for the Church’s belief in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, are not in themselves, equivalent to infallible declarations of the Supreme Authority of the Church, they nevertheless give testimony to the constant infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Even a fallible Feeneyite gives testimony to infallible truths of the Faith whenever he prays the Apostles Creed, which consists of one infallible truth after another.


Some Feeneyites have shown themselves to be among those liberals and modernists who imagined that they are not obliged to accept the Church’s constant doctrine on and Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Because there has never been any special infallible declaration by the Solemn Magisterium of the Church stating specifically that those two forms of baptism are dogmas of the Faith.


In his Encyclical Humani Generis (in 1950), Pope Pius XII got after liberals and modernists who insisted that “what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent, because in writing such letters the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their authority.” (No. 29). And then the Holy Father went on to explain that “these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who hears you, hears me’ (Luke 10:16).”


The Church’s teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, as already repeatedly made clear in this letter, is the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, of which it is true to say according to Pope Pius XII, “He who hears you, hears me.” If that is not good enough for the difficult Feeneyites, and if some of them insist that there must be a special solemn declaration on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood by the Supreme Authority of the Church, that could very easily come when we once again have a true Catholic pope on the Chair of Peter. And you can be sure that the Feeneyites will not be comfortable in hearing an anathema pronounced against them.


One of the most dishonest and brazen falsifications perpetuated for so many years by the Feeneyites is their insistence that Baptism of Desire and that Baptism of Blood are two extra baptisms added to Baptism of Water, so that there are really “three baptisms” in the prevailing belief within the Church.


The plain truth is that there is no such thing as “three baptisms” in the faith and teachings of the Catholic Church, and Feeneyites know it.


The three varying terms, Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood, do not represent three different baptisms. What those terms do represent are three different circumstances or situations in which God brings about consoles one and the same effect of the one and only Sacrament of Baptism.


That one and the same effect in all three cases is the cleansing of the soul from the stain of original sin, and the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul. And that is the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism.


The results of that action of God in the soul, is that the newly baptized soul is raised from its previously natural state or condition to a supernatural state, while the further result is that such a soul is brought by God into His Church, so that it is no longer “outside the church, where there is no salvation.” Finally, a newly baptized soul finds the way open for entry into Heaven.


Except in cases of emergency baptisms where there is danger of death, Baptism of Water is administered with the full visible baptismal ceremonies prescribed by the rubrics of the Church for the Sacrament of Baptism. But final salvation of the soul baptized thus with water comes about only if such a soul perseveres in God’s grace unto the end.


For Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood there are no visible sacramental ceremonies because death makes such ceremonies impossible. But death cannot prevent God from cleansing in sanctifying worthy souls and bringing about in them the full essential effect of the Sacrament of Baptism. God, to whom all things are possible, can and does give the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism either with or without the use of water.


The salvation of those baptized by way of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood comes about immediately, at death. Such souls or brought by God into His Church at death, and they enter into Heaven, not “outside the church,” but “inside the Church.” There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven, nor were “unbaptized” or “outside the Church” Saints among the Saints of God.


That word “desire,” in the term “Baptism of Desire,” means a definite desire and intention and determination to do what God wills for salvation. And interestingly enough, that very same kind of desire is present also for Baptism of Water and Baptism of Blood. It is this desire that God finds in all three cases of the Sacrament of Baptism and He sees that the souls in question are worthy of the grace of the Sacrament.


Whatever else might be said about the errors of Feeneyism, let us conclude by asking some disturbing questions.


Is it possible that the venerable patriarch, Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M, and his team of hard-core no-theologians at St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, could be excused of the guilt of error, and even of outright heresy, because of “invincible ignorance” about the true salvation and baptism doctrine of the Catholic Church? How could it be that they never had the chance to learn and understand that true teaching of the Church?


Those innocent-looking young faces at St. Benedict Center could understandably be excused because of “innocent ignorance,” because they have never been taught the true salvation and baptism doctrine of the Church, and because they have a deceptive trust in their Feeneyite teachers. But how could their Feeneyite teachers be “innocently unaware” of the harm they are doing to all those young simple-minded souls?


Since the rejection of any truth of the Faith, which involves rejection of the very teaching authority of the Church, and even the supreme authority of God renders one an outsider, one who is “outside the Church, where there is no salvation;” how can Brother Francis, Maluf, and his associate so-called “Brothers of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,” pretend to believe that their “crusade is the propagation and defense of Catholic Doctrine, especially “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” (outside that Church there is no salvation)? Are not the false Feeneyite “propagators and defenders” themselves “outside the Church” for refusing to accept and teach the full salvation and baptism doctrine of the Church?


The most accurate description of the blind Feeneyite false salvation doctrine propagators is found in Our Lord’s description of the Pharisees: “They are blind, and leaders of the blind.” (Matthew 15:14). But it need not be that way...


Just in case the message did not get through, and confidently assuming that there is a hidden goodwill at St. Benedict Center, let us repeat: Brother Francis Maluf, rejoice and be glad with Brother Robert Mary and your other associates at St. Benedict Center, for God can give the grace of baptism and salvation without the use of water, and that is exactly what He does for worthy souls who are through no fault of their own, prevented by death from being baptized with water.


April 11, 2008
Feast of St. Leo the Great,
Doctor of the Church
Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 04, 2012, 05:51:45 AM
Leave it to a sedevacantist to come up with a litany of hate, filled with errors,
and make that an attack against fellow Catholics, giving scandal to everyone
who reads it. This Stepanichite is apparently so full of self-contempt due to his
own denial of the papacy, that he strives to conjure up phantoms of derision,
calumny and ridicule against others with whom he ought to be sharing a pure
love of God.

You will know they are Christians by their love. Conversely, well, you get the point.

Why all the vitriol and spite? Is this man full of hate all the time, or does he
just save it up for special occasions? Is he trying to start a new sect of the
Stepanichites? If so, their principal defining mission would be to dish out ill-will
toward other Catholics, especially Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
and especially if they reside in New Hampshire. Does he work for the ADL?

Under normal conditions, this Stepanichite's bishop would be able to effect some
kind of obedience out of him, but here this guy probably denies the validity of his
local bishop's consecration, so now he can misbehave all he likes without restraint.

How in heaven's name could anyone show this screed to any young person
who would become Catholic? Who could expect a prospective convert to say, "Oh,
wow. This is beautiful. How I would so much like to be part of the Church where
we can write things like this about our fellow Christians!"

I have known one in particular who abandoned going to Mass for precisely
this reason. She did not want any part of a bunch of hate mongers who insult
each other from across the fence of their respective congregations. I'm not
making this up. It's real, friends. "Extinguish not the spirit" (I Thes. v. 19).



Reading this Stepanichite screed, you might reasonably conclude that:


1) Baptism of Desire is a form of Baptism. (a Stepanichite doctrine, which see)

2) Baptism of Desire has everything that Baptism has, except water, of course.

3) The desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation.

4) There is nothing else necessary for salvation but Baptism of Desire.

5) Therefore, Baptism of Desire must be a sacrament.

6) The words "Baptism of Desire" are contained in Trent, with capital letters.

7) Baptism of Desire was instituted by Christ as He hung on the Cross, and
when He spoke the words of salvation to the Good Thief, "This day, thou
shalt be with me in paradise."






Ask any real priest (not a Stepanichite) if any of these 7 things are true. You
might be surprised at the answer:

"No, they are all false."



In case you don't have the gumption to ask such a true priest, not a
Stepanichite, here are the reasons they are all false:

1) So-called baptism of desire is not a "form of Baptism" because it is not
a sacrament, imparts no indelible mark on the soul, and was not instituted by
Christ. All the sacraments were instituted by Christ. (Catechism 101)

2) So-called baptism of desire does not impart an indelible mark on the soul.
Therefore, in eternity, whether or not someone had the desire for baptism will
no more be "visible" than if they had had the desire for Confirmation, or for
Matrimony, or for Holy Orders or Extreme Unction or a trip to the Mall on Sunday.

3) The desire for baptism is not sufficient for salvation, for also necessary is an
act of perfect contrition, unless absolution from a priest has been provided, but
the latter would require first Baptism with water, obviating the insufficiency of not
having Baptism. Just don't ask a Stepanichite, you might get the runaround.

4) Generally, salvation of a non-baptized person would require a desire not only
for Baptism, but a desire also to do everything necessary for sanctification,
whatever that may be, including Baptism.

5) No, so-called baptism of desire is not a Sacrament. Ask any real priest. You
might want to first ask him if he's a Stepanichite, though.

6) No, the words "Baptism of Desire" are not contained in the Council of
Trent, with capital letters or without. They are not contained in the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, either, nor in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with or without
capital letters. The use of capitalization here is the self-proclaimed "authority" of
a Stepanichite priest whose favorite pastime is spreading slander about other
Catholics, apparently, and misrepresenting the truth, to put it mildly.

7) Finally, no, baptism of desire was never instituted by Our Lord, and Baptism
was not a sacrament until it was instituted by Our Lord as He was about to
ascend into heaven, 43 days after the Crucifixion, when He said, "Go ye into
the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk.
xvi. 15-16). For this was the same time when He said, "Going therefore teach
ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19).



In the end, the term "baptism of desire" is misleading. Desire does not effect
Baptism, so any such description of whatever it is that produces the effects of
Baptism without Baptism should be called something less deceptive than this.

As for the St. Benedict Center, nobody would be more overjoyed to have the
Pope define once and for all this confusing and controversial thing, for the
edification of all and for the settlement of a longstanding issue of concern to
many (like the Stepanichites). This curious fabrication of this particular  
Stepanichite that the Center would be "dismayed" is of his own imagination, at
best, and perhaps part of his deal with his employers(?) They do not hold this
as something worth fighting over, but somehow the 'creepy critters of dissent'
crawl out from under the woodpile to attack them, hurling repeated epithets,
in an unruly mob style of harassment, as this alarming example of unChristian
slander demonstrates. But we are now in a time when the Pope refuses to
define anything at all, and therein lies the problem. In fact, that would be a
great place to start: let the Pope start defining things again, and hey, start
with this desire and blood problem, if that's what it takes!
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 04, 2012, 11:23:09 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Leave it to a sedevacantist to come up with a litany of hate, filled with errors,
and make that an attack against fellow Catholics, giving scandal to everyone
who reads it. This Stepanichite is apparently so full of self-contempt due to his
own denial of the papacy, that he strives to conjure up phantoms of derision,
calumny and ridicule against others with whom he ought to be sharing a pure
love of God.

You will know they are Christians by their love. Conversely, well, you get the point.

Why all the vitriol and spite? Is this man full of hate all the time, or does he
just save it up for special occasions? Is he trying to start a new sect of the
Stepanichites? If so, their principal defining mission would be to dish out ill-will
toward other Catholics, especially Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
and especially if they reside in New Hampshire. Does he work for the ADL?

Under normal conditions, this Stepanichite's bishop would be able to effect some
kind of obedience out of him, but here this guy probably denies the validity of his
local bishop's consecration, so now he can misbehave all he likes without restraint.

How in heaven's name could anyone show this screed to any young person
who would become Catholic? Who could expect a prospective convert to say, "Oh,
wow. This is beautiful. How I would so much like to be part of the Church where
we can write things like this about our fellow Christians!"

I have known one in particular who abandoned going to Mass for precisely
this reason. She did not want any part of a bunch of hate mongers who insult
each other from across the fence of their respective congregations. I'm not
making this up. It's real, friends. "Extinguish not the spirit" (I Thes. v. 19).



Reading this Stepanichite screed, you might reasonably conclude that:


1) Baptism of Desire is a form of Baptism. (a Stepanichite doctrine, which see)

2) Baptism of Desire has everything that Baptism has, except water, of course.

3) The desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation.

4) There is nothing else necessary for salvation but Baptism of Desire.

5) Therefore, Baptism of Desire must be a sacrament.

6) The words "Baptism of Desire" are contained in Trent, with capital letters.

7) Baptism of Desire was instituted by Christ as He hung on the Cross, and
when He spoke the words of salvation to the Good Thief, "This day, thou
shalt be with me in paradise."






Ask any real priest (not a Stepanichite) if any of these 7 things are true. You
might be surprised at the answer:

"No, they are all false."



In case you don't have the gumption to ask such a true priest, not a
Stepanichite, here are the reasons they are all false:

1) So-called baptism of desire is not a "form of Baptism" because it is not
a sacrament, imparts no indelible mark on the soul, and was not instituted by
Christ. All the sacraments were instituted by Christ. (Catechism 101)

2) So-called baptism of desire does not impart an indelible mark on the soul.
Therefore, in eternity, whether or not someone had the desire for baptism will
no more be "visible" than if they had had the desire for Confirmation, or for
Matrimony, or for Holy Orders or Extreme Unction or a trip to the Mall on Sunday.

3) The desire for baptism is not sufficient for salvation, for also necessary is an
act of perfect contrition, unless absolution from a priest has been provided, but
the latter would require first Baptism with water, obviating the insufficiency of not
having Baptism. Just don't ask a Stepanichite, you might get the runaround.

4) Generally, salvation of a non-baptized person would require a desire not only
for Baptism, but a desire also to do everything necessary for sanctification,
whatever that may be, including Baptism.

5) No, so-called baptism of desire is not a Sacrament. Ask any real priest. You
might want to first ask him if he's a Stepanichite, though.

6) No, the words "Baptism of Desire" are not contained in the Council of
Trent, with capital letters or without. They are not contained in the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, either, nor in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with or without
capital letters. The use of capitalization here is the self-proclaimed "authority" of
a Stepanichite priest whose favorite pastime is spreading slander about other
Catholics, apparently, and misrepresenting the truth, to put it mildly.

7) Finally, no, baptism of desire was never instituted by Our Lord, and Baptism
was not a sacrament until it was instituted by Our Lord as He was about to
ascend into heaven, 43 days after the Crucifixion, when He said, "Go ye into
the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk.
xvi. 15-16). For this was the same time when He said, "Going therefore teach
ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19).



In the end, the term "baptism of desire" is misleading. Desire does not effect
Baptism, so any such description of whatever it is that produces the effects of
Baptism without Baptism should be called something less deceptive than this.

As for the St. Benedict Center, nobody would be more overjoyed to have the
Pope define once and for all this confusing and controversial thing, for the
edification of all and for the settlement of a longstanding issue of concern to
many (like the Stepanichites). This curious fabrication of this particular  
Stepanichite that the Center would be "dismayed" is of his own imagination, at
best, and perhaps part of his deal with his employers(?) They do not hold this
as something worth fighting over, but somehow the 'creepy critters of dissent'
crawl out from under the woodpile to attack them, hurling repeated epithets,
in an unruly mob style of harassment, as this alarming example of unChristian
slander demonstrates. But we are now in a time when the Pope refuses to
define anything at all, and therein lies the problem. In fact, that would be a
great place to start: let the Pope start defining things again, and hey, start
with this desire and blood problem, if that's what it takes!


Neil, I repect you, but the above sentiments are puke-worthy at best.

I'm shocked that no one has responded to the above strangeness but the post from the holy and learned Father Stepanich who lays in his death-bed speaks for itself.

The vast majority of SVs and no few of all Traditionalists who know the man or know about him rightfully hold him in high esteem.

Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 04, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
http://www.dailycatholic.org/mstepttt.htm

We are absolutely delighted to recognize as this year's first honoree for the Tower of Trent Hall of Honor the Very Reverend Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., a true giant of the Church today. Though few, who call themselves 'Catholic' in conciliar circles these days, would bat an eye at the name, there are sadly many within the traditional movement who do not know this sainted sacerdote who has persevered much in the manner of his holy founder Saint Francis of Assisi. It is our privilege and duty to make the accomplishments, nay the mission of Fr. Martin known to a greater audience, not for any kudos he would garner or welcome, but that his treasured words would reach more hearts, minds and souls.

    Only in that way will more Catholics realize the Catholic truth which Fr. Martin expounds is diametrically opposed to all that is occurring in the conciliar church today which dares to continue to call itself Catholic. Fr. Martin vehemently disagrees with these conciliarists and has always provided the proof of his convictions. These tenets are long-held ones for he was grounded in the faith, possessing a deep love for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the bread and wine he confects daily into the True Presence at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. His sincere caring for holy Mother Church is another benchmark of his life. He cared so much that he clearly heard the calling and enrolled in the seminary just prior to the Stock Market Crash. He knew poverty and embraced it just as he does today in the true Franciscan spirit that, were it not for a few loyal Friars like Father Martin, would have been totally eradicated today for the Rules and Constitutions of the Modernist Franciscans is night and day from what the holy father Francis drew up through divine inspiration.

    Somehow, Father Martin knew there were even rougher times ahead and he dedicated his life to helping others, not just temporally, but spiritually because there was to him nothing more precious or delicate than a soul. Thus, well over six months before the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor, he became a Franciscan priest. Ordained on May 18, 1941 he went on to earn a Doctorate in Sacred Theology in those idyllic pre-Vatican II years where the Church and the rest of the world were being distracted by war, post-war restoration and the thriving baby-boom of the late forties and fifties.

    Few could see the dangers on the horizon and a lesser soul without the fervor and religious discipline that Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM possessed through the grace of God and total submission to Our Lady as her consecrated servant through the teachings of the holy Doctor of the Church Saint Alphonsus Liguori. His life would be greatly altered in the sixties when the Order of Friars Minor began to cave to conciliar novelties. Father knew there could be no such abomination allowed in the Church he was raised in and quite quickly recognized the counterfeiters, already suspicious by who had been given the greatest voice at the Second Vatican Council.

    As Dr. Thomas Droleskey affirms in his personal account of this dear Franciscan priest later in this tribute, Fr. Martin was abandoned by his Order, left to fend for his own. Considering the alternatives, he gladly embraced such a cross rather than ever betraying our Lord and our Lady. In exile he established a parish where he drew others to him by his priestly manner without catering to the fads or social engineering of the 70's, 80's, 90's and new millennium.

    We have been priveleged to carry several of his articles, most recently, thanks to Dr. Drolesky, his series on the Doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that were first published in The Remnant before Father became persona non grata because of his uncompromising stance against the conciliar popes that they could not possibly be Catholic. Sedevacantism remains a stumbling block for the "Resist-yet-Recognize" group who refuse to connect the dots. Another excellent article by Father was a recent one published at Christorchaos.com which was first published in print in The Four Marks periodical, titled The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception

    While we may be stirring a hornets nest by going for the jugular in our efforts to refute Feeneyism, it is really nothing new for Fr. Martin nearly 40 years ago was already defending the Church's Doctrine on the Baptism of Blood and the Baptism of Desire. Oh, and he was taking on the very man himself: Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. A Franciscan engaged the Jesuit and, despite the supposed superiority of the Jesuit reputation for intellectual polemics, the man in black underestimated the influence of another Franciscan on Fr. Martin for Father possesses the wisdom of the holy Doctor of the Church Saint Bonaventure. Needless to say Feeney was overmatched. The humble friar Martin won by simplifying what the Church teaches so clearly.

    That is a characteristic that defines Fr. Martin. He does not seek to complicate the Faith but rather exemplify our Lord in simplifying the truths of our holy Faith and permitting the little children (the faithful) to be drawn to Christ Jesus especially in the Most Blessed Sacrament through the total self-sacrificing sacerdotal souls on this earth. Now in his eighties Fr. Martin is truly one of God's most loyal, humble and loving creatures which give great hope in the darkness that the Light will shine brighter tomorrow in hearts and souls. Thanks to Fr. Martin's efforts, we have confidence it will happen.

    As mentioned earlier, Dr. Thomas Droleskey has graciously agreed to provide his personal insights into why each honoree this year is being enshrined into the Tower of Trent Hall of Honor. Of the five so honored this year, four are Traditional Bishops. Father Martin may not be a prelate, but neither was his founder St. Francis. In actuality, considering his age and time of service to the Church he could be considered the Godfather of Tradition today. We say that with no reference whatsoever to the violent films employing that term. Rather, we say that with the proper reference of the Catholic understanding of a Godparent, responsible before God for the spiritual welfare of a soul. Father, as the elder statesman of the Church, has dedicated his life to preserving and providing for the welfare of Tradition by keeping it pure. And now, pure and simple, Tom shares his admiration for Father.

    One of these great giants is Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., whose own Order of Friars Minor treated him with the same sort of cruelty and humiliation to which their founder, the matchless Saint Francis of Assisi, was subjected by his own father, Pietro di Bernadone. And although Father Martin (his religious name was taken in honor of the family name of the Little Flower, Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, Saint Therese of Lisieux) once wrote beautiful articles on theological matters and on the lives of the saints for both The Wanderer and The Remnant, he has been "radioactive," a veritable non-person since he became known as a sedevacantist. None of his earlier work matters or can even be acknowledged, which is exactly what the Soviets did to those who dared to oppose the Bolshevik party line.

    Father Martin Stepanich has been unafraid to tackle the difficult theological issues of the day, possessing an earned doctorate in Sacred Theology, something that the mean-mouthed, self-proclaimed theological "experts" who have such a wide followings today do not consider at all important to consider or to acknowledge. People who have never studied theologically formally in their lives in a preconciliar Catholic setting are the "experts." Sadder still is the fact that loads of people who have themselves never studied theologically formally a day in their lives believe the self-styled "experts" and self-professed religious "brothers," who consider themselves the grand inquisitors of all other Catholics, rather than even consider for a single moment that it is the true priest and formally trained Catholic scholar who is correct.

    Even my own self-dulled intellect, however, can grasp the exquisite beauty with which Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the childlike simplicity of his Franciscan demeanor. Father Martin pronounces each word in the Mass slowly and distinctly, understanding that he is an alter Christus, re-presenting in an unbloody manner the very Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in Spirit and in Truth that was offered on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. His offering of Holy Mass takes between forty-five and fifty minutes. Nothing is deliberately slowed, although he does pause for a sufficient amount of time at the Mementos for the Living and the Dead to permit those of us privileged to assist at his Mass to remember a number of persons in each category, something for which we are most grateful. There is no "rush" to get to the Quam Oblationem in the Canon of the Mass. (His Excellency Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P. offers Masses at a similar pace and with similar exquisiteness in the Dominican Rite.)

    The care with which Father Martin offers Holy Mass should come as no surprise. A meticulous botanist, Father Martin has for many decades now taken care of the "lilies of the field" in gardens, whether when he was living on the grounds of the Franciscan order or at the residences at which he has lived in the decades since that time, including in the garden he keeps at this time in Bolingbrook, Illinois, well into his ninety-third year of life. Imagine the skill and the patience to do such meticulous, back-breaking work with one's hands. Imagine having an encyclopedic knowledge of the origins of each flower one plants and the exact care that each needs to highlight the beauty with which God Himself has adorned it. Imagine the simplicity of soul that is able to look at the radiant beauty of each type of flower planted and to give glory to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Yes, you see, Father Martin Stepanich is a gardener after the Gardener, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who tills the soil of our souls in order that they might blossom beautiful flowers unto eternity.

    A priest who has such gifts of perception and knowledge is able to use the graces of Holy Orders to see every single detail of the Faith with exactitude and to appreciate it as much and as purely and devotedly as it can be appreciated in this passing, mortal vale of tears. Listen to any one of Father Martin's well-thought out sermons and you will know that he has been given the same gifts as were possessed by the late Father Frederick Faber in penetrating the depths of the Faith. Here are just several listed on the Archives page of Traditional Catholic Sermons.org:

Our Lady Of La Salette
Our Lady Of Sorrows Model Of Reparations
The Divine Message Of Guadalupe
The Rosary In Modern Marian Apparitions
Total Consecration To Jesus Through Mary
Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
Humani Generis: Encyclical On Modern Errors
Because Of Jesus And Mary, St. Joseph
The Man Of Sorrows , and
The Chair Of Peter among so many others.
Take the time to listen to Father Martin Stepanich. Listen to this faithful son of the Catholic Church. Do not be misled by theologically untrained deceivers who must--as in without exception--resort to the use of the ad hominem to denounce persons while they skirt substantive issues. Listen for yourselves.

    Father Martin Stepanich is direct and to the point, using an economy of words to express himself and hopefully more will discover that a wonderful Catholic resource has been given us to us in the person of Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., a true son of Saint Francis of Assisi and of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    Father Martin Stepanich is a true son of Saint Francis of Assisi, who was rejected and calumniated by his own father and set upon by thieves and spat upon by those from whom he begged alms. He accepts calumnies and invectives with these two words: Deo gratias!, offering all to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. And although he read an original draft of this article and wrote to say that I could print it, he did so by saying the following to the person who communicated his handwritten note to me via e-mail:

    Dr. Droleskey sure did spread the peanut butter of praise on me plenty thick. But let him write it up as he sees it. I am no "giant." I am just a small potato.

    Well, this "small potato" named Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., suffers all for the Faith without compromise as a devoted son of Saint Francis and a consecrated slave of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    Please join me in praying a Rosary right now for Father Martin Stepanich in gratitude for his years of fidelity to the Catholic Faith despite all of the persecutions and calumnies to which he has been--and continues to be--subjected.

    Tom has expressed the essence of Fr. Martin so well. While this editor has never had the honor of meeting or talking with Father Stepanich, his writings reveal much, especially that he is a devout priest beyond reproach and one we can all take edification from for he possesses the charity and kindness of St. Francis. August is an ideal month to so honor this august alter Christus for he embodies the wisdom and devotion of St. Alphonsus Liguori, the moral strictness and caring candor of the holy Cure of Ars Saint Jean Marie Vianney with the rightful delegation of all credit to Christ the King as exhibited by St. Louis IX and the missionary fervor for exposing and defeating heresy that earmarked the qualities of Saint Dominic and Saint Bernard, while manifesting the intelligence of Saint Augustine in upholding the truths and traditions of holy Mother Church. But it is his love for Our Lady that has spurred him on and we can think of no greater day to honor him than on the Solemnity of the Assumption. Thus we have chosen August 15 to officially honor this fantastic faithful Franciscan and we proudly present the Cross of Truth in his honor and enshrine him in the Tower of Trent Hall of Honor and proclaim Friday, August 15 as Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. Day throughout all of Christendom.

Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Emerentiana on October 04, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Leave it to a sedevacantist to come up with a litany of hate, filled with errors,
and make that an attack against fellow Catholics, giving scandal to everyone
who reads it. This Stepanichite is apparently so full of self-contempt due to his
own denial of the papacy, that he strives to conjure up phantoms of derision,
calumny and ridicule against others with whom he ought to be sharing a pure
love of God.

You will know they are Christians by their love. Conversely, well, you get the point.

Why all the vitriol and spite? Is this man full of hate all the time, or does he
just save it up for special occasions? Is he trying to start a new sect of the
Stepanichites? If so, their principal defining mission would be to dish out ill-will
toward other Catholics, especially Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
and especially if they reside in New Hampshire. Does he work for the ADL?

Under normal conditions, this Stepanichite's bishop would be able to effect some
kind of obedience out of him, but here this guy probably denies the validity of his
local bishop's consecration, so now he can misbehave all he likes without restraint.

How in heaven's name could anyone show this screed to any young person
who would become Catholic? Who could expect a prospective convert to say, "Oh,
wow. This is beautiful. How I would so much like to be part of the Church where
we can write things like this about our fellow Christians!"

I have known one in particular who abandoned going to Mass for precisely
this reason. She did not want any part of a bunch of hate mongers who insult
each other from across the fence of their respective congregations. I'm not
making this up. It's real, friends. "Extinguish not the spirit" (I Thes. v. 19).



Reading this Stepanichite screed, you might reasonably conclude that:


1) Baptism of Desire is a form of Baptism. (a Stepanichite doctrine, which see)

2) Baptism of Desire has everything that Baptism has, except water, of course.

3) The desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation.

4) There is nothing else necessary for salvation but Baptism of Desire.

5) Therefore, Baptism of Desire must be a sacrament.

6) The words "Baptism of Desire" are contained in Trent, with capital letters.

7) Baptism of Desire was instituted by Christ as He hung on the Cross, and
when He spoke the words of salvation to the Good Thief, "This day, thou
shalt be with me in paradise."






Ask any real priest (not a Stepanichite) if any of these 7 things are true. You
might be surprised at the answer:

"No, they are all false."



In case you don't have the gumption to ask such a true priest, not a
Stepanichite, here are the reasons they are all false:

1) So-called baptism of desire is not a "form of Baptism" because it is not
a sacrament, imparts no indelible mark on the soul, and was not instituted by
Christ. All the sacraments were instituted by Christ. (Catechism 101)

2) So-called baptism of desire does not impart an indelible mark on the soul.
Therefore, in eternity, whether or not someone had the desire for baptism will
no more be "visible" than if they had had the desire for Confirmation, or for
Matrimony, or for Holy Orders or Extreme Unction or a trip to the Mall on Sunday.

3) The desire for baptism is not sufficient for salvation, for also necessary is an
act of perfect contrition, unless absolution from a priest has been provided, but
the latter would require first Baptism with water, obviating the insufficiency of not
having Baptism. Just don't ask a Stepanichite, you might get the runaround.

4) Generally, salvation of a non-baptized person would require a desire not only
for Baptism, but a desire also to do everything necessary for sanctification,
whatever that may be, including Baptism.

5) No, so-called baptism of desire is not a Sacrament. Ask any real priest. You
might want to first ask him if he's a Stepanichite, though.

6) No, the words "Baptism of Desire" are not contained in the Council of
Trent, with capital letters or without. They are not contained in the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, either, nor in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with or without
capital letters. The use of capitalization here is the self-proclaimed "authority" of
a Stepanichite priest whose favorite pastime is spreading slander about other
Catholics, apparently, and misrepresenting the truth, to put it mildly.

7) Finally, no, baptism of desire was never instituted by Our Lord, and Baptism
was not a sacrament until it was instituted by Our Lord as He was about to
ascend into heaven, 43 days after the Crucifixion, when He said, "Go ye into
the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk.
xvi. 15-16). For this was the same time when He said, "Going therefore teach
ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19).



In the end, the term "baptism of desire" is misleading. Desire does not effect
Baptism, so any such description of whatever it is that produces the effects of
Baptism without Baptism should be called something less deceptive than this.

As for the St. Benedict Center, nobody would be more overjoyed to have the
Pope define once and for all this confusing and controversial thing, for the
edification of all and for the settlement of a longstanding issue of concern to
many (like the Stepanichites). This curious fabrication of this particular  
Stepanichite that the Center would be "dismayed" is of his own imagination, at
best, and perhaps part of his deal with his employers(?) They do not hold this
as something worth fighting over, but somehow the 'creepy critters of dissent'
crawl out from under the woodpile to attack them, hurling repeated epithets,
in an unruly mob style of harassment, as this alarming example of unChristian
slander demonstrates. But we are now in a time when the Pope refuses to
define anything at all, and therein lies the problem. In fact, that would be a
great place to start: let the Pope start defining things again, and hey, start
with this desire and blood problem, if that's what it takes!


Spoken like a true "Feenyite"!    Im totally shocked Neil!  I thought you were a man of sound doctrine........till now! :shocked: :shocked: :heretic:
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Belloc on October 04, 2012, 01:31:31 PM
giving him the  :heretic: is a bit much, dont you think......both men make some good points....but assigning Neil to the  :heretic: is a bit much.....
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 04, 2012, 02:29:49 PM
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Leave it to a sedevacantist to come up with a litany of hate, filled with errors,
and make that an attack against fellow Catholics, giving scandal to everyone
who reads it. This Stepanichite is apparently so full of self-contempt due to his
own denial of the papacy, that he strives to conjure up phantoms of derision,
calumny and ridicule against others with whom he ought to be sharing a pure
love of God.

You will know they are Christians by their love. Conversely, well, you get the point.

Why all the vitriol and spite? Is this man full of hate all the time, or does he
just save it up for special occasions? Is he trying to start a new sect of the
Stepanichites? If so, their principal defining mission would be to dish out ill-will
toward other Catholics, especially Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
and especially if they reside in New Hampshire. Does he work for the ADL?

Under normal conditions, this Stepanichite's bishop would be able to effect some
kind of obedience out of him, but here this guy probably denies the validity of his
local bishop's consecration, so now he can misbehave all he likes without restraint.

How in heaven's name could anyone show this screed to any young person
who would become Catholic? Who could expect a prospective convert to say, "Oh,
wow. This is beautiful. How I would so much like to be part of the Church where
we can write things like this about our fellow Christians!"

I have known one in particular who abandoned going to Mass for precisely
this reason. She did not want any part of a bunch of hate mongers who insult
each other from across the fence of their respective congregations. I'm not
making this up. It's real, friends. "Extinguish not the spirit" (I Thes. v. 19).



Reading this Stepanichite screed, you might reasonably conclude that:


1) Baptism of Desire is a form of Baptism. (a Stepanichite doctrine, which see)

2) Baptism of Desire has everything that Baptism has, except water, of course.

3) The desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation.

4) There is nothing else necessary for salvation but Baptism of Desire.

5) Therefore, Baptism of Desire must be a sacrament.

6) The words "Baptism of Desire" are contained in Trent, with capital letters.

7) Baptism of Desire was instituted by Christ as He hung on the Cross, and
when He spoke the words of salvation to the Good Thief, "This day, thou
shalt be with me in paradise."






Ask any real priest (not a Stepanichite) if any of these 7 things are true. You
might be surprised at the answer:

"No, they are all false."



In case you don't have the gumption to ask such a true priest, not a
Stepanichite, here are the reasons they are all false:

1) So-called baptism of desire is not a "form of Baptism" because it is not
a sacrament, imparts no indelible mark on the soul, and was not instituted by
Christ. All the sacraments were instituted by Christ. (Catechism 101)

2) So-called baptism of desire does not impart an indelible mark on the soul.
Therefore, in eternity, whether or not someone had the desire for baptism will
no more be "visible" than if they had had the desire for Confirmation, or for
Matrimony, or for Holy Orders or Extreme Unction or a trip to the Mall on Sunday.

3) The desire for baptism is not sufficient for salvation, for also necessary is an
act of perfect contrition, unless absolution from a priest has been provided, but
the latter would require first Baptism with water, obviating the insufficiency of not
having Baptism. Just don't ask a Stepanichite, you might get the runaround.

4) Generally, salvation of a non-baptized person would require a desire not only
for Baptism, but a desire also to do everything necessary for sanctification,
whatever that may be, including Baptism.

5) No, so-called baptism of desire is not a Sacrament. Ask any real priest. You
might want to first ask him if he's a Stepanichite, though.

6) No, the words "Baptism of Desire" are not contained in the Council of
Trent, with capital letters or without. They are not contained in the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, either, nor in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with or without
capital letters. The use of capitalization here is the self-proclaimed "authority" of
a Stepanichite priest whose favorite pastime is spreading slander about other
Catholics, apparently, and misrepresenting the truth, to put it mildly.

7) Finally, no, baptism of desire was never instituted by Our Lord, and Baptism
was not a sacrament until it was instituted by Our Lord as He was about to
ascend into heaven, 43 days after the Crucifixion, when He said, "Go ye into
the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk.
xvi. 15-16). For this was the same time when He said, "Going therefore teach
ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19).



In the end, the term "baptism of desire" is misleading. Desire does not effect
Baptism, so any such description of whatever it is that produces the effects of
Baptism without Baptism should be called something less deceptive than this.

As for the St. Benedict Center, nobody would be more overjoyed to have the
Pope define once and for all this confusing and controversial thing, for the
edification of all and for the settlement of a longstanding issue of concern to
many (like the Stepanichites). This curious fabrication of this particular  
Stepanichite that the Center would be "dismayed" is of his own imagination, at
best, and perhaps part of his deal with his employers(?) They do not hold this
as something worth fighting over, but somehow the 'creepy critters of dissent'
crawl out from under the woodpile to attack them, hurling repeated epithets,
in an unruly mob style of harassment, as this alarming example of unChristian
slander demonstrates. But we are now in a time when the Pope refuses to
define anything at all, and therein lies the problem. In fact, that would be a
great place to start: let the Pope start defining things again, and hey, start
with this desire and blood problem, if that's what it takes!


Spoken like a true "Feenyite"!    Im totally shocked Neil!  I thought you were a man of sound doctrine........till now! :shocked: :shocked: :heretic:


Shocking is a good word to describe it.  "Stunning" as well.  Father Stepanich has more theology in his pinky than we can ever hope to aquire, the accusations and names are absolutely astounding.  

He is lined up against Mike Cain, Tom Droleskey, Kathleen Plumb and all their supporters and contributers including all the CMRI Priests and anyone else who knows the man or knows about the man.

Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: nadieimportante on October 04, 2012, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Leave it to a sedevacantist to come up with a litany of hate, filled with errors,
and make that an attack against fellow Catholics, giving scandal to everyone
who reads it. This Stepanichite is apparently so full of self-contempt due to his
own denial of the papacy, that he strives to conjure up phantoms of derision,
calumny and ridicule against others with whom he ought to be sharing a pure
love of God.

You will know they are Christians by their love. Conversely, well, you get the point.

Why all the vitriol and spite? Is this man full of hate all the time, or does he
just save it up for special occasions? Is he trying to start a new sect of the
Stepanichites? If so, their principal defining mission would be to dish out ill-will
toward other Catholics, especially Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
and especially if they reside in New Hampshire. Does he work for the ADL?

Under normal conditions, this Stepanichite's bishop would be able to effect some
kind of obedience out of him, but here this guy probably denies the validity of his
local bishop's consecration, so now he can misbehave all he likes without restraint.

How in heaven's name could anyone show this screed to any young person
who would become Catholic? Who could expect a prospective convert to say, "Oh,
wow. This is beautiful. How I would so much like to be part of the Church where
we can write things like this about our fellow Christians!"

I have known one in particular who abandoned going to Mass for precisely
this reason. She did not want any part of a bunch of hate mongers who insult
each other from across the fence of their respective congregations. I'm not
making this up. It's real, friends. "Extinguish not the spirit" (I Thes. v. 19).



Reading this Stepanichite screed, you might reasonably conclude that:


1) Baptism of Desire is a form of Baptism. (a Stepanichite doctrine, which see)

2) Baptism of Desire has everything that Baptism has, except water, of course.

3) The desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation.

4) There is nothing else necessary for salvation but Baptism of Desire.

5) Therefore, Baptism of Desire must be a sacrament.

6) The words "Baptism of Desire" are contained in Trent, with capital letters.

7) Baptism of Desire was instituted by Christ as He hung on the Cross, and
when He spoke the words of salvation to the Good Thief, "This day, thou
shalt be with me in paradise."






Ask any real priest (not a Stepanichite) if any of these 7 things are true. You
might be surprised at the answer:

"No, they are all false."



In case you don't have the gumption to ask such a true priest, not a
Stepanichite, here are the reasons they are all false:

1) So-called baptism of desire is not a "form of Baptism" because it is not
a sacrament, imparts no indelible mark on the soul, and was not instituted by
Christ. All the sacraments were instituted by Christ. (Catechism 101)

2) So-called baptism of desire does not impart an indelible mark on the soul.
Therefore, in eternity, whether or not someone had the desire for baptism will
no more be "visible" than if they had had the desire for Confirmation, or for
Matrimony, or for Holy Orders or Extreme Unction or a trip to the Mall on Sunday.

3) The desire for baptism is not sufficient for salvation, for also necessary is an
act of perfect contrition, unless absolution from a priest has been provided, but
the latter would require first Baptism with water, obviating the insufficiency of not
having Baptism. Just don't ask a Stepanichite, you might get the runaround.

4) Generally, salvation of a non-baptized person would require a desire not only
for Baptism, but a desire also to do everything necessary for sanctification,
whatever that may be, including Baptism.

5) No, so-called baptism of desire is not a Sacrament. Ask any real priest. You
might want to first ask him if he's a Stepanichite, though.

6) No, the words "Baptism of Desire" are not contained in the Council of
Trent, with capital letters or without. They are not contained in the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, either, nor in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, with or without
capital letters. The use of capitalization here is the self-proclaimed "authority" of
a Stepanichite priest whose favorite pastime is spreading slander about other
Catholics, apparently, and misrepresenting the truth, to put it mildly.

7) Finally, no, baptism of desire was never instituted by Our Lord, and Baptism
was not a sacrament until it was instituted by Our Lord as He was about to
ascend into heaven, 43 days after the Crucifixion, when He said, "Go ye into
the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk.
xvi. 15-16). For this was the same time when He said, "Going therefore teach
ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19).



In the end, the term "baptism of desire" is misleading. Desire does not effect
Baptism, so any such description of whatever it is that produces the effects of
Baptism without Baptism should be called something less deceptive than this.

As for the St. Benedict Center, nobody would be more overjoyed to have the
Pope define once and for all this confusing and controversial thing, for the
edification of all and for the settlement of a longstanding issue of concern to
many (like the Stepanichites). This curious fabrication of this particular  
Stepanichite that the Center would be "dismayed" is of his own imagination, at
best, and perhaps part of his deal with his employers(?) They do not hold this
as something worth fighting over, but somehow the 'creepy critters of dissent'
crawl out from under the woodpile to attack them, hurling repeated epithets,
in an unruly mob style of harassment, as this alarming example of unChristian
slander demonstrates. But we are now in a time when the Pope refuses to
define anything at all, and therein lies the problem. In fact, that would be a
great place to start: let the Pope start defining things again, and hey, start
with this desire and blood problem, if that's what it takes!


Spoken like a true "Feenyite"!    Im totally shocked Neil!  I thought you were a man of sound doctrine........till now! :shocked: :shocked: :heretic:


Shocking is a good word to describe it.  "Stunning" as well.  Father Stepanich has more theology in his pinky than we can ever hope to aquire, the accusations and names are absolutely astounding.  

He is lined up against Mike Cain, Tom Droleskey, Kathleen Plumb and all their supporters and contributers including all the CMRI Priests and anyone else who knows the man or knows about the man.



For a "Lover of truth", you sure are hoodwinked. If all you can do is post someones errors (Father Stepanich), and not be able to defend your posting, respond when someone shows you the contrary, then you will never LEARN truth.
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: nadieimportante on October 04, 2012, 10:59:01 PM
Quote from: Belloc
giving him the  :heretic: is a bit much, dont you think......both men make some good points....but assigning Neil to the  :heretic: is a bit much.....


I think she is joking, notice the asterisk in "Feeneyite".
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 05, 2012, 02:14:54 AM
For the record:


I provided seven points of dispute, based in sound logic and common sense,
not to mention Catholic doctrine, and all there is in response is the typical hum-drum
of ad hominem and sweeping statements.


Let me know when you're ready for an intelligent discussion.............

 :sleep:
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 05, 2012, 02:27:17 AM
Quote from: Belloc
giving him the  :heretic: is a bit much, dont you think......both men make some good points....but assigning Neil to the  :heretic: is a bit much.....



Didn't "Pope Alexander II" consign Matthew to that "place" too, just before he was banned?


See, you provide some solid facts for sedes and they bluster and chortle and
huff and puff. I'm not sure if it's a show, or a nervous disorder. But they can't deal
with facts.

Curious phenomenon.
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 05, 2012, 05:53:41 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Belloc
giving him the  :heretic: is a bit much, dont you think......both men make some good points....but assigning Neil to the  :heretic: is a bit much.....



Didn't "Pope Alexander II" consign Matthew to that "place" too, just before he was banned?


See, you provide some solid facts for sedes and they bluster and chortle and
huff and puff. I'm not sure if it's a show, or a nervous disorder. But they can't deal
with facts.

Curious phenomenon.


Show your post on Father Stepanich to all the CMRI Priests and let me know what they think.

I'll wait, but not hold my breath.

Or you show them the article from Father Stepanich and ask them what they think.

I still won't hold my breath waiting for you to do it.

All the traditional clergy SV or not are against you.

I guess you and the Dimonds are super Gnostic elitists, and the rest of us won't reach your level until we get to Heaven.  But we won't get to Heaven because the Feeneyites are the only Catholics in the world that aren't heretics.

Oh well.  I guess the rest of us have a lot to learn.

I'm somewhat surprised no one else is defending Father Stepanich against this strange and inexplicable attack.

Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: nadieimportante on October 05, 2012, 07:06:45 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Belloc
giving him the  :heretic: is a bit much, dont you think......both men make some good points....but assigning Neil to the  :heretic: is a bit much.....



Didn't "Pope Alexander II" consign Matthew to that "place" too, just before he was banned?


See, you provide some solid facts for sedes and they bluster and chortle and
huff and puff. I'm not sure if it's a show, or a nervous disorder. But they can't deal
with facts.

Curious phenomenon.


Show your post on Father Stepanich to all the CMRI Priests and let me know what they think.

I'll wait, but not hold my breath.

Or you show them the article from Father Stepanich and ask them what they think.

I still won't hold my breath waiting for you to do it.

All the traditional clergy SV or not are against you.

I guess you and the Dimonds are super Gnostic elitists, and the rest of us won't reach your level until we get to Heaven.  But we won't get to Heaven because the Feeneyites are the only Catholics in the world that aren't heretics.

Oh well.  I guess the rest of us have a lot to learn.

I'm somewhat surprised no one else is defending Father Stepanich against this strange and inexplicable attack.




For a "Lover of truth", you sure are hoodwinked. If all you can do is post someones errors (Father Stepanich), and not be able to defend your posting, respond when someone shows you the contrary, then you will never LEARN truth
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 06, 2012, 01:58:08 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth

Show your post on Father Stepanich to all the CMRI Priests and let me know what they think.

I'll wait, but not hold my breath.


You don't seem to understand:  I wrote it.  If you don't like it, then YOU go,
show it around and YOU come back here and report.  I'm not required to
defend my questions to anyone.  

I asked questions and I gave my answers, and you don't like it.

Well, that's your doing and it's up to you to handle it.  So be my guest.

Quote
Or you show them the article from Father Stepanich and ask them what they think.


Sorry, I'm not about to undertake your nefarious action of spreading lies, hate
and calumny.  I can't stop you from doing it, but I can try to show you it's not a
good idea.  But obviously, when I tried, you came back all the more flustered.

So there you are.

Quote
I still won't hold my breath waiting for you to do it.

All the traditional clergy SV or not are against you.


Prove it.

Show me one real priest, anywhere in the world, who is willing to go on record
saying that "baptism of desire" is a sacrament, or that it was instituted by Christ
as a sacrament.

Quote
I guess you and the Dimonds are super Gnostic elitists, and the rest of us won't reach your level until we get to Heaven.  But we won't get to Heaven because the Feeneyites are the only Catholics in the world that aren't heretics.


I really don't care what the Dimonds have to say, they're sedes too, you know.

But you seem to be a bit confused.  The followers of Fr. Feeney do not call anyone
who disagrees with them "heretics." You apparently got mixed up because so
many Stepanichites and their ilk hurl false epithets of "heretics" at the
"Feeneyites."  It's actually a one-way street, but with all the hurling going on,
you might forget it's hurling in one direction only.

I never said I have anything to do with either group, but especially the Dimonds.

Quote
Oh well.  I guess the rest of us have a lot to learn.

I'm somewhat surprised no one else is defending Father Stepanich against this strange and inexplicable attack.



So when someone shows up to defend the good name of Father Feeney, the
"greatest theologian in America," according to his peers, you just can't handle it,
but when nobody shows up to defend the acrimonious and unCatholic screed of
a Stepanichite, then it's surprising?  Maybe it ought to be "expected" instead.

The language this blustering priest uses is the kind of thing that turns people
off.  Who would want to be out there defending an extremist with an attitude?
Who would want to convert and become like him?  Eh?

Or, have you considered that perhaps his words are not regarded as respectable,  nor defensible, nor charitable? .  .  .  Hmmmm?

They include objective errors, you know. Or, perhaps you don't know.

Maybe you should read my first response (again?), and this time, actually pay
attention.  Keep an "open mind" and read what I wrote, instead of engaging in
knee-jerk reactions like a true Stepanichite.


Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: SouthpawLink on October 06, 2012, 10:56:16 PM
In the very least, I believe that baptism of desire is possible for catechumens, as per Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (nn. 31-33, 43, 70.).

http://onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=26&title=Denzinger+1001+-+1100&page=2
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: nadieimportante on October 07, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
Quote from: SouthpawLink
In the very least, I believe that baptism of desire is possible for catechumens, as per Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (nn. 31-33, 43, 70.).

http://onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=26&title=Denzinger+1001+-+1100&page=2


The fact that certain misinformed baptism of desire teachers continue to attempt to quote the Errors of Michael Du Bay,  simply
shows their lack of evidence for “baptism of desire.”


Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus
afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a
‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in
catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions of sins.”437 ‐
Condemned

Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus
afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and
holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through
charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of
sins has been obtained.”438 ‐ Condemned

Michael Du Bay’s propositions above are condemned because they assert that perfect charity can be in catechumens and penitents without the remission of sins. (Note: this says nothing one way or the other about whether or not perfect charity can be in catechumens with the remission of sins.) Du Bay’s propositions above are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and
renewal of the interior man… Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is
ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all
these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity.”

Faith, hope, charity and the remission of sins are inseparable in a justified person. Thus, Michael Du Bay was rightly condemned for his false statement that catechumens and penitents can have perfect charity without the remission of sins. His assertion contradicts Catholic teaching. And when a pope condemns propositions like the false propositions of Michael Du Bay, he condemns the entire proposition as such. In condemning such an error, no assertion is made positively or negatively about either part of the statement, nor is any assertion made, positively or negatively, about whether catechumens can have remission of sins with perfect charity, which is not the topic of Michael
Du Bay’s statement.

If you want to believe in BOD of the catechumen, there are saints quotes that support that theory, but the condemnation of Du Bay is not one of them.
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: Lover of Truth on October 09, 2012, 09:44:20 AM
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Lover of Truth

Show your post on Father Stepanich to all the CMRI Priests and let me know what they think.

I'll wait, but not hold my breath.


You don't seem to understand:  I wrote it.  If you don't like it, then YOU go,
show it around and YOU come back here and report.  I'm not required to
defend my questions to anyone.  

I asked questions and I gave my answers, and you don't like it.

Well, that's your doing and it's up to you to handle it.  So be my guest.

Quote
Or you show them the article from Father Stepanich and ask them what they think.


Sorry, I'm not about to undertake your nefarious action of spreading lies, hate
and calumny.  I can't stop you from doing it, but I can try to show you it's not a
good idea.  But obviously, when I tried, you came back all the more flustered.

So there you are.

Quote
I still won't hold my breath waiting for you to do it.

All the traditional clergy SV or not are against you.


Prove it.

Show me one real priest, anywhere in the world, who is willing to go on record
saying that "baptism of desire" is a sacrament, or that it was instituted by Christ
as a sacrament.

Quote
I guess you and the Dimonds are super Gnostic elitists, and the rest of us won't reach your level until we get to Heaven.  But we won't get to Heaven because the Feeneyites are the only Catholics in the world that aren't heretics.


I really don't care what the Dimonds have to say, they're sedes too, you know.

But you seem to be a bit confused.  The followers of Fr. Feeney do not call anyone
who disagrees with them "heretics." You apparently got mixed up because so
many Stepanichites and their ilk hurl false epithets of "heretics" at the
"Feeneyites."  It's actually a one-way street, but with all the hurling going on,
you might forget it's hurling in one direction only.

I never said I have anything to do with either group, but especially the Dimonds.

Quote
Oh well.  I guess the rest of us have a lot to learn.

I'm somewhat surprised no one else is defending Father Stepanich against this strange and inexplicable attack.



So when someone shows up to defend the good name of Father Feeney, the
"greatest theologian in America," according to his peers, you just can't handle it,
but when nobody shows up to defend the acrimonious and unCatholic screed of
a Stepanichite, then it's surprising?  Maybe it ought to be "expected" instead.

The language this blustering priest uses is the kind of thing that turns people
off.  Who would want to be out there defending an extremist with an attitude?
Who would want to convert and become like him?  Eh?

Or, have you considered that perhaps his words are not regarded as respectable,  nor defensible, nor charitable? .  .  .  Hmmmm?

They include objective errors, you know. Or, perhaps you don't know.

Maybe you should read my first response (again?), and this time, actually pay
attention.  Keep an "open mind" and read what I wrote, instead of engaging in
knee-jerk reactions like a true Stepanichite.




You are against all the traditional clergy SV and not, and with the Dimonds.

Enough said.

Again, perhaps you are in a special category with the Dimonds and the rest of us will be outside looking in or maybe it is you that will be outside the Church you say we must be in, in the way you say we must be in when you are judged and perhaps the Dimonds and those of their bent will be judged with the same measuring stick that they use to measure.

I warn you as a friend.

You mock the only living theologian with a doctorate in theology and the rest of the traditional movement, and the the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.  You ought to be pretty sure of yourself before you take such a stand, publically no less where souls are in play.

I'd be careful.  You can respond how you like, but it is not me you have to worry about.  

Your fight is not with me but with the Catholic Church.
Title: The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception
Post by: SouthpawLink on October 09, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
nadieimportante,
Can you cite any theologian (e.g., author of a multi-volume dogmatic theology manual, professor of a Pontifical university) who has interpreted Pope St. Pius' bull in the same manner as you have?  Again:

"In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin" -- Condemned (n. 43).