Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Your Friend Colin on April 12, 2019, 09:59:55 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4g5jc3dBTI&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4g5jc3dBTI&t=0s)
Maybe one day he'll stop slandering the good +Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society!
-
Wow my respect for Voris has increased about 10X from this video.
-
Wow my respect for Voris has increased about 10X from this video.
Maybe he’s starting to come around.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s a good journalist and he clearly loves the Church.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4g5jc3dBTI&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4g5jc3dBTI&t=0s)
Maybe one day he'll stop slandering the good +Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society!
Colin,
Understand you're a newbie, but FYI, the forum moderator puts this kind of stuff into the "Feeney ghetto" topic section.
We don't deserve to be out walking around the normal healthy trads :jester:
-
Maybe he’s starting to come around.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s a good journalist and he clearly loves the Church.
Yes, strange that he's fishing for the EENS trads?
Voris's Church Militant may be funded by Opus Dei ? His network has the equivalent influence of several bishops combined.
In 2013, Voris produced a video saying that the only unforgivable sin was anti-semitism.
nαzιs and Hell (https://www.gloria.tv/video/dzcgYDnSZzZn3AzPDTpHqB1UV)
And Hugh Akins thinks he's a zionist:
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:29:25 +0000
From: hughakins@comcast.net (hughakins@comcast.net)
MICHAEL VORIS THE ZIONIST FRAUD
Michael Voris, whom so many unthinking, unwatchful Catholics have come to trust and to love, is here exposed spreading his anti-Christian message under the guise of true Catholicism. We gave him the benefit of the doubt, believing him to be sincere even if misinformed. In the interests of Christ we can no longer do so. Even if he still means well, it's not enough. His ignorance is such that he is doing irrepairible injury to souls, to the cause of Truth, and to the Catholic cause that he pretends to represent.
We knew him to be a blatant apologist of the last two Judases to occupy the Chair of Peter - Popes Benedict and Francis. That
was bad enough. Now you can see for yourself, in this short video clip, that Voris is also undeniably a ZIONIST APOLOGIST of the most reprehensible kind. You didn't believe me when I warned you of the Zionist bent of Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara of the Remnant, and of Bp. Fellay of the neo-SSPX (with his Zionist pal Maximilian Krah) and the new Angelus magazine, even though the evidence was not only conclusive, but it comes from their very own lips (or pen). Now the same can no longer be denied with regard to Michael Voris, the latest darling of the psuedo-Traditional Catholic Movement..
Watch for yourself...Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.com and RealCatholicTV.com has revealed himself to be a mindless dupe and dangerous pied piper of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and of Antichrist in this appalling propaganda clip. Here he clearly shows himself to be a tool of the Devil in his war against Christ the King by promoting - goof intentions notwithstanding - blatant lies and falsehoods.
Hugh Akins
-
Maybe one day he'll stop slandering the good +Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society!
"...After years of cordial relationship with the dioceses of Manchester, suddenly, suddenly, things went south..."
This "cordial relationship" is their undoing and without doubt will be the same thing that happens to the SSPX, it's just a matter of when, not if - and this relationship with the liars is the reason why +ABL did not enjoy a cordial relationship with the conciliar crooks.
This sermon (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tjrofmzr23p1rn/Archbishop-Lefebvre-And-The-Conciliar-Church-237%207_3_88.mp3?dl=0) from Fr. Wathen speaks about the conciliarist crooks' true intentions. Although this sermon was given a few days after +ABL's excommunication, it's just as true today as it was then.
-
Colin,
Understand you're a newbie, but FYI, the forum moderator puts this kind of stuff into the "Feeney ghetto" topic section.
We don't deserve to be out walking around the normal healthy trads :jester:
I was trying to find the “Feeneyism Ghetto” but I couldn’t find it? Where is it?
Because I couldn’t find it, I thought it was only a sub forum on Suscipe Domine
-
I was trying to find the “Feeneyism Ghetto” but I couldn’t find it? Where is it?
Because I couldn’t find it, I thought it was only a sub forum on Suscipe Domine
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/)
It is a subforum in the "Crisis in the Church" section of Cathinfo. It was created because BOD and Feeneyism is a contentious topic and I believe people were complaining that the debates were taking over the forum years ago. And it was an issue of contention because people on both sides often think the other sides are heretics, and "error has no rights" so banning the opposition from Cathinfo is the right move. Creating a subforum was a compromise between letting them post anywhere and banning them. For some reason the same has not happened with sedevacantism. Cathinfo has always been a haven for Feeneyites and sedevacantists who are "persecuted" elsewhere. But they are not allies.
-
Fr. Feeney has always interested me more for his withering criticisms of the Jєωιѕн people, which made up the bulk of the material in his 50s newsletter The Point (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/), than for the EENS matter.
All Catholics should read every issue of that fantastic newsletter, and let them be disabused of the notion that things only started to go south in the Church after 1960.
-
Fr. Feeney has always interested me more for his withering criticisms of the Jєωιѕн people, which made up the bulk of the material in his 50s newsletter The Point (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/), than for the EENS matter.
All Catholics should read every issue of that fantastic newsletter, and let them be disabused of the notion that things only started to go south in the Church after 1960.
Thanks for posting the link to "The Point" Rumster!
Father Feeney's observations and insights on the Jєωs were prophetic.
He was the Irish/American wolfhound who flushed-out the machinations of international Jєωery.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.dog-learn.com%2Fdog-breeds%2Firish-wolfhound%2Firish-wolfhound-i2.jpg&f=1)
-
Thanks for posting the link to "The Point" Rumster!
Father Feeney's observations and insights on the Jєωs were prophetic.
He was the Irish/American wolfhound who flushed-out the machinations of international Jєωery.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.dog-learn.com%2Fdog-breeds%2Firish-wolfhound%2Firish-wolfhound-i2.jpg&f=1)
Double thanks! Incredibly good reading! Spot on!
-
I am on Fr. Feeney's side. He never was excommunicated. He was told by lawyers to not go to the Holy See unless they spelled out why he was to go, reasons. Reasons were never given. It was questionable if Pope Pius the XII had communication for all the mess going on in the Holy See. I really believe that Fr. Feeney was in a hot bed of bad jesuits in the colleges and I certainly can see Jєωs behind it.
I read that as of March 4, 2020, Pope Pius XII archives (secret?)will be opened for review.
-
... and I certainly can see Jєωs behind it.
Oh, there's absolutely no doubt about that.
-
Wow. I'm gobsmacked. I'll withhold any cynical speculation about any motives, and just take this for what it seems to be.
-
https://traditioninaction.org/religious/i044_Baptism6.htm
Apparently tradition in action has taken the opposite position with these modernist baptism article. It implies non catholics can be saved with only implicit desire to do Gods will.
What a load of crap.
-
https://traditioninaction.org/religious/i044_Baptism6.htm
Apparently tradition in action has taken the opposite position with these modernist baptism article. It implies non catholics can be saved with only implicit desire to do Gods will.
What a load of crap.
It's strange that more Novus Ordites have their heads screwed on straight when it comes to this issue than Trad Catholics ... especially when you stop to consider that the ecclesiology behind EENS-denial is as the root of all the Vatican II errors.
-
TIA's theological "argument". It always helps to lay things out as a syllogism to expose the faulty logic.
Major: God is good.
Minor: It would be bad if God were to allow those who had no chance to know the truth an alternative means of salvation than Baptism.
Conclusion: Such an alternative means must exist (i.e. BoD).
So the argument rests essentially on the Minor, since no one denies the Major.
So BoDers claim that in denying the conclusion, "Feeneyites" deny the Major. When the reality is that we deny the Minor. As some here on CI have been fond of claiming, we deny the Mercy of God. Hogwash.
We actually believe that God gives all people the opportunity to be saved and that if they do not arrive at a knowledge of the truth it's because they placed some obstacle in the way of God's grace which would lead them to that knowledge.
THAT is in fact the teaching of St. Thomas, that such are not punished for the sin of infidelity, but for other sins, that if such as these would place no obstacles in the way of the working of God's grace, God would in fact enlighten them with the knowledge necessary for salvation ... even if necessary by miraculous means. That is also the meaning of the teaching of Pope Pius IX that is always warped by the anti-EENS crowd. In other words, the perennial Catholic teaching that explicit knowledge of God is required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation stands. The way these people construct the syllogism outlined above, you would think that salvation is possible without any knowledge of God whatsoever ... and that's heresy. They would turn Pius IX into a Pelagian heretic.
This argument is also predicated on the heresy that it could ever be "impossible" for God to provide the Sacrament. BoDers argue that Feeneyites constrain God with the Sacraments, but the reality is that the BoDers constrain God with "impossibility". It is not we who constrain God with the Sacraments, but God who constrains us with them, and He can and will in His Providence provide the Sacrament to His elect.
BoD theology is complete garbage that's predicated on one false premise after another, and it makes a mockery of God's providence. That's how faulty is the "reasoning" behind it. It's not theological reasoning at all, but emoting, emoting in the same category as those who shake their fists at God for being unmerciful when some tragedy befalls them. We most certainly believe that God is Merciful; we just disagree on how His Mercy works in the hearts of men.
-
Wow. I'm gobsmacked. I'll withhold any cynical speculation about any motives, and just take this for what it seems to be.
It hit me the same way, but wait.....he has not gotten to a BOD yet.
-
It hit me the same way, but wait.....he has not gotten to a BOD yet.
Oh, I'm sure that he believes in BoD. But at least he's honest enough to admit that Father Feeney was a "loyal son of the Church", committed no "heresy", and was merely teaching a dogma that has always been taught by the Church and which the Modernists have rejected due to their embarrassment over it. He called out Cushing for denying EENS and calling it nonsense. And, after all, Father Feeney's primary objective was to promote EENS, and BoD was just a corollary to that.
-
It's strange that more Novus Ordites have their heads screwed on straight when it comes to this issue than Trad Catholics ... especially when you stop to consider that the ecclesiology behind EENS-denial is as the root of all the Vatican II errors.
Why do you think this is?
Furthermore, what Traditional Catholic says that "explicit knowledge of God" isn't necessary for salvation? I've heard some Novus Ordo Catholics say this, but from what I understood all Traditional Catholics *at least* believe you have to have supernatural faith in a God that rewards and punishes?
-
BoD theology is complete garbage that's predicated on one false premise after another, and it makes a mockery of God's providence. That's how faulty is the "reasoning" behind it. It's not theological reasoning at all, but emoting, emoting in the same category as those who shake their fists at God for being unmerciful when some tragedy befalls them. We most certainly believe that God is Merciful; we just disagree on how His Mercy works in the hearts of men.
So then what is Baptism of Desire? What did the Council of Trent, the Saints, and Doctors mean when they spoke of BoD?
Genuinely curious about this doctrine.
-
https://youtu.be/VHiZoTkbhG8 (https://youtu.be/VHiZoTkbhG8)
Well, here it is folks. The second and final part on Voris’s report on the St. Benedict’s Center. No mention of BoD! With this concluding report, any speculations on his motives?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPGrpIsn7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPGrpIsn7s)
Missed this one. Moral of the story: Don't rely on the Conciliar heirarchy for Sacraments!
-
So then what is Baptism of Desire? What did the Council of Trent, the Saints, and Doctors mean when they spoke of BoD?
Genuinely curious about this doctrine.
I started a fresh thread on these questions in the Ghetto. (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/what-is-a-bod/new/#new)