That's fine, Matthew, but your number 1 poster and spewer of heresy (and friend from the seminary?) seems to give the impression that it must absolutely be rejected at the risk of eternal salvation. He even make a proclamation declaring it a fake.
This attitude is along the same lines of Pfeifferville.
1. He's not the "number one poster".
2. I know of no heresies he's uttered.
3. He has never said it must be rejected for the sake of salvation, that I'm aware of. Could you point me to the offending post?
4. He's only an online acquaintance. I've never met him IRL. His seminary time pre-dated mine by several years.
Off-topic here, but I feel that I should address it. Just because I have stated that Dawn Marie's message need not and should not be accepted without an extremely high standard of truth (echoing the Church's opinion), Centro decided to attack me as a heretic.
As I have repeatedly stated, I have no problem with anyone holding to a Thomistic view of Baptism of Desire. Nishant holds to this opinion, and I told him that I have no issue with how he's articulated it. My problem is that most of those who hold to BoD do so in such a way as to embrace Pelagianism and also deny the teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. Pelagianism is heresy, and it's also heresy to deny the dogmatic definition of Trent that the Sacrments are necessary for salvation. Theologians after Trent stated that those who are saved by BoD receive the Sacrament of Baptism
in voto rather than that they are saved without the Sacrament ... intending to keep faithful to Trent's teaching.
I have, furthermore, denounced the Dimond Brothers as schismatic for holding that anyone who believes in BoD is
ipso facto a heretic. In fact, they have written me personally to excoriate me for taking this position.
It is my opinion that BoD has never been defined as a dogma and that it cannot be defined because it is in the realm of theological speculation. There's no consensus of the Church Fathers to demonstrate that it was part of the Deposit and no one has ever demonstrated that it must derive implicitly from other revealed doctrine. If Matthew considers me to be a heretic on that count, then if he were to ban me for that, then I respect that decision. But Centro's denunciation of me as a heretic on this thread, which has absolutely nothing to do with this subject, is just a puerile
ad hominem, a little hissy fit and tantrum over the fact that I happen to reject, for completely unrelated reasons, the credibility of one Dawn Marie.
Do I rule out the possibility that Dawn Marie MIGHT be legitimate? No. I personally do not find her credible. I object more to those who promote her as having to be believed and who accuse +Fellay of some grave disobedience to Our Lady for not acting upon this message. I also point out, along with Matthew, that the DEFAULT position of the Church has always been that of skepticism, an attitude that these things are false unless proven true, and not the other way around.
Topic: The Seer Responds to Bishop Fellay (Read 19295 times)