First, we’ll briefly look at Calvinism.
Calvinism is a theology named after the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, which is held by many Protestants today such as the Presbyterians, Baptists, and others. One of its principle components is the doctrine of election. In a nutshell, it means that God for all eternity has determined which part of mankind He will save by looking out on the whole horizon of individual persons and giving grace only to a certain number of them to be saved (the elect). In the end, all of these graced given persons will be saved because this grace according to Calvinism is irresistible. The rest of the world God leaves to be damned because He does not give them grace to be saved.
The foundation for this theology is to avoid saying man has anything whatsoever to do with his own salvation. God does it all and He will make it happen.
So when we come to the Scripture passage 1Tim.2:3-4, “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” John Calvin taught in his commentaries that “all men” referred “to classes of men, and not to individual persons.” He understood that if God desired all individual men to be saved, then He couldn’t just leave men to be damned without giving those help through grace. In Calvinism, grace is irresistible and man can’t reject it, therefore, those given grace will be saved and those not given grace will not be saved.
The implication of Calvin’s doctrine is that God positively predestines part of mankind unto damnation. In other words, God created part of mankind for hell, not heaven.
Calvin’s doctrine comes apart at the seams when he attempts to explain in his commentary Matt.11:28, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Concerning this passage, Calvin wrote, “He now kindly invites to himself those whom he acknowledges to be fit for becoming his disciples. Though he is ready to reveal the Father to all, yet the greater part are careless about coming to him, because they are not affected by a conviction of their necessities. Hypocrites give themselves no concern about Christ, because they are intoxicated with their own righteousness, and neither hunger nor thirst (Matthew 5:6) for his grace. Those who are devoted to the world set no value on heavenly life. It would be in vain, therefore, for Christ to invite either of these classes, and therefore he turns to the wretched and afflicted.”
The problem here is the Calvin believed in the total depravity of man’s will after the fall of Adam and Eve. This means that without grace, the will to do good or even desire it is dead in man. A dead man can do nothing for himself. He has not the will to do as he ought. Therefore, God has to awaken the dead will of man or else man can only will to do evil because that is his only desire. Calvin’s theology must assume that absolutely all men are careless about coming to Christ without grace and he can’t hunger or thirst for God’s grace without grace. It would be impossible to set a value on heavenly life with a totally depraved will to do good or desire it. Either all men despise the grace of God or they don’t know about it to despise it.
So while Calvin says, “the greater part [of mankind]” he knows that it has to be all. He is trying to make a distinction that doesn’t exist in his theology to fit the Scripture passage. None of the distinctions he makes above exists in a totally depraved world in his own theology.
But Calvin really drops the ball when he wrote, “we must bear in mind what I have said, that Christ stretches out his hand to all the afflicted, and thus lays down a distinction between his disciples and those who despise the Gospel. But we must attend to the universality of the expression; for Christ included all, without exception, who labor and are burdened, that no man may shut the gate against himself by wicked doubts.”
So it is with Calvin, Christ tells “all, without exception” “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” According to Calvin, Christ knows full well that no one can come to Him without Christ giving them grace to do so and yet He doesn’t give all mankind the grace to do what He asks of them. Christ cries crocodile tears for the lost. He could give them the grace, but won’t do so. He lets them all go to suffer eternal fire because He doesn’t desire all individual persons to be saved. Obviously, we agree that those who go to hell are in rebellion to God and deserve it, but all are in rebellion to God unless God provides the means to be saved. Unless God provides the means, then it must come down to the fact that He created souls for the purpose of suffering the eternal fire of hell.
Calvin’s theology is completely demonic because it really makes Christ Evil on two fronts.
In Catholic theology, God creates all men for heaven. Although, He foresees who will not be saved, He nevertheless gives all men the possibility to be saved through His Grace. There’s a mystery behind how and why man accepts or rejects the grace of God. The fate of unbaptized infants who never had the chance to make a decision appears to conflict with the above statement. However, there’s another point of view here. Since the Church has declared that those who die in original sin only, do not share in the eternal punishment with those who die in actual sin, God has mercy on them by letting them die early because He knows that they will reject Him if given the opportunity. God desires their salvation for He created them to know, love, and serve Him but God’s foreknowledge is also aware that they will not do so. For reasons known only to God, He had a particular mercy on them.
Now we come to Feeneyism. There are different levels of Feeneyism but the one specifically referred in this study is the one that says that any person not baptized by water will be damned.
As the Church grew over the centuries, so did its extension over the earth. In fact, the Roman Catechism states, “the Holy Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist.”
This means that throughout the Church’s 2000 year history, the Gospel has not always been preached throughout the whole world. The implication is that not everybody since the time of Christ has even known about Him. Keeping in mind that Catholic theology understands I Tim. 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved to mean each and every individual, how do we reconcile this with the fact that not all men have been able to know Christ to be saved? Those ignorant of Christ because of their own doing are different from those invincibly ignorant. The question concerns the invincibly ignorant not the others.
The Feeneyite says all of the invincibly ignorant are damned. If this is so, how is this different from Calvinism concerning Matt. 11:28 that God only provides the possibility to be saved to a certain number of people, which necessarily implies that God created part of mankind for hell?
The case of unbaptized infants wouldn’t apply to all of mankind because of Matt. 11:28, the fact that adults suffer unfathomable suffering in hell, and there’s no reason to think all mankind would have rejected Christ since over time people converted as the gospel spread.
It would seem that God wouldn’t allow a competent adult to die invincibly ignorant. God would have to make Himself known providing an extraordinary way at least to those “sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all heart and ready to obey God” (Pope Pius IX).
However, Feeneyism takes it to the next level because it’s one thing to be ignorant and it’s another to know Him. With Feeneyism, knowing, accepting, and loving Christ is not enough. Some Feeneyites argue that perfect love of God is impossible without the sacrament of Baptism.
In Catholic theology, fallen man needs the grace of God to know, love, and serve Him, which is our very purpose of existence. For the Feeneyites, either one can or can’t know, love, and serve God without Baptism, but Heaven is still out of reach without the sacrament. The implication is that God created souls for the purpose of hell.
In Calvinism, if a man has the grace to desire and do good, he will do good and be saved. With Feeneyism, God may grant the grace to a catechumen who responds by knowing and accepting Christ waiting on the Church to baptize him but God still sends him to hell if he happens to die before then.
The typical Feeneyite will argue that God will send a missionary or a miracle of one to the goodwill persons to be baptized. The problem with this argument is that we have catechumens die before baptism and we aren’t to judge their hearts to be ill-willed. Also, the Church has already taught by implication that the Gospel has not always been preached throughout the whole world. This implies that it is needed in order to reach those of goodwill. Lastly, we have unbaptized saints who shed their blood for Christ.
At this point, one might ask why then should the Gospel be preached throughout the world? The answer is seven-fold:
First, God desires that His Church be established in a normal way.
Second, sanctification is higher with the sacraments.
Third, knowing Christ during life is better than discovering Him only at death.
Fourth, the more we know Christ as we live, the more we can love Him now and forever.
Fifth, the world with Christ is better than a world without Him.
Sixth, the Glory to God is greater with Christ being known, loved, and served on earth.
Seventh, the will of God is not that we discover Him only at death, but as soon as possible.
In conclusion, Calvinism and Feeneyism share the same diabolical character that God desires only a select few to be saved and positively wills the others to damnation. For them, the implication must be that Jesus claims to love and have died for all men but in reality, he taunts and mocks the helpless knowing full well that He created them for nothing but eternal suffering in the lake of fire.
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
if anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. [Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism]
Father Feeney taught what all of the saints, doctors and missionaries believed.
Well actually Fr. Feeney didn’t hold to the same version of Feeneyism that I was addressing. That being said, your first statement I agree with, which I implied when I said that Christ has to make Himself known to the competent adult who’s invincibly ignorant.
Can. 2 is addressing those who don’t claim that Christ was speaking about water. You can’t use some other substance for baptism nor was Christ using water as some metaphor for something else. Only true and natural water is necessary for baptism and that alone is what Christ was speaking about.
So I agree with both statements. My article is addressing something else. Perhaps, you can answer how Feeneyism is not like Calvinism as I explained?
You wrote: “Perhaps, you can answer how Feeneyism is not like Calvinism as I explained?”
I can answer this. Your article is a little biased. You agree that God lets all unbaptized infants die and not be saved (although, they live in some kind of happiness since they had no sin). Does this mean He intended them for damnation? Obviously not. He was, rather, merciful since he permits them to escape the eternal torments and live in natural happiness – so in a sense they are saved but not saved as the elect.
Similarly, the argument for unbaptized Catechumens is that those who die without baptism would have been damned in the end. Does God not know the future? Obviously, He does. So if water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, this means that an unbaptized Catechumen, or ignorant adult, who dies without water baptism, was graced to die earlier and without having received the mark (baptism) since this would only have increased his torment in Hell, had he been damned after having received the faith (baptism). So to argue that God intents unbaptized to be damned if baptism is really absolutely necessary for salvation is evil, just as it would be evil to claim God wanted all unbaptized children to be damned – especially since it is not impossible for God to provide water baptism to anyone destined to be saved.
If you already knew that this is their argument (that Go simply foreknew they would have been lost in the same way as infants if baptism really is necessary absolutely), yet did not address it, that is very dishonest. One must be honest with ones argument. So this belief is in no way similar to Calvinism, which positively teaches that God wants some to be damned by not giving them the graces necessary. The doctrine of the Baptism proponents, simply affirm those who die without baptism, would have been damned anyway even if they were good catechumens that at the time, seemed devote. They are simply affirming that no one who dies unbaptized (if water baptism must be received) would have been saved though God’s foreknowledge had he continued to live, just as all infants who die unbaptized was foreknown to have been damned had they lived longer; and thus their dying in infancy is a grace, since it allows them to escape the torments of Hell and to live in natural happiness – although, they be separated from God.
If this is not the case, I don’t know what to say. It seems strange God would permit an infant die unbaptized and hence not be saved if it could have been saved had it lived and been baptised.
I did address it. Go back and read and pay close attention. You completely missed it.
Such total confusion on so many points of faith , as the late cannon lawyer said Father Gomar Depaul , hold on to all truths of tradition , dismiss all new teaching until there is a new council , one note he did say he was ordained a priest not a preysbyter , he was also the first one to establish the traditional movement it was not the Pius X group , pray and pray for Marys Triumph as this world is falling into millions of sins a day and few are fearing there own judgement .
Steven , it was your clear responsibility to distiguish beyween the mind of the real FrFeeney and the many abberant distortions extant today parading as Catholic doctrine .The very term Feenyism is now unfortunately perjorative and a calumny against the good priests name .Tread carefully Steven , many of us oldies rememberFr. Leonard Feeney as a fine Catholic Apologist for the Faith . If only he was around now.
I made it perfectly clear what type of Feeneyism I was talking about. I would not call Feeneyism a calumny against Fr Feeney since he did teach a very foolish doctrine that a justified person without Baptism doesn’t go to heaven. That’s just plain stupid and it goes against the teaching of the Church that all those justified go to heaven. Canon law 737 spells it out. He just didn’t want to accept the teaching of the Church that unbaptized persons can go to heaven under extraordinary circumstances.
I made it perfectly clear what type of Feeneyism I was talking about. I would not call Feeneyism a calumny against Fr Feeney since he did teach a very foolish doctrine that a justified person without Baptism doesn’t go to heaven. That’s just plain stupid and it goes against the teaching of the Church that all those justified go to heaven. Canon law 737 spells it out. He just didn’t want to accept the teaching of the Church that unbaptized persons can go to heaven under extraordinary circumstances.
It is not correct to refer to a named excommunicated priest as “Father.”
Do you by any chance have the Church teaching this? Where or what authority says so? Thank you!
Mr. Speray, in answer to your question, the excerpts from the source I will post below leaves no other reasonable interpretation. Secondly, the prior practice of the Church is not not refer to excommunicates with any titles of dignity or authority. A priest is a “father,” as he resembles our human father in spiritual matters, but a excommunicate has no spiritual authority to teach or exercise spiritual authority over a Catholic,
Should Catholics begin calling Loisy, Luther, or Arius, mad countless others on their category, “Father,” prior to their name? Of course not. These men were excommunicates who lost their status in the Church.
All quotes from: Excommunication, it’s Nature, Historical Development, and Effects, Hyland, Francis Edward, 1928. Link to book: https://books.google.com/booksid=RXEiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA9&dq=excommunication+membership+church&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSeefnfraAhXNct8KHV0FCOgQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Excommunication places one outside the communion of the faithful.” (pg. 4)
“The latter (interdict and suspension) usually only deprive a person of some of the rights resulting from his position or membership in the Church; the former (excommunication) divests one ‘of all the rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such.’ “ (pg. 4)
“For as a Roman citizen condemned to exile lost all his rights of citizenship, so also does an excommunicate become divested of all his rights as a citizen of the city of God on earth, that is, a member of the true Church.” (pg. 4)
“Practically speaking, excommunicates are deprived of all the blessings and rights which accompany membership in the Church of Christ.” (pg. 10)
I understand what you’re saying but the Church also allows Catholics to go to an excommunicated priest under certain circumstances to receive the sacraments. The excommunicated priest would act as a father during those moments, right? Priesthood and fatherhood are synonymous and because a priest remains a priest even when excommunicated, he also retains fatherhood because he doesn’t lose the sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, I’m asking where the Church specifically says it’s wrong to call an excommunicated priest father. Surely, if it’s so wrong, the Church would have said something.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I would like to see it specifically.
Eugene, do let us know where you discovered that. BTW Eugene do you consider Fr Feeney to have been a validly excommunicated priest ? The controversial document Suprema Haec Sacra issued in 1949 by the holy office cites no accusation of heresy and was not signed by Pius XII and having read it many times it is clearly ambiguous….hardly the work of the Holy Ghost.
Getting back to you Steven and your article, you did point out that the species of Feeneyism you were studying was the one stating ….one not baptised by water is dammed.
Now Steven this so called Feeneyite doctrine is actually clear Church teaching .
SPERAY REPLIES: NOPE! The clear Church teaching is that it is possible to be saved without baptism.
The infallible words of Christ to Nicodemus recorded for all posterity in John 3:5 thru 8 are indeed pearls of wisdom for our faithless world….Christ says to Nicodemus “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again , he cannot see the kingdom of God”.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree under normal circumstances as Our Lord was speaking according to the clear teaching of the Church which quotes this passage and then teaches Baptism of Desire.
Nicodemus then makes his oafish reply and Christ repeating His solemn instruction so that Nicodemus and all posterity will not misunderstand Him says “Amem, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of WATER and the Holy Ghost he cannot ENTER the kingdom of Heaven”. What dont you BOD advocates understand here ???
SPERAY REPLIES: We understand it perfectly. YOU DON’T. The Church makes it clear that baptism is not a necessity of means but a necessity of precept.
Bishop Challoners anotation to this reads …”and by the word WATER it is evident that the application of it is NECESSARY with the words.”……BOD is not looking good !!
SPERAY REPLIES: We agree with Challoner. Water is what is needed for baptism. Nothing else can replace it. BOD is not a sacrament. BOD looks great since it’s taught by Trent, Trent’s Catechism, and the Canon law.
But wait…..there is more ! Our infallible Master continues instructing Nicodemus with the knock out blow in verse 7 of Johns Gospel….He says to him…”WONDER NOT that I say to thee, you must be born again “. So there you have it . Faithless BOD advocates are to stop wondering about Christs most clear and solemn words and believe.Period.
Note also that Trent instructs us to believe John 3-5 ” as written”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Trent also teaches BOD. You’re arguing with the Church, not me.
It cannot go unmentioned that Fr. Feeneys vigorous defense of HMChurchs doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was honourable and heroic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Feeney taught that one can be justified without baptism and he will not go to hell. You agree with him?
It was this issue not his later stance on BOD which narked the modernist clerics of Boston who dobbed him in to the modernists in Rome.
SPERAY REPLIES: Feeney was not heroic. He should have done what was asked of him but coward out. Sorry, but you lose the argument completely. Don’t comment again until you understand the arguments. Your silly comment shows your extreme ignorance!
Pat Mackin wrote:
“BTW Eugene do you consider Fr Feeney to have been a validly excommunicated priest ? ”
It’s not about what I consider, it’s an objective fact. He was declared an excommunicate by Pope Pius XII.
Btw, Suprema Haec Sacra, is a separate document than the decree of excommunication which came later in 1953.
Whether you believe the excommunication is unjust or just is irrelevant, it still held force of law. The subjective belief of individuals does not affect the law.
Steven Speray says:
SPERAY REPLIES : NOPE! The clear Church teaching is that it is possible to be saved without baptism.
Steven …that is heresy !
SPERAY REPLIES: I told you not to comment until you know the arguments but you’ve decided to keep it up with your ignorance. Actually, you’ve just implied a heresy by saying it’s a heresy because the Church has already taught it by law and at Trent.
Not only is the statement heretical, but your use of the word “clear” compounds your problem. Nowhere in the Gospel or in the infallible pronouncements of the Chair of Peter can we find any CLEAR instructions ” that it is possible to be saved without baptism”.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU’RE WRONG! St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1775 great Doctor of the Church): Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7. EXPLAINS TRENT’S INFALLIBLE TEACHING Concerning Baptism:
“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it’.”
BUT YOU THINK YOU KNOW TRENT’S DEFINITION BETTER THAN ST. ALPHONSUS AND YOU MUST CALL HIM A HERETIC FOR TEACHING EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TRENT’S CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS.
In fact quite the opposite is true .Christs statement s to Nicodemus are CLEAR! In another passage Christ says “he who believes and is BAPTISED will be saved…. he who believes not will be condemned ” …all very CLEAR .Christ Ascending into Heaven instructs His Apostles..”go teach all nations, BAPTISING them in the name of the Father and theSon and the Holy Ghost “…again, perfectly CLEAR .I could cite many Popes and Councils on the necessity of baptism and entry into the Catholic Church to be saved which could only be described as CLEAR.
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course baptism is necessary but it’s not absolutely necessary. What you’re saying is heresy!
The foggy and pervasive world of BOD theology today is a veritable pea soup of confusion and deceit.
SPERAY REPLIES: THAT’S TOTAL LIE! BOD is the Catholic teaching and rejecting it makes you a Protestant!
So Steven, my challenge to you is to show us the CLEAR Church teaching from Christ , the Gospel, a Pope speaking ex cathedra or a Canon from a sacred Council….”that it is possible to be saved without Baptism” as your heretical statement above declares.
SPERAY REPLIES: I ALREADY SHOWED YOU TRENT’S DEFINITION AND ST. ALPHONSUS’ COMMENTARY OF IT. PROVE YOU ARE GOOD WILLED AND CONCEDE.
‘The foggy and pervasive world of BOD theology today is a veritable pea soup
of confusion and deceit’ only to the ignorant and unlearned Fenneyites who are closed minded to the teachings of the True Church. When you broadcast your ignorance to those who have studied and know the subject don’t expect much response to accepting a shallow and lacking false religion. If you are serious there are numerous works published on BOD that you would benefit from and relieve you from drowning in your pea soup of confusion and deceit of Feeneyism.
Steven you couldnt find any CLEAR Church teaching from Christ, the Gospel, or a Pope speaking ex- cathedra to confirm your heretical statement that “it is possible to be saved without baptism” .
SPERAY REPLIES: I gave you Trent and the infallible Law of the Church which you deny is infallible like all the other heretics out there.
But you did produce a misunderstood quote from Trent s6c4 and a commentry by a theologian categorizenly be described as totally inadequate in your defeninfallibly.Remember that the word of God expressed by Christ , the Gospel , Popes speaking ex-cathedra or Councils TRUMPS any statement a theologian may profer.As for a misunderstood quote proving your point , that is laughable.
SPERAY REPLIES: What is laughable is your attempt to discredit the Catholic doctrine of BOD as taught everywhere and you ignoring that fact especially from saints and popes who taught it. They can’t go against any dogma in any form without being heretics themselves. You don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Now you quote St Alphonsus’ commentry above as “……and of the Council of Trent session 6, chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it’ .” The clear meaning hear is that BOTH the laver of regeneration AND the desire for it are necessary.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! That’s your false interpretation which is contrary to St. Alphonsus’ teaching.
You caint have one without the other.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes you can. Infants can’t desire it. But there’s a bigger problem with your argument because you also need Faith if you’re an adult and the canon fails to mention it.
If we take the truism…”One cannot breed foals without a mare or a stallion”…then you can see the point that BOTH are necessary.No foals with just a stallion! No salvation wth just desire! So this lonley little
misconstrued three word (in latin original )phrase …” or the desire for it ” is the mighty rock of “clear Church teaching that salvation is possible without baptism “,( your erronious phrase ),on which Alphonsus bases his unfortunate theory of BOD…..and many fall for it failing to consider the teaching of a theologian Saint has not the charisma of infallibility.Theologians do and have made numerous mistakes.But no …this mighty little phrase does it all! NO mention of the need to be free from mortal sin .NO mention of the need to believe the rudimentary truths of Faith.Simply desire,and youve got salvation.You now see the “reductio ad absurdum.”
SPERAY REPLIES: The mighty Pat Mackin thinks he knows Trent better than all the popes, saints, and theologians. Lol. You act like we’ve never seen your ridiculous arguments before when I wrote book 10 years ago debunking all of them.
Steven Speray says: ….”baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary. ”
This CLEAR contradiction is further proof of your foggy theology.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not my theology but that of the Church’s which teaches that Baptism is a necessity of precept, not a necessity of means.
The word necessary cannot be subject to superlatives!Also something cannot be partially necessary or half necessary .Using the word necessary means exactly that! ….its necessary , period. Your use of the word absolutely in the sentence above is actually superfluous and its removal highlights your contradiction…”baptism is necessary but not necessary. ”
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! YOU SIMPLY CAN’T MAKE PROPER DISTINCTIONS.
I believe that if anyone desires baptism…….Our Merciful God will give it to him…water baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s your satanic belief. We already have saints who didn’t receive it.
Christ said “ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find…etc”.On another occasion He says…” my grace is sufficient for thee .”
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s right, Grace is sufficient. Salvation is the goal, not baptism.
St John 1:9 , speaking of Christ…”That was the true light, which enlighteneth EVERY MAN that cometh into this world.”
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT ONE IOTA. LOL.
So Steven, no BOD and no invincible ignorance….
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re showing your willful ignorance. Better lose your pride thinking you know better than all the popes, saints, and theologians that taught BOD. NAME ONE POPE OR SAINT AFTER TRENT THAT CONDEMNS BOD.
just the grace of God working in ALL souls and the free will of men accepting or rejecting, period.All those faithfully responding to the grace of God will eventually arrive at water baptism and salvation…Christ and His Church clearly declare so.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG AGAIN. Christ and the Church teach no such thing.
You may be interestrd to know that Michael Hoffmans latest book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome has a chapter dedicated to St.Alphonsus and his unfortunate theory of ” equivocation” and ” mental reservation.” Quite shocking really, but it just goes to reinforce our Catholic understanding that Christ gave the KEYS to Peter and not to theologians or Saints.As much as we love Alphonsus…he was not infallible…he made some mistakes.Sad but true.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope St. Pius X promulgated BOD in Italy during his lifetime.
SORRY : Correction to garbled sentance above …..should read
But you did produce a misunderstood quote from Trent s6c4 and a commentary by a theologian that can only be described as totally inadequate to your defense of BOD.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT WAS TOTALLY ADEQUATE BUT YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH ON TRENT’S TEACHING. AGAIN, POPES ALSO TAUGHT IT INCLUDING TWO SAINT POPES.