After my podcast on Feeneyism, the Feeneyites have come out of the cracks to attack Baptism of Desire.
One of their fundamental errors is failing to make the distinction between making an error over an opinion and actually teaching heresy.
Popes, saints, and theologians most certainly can err over theological opinions, but they can’t err against a dogma and remain Catholic. Feeneyites will say St. Alphonsus was a material heretic and/or erred innocently. They won’t apply that same courtesy to the Vatican 2 popes (if sedes.) When the Vatican 2 popes error against the faith, it’s malicious, but when great popes and saints do the exact same thing, it’s not malicious.
St. Alphonsus Liguori taught two things that Feeneyites call heresy. I dealt with one of those issues over 4 years ago here.
The second issue concerns the faith and what is needed to be saved. Feeneyites profess that it’s dogmatic that those who are of the age of reason absolutely must have explicit faith in the essential mysteries of faith to be saved.
However, Catholicism is clear that it’s not dogmatic. It’s a theological opinion. This opinion is broken down into different classes of necessity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: In relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.
According to Feeneyites, the above teaching from the Catholic Encyclopedia is heretical for denying that the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means for salvation.
The faith that’s a necessity of means can be broken down even further. St. Alphonsus taught that it’s “sufficiently probable – that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly.”
Those same Feeneyites must call St. Alphonsus a formal heretic, since he’s contradicting their believed “dogma” that explicit faith is a necessity of means.
St. Alphonsus Liguori taught in Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, tract. 1, cap. 1
1. Which mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means?
Of those things which the faithful are bound to believe explicitly, some must be believed by a necessity of means, or end; without which, even if inculpably unknown, no one can obtain the ultimate end; others, by a necessity of precept, without which, if they be inculpably omitted, the ultimate end may be obtained. — Sanchez, Azor, Valentia. By a necessity of means these two things are necessary: (1) To believe explicitly that God is, and is a rewarder of the good; according to that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, xi. 6: One must believe. Council of Trent. (2) After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, to believe explicitly, as says Molina; or at least implicitly, as some teach as probable with Coninck and Laymann, in Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. See Escobar, where from Vasquez he teaches that culpable ignorance of these mysteries, or negligence in learning them, is a grave sin, distinct from that which is its cause. See Diana. It is a theological virtue, infused by God, inclining us to firmly assent, on account of the divine veracity, to all that God has revealed, and by the Church has proposed to our belief. It is said (1) A theological virtue, that is, which has God for its object; for faith, as also hope and charity, is aimed directly at God, and thus differs from the moral virtues, which refer to Him indirectly. (2) Infused by God; because faith is a supernatural gift of God. (3) Inclining us to firmly believe; for the assent of faith cannot be joined with fear, as was wrongly said in proposition 21 proscribed by Innocent XI, but must be absolutely firm. (4) On account of the divine veracity. For the infallible truth (which is God Himself) is the formal object of faith. (5) To all that God has revealed; for everything revealed by God is the material object of faith. (6) And by the Church has proposed to our belief; for the divine revelation would not be made known to us, except by the Church, which proposes the things revealed; as it is otherwise evident, on account of the signs of credibility (among which are prophecies, miracles, the constancy of the Martyrs, and such like), that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived. Apart from which St. Augustine famously uttered the saying: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church so moved me.
2. Whether the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation must be believed explicitly?
It is asked: whether the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, must be believed with an explicit faith by necessity of means or of precept?
The first opinion, which is more common and seems more probable, teaches that they are to be believed by a necessity of means. Thus hold Sanchez, Valentia, Molina, Continuator Tournely, Juenin, Antoine, Wigandt, Concina with Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc.; also Salmant., Cuniliati and Roncaglia. But these last three say, that accidentally and in a rare case one may be justified with a faith that is only implicit. — This they prove from the Scriptures, from which they say is clearly proved the necessity of means. They prove it also from reason: for, granting that before the promulgation of the Gospel an implicit faith in Christ was sufficient, yet after the promulgation, because the state of grace is more perfect, a more perfect knowledge is required, indeed an explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.
The second opinion, which is also sufficiently probable, says, that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly. — Thus Dominicus Soto, where he says: Although the precept of explicit faith (that is, in the Trinity and the Incarnation) is absolutely obligatory upon the whole world, nevertheless many may be excused from this obligation on account of invincible ignorance. Franciscus Sylvius writes: After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and indeed also (as is probable) by a necessity of means. And in the conclusion that follows, he says the same about the mystery of the Trinity. Cardinal Gotti says: I say (1) The opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is so necessary, that without it no one can be justified, or be able to be saved, is very probable. And he asserts that Scotus holds this opinion. Eusebius Amort, the recent and most learned writer, defends absolutely the same opinion. Elbel writes, that today this opinion is held by the illustrious Doctors Castropalao, Viva, Sporer, Laymann, who says this (second opinion) is not less probable than the first, with Richardo, Medina, Vega, Sa, and Turriano. — Cardinal de Lugo calls the first opinion speculatively probable [footnote: Or more correctly: Lugo n. 90, calls the first opinion fairly common], but defends absolutely and in great detail this second one as more probable, with Javello, Zumel, and Suarez; and de Lugo writes, that this same opinion appears to be that of St. Thomas, where the Holy Doctor says: Before Baptism, Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues, through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. From which Lugo argues: as Cornelius obtained grace through implicit faith, because the Gospel was not yet perfectly promulgated in that region, likewise he can obtain it who is invincibly ignorant of these mysteries; for likewise to these the Gospel is not sufficiently promulgated.
But they say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence, to damn adults who are invincibly ignorant, who live honestly according to the light of nature, against which there is: In every nation, he who fears Him, and works justice, is acceptable to Him? (Acts x. 35) — Indeed they respond that all Scriptures, and testimonies of the Holy Fathers that are opposed to this view, can easily be explained as of necessity of precept: either because ordinarily almost no one can be saved without explicit faith in these Mysteries, because after the promulgation of the Gospel almost no one labors under invincible ignorance of them; or because, says Lugo, they may be explained as referring to implicit faith, or explicit in desire. — Furthermore, says Laymann, an adult, if mute and deaf from birth, though he be baptized, could not receive the other Sacraments, although he so desired; indeed he could not be saved, because it is unbelievable that such a man could rightly apprehend and explicitly believe the mystery of the Incarnation, and especially of the Trinity.
It is noted by Tannerus, Silvius, Azor and Valentia, with Gulielmo Parisiensi according to Sanchez, that if one were so very untaught, that he could not grasp these mysteries, then he would be excused on account of inability, and compared to infants, and dunces. — But Sanchez says, that it is one thing to believe, another to know the mysteries, and to give an explanation of them. Thus he thinks that all adults are bound by a necessity of means, to eventually believe such mysteries, but by a necessity of precept to know them; from which precept to know the slow of mind are excused; and he says that the authors cited are to be understood in this way. And he concludes with Gabriele, who says: It is sufficient … for them (that is, the untaught), that … they explicitly believe individual [articles] when proposed to them.
However, propositions 64 and 65 condemned by Innocent XI, say: A man is capable of being absolved, however ignorant he may be of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ — It suffices that he should have believed them once; but Viva says with Marchant, that it is probably not necessary to repeat Confessions made in ignorance of the aforesaid Mysteries; since by the aforementioned opinion it is quite probable that they were valid, if the ignorance was inculpable. For it is certain, that such ignorance, if it be vincible, is a mortal sin. But the aforesaid proposition was justly condemned, because it said that even he is capable of being absolved, who at the time of confession suffers from ignorance of the aforesaid mysteries. — But the opinion of Father Viva is not sufficiently probable in my view. For although the penitent probably made a valid confession, so that afterwards he appears exempt from repeating his confession, because he confessed in good faith before; yet out of respect for him who certainly sinned gravely, it should always be urged that above all one is obliged to make a confession, not only probably, but certainly valid. On which account, when one becomes aware that his confession was possibly valid, but also possibly null, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, he is obliged, after he has been instructed in these Mysteries, to repeat his confession.
Moreover, he is said to believe implicitly, who believes something explicitly, in which another thing is implicit; for example, if you believe what the Church believes. See the Scholastics and Laymann. [1]
Footnote
[1] https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis01ligu_0/page/212/mode/2up
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
The Pelagian “Baptism of blood/desire” heresies aren’t the only heresies the apostate Alfonsus Liguori held to. He also took Mariolatry (as if it were merely the due hyperdulia to the TheoTokos) to a whole new level, “glorified” Greco-Roman pagan pseudotheophilosophology as of it were “a handmaid to TheoPhiloSophoLogy” under the specious name of “scholasticism” thus incurred the anathemas of Apostle Saint Paul and Popes Saints Silvester, Damasus, Leo I, and Gregorius I, and never condemned the Greco-Roman pagan images on the Filarete Doors or inside or the jew-Masonic-Satanic symbols inside the Basilici Saint Petri which also proves the apostate AntiPopes “BeneDict XIIII”, “Pius VII”, “Gregorius XVI”, and “Pius VIIII” were never Popes. Y’all’re pagans.
Thank you for demonstrating that you don’t have clue as to what you’re talking about.
No. Thank you for demonstrating you can’t adequately respond! How’re those vain repetitions working out for y’all? 😂🤣
Nothing to respond to. You clearly are nuts.
No. You’re just heretics and idolaters.
Right back at you. You have made yourself the final authority, which means you idolize yourself.
No. Right back at you. No reverse. You should no different from the likes of Jeff CassMan. You forsook the Dogmas As once DeClared and DeFined by the Ancient OrthoDox Saintly Popes, Ecumenical and ProVincial Synods, and Fathers’ Unanimous ConSensus for your own traditions (e.g. Greco-Roman pagan pseudotheophilosophology (under the specious name of “scholasticism”), pagan “prayer” beads, vein repetitions (in the form of the rosary), Mariolatry, necrolatry, necromancy, Iconolatry, meatless “fridays”, et cetera none of which are part of Tradition (which includes the Bible)). You forsook the bitter groans of Penitence for vein repetitions in the form of the rosary. Your counterparts did the same in the form of the chotki. “Lateran 4”, “Lyons 2”, ConStance, Basel-Ferrera-Florence, Trent, “VatiCan 1”, and “VatiCan 2” are full of heresies on the GodHead, the Salvation Dogma, ConFirmation, the EuCharist, Ordination, JurisDiction, the Papacy, and Marriage. We kept the Dogma. You innovated. SedeVacantIsm 1958? 1914? 1846? 1700? 1130? 1100? Don’t make us ((OrthoDox) Catholic) Christians laugh. We beat you apostate Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapists to it way back in 896.
Mariolatry? You sound like a modern-day Protestant. Rosary is vain repetition? You are a Protestant. YOU ARE FULL OF HERESIES. You’re just repeating the arguments of the Protestants over and over again, then claim to be Catholic. LOL. YOU ARE COMPLETELY NUTS! But keep talking fool. Your buffoonery proves us right. Thank you very much!
Umm … prots don’t even claim to believe in Apostolic Succession, Papal Supremacy, all 7 SacraMents, original sin, Baptismal ReGeneration, Purgatory, et cetera and both the protestant revolution and the Jesuitical counterrevolution were 2 sides of 1 jew-Masonic-Satanic stageshow but the prots are right about many of their assertions about you Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapists. Both sides forsook the Dogma for their own manmade traditions. The Frankish Latin Roman AntiPapist AntiChurch is not the Catholic Church. In the East, they started to use leaven in their bread and alcohol in their wine which, in addition to schism, heresy, and apostasy, invalidates all their “Masses” as Christ HimSelf used unleavened bread and unfermented wine which is neither mere grape juice nor the pagan wine with alcohol and there’s no SacreDotum of Sacrifice outside the Church. The sects and meetinghouses of schismatics, heretics, and apostate are not Churches nor are their AntiSacraMents valid. The apostates Photius invented the denial of the Supremacy of the Papacy, the leavening of the bread, and the fermenting of the wine. In the West, they started delay their anointings and 1st giving of their bread until age 7, give their bread only to their dupes but keep their wine to themselves and put alcohol in it which, in addition to schism, heresy, and apostasy, invalidates all their “Masses” as Christ HimSelf used unleavened bread and unfermented wine which is neither mere grape juice nor the pagan wine with alcohol and there’s no SacreDotum of Sacrifice outside the Church. Popes Saints Fabian, Innocent, Leo I the Great, Gelasius, and Gregorius I the Great Dogmatically ConDemned the delay of postBaptismal ConFirmation and the sacrilegious ReCeption of the EuCharisT under only 1 Species and ProNounce all schismatical, heretical, and apostate “Masses” and “Orders” null and void. Both sides also “pray” vain repetitions in the rosary/chotki and worship men and women some of whom never even existed. The East are the pharisees. The West are the sadducees. Christ Said He’d Be With His Church. He never Said He’d Be With schismatics, heretics, and apostates who pretend to Be His Church. He never Said we’d never as the Militant Church be reduced to a handful of Laity. You still sound no different from the likes of Jeff CassMan, David LaMont Gray, et cetera. You’re in prelest. I cited where the apostate Alfonsus Liguori teaches Mariolatry among other heresies such as the Pelagianism as quoted in your own article. You don’t even claim to be OrthoDox as I am. Your own buffoonery makes protestantism look true and proves us right. Nice try. Thank you very much for playing and losing!
Wrong! St. Alphonsus didn’t teach Mariolatry. Neither have I. You’re attack on Mary and the Rosary is satanic, but that’s par for the course with you whose father is the devil. Now go away demon!
Wrong! The apostate Alfonsus Liguori did indeed as your cult does indeed teach Mariolatry. I cited it 2x already. I’ll quote it this time.
Speray: You’re a lying devil as I’ll prove below…
apostate Alfonsus Liguori, Glories of Maria, page 119:
“Oh, Mary, thou ar omnipotent, since thy Son Would honor thee by immediately doing all that thou desirest.”
Speray: This is true apostate Pasamano. It doesn’t mean she is God but the Mother of God. So you’re wrong on this one.
apostate Alfonsus Liguori, Glories of Maria, page 658:
“No. He can never be lost who recommends himself to thee. He alone is lost who has not recourse to thee. Ay, my Mother, leave me not in my own hands, for I should then be lost; grant that I may always have recourse to thee. Save me, my hope, save me from Hell; but in the 1st place save me from sin, which alone can condemn me to it.”
Speray: Doesn’t mean she is God. We all save each other. “Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee. (I Tim. 4:16)” Because Our Lady is who she is, she saves us on a higher scale than we save others, but the fact remains that we save others as Christ is the one primary mediator. So you’re wrong again, apostate Pasamano.
He also “reduced” the Salvation Dogma “to” a “mere opinion” and “rose” the Salvation heresy “to” a “allowable opinion” in his apostate invalid “Moralis TheoLogia” as you just quoted.
Speray: No, you just refuse to comprehend the common sense teaching that some live in invincible ignorance and God can save them, but you hold to the satanic dogma that God does not draw all men to Himself. So you’re wrong again apostate Pasamano!
I’ll quote where the apostate Thomas Aquinas taught Iconolatry.
Speray: And I’ll show you that you’re an idiot.
apostate Tommasi D’Aquino, “Summa TheoLogicæ”: Pars III, Quæstio XXV, Articulus III:
“I answer that. As the PhiloSopher says [Aristotle, De Memoria et ReMiniScentia I], there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else. And, between these movements, there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different from the movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is towards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the thing. Thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to Christ’s Image, as a thing — for instance, carved or painted wood: because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It follows therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an Image. Consequently, the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s Image as to Christ HimSelf. Since, therefore, Christ Is adored with the adoration of “latria”, it follows that His Image should be adored with the adoration of “latria”.”
Speray: Aquinas makes a distinction and you falsely accused him. You don’t understand what you read, nor do you try.
Your false accusations against me of attacking the TheoTokos via your obstinate defense of the rosary which is ironically in of itself an attack on the TheoTokos is what’s Satanic but that’s par for the course with you whose father is Satan.
Speray: You’re wrong again, because the Rosary is not vain repetition as you described it. The desert fathers from the first centuries repeated thousands of times a day the Jesus Prayer. It’s not vain repetition. It’s obvious that you don’t know what vain means.
The rosary was invented by Dominic of Prussia in the 14th century, has 2 heretical “mysteries”: 1 against the Dormition: 1 against the TheoTokos having always been Queen of Heaven and Earth, and falls under the Laodicean ProVincial Synod’s ConDemnations in Canon 36 and Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst’s ConDemnations in his ComMentary on Matthew 6:6–8.
Speray: Wrong on all accounts. You just make this crap up don’t you? You don’t understand canon 36. As for the Pope Gregory’s commentary on Matt., you took one section from wikipedia and ran with it.
God’s ConDemnations plus Laodicean ProVincial Synod’s ConDemnations in Canon 36 and Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst’s Ordinarily Magisterial ConDemnations in his ComMentary on Matthew 6:7–8 against idolatry and vain repetitions apply to such pagan superstitions and practices at rosaries/chotkis, scapulars, pseudomiraculous medals, et cetera.
Speray: You have falsely accused the Rosary of something it is not.
Laodicean ProVincial Synod, Canon 36:
“They who are of the SacerDote, or of the Clergy, shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or “astrologers”; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we ComMand to be cast out of the Church.”
Note! rosaries/chotkis, scapulars, pseudomiraculous medals, et cetera are amulets!
Speray WRONG! You don’t know what an amulet is either. Lol.
Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst, ComMentary on Matthew 6:7–8:
“True prayer consists rather in bitter groans of Penitence than in the repetition of a set of words.”
Note! Pope Doctor Saint Gregorius I the Great DiaLogIst’s Ordinarily Magisterial DeFinition of Matthew 6:7–8 matches the protestant antiChrists’ “interpretations” of Matthew 6:7.
Speray: He was referring to the babble of pagans, not repeating of set prayers of the bible, etc. You may pray the Our Father over and over again, but it wouldn’t be vain repetition of which Pope St. Gregory is obviously referring. You don’t have POpe St. Gregory’s full sermon do you? You just took one line out of it that was cited on wiki.
EvAngelIst Apostle Doctor Saint John’s Ordinarily Magisterial DeFinitions of AntiChrist and Popes Saints Celestinus’ and Leo I the Great’ at the Ephesian and Chalcedonian Ecumenical Synods’ ExTraOrdinarily Magisterial ConDemnations against the apostates Nestorius and EuTyches apply to such pagan superstitions and practices as “devotions” to the Most Sacred Heart but not the Whole of Christ Jesus of Nazareth which is an attempt to “DisSolve” Him and the Immaculate Heart but not the whole of Maria which is also an attempt to “dissolve” her too.
Speray: It’s not pagan superstition at all. You don’t know what pagan is or superstitions. You’re are one dumb devil!
The apostate AntiPope “Alexander VI” “officially” “replaced” Lady Theotokos Beatissimum Sanctissimum Virgin Chosen Mother Maria “with” and apostate “”white”-skinned, blond-haired, and blue-eyed jew “Mary”” after the apostate AntiPope “Alexander VI”‘s apostate concubine Giovanna Vannozza dei Cattanei and Dear Divine OmniBenevolent, OmniPerfect, OmniJust, OmniSanctus, OmniSapient, OmniScient, OmniAudient, OmniPotent, and OmniPresent Sole Lord, Mediator, ReDeemer, and Savior Christ Jesus of Nazareth “with” their apostate “”white”-skinned, blond-haired, and blue-eyed jew “Christ” “Jesus”” after their apostate bastard son AntiCardinal Cesare Borgia eversince 1492.
Your apostate “”white”-skinned, blond-haired, and blue-eyed jew “Mary”” is the apostate AntiPope “Alexander VI”‘s concubine Giovanna Vannozza dei Cattanei which you can see for yourself when you compare the 2 images. Your apostate “”white”-skinned, blond-haired, and blue-eyed jew “Christ” “Jesus”” is their apostate bastard son AntiCardinal Cesare Borgia which you can see for yourself when you compare the 2 images.
Speray: First of all, using a person’s image to identify someone like Our Lord or Lady doesn’t make one an apostate. Mary was Jewish by the way and would look like one. I don’t think Alexander VI was a true pope anyway. He tried to buy the papacy, which nullified his obtaining it. That’s my opinion. He was an evil man for sure!
Y’all’re pagans! Now silence you demon!
Speray: Unfortunately, you’re too ignorant to know what a pagan is to accuse anyone of being one. Make sure you look up the definition before replying. As for silence, I will not be silent. I will allow you to come back again and prove your ignorance apostate Pasamano. You’ll come back and back again, too, because devils always come back.