Why I left the SSPX

[pascendi]

Why, thank you Steven!

I think Fr. Feeney was right concerning the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, of course.  In the practical realm I believe he certainly may have made mistakes as to how to properly respond to the pressure he found himself under over the matter of his hard stance on dogma.  If I were him, I think I would have gone to Rome whether the paperwork were in order or not.  But then again, I don't have the entire world arrayed against me.  At least not yet.  I don't know what that feels like or how much strength one would need to keep their wits about them. 

[pascendi]

My position is very simple, Steven. 

The sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, and there's no salvation outside the Church.

[StevusMagnus]

Do you believe Fr. Feeney erred in any way in his theology or canonical actions?
 
 Yes or No?

[pascendi]

Do you believe Fr. Feeney erred in any way in his theology or canonical actions?

Yes or No?

When someone says "the errors of Feeney", they're going to mean firstly, his position on baptism of desire, and possibly as a secondary matter, anything he may have done or not done during the course of his particular debacle.

I don't find anything wrong with Fr. Feeney's position on baptism of desire, and clearly, the former Cardinal Ratzinger does not either.  Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Church without having to recant anything at all.  As to how he reacted during the course of his suffering over this matter, I believe he may have made mistakes in regards to what he did or did not do.  But I don't want to judge the man, or accuse him of anything without sufficient knowledge of all the details.  That's not my job, and I've never considered it my job.  I stick with the truth or falsity of a particular proposition.

Baptism of desire, Steven, is properly identified as a theologumena, or theological speculation, and not a dogma or even anything sub-dogma requiring belief in order for one to keep inviolate the Catholic Faith.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now the supreme pontiff, knows this.

[OmniaInstaurareInChristo]

pascendi, great post.  Keep up the good work.

Do you believe Fr. Feeney erred in any way in his theology or canonical actions?

Yes or No?

When someone says "the errors of Feeney", they're going to mean firstly, his position on baptism of desire, and possibly as a secondary matter, anything he may have done or not done during the course of his particular debacle.

I don't find anything wrong with Fr. Feeney's position on baptism of desire, and clearly, the former Cardinal Ratzinger does not either.  Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Church without having to recant anything at all.  As to how he reacted during the course of his suffering over this matter, I believe he may have made mistakes in regards to what he did or did not do.  But I don't want to judge the man, or accuse him of anything without sufficient knowledge of all the details.  That's not my job, and I've never considered it my job.  I stick with the truth or falsity of a particular proposition.

Baptism of desire, Steven, is properly identified as a theologumena, or theological speculation, and not a dogma or even anything sub-dogma requiring belief in order for one to keep inviolate the Catholic Faith.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now the supreme pontiff, knows this.

[pascendi]

Thanks, Omnia.  I don't know if I can keep it up, though.  I seem plagued by a unique problem.  Something like this:

[StevusMagnus]

Do you believe Fr. Feeney erred in any way in his theology or canonical actions?

Yes or No?

[pascendi]

Do you believe Fr. Feeney erred in any way in his theology or canonical actions?

Yes or No?

I answered you very truthfully in my opinion.  However, when you ask again as you have here, I want to let you know that I know where you are going with this, as I have been through this very sort of conversation countless times. 

There are a few directions we can move in at this point.  One way, and easiest, is for me to simply ask you exactly what it is that you are after, and you may answer.  Then I can answer as to what it is that you wish to know.

A second direction we can take is to allow you your yes/no answer under the condition that, if I do so, that you will answer any one yes/no question I wish to propose to you. 

[dogearedpsalter]

the question stevus has asked is relevant because your the troll who brought feeney up. so your terms re "any question i ask you" is absurd.

[pascendi]

To my recollection, post #243 was the first reference to Fr. Feeney, by AdoramusTeChriste.