Author Topic: Feeneyism condemned by the pre-VII Catholic Church (Read 6143 times)

Matthew · « **on:** September 27, 2012, 09:43:37 PM »

The SSPX (true position) on Feeneyism:

"FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism.

Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecuмenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc. Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life (first published in l952), to see that his doctrine contradicts the Church’s teaching."

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2012, 10:09:41 PM »

What is the definition of Baptism of desire? Does it mean if a non Catholic wants to become Catholic they are baptized into Catholic Church??!!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2012, 10:17:50 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

What is the definition of Baptism of desire? Does it mean if a non Catholic wants to become Catholic they are baptized into Catholic Church??!!

If they die before they can be baptized as a Catholic, yes, that is its definition.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #3 on:** September 27, 2012, 10:26:51 PM »

Suppose the non catholic wants to be catholic, they still need to get baptized into the catholic faith.

Uh oh.. if I am formerly novus ordo and was baptized 1969.... then according to Feenyism, I'm not "catholic"?

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2012, 01:22:38 AM »

The alleged Holy Office condemnation of 'Feeneyism'( there is no such thing) does not exist.

Marcelino · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2012, 02:11:45 AM »

"The Gauntlet" 1977 Clint Eastwood and Sondra Locke

Subconsciously, this movie was about surviving modern marriage

(oops, wrong thread!) :alcohol:

Marcelino · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2012, 02:14:08 AM »

"This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

(dat's bewwer) :alcohol:

Marcelino · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2012, 02:19:41 AM »

"the will to do all things necessary..."

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2012, 04:19:41 AM »

While I agree with what Fr. Feeney taught about EENS - or perhaps more accurate to say that I find it impossible to disagree with what he taught about EENS, I find it confusing that his group has not only produced no fruit (that I am aware of) but also the fact that they (all?) have accepted the NO. If we are to know truth from error, we are to judge the fruits. What are Fr.'s fruits after fighting for the literal interpretation of EENS?

At any rate, whoever doesn't believe that the enemies of the Church weren't around until V2 happened, might enjoy reading an extremely well written account of proof that the modernist enemies were already rooted in place in the 30s, The Loyolas and the Cabots

After reading the book, go ahead and google some of the names of the major players who were the accusers against Fr. Feeney and you might be surprised - for example, the chief accuser of 'em all against Fr. Feeney, the main person in charge who was responsible for what happen to Fr. Feeney was Archbishop Cushing of Boston:

Wikipedia states:

.............At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) [Cardinal] Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version.

...........He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.

..............Cushing was named the third Archbishop of Boston on September 25, 1944, following Cardinal O'Connell's death. During his tenure, Boston would see the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney for his stringent interpretation of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

How do you like them apples?

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2012, 04:20:44 AM »

The Loyolas and the Cabots was written about a year after "The Boston Heresy Case" was made public..........

"The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine - The Loyolas and the Cabots

Amazon customer review of the Loyolas and the Cabots:

The Loyolas and the Cabots is a fast-paced and intriguing primary source account of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center in Harvard Square. The topic will appear obscure to most 21st Century readers, Catholics included, but after reading the book the candid reader will understand the Boston Heresy Case and the unsought battle between the Center and the Boston and Jesuit hierarchies as the original flashpoint in the conflict between orthodoxy and Liberal, Americanist Catholicism. Philip Lawler's recent The Faithful Departed recognizes it as such, but only provides a cursory account. Those interested in the full story can find it here.

Catherine Clarke's account, written in the thick of the controversy, goes from the Center's foundation to the expulsion of Fr. Feeney from the Society of Jesus. The 1993 edition is a well-made paperback published by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of the present Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. Though a one-sided account (indeed, the Liberals have never seen fit to publish a book-length justification of the runaround they gave the Center faithful), a contemporary review in the Harvard Crimson, which may still be found online, vouches for its accuracy:

"The book accurately presents Father Feeney's side of the controversy; I can make no other value judgments about it."

The Catholic faithful, especially those still ignorant of this headline-making contest between the upholders of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and their Liberal superiors cannot afford to pass up The Loyolas and the Cabots. Antagonists of government by bureaucracy and policy may also discover a timeless gem in this at times wacky tale of a truth suppressed by reputation-minded authorities. But don't get me wrong, this book will hardly depress: it is a reminder that courage and heroism are still possible in this day and age.

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2012, 12:13:30 PM »

Fr Feeney was not ex-communicated, condemned nor called to Rome by anyone.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2012, 01:21:30 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The SSPX (true position) on Feeneyism:

"FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism.

Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecuмenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc. Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life (first published in l952), to see that his doctrine contradicts the Church’s teaching."

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

This article is is now old enough that the SSPX should have corrected it, for they know that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching against BOD. He was excommunicated for disobedience. Moreover, Rome reconciled Fr. Feeney wothout him retracting one thought of his teachings. Suffice it to say that the group that Fr. Feeney started The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, still teach, and are the main evangelizers of EENS as it is written, and most importantly they are in union with Rome and their local bishop. If they were teach heresy, Rome would have said so, during the last 63 years.

As to the 1949 letter, in the hierarchy of truth, it has no doctrinal status, it was not even published EVER in the AAS, and was only published in the Boston diocese bulletin, like three years after it was penned, and afer the writer was dead. The letter itself is so confusing that it needs another letter to answer all the questions it raises. The dogmas on EENS are clear and infallible. This letter is fallible, and completely unclear.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2012, 01:40:42 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

The SSPX (true position) on Feeneyism:

"FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), ....
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

The reason why I write against the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved outside of the Church, is because it always ends in the hearer believing that they can be saved outside of the Church. I believe in EENS as it is written, therefore, I believe that teaching otherwise is sending people to hell, for the non-Catholic is oblivious to the fact that if they die outside of the Church, they will without a doubt go to eternal perdition.

So, what is worse to teach to non-Catholics? :

(A) Teaching EENS as it is written and "Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

(B) or teaching that - “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Neither has been condemned by the Church, they have not been declared heresy. But which is more harmful for non-Catholics to hear?

Quote

Orestes Brownson 1874:

"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize or latitudinize this terrible dogma, "Out of the Church there is no salvation... If we wish to convert Protestants and infidels we must preach in all its rigor the naked dogma. Give them the smallest peg or what appears so, not to you, but to them;--- the smallest peg on which to hang a hope of salvation without being in or actually reconciled to the Church by the sacrament of Penance, and all the arguments you can address to them to prove the necessity of being in the Church in order to be saved will have no more effect on them than rain on a duck's back."

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2012, 02:50:13 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Matthew
The SSPX (true position) on Feeneyism:

"FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism.

Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecuмenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc. Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life (first published in l952), to see that his doctrine contradicts the Church’s teaching."

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

This article is is now old enough that the SSPX should have corrected it, for they know that Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching against BOD. He was excommunicated for disobedience. Moreover, Rome reconciled Fr. Feeney wothout him retracting one thought of his teachings. Suffice it to say that the group that Fr. Feeney started The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, still teach, and are the main evangelizers of EENS as it is written, and most importantly they are in union with Rome and their local bishop. If they were teach heresy, Rome would have said so, during the last 63 years.

As to the 1949 letter, in the hierarchy of truth, it has no doctrinal status, it was not even published EVER in the AAS, and was only published in the Boston diocese bulletin, like three years after it was penned, and afer the writer was dead. The letter itself is so confusing that it needs another letter to answer all the questions it raises. The dogmas on EENS are clear and infallible. This letter is fallible, and completely unclear.

I will consult Potter more today but I do not believe that Fr Feeney was ex-commd for Any reason.

Marcelino · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2012, 09:01:01 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Matthew
The SSPX (true position) on Feeneyism:

"FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), ....
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

The reason why I write against the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved outside of the Church, is because it always ends in the hearer believing that they can be saved outside of the Church. I believe in EENS as it is written, therefore, I believe that teaching otherwise is sending people to hell, for the non-Catholic is oblivious to the fact that if they die outside of the Church, they will without a doubt go to eternal perdition.

So, what is worse to teach to non-Catholics? :

(A) Teaching EENS as it is written and "Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

(B) or teaching that - “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Neither has been condemned by the Church, they have not been declared heresy. But which is more harmful for non-Catholics to hear?

Quote
Orestes Brownson 1874:

"There can be no more fatal mistake than to soften, liberalize or latitudinize this terrible dogma, "Out of the Church there is no salvation... If we wish to convert Protestants and infidels we must preach in all its rigor the naked dogma. Give them the smallest peg or what appears so, not to you, but to them;--- the smallest peg on which to hang a hope of salvation without being in or actually reconciled to the Church by the sacrament of Penance, and all the arguments you can address to them to prove the necessity of being in the Church in order to be saved will have no more effect on them than rain on a duck's back."

You see a problem where none exists. The doctrines are perfectly reconciled. Providence, No Salvation outside The Catholic Church and Baptism of Desire, all fit together perfectly, when you understand who God is and who He is not.

You remind me of the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"