With so much fighting on the teaching of the late excommunicate Leonard Feeney, it's hard to nail down exactly what their error is.

Since the Council of Trent explicitly taught that those who desired salvation would be in the state of Grace, and no one can go Hell in the state of Grace, my opinion is that this teaching is heresy, but I am open to being convinced that it might be a doctrinal error that is not directly against dogma. 

Bellato

Other: Feeneyites are orthodox Catholics and the maker of this poll ought be not condemned but rather pitied for being a jackass.

Voted Other, just to see the results.

With so much fighting on the teaching of the late excommunicate Leonard Feeney, it's hard to nail down exactly what their error is.

Since the Council of Trent explicitly taught that those who desired salvation would be in the state of Grace, and no one can go Hell in the state of Grace, my opinion is that this teaching is heresy, but I am open to being convinced that it might be a doctrinal error that is not directly against dogma. 

This is completely false. You made an anonymous thread to spread error. Yikes.

If you honestly took at look at the evidence against BoD, BoB and invincible ignorance you will quickly see you are a victim of a propaganda campaign against Fr Feeney and the Church.

St. Alphonsus said Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are de fide, so I'll go with him. I would have to see a higher authority than a Doctor of the Church to contradict him before I changed my position. That's why I voted "heretics".

Here's what Fr. Cekada explained about this (he was a bit more lenient than me; since he managed to dig out one or two theologians who taught that it was only proxima fidei, he didn't apply the censure of heresy to Feeneyites, but that argument is a bit weak if you have 20 or so theologians on the other side.)

In any case, Fr. Cekada said that, since every theologian teaches that these doctrines are at least proxima fidei, which it is mortally sinful to deny, being a Feeneyite is at least mortally sinful.

III. Summing Up.
Once again, before a Catholic can resolve a specific theological issue, he must first understand and accept the general theological principles the Church lays down as criteria for determining what must be believed.
      Vatican I and the Roman Pontiff have unambiguously specified the type of teaching you must believe and adhere to:
�  Solemn pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
�  Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
�  Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith.
�  Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
�  Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
      The standard teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood (as was amply docuмented in my original article) fall into these categories.
      You must therefore adhere to these teachings.
      Further, no matter what category theologians have assigned to these teachings — theologically certain, Catholic doctrine or de fide — rejecting them has the same consequences in the moral order: you commit a mortal sin against the faith.
      And finally, you must reject the notion promoted in pro-Feeney circles that such teachings may be ignored because a Catholic’s obligation “is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has proposed to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” — for that is a principle the Church condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. (Dz 1722.)
Yours in Christ,
— The Rev. Anthony Cekada

IIRC, Fr Feeney was initially for BOD and he didn't come out against it publicly until he wrote his book Bread of Life which was printed after the "Letter" of 1949. This means he was "excommunicated" for a position they didn't even know that he held.?!?!? I think most of the slander against Fr is just fabricated which means it rises to the level of calumny and is not just your regular garden variety detraction. Fools rush in where angels dare not tread.

Please correct me if I'm wrong,
JoeZ

.

He was excommunicated for disobedience in refusing to obey first his Jesuit superiors and then to go to Rome when the Holy Office summoned him to Rome.

So he was summoned to Rome to explain a position that they didn't know he held. Ya that's better.

A Saint saying some is de fide doesn't make it so. St Alphonsus version of BoD contradicts Trent on Initial Justification. There is a whole thread on it so I am not going to post the quotes here.

There is a higher authority. The numerous Papal decrees and Councils that affirm Water Baptism to the point of leaving no room for BoD.

Fr. Cekada's garbage on BoD has long since been completely refuted. Despite the dozens or so times this as has pointed out in cathinfo.... I am starting to suspect that most people here didn't even read the contrary evidence.

As soon as Lad gets up I expect he will post it again. He seems to have it saved copy and paste somewhere..

.

No, the problem with this argument is that, if the popes and the Council of Trent and so on really taught what you think they teach, these theologians would know that too, especially Doctors of the Church.

But since they read the Fathers and Popes and Councils and everything else that you have read (actually, a vast, vast amount more than you have ever read), and therefore knew and understood all these things better than you do, which is what it means for someone to be a theologian, then they are the ones who are correct when they say that this is part of our Faith and has always been taught and believed so.

The Feeneyite claim that they understand the Fathers and Popes better than theologians and even Doctors of the Church is false and absurd.