Oh please! Stop this nonsense!
I could really use language here that would get me banned from CI permanently. This anti-Feeney rubbish truly needs to cease!
Really? For how many years has this been repeated and refuted???
I have no problem being banned, so allow me ... it's just a pack of idiotic bullshit, and most of them condemn themselves from their own mouths and are inexplicably too stupid to even realize it. I'm done with this, and I'm taking off the gloves, and throwing down the gauntlet. I've had enough of trying to be civil, of spending hours presenting rational arguments only to have them ignored when they can't refute them. At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and you have to use the strong language to GET THEIR ATTENTION. Well, I hope that I will have gotten your attention by the end of this post, so you can snap out of your stupor, and STOP DECEIVING CATHOLICS with your errors and even heresies (depending on how you articulate your particular position on this subject), and it's an act of charity, since you're endangering your souls while also endangering those of others. When you step up there with croziers presenting as bishops with authority, and priests get up there calling themselves pastors of parishes, then you will be held accountable for the errors that you persuade people to accept under the "color of authority" (that you actually lack).
So, the Sedevacantists tend to be the most hostile opponents of EENS dogma, and they ironically condemn themselves. I've not known a one of them who limited BoD to catechumens or the like, but they all claim that non-Catholics can be saved without having been converted before the end of their lives, thereby verbatim contradicting the Council of Florence. If there's heresy out there, it's THOSE GUYS who adhere pertinaciously to heresy. They just use BoD as an excuse to gut EENS dogma.
Now, one reason the SVs are the most bitter enemies of EENS is because in battling against R&R, they've absurdly exaggerated the scope and extent of papal infallibility to where a Pope is infallible every time he passes wind, even if it isn't through his lips. As a result, they hold that a technically-not-even-Magisterial docuмent like "Suprema Fake" might as well be a solemn dogmatic definition on the level of the dogmatic declaration of the Immaculate Conception.
Then, on top of that, they'll layer on their interpretation of Trent ... except of course they just show themselves to be ignorami and full of shit.
Why?
What did Trent teach, even if you assume that their translation of the grammar is correct? That there's no JUSTIFICATION without the laver or the votum. Father Feeney did not deny this. So where's his "heresy"?
Lest the ignorami claim that Father Feeney made up the distinction, no less an authority than the highly respected and approved post-Tridentine theologian Melchior Cano, OP, made the same distinction, between justification and salvation, where he held, for instance, that infidels could be justified and not saved. I first read about this in an essay by "Cardinal" Avery Dulles, who knew Father Feeney during his life, and I looked up the reference, in Latin, and realized that he was correct. There was another he cited, but I could not find the actual work of that author anywhere, either in the original or translation, but I believe it.
Regardless, Father Feeney and "Feeneyites" do not deny the teaching Trent, making it so that the only thing they have to based their bullshit on is an absurd exaggeration regarding the limits and scope of infallibility. And I'll come back to this, but ...
Then they apply the principles of "Cekadism", where he essentially fabricated out of thin air this notion that some kind of unanimous agreement among theologians constitutes an infallible rule of faith somehow. Of course, a real theologian, Msgr. Fenton rejected "Cekadism" explicitly in his great essay on the infallibility of papal encyclials, where he presents an actual balanced view of the subject.
Ironically, despite their pretended adherence to "Cekadism", they contradict themselves because ... NOT A SINGLE THEOLOGIAN after the dogmatic definition of Vatican I and before the Conciliar revolution held their view regarding the extent of papal infallibility, but would have rejected it as utterly preposterous. So they had the unanimous agreement of all theologians that infallibility did NOT extend to anywhere near as far as the sedevacantists claim. But contradiction never stops the foaming-at-the-mouth Father-Feeney-haters, aka those to whom I refer to, rightly, since two can play that game, as Cushingites (as term I coined here several years ago).
Of course, the vast majority of the SVs will say that even infidels can be saved as per "Rewarder God" theory. So, the problem ... yet another contradiction that they deliberately live with, the sum total of which engenders in them various neuroses, is that for FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS, it was UNANIMOUSLY TAUGHT AND BELIEVED that explicit knowledge of and faith in at least the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation. So ... per their own (made up self-serving) principles, why weren't the Franciscan and couple of Jesuits who invented "Rewarder God" theory out of thin air not heretics for denying 1500 years of constant unanimous Tradition, including unanimous Patristic consensus, which has always been regarded as a rule of faith?
Of course, for about 700 years, theologians unanimously taught and held the opinion of St. Augustine that infants who died without Baptism suffered (albeit mildly) in Hell for all eternity ... until Abelard first questioned it (he also rejected BoD, BTW) and then St. Thomas endorsed the opinion. So why weren't Abelard and St. Thomas heretics for rejecting 700 years of unanimous theologial opinion, eh? That sounds a lot like the attack the Cushingites bring against Feeneyites, that for "HUNDREDS of years" blah blah blah.
Cushingite heretics also promote "Superma Fake", which didn't even appear in AAS, where +Cushing sat on it for nearly two years until the Cardinal who allegedly signed it had died (why? ... since it would have served him well against Father Feeney immediately), but they ignore the teaching of the Holy Office which rejected a request to perform emergency Baptism on those who were dying but only believed in Rewarder God stating that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessity by necessity of means for salvation. Given how they puff up the authority of "Suprema Fake", which in an unprecedented move, having been inserted by Karl "Anonymous Christian" (the Modernist) Rahner into Denzinger, for the first time ever had for its source a non-Vatican publication, the
Irish Ecclesiastical Review, controlled by +Cushing himself, which printed this docuмent (as mentioned, after the Cardinal who allegedly signed it had died), a docuмent which appeared nowhere else ... so, given how they puff up the authority of this spurious docuмent, why is it that nearly every Sedevacantist mocks Catholic geocentrists? What happened to the decree of the Holy Office, fully endorsed by the Pope, without question, in which heliocentism was condemned as heresy, and non-geocentrism as proximate to heresy? Yet another item to put in the Sedevacantist ignore box, eh?
When you point these things out to them, you're simply ignored, and they'll proceed to distract with personal attacks against Father Feeney, going constantly in circles, where if you refute one point, they go to a differnt one, then another, and then, when they think you forgot that the first one had been refuted, merely restate the first one again, to start the cycle all over again, hoping that everyone would have forgotten the original refutation of it by that time. There's nothing more indicative of intellectual dishonesty and begging the question than when, after you've refuted one argument, they present another, then another, etc. etc. ... making it abundantly clear that they had made up their minds beforehand about what they wanted to believe and were merely looking for ways to back it up after the fact.
They'll gaslight by claiming that Feeneyites "constrain God" by His Sacraments, somehow limiting His power ... and yet laughably try to "constrain God" by ... impossibility, as if the ability of God to bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect were so limited by "impossibility" that He SIMPLY HAD TO provide some alternative means of salvation, since, well, anything else just wouldn't be fair or merciful, right? ... say the peabrains who have no earthly clue about why God does what He does, why He lets some people be born here, others there, some at this time, others at another. How many people have lost the faith shaking their fists at God over his "unfairness" and "lack of Mercy" in allowing this, that, or another tragedy to befall a seemingly innocent person? St. Augustine rightly said that "if you wish to be Catholic", you will not limit God by impossibility from being able to bring the Sacrament to His elect, since it really, truly is heresy to claim that anything is impossible for God (and even a verbatim contradiction of Sacred Scripture).
Well, the reason is ... the dishonest pernicious sedevacantist foaming-at-the-mouth Feeney-haters, aka Cushingites ... don't WANT the belief that non-Catholics cannot be saved to be heresy, since they WANT to believe that infidels can be saved, you see. That's the bottom line.
They'll gaslight you for having the temerity and hubris to disagree with muh St. Thomas Aquinas, but then fall silent, and come up with another distraction, like Trump bombing one place or another to keep the Epstein files out of the news ... when you point out that St. Thomas teaches that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
Now, if you tell them that all theologians and all bishops (except a couple) unanimously all accepted Vatican II and the New Mass as Catholic, and ask them why that does not constitute an infallible rule of faith, then you'll get crickets and deflection.
They'll bloviate about how the Church can not give an evil Mass to the Church ... but then reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as infected with Modernism. If you push them on it, they'll soft-shoe around it by claiming that well, it wasn't intrinsically bad, just bad relatively speaking in the context of what it would lead to, and you can only see it after the fact. But then they'll start ripping on all this Modernist thing in it and that Modernist thing. If it's not intrinsically bad, harmful to souls, and displeasing to God ... as they hold no legitimate Pope can do ... then what's the problem, boys? Yet another point on which they live in a self-contradictory state of suspension due to bad will, where they simply want to believe and hold both contradictory things at the same time. [CMRI, however, do recognize this contradiction and use the 1955 Holy Week Rites, but they're the exception among SVs.]
Now, when you ask any SV what the main heresies of Vatican II are, they'll instinctively resond that it's the "Ecclesiology". Hmmm. Oh, really? Well, if it's heretical, then they condemn themselves from their own mouths, since THEY HOLD THE VERY SAME ECCLESIOLOGY THEMSELVES.
How? Well, it's quite simple, really ... and this syllogism has NEVER been refuted for the past 10 years or so here on CI and elsewhere.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Non-Catholics can be saved [held by all sedevacantists]
CONCLUSION: Non-Catholics can be in the Church.
Hmmm. Well, now, what does this do to ecclesiology, where "the Church" consists not only of Catholics but various non-Catholics also (since they have to be in the Church in order to be saved)? Sounds strangely like the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church as its visible core, but various other non-Catholics can be invisibly (but formally) within it and untied to it, even though materially separated from the Church, as "separated brethren". Even Religious Liberty flows from this error, since if people can please God and save their souls by following their even-erroneous consciences, i.e. you subjectivize the criterion for salvation, then since you have a right to please God and save your souls, you have a right to follow your even-erroneous conscience.
VATICAN II was all about EENS, stupid (to paraphrase that political slogan) ! Rahner, one of the Modernist movers and shakers at Vatican II, marveled that the "conservative Fathers" didn't make so much as a peep about what he rightly considered and knew to be THE SINGLEMOST REVOLUTIONARY aspect of Vatican II, that to which he euphemistically referred as the "increasing hope of salvation for non-Catholics".
So, one final attack that the bad-willed Feeney-hating sedevacantists pull out is to condemn Father Feeney for disobeying their superiors. But, whoa, wait a minute! What happened to manifest heresy causing loss of membership in the Church and loss of office (or for the sedeprivationists loss of authority that would require obedience)? Cushing manifestly, repeatedly, and pertinaciously denied EENS dogma. "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." [quoted favorably by his own biographer]. Father Feeney's Jesuit "superior"? Dimond Brothers cite about a half dozen of his openly heretical statements denying EENS dogma (they're not even close). So ... by their own standards, both Cushing and Father Feeney's "superiors" had no authority, were already deposed by manifest heresy, and so Father Feeney disobeyed no one.
But don't let facts and contradictions get in the way of the sedevacantist and general anti-Feeneyite narrative.
I've been blocked on X by about a dozen sedevacantists merely for affirming EENS dogma, without even mentioning Baptism of Desire. They're also a bunch of cowards. Arrogant Father Lavery, CMRI, who has the hubris to deride Bishop Guerard des Lauriers as some kind of idiot ... with his CrackerJack-box CMRI seminary degree, even though his idiotic blunders have been exposed and Bishop Guerard proven right ... he has as his byline right under his X account: "I block Feeneyites & those who argue like them." These jokers hate Father Feeney and EENS dogma worse than they despise rabid Modernists. While he attacks Bishop Guerard for other reasons, this just shows his absurd hubris, where +des Lauriers was the ONLY theologian who rejected Vatican II (cf. "Cekadism" above), had ghost written the Ottaviani Intervention, was personal confessor to Pope Pius XII for a time, and collaborated on Pope Pius XII's dogmatic definition of the Assumption, and yet the joker clown Father Lavery derides him as if he were a moron. Bishop Guerard forgot more knowledge of theology than the CMRI priests have combined. I actually set a trap for him on X, and he stepped right into it, just like with the old flaming bag of poop on the front porch technique. I attacked him using almost verbatim the exact language he had used to deride Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. He responded in outrage over how I dared to denounce him in such terms given that I was a relatively-uneducated layman. I apologized, told him he was in fact right, and then asked if he would apologize for his attacks on Bishop Guerards des Lauriers, given his lack of education compared to +des Lauriers, after which I proceeded to cite his own posts. He blocked me.
At the end of the day, my gloves are coming off against this pack of bad-selled, self-contradictory, arrogant fools, haters of EENS dogma, Cushingites, as it were, where they favor the cause of the manifest heretic Cushing over the eminently orthodox hero of the faith, Father Leonard Feeney, who was THE ONLY ONE who actually saw Vatican II coming BEFORE it happened, compared to those like +Lefebvre who only saw it in hindsight, and not even with 20/20 vision at that. Father Feeney courageously stood alone in the world opposing this heresy. He wrote to every bishop of the world and got only a literal handful of slightly favorable responses. While everybody thought that things had never been better in the Church, with churches, school buildings, religious houses, convents, and monasteries popping up like mushrooms throughout the United States and around the world, where trends indicated that the US would be a majority Catholic country by the year 2000, where Bishop Sheen was one of the most popular figures on TV (Father Feeney saw through him when nobody else did), where there were so many prospective vocations to the priesthood, and to religious life, that some had to be turned away ... despite all this, Father, with his deep faith, KNEW there was SOMETHING wrong. He couldn't put his finger on it, but something was rotten. Imagine the strength of faith it takes to figure that out when everything on the outside appeared to be that amazing. After some months and years of prayer and reflection, he figure it out ... that nobody actually believed anymore that there is no salvation outside the Church, and therefore held a non-Catholic ecclesiology. Even 60 years now after the disaster, the majority of Trads STILL do not recognize the root cause of all the Vatican II errors, the only true heresy pertinaciously held and taught by the post-Conciliar papal claimants ... a denial of EENS, and the majority of Trads, thanks to these blind leading the blind, also have fallen into the same heresies, while pretending they don't simply because they polish their turds with a veneer of smells and bells, while the Modernists bring in the clowns.
If Traditional Catholics all believed in EENS, none of us would have any doubt but that that Vatican II was heretical and that the Conciliar papal claimants have been Anti-Popes. There would be no more needing to stretch and read into this ambiguous statement or that ambiguous statement by one or another of the Anti-Popes. It would be crystal clear to the eyes of faith, and the only reason everyone doesn't see it is due to weak faith.
It's disheartening, and it's disgusting, where these Trads too join those who call truth error and error truth, good evil and evil good ... despite posturing otherwise, and of course pontificating from the pulpit, effectively excommunicating those who reject their false opinions (since all they really do without jurisdiction is opine from the pulpit, where what they say has absolutely no more authority than my posts here on CathInfo), and yet of course they walk around with their croziers pretending like they're something since they obtained episcopal consecration one way or another, whereas they should all be on faldstools, since they're absolutely nothing more than emergency dispensers of the Sacraments. Period. They refuse Sacraments to those who don't adhere to their positions, and you can smell the sufur all over them when they declare that those who believe that the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church, and that no one can be saved unless they join the Church before they die, and where the Sacraments cannot benefit any to salvation who do not remain attached to the unity of the Church's body (aka members of the Church) ... those who believe that these dogmatic definitions mean what they actually say, those are the hated "Feeneyite" heretics because, well, if you PROPERLY UNDERSTANT the TRUE MEANING of these dogma, you faithless morons would simply KNOW that the Church actually meant the exact OPPOSITE of what it condemned as heresy. Church did not mean that those who believed non-Catholics can be saved are heretics, but that those who believed non-Catholics cannot be saved are hertics ... you impious fools, you! You cannot know the TRUE MIND OF THE CHURCH unless, when asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, instead of answering yes yes or no no, you can begin immediately hemming and hawing and reciting about 2 pages worth of nonsense about why EENS doesn't mean EENS but actually means the opposite of EENS. Don't people see how this type of complete inversion of Catholic dogma doesn't have hoofprints and the smell of sulfur all over it? While we name ourselves after Pope St. Pius X, let's just ignore that part where the Holy Office answered the question about whether Catholics, when asked, might answer that Confucius could have been saved by saying that it is not permitted, but that Catholics must reponded that, being an infidel, he was damned.
Our Lord asked whether there will be faith on earth when He returns ... and it's becoming frighteningly clear that his question may not have been rhetorical or in any way hyperbolic.
We are now in the period I call the "Second Sifting", just like someone might pan for gold, by first putting the sand through one pan with larger holes, and then you flip it over and sift it again through a finer grained mesh. Armed with all the graces we received for the Traditional faith, we were expected to then pass this Second Sifting, but a vast majority are failing the test.
Consequently, during this Second Sifting, we see neo-SSPX following almost step by step the exact same path that the Church took in the 1950s as Catholics move inexorably toward Vatican II, and it's just a matter of time when they go "Full Modernist". Meanwhile, it would appear that only a handful for the clergy and pockets of faithful layment still believe in EENS dogma and in Traditional Catholic ecclesiology, and they too are doomed to fall off into heresy unless they be snapped out of it by God's grace.
Topic: Against the Heresy of Feeneyism (Read 746 times)