Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church to write about theological matters, and wrote his books without the necessary Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

He was not a theologian, but just a simple Jesuit -- for a while, until he was expelled from the order.

He is not an authority on anything. It just blows my mind that people quote him incessantly as if he were the prophet Isaias instead of a disgraced and excommunicated priest. Even the words that people quibble over were written without the Church's approval and in violation of canon law. There should be no need to refute or even address anything of such a nature.

The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.

The whole discussion of his ideas is a complete non-issue for Catholics who understand how the Church works.

Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church to write about theological matters, and wrote his books without the necessary Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

He was not a theologian, but just a simple Jesuit -- for a while, until he was expelled from the order.

He is not an authority on anything. It just blows my mind that people quote him incessantly as if he were the prophet Isaias instead of a disgraced and excommunicated priest. Even the words that people quibble over were written without the Church's approval and in violation of canon law. There should be no need to refute or even address anything of such a nature.

The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.

The whole discussion of his ideas is a complete non-issue for Catholics who understand how the Church works.

Who was going to give him permission to write on Exclusive Salvation, Yeti? Notorious heretic Archbishop Cushing? His Jesuit superiors who denied Exclusive Salvation?

Fr. Michael Muller was silenced by his superiors in the 19th century for defending EENS while heretic priests were allowed to attack him and his works while denying EENS. And Fr. Muller even held "BOD". 

Who is going to defend the most important dogma of the Church if the vast majority of the hierarchy deny it?

The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.

  The entire Traditional movement is based on "excommunicated" clerics who do things "without approval" from new-rome.

Your error is in not admitting that modernists rats who showed their true colors at V2 in 1962 didn't exist prior to 1962.    They most certainly did.  And they most certainly were PREPARING for V2 LONG BEFORE it happened, by "shutting up" clerics like Feeney, ABL and Mueller, who the Modernists knew wouldn't go along with V2.

Well, if the Church isn't going to give Feeney permission to write about something, then that means it's erroneous. This is pretty simple.

If we lived in orthodox times, you'd be correct.  But of course, we don't.  You can't give most of these post-WW2 clerics the benefit of the doubt....they approved V2.  

If we lived in orthodox times, you'd be correct.  But of course, we don't.  You can't give most of these post-WW2 clerics the benefit of the doubt....they approved V2. 

.

Feeney lived in orthodox times. He lived in the 1940s. You can't make an argument based on the crisis in the Church today and apply it to those times, before the crisis existed.

  1940s to 1963...that's 20 years or less.  Where do you think the Modernists were prior to 1963?  They weren't living in caves.  They were running dioceses, like the modernist Cushing was.  Cushing wasn't a Cardinal, but he was supporting the V2 movement before V2 happened.

You obviously don't know of the modernist rot of the 'American ecclesiastical Review' books/theological committee in America in the 30s-60s either. 

Are you really arguing that V2 just happened overnight, with no preparation?  There was no brainwashing/PR which happened in the decades before?  This view makes no sense.

.

You seem to consider the Church to be a human institution, and indeed one that lacks authority.

This is seriously erroneous. The Church is protected from teaching error in its universal teaching. It also requires anyone who writes on theological matters to submit their writings for approval to the authority of the Church, which enjoys divine protection from error, and to which we as Catholics are required to submit.

You are effectively claiming that someone can claim their bishop is a heretic and then consider himself dispensed from the laws of the Church. This is completely false.

In any case, if what Feeney taught were Catholic teaching, then he wouldn't have needed to write anything at all except to say, "Read Fr. So-and-so, a theologian who teaches that baptism of desire is heretical, or that someone can't be saved with baptism of desire." But he didn't. The reason is that, quite simply, there wasn't any theologian that the Church ever approved, at any point in her history even prior to the modernist crisis, who ever said such a thing. That's why Feeney had to write his own propaganda and claim it was the teaching of the Church.

.

You seem to consider the Church to be a human institution, and indeed one that lacks authority.

This is seriously erroneous. The Church is protected from teaching error in its universal teaching. It also requires anyone who writes on theological matters to submit their writings for approval to the authority of the Church, which enjoys divine protection from error, and to which we as Catholics are required to submit.

You are effectively claiming that someone can claim their bishop is a heretic and then consider himself dispensed from the laws of the Church. This is completely false.

In any case, if what Feeney taught were Catholic teaching, then he wouldn't have needed to write anything at all except to say, "Read Fr. So-and-so, a theologian who teaches that baptism of desire is heretical, or that someone can't be saved with baptism of desire." But he didn't. The reason is that, quite simply, there wasn't any theologian that the Church ever approved, at any point in her history even prior to the modernist crisis, who ever said such a thing. That's why Feeney had to write his own propaganda and claim it was the teaching of the Church.

Ironic. Your claim that Fr Feeney wrote propaganda, is infact anti-Catholic propaganda, and most trads have fallen for it.