Author Topic: History of Feeneyism (Read 6468 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #105 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:26:31 AM »

If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #106 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:40:43 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.

I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.

Why was he called to Rome?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #107 on:** July 13, 2016, 10:06:10 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Why was he called to Rome?

That's entirely unknown. He had been disobeying various commands from his superiors. Father Feeney was never informed of what charges he was facing, which is why he didn't go. Under Canon Law he had a right to know the charges so he could prepare a defense.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #108 on:** July 13, 2016, 11:08:15 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Why was he called to Rome?

That's entirely unknown. He had been disobeying various commands from his superiors. Father Feeney was never informed of what charges he was facing, which is why he didn't go. Under Canon Law he had a right to know the charges so he could prepare a defense.

It is quite known to the intellectually honest as S.H. has made abundantly clear.

Stubborn · « **Reply #109 on:** July 13, 2016, 11:57:21 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.

I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.

Why was he called to Rome?

As I already told you - He asked why he was summoned to Rome, but never received any answer as to why he was called to Rome. Rome entirely ignored the question.

Do you think that is business as usual for Rome?

You conclude it was because he was preaching heresy - yet what heresy you cannot say. Remember, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy for a reason......because he did not preach any heresy!

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #110 on:** July 13, 2016, 12:05:15 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.

I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.

Why was he called to Rome?

As I already told you - He asked why he was summoned to Rome, but never received any answer as to why he was called to Rome. Rome entirely ignored the question.

Do you think that is business as usual for Rome?

You conclude it was because he was preaching heresy - yet what heresy you cannot say. Remember, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy for a reason......because he did not preach any heresy!

You can't say with a straight face he did not know what the controversy was about. Maybe you can. Perhaps S.H. can shed some light on it for you. He was called to Rome. Why would he not enjoy a free trip to see the Pope as a loyal son would readily do, so long as he had nothing to fear?

Stubborn · « **Reply #111 on:** July 13, 2016, 12:18:10 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Stubborn
If you admitted he was excommunicated for disobedience, then you admit that Fr Feeney was no heretic. Since he was no heretic, then, as you say - since the Church did not condemn what he taught, his teaching that a BOD is not salvific is a teaching of the Church. See if you admit that one outright.

I never "admitted" he was not a heretic. The Church clearly condemns what he taught. Any intellectually honest person will admit he was called to Rome over the errors or heresy he was teaching. It wasn't just to say "hi". Those who prefer their belief's over the Church's will do everything they can to deny this.

Why was he called to Rome?

As I already told you - He asked why he was summoned to Rome, but never received any answer as to why he was called to Rome. Rome entirely ignored the question.

Do you think that is business as usual for Rome?

You conclude it was because he was preaching heresy - yet what heresy you cannot say. Remember, he was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy for a reason......because he did not preach any heresy!

You can't say with a straight face he did not know what the controversy was about. Maybe you can. Perhaps S.H. can shed some light on it for you. He was called to Rome. Why would he not enjoy a free trip to see the Pope as a loyal son would readily do, so long as he had nothing to fear?

SH did nothing except make a member of the Church, Fr. Feeney, into a member of the Church by desire. Big deal!

Also, NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED THIS QUESTION..........SH says:

Quote

It is clear, from what is stated above, that the ideas proposed by the periodical From the Housetops (n.3) as the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, are far from being so and are very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her.

EXACTLY what are those "ideas" that are "very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her."? Exactly what is so "very dangerous" about a Catholic priest preaching what the Church has always taught - infallibly, that there is no salvation outside of the Church? What is so very dangerous about that? Hhhmmmm?

Go ahead, talk yourself into a hole and answer the question.

Here is a little history of Fr. Feeney for you. Now you can read it and learn, or you can remain willfully ignorant. It starts out.........

This book is going to press one year after the people of the United States, and eventually the people of the world were shocked by, a stubborn profession of faith made on the part of some Boston Catholics, who were at once silenced and interdicted by the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal authorities in what has come to be known far and wide as the “Boston Heresy Case.”

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #112 on:** July 13, 2016, 12:29:09 PM »

Quote

By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to His Excellency Archbishop Cushing of Boston. The letter was written as a result of the trouble occasioned by the St. Benedict Center group in Cambridge. The Suprema haec sacra was issued on August 8, 1949, but it was not published in full until the fall of 1952. The encyclical letter Humani generis was dated August 12, 1950. Thus, while actually composted after the Holy Office letter, it was published two years before the letter.

The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office asserts, in the letter, that it "is convinced that the unfortunate controversy [which occasioned the action of the Holy Office] arose from the fact that the axiom 'outside the Church there is no salvation' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above [St. Benedict Center and Boston College] refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities." Fenton

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #113 on:** August 04, 2016, 01:33:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Augustine and 7/8 Church Fathers rejected BoD.

Abelard rejected BoD in the pre-scholastic era.

In fact, not a single Catholic ever believed that those without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation could be saved ... for 1600 years, until some Jesuits introduced the theory.

So the correct "History" is that the modern Vatican II ecclesiology ... to which most Traditionalists adhere ... began in the 1600s.

Quote

The brilliant, turbulent, and tragic Peter Abelard influenced the literature and the teaching of sacred theology as few men have ever done. His rash dialectics and his evident anxiety to shock and impress all with whom he came in contact led him to definite misinterpretations of sacred doctrine. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1153) was too robust and keen a defender of the faith to allow these errors to go unchallenged. Consequently Abelard found himself condemned by the Council of Sens, and the condemnation was confirmed by Rome.

The work which troubled many of Abelard’s contemporaries, but which contributed a great deal to the advancement of sacred theology was known as Sic et Non. In this work he took one hundred and fifty important questions in theology, and then listed opinions of the Fathers for and against each resolution. It was a bold venture. Some of his contemporaries accused him showing contempt for patristic teaching in trying to demonstrate that the Fathers actually contradicted one another. Actually Abelard’s method was faulty. But he merely opened these questions for discussion, so that out of this conflict of explanations the true theological conclusion might be found in each case. To Abelard, and to those who have profited by the scholastic method which he initiated, the clash of opinions has been a means to an end, the certain apprehension of truth. Abelard saw in the conflicting statements of patristic writers a fact which admitted of and demanded explanation. Merely to point contradictory teachings was to do comparatively little for the advance of sacred theology. But in his own writings and especially through the works of the men he trained, Abelard showed very clearly that he did not regard the indication of conflicting statements as the ultimate end of his studies. The movement he began was to bear fruit in the works of Peter the Lombard and his other students, and through them to form the method of Latin theology. The first of the medieval canonists, Gratian (1155?), applied this same method to canon law and thus aided in the development of moral theology.

Abelard wrote summaries of the entire content of sacred theology. More important than these, however, are the Summae and the Books of Sentences left by his pupils and successors. There was no work in scholastic theology properly so called which did not feel his influence. As a matter of fact the very method which Abelard gave to the Church would very certainly have been discredited because of the naïve cocksureness of its author had it not been for the excellent works in which his own pupils utilized his procedure for the proper end of sacred theology. Fenton

Ladislaus · « **Reply #114 on:** August 04, 2016, 01:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

St. Augustine and 7/8 Church Fathers rejected BoD.

So Fenton basically credits Abelard as the inventor of the scholastic method.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #115 on:** August 04, 2016, 01:53:57 PM »

You read but you do not understand. It is not a flattering description of him. It is the scraps that fall from the table that you depend on for your novelties.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #116 on:** August 04, 2016, 02:06:06 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

You read but you do not understand. It is not a flattering description of him. It is the scraps that fall from the table that you depend on for your novelties.

No, it's a balanced description ... unlike your venomous frothing. Abelard's position on Limbo was adopted by the Church and he invented the scholastic method. According to your biased perspective, however, he could do no right simply because he erred in some areas.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #117 on:** August 04, 2016, 02:17:14 PM »

Perhaps I was mistaken, maybe you can neither read or understand.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #118 on:** August 04, 2016, 02:37:00 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Perhaps I was mistaken, maybe you can neither read or understand.

Indeed you are mistaken; your mental capacity barely exceeds that of a young child.