Author Topic: Feeneyites and Sedes Give Trads a Bad Name (Read 6704 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** September 29, 2009, 05:26:55 PM »

http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/090927m17th_sun_aft_pent,fr_robinson,final,38_min.mp3

Elizabeth · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:09:57 PM »

I heard that one. He's a dear priest.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:38:47 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

http://voiceofcatholicradio.com/090927m17th_sun_aft_pent,fr_robinson,final,38_min.mp3

Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.

Sedevacantists deny no such doctrines.

Many (not all) SSPX priests distort or implicitly deny theologically certain doctrines.

Both SSPX and Sedevacantists have their problems...because they are just resisting groups. Let's not pretend the problems are all in the SV camp. The feeneyites simply do not have the same rule of faith that Catholics do.

I think the sectarian attitude of some traditionalists (laymen) is a very sad situation.

Jehanne · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2009, 07:59:31 PM »

SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.

So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:

A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)

B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)

Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:

If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?

If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)

On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:03:32 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.

So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:

A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)

B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)

Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:

If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?

If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)

On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.

Except your choices are wrong. Why not understand it as the Church teaches it.

Jehanne · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2009, 09:06:29 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne
SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.

So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:

A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)

B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)

Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:

If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?

If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)

On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.

Except your choices are wrong. Why not understand it as the Church teaches it.

Okay, fine, what exactly does the Church teach?

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:00:04 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Jehanne
SJB's quote: Feeneyites openly deny theologically certain doctrines.

So does nearly everyone else. If I had to, I would choose Feeneyism over the indifferent universalism of the modernists. Let's consider a new Wager, call it "Don's Wager," if you will:

A) Universalism is correct; everyone gets saved and goes to Heaven. (Hurray!!!!)

B) Universalism is not correct; some (perhaps, most) individuals end-up in Hell, forever. (What a horrible thought to lose one's soul!!!)

Okay, we all agree Option A is much, much (indeed, infinitely) better than Option B. Now, if we embrace Feeneyism, what are the consequences? Let's see:

If Option A is true: People think we are jerks, but as everyone goes to Heaven anyway; in the end, it really does not matter, does it?

If Option B is true: We evangelize like mad, do penance, pray for people, put the salvation of souls as being the most (if not, the only) important thing in our lives, and in the end, more people in the end are saved, which means more souls in Heaven, fewer in Hell (we hope -- well, at least we tried, didn't we?)

On the other hand, consider embracing liberal modernism, and I will leave it to you (or someone else) to explore the outcomes.

Except your choices are wrong. Why not understand it as the Church teaches it.

Okay, fine, what exactly does the Church teach?

Universal salvation is an error. That does not make the feeneyite position correct simply because it is not the error of universal salvation.

You and I do not have the same rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule. Until this is addressed, any discussion is pointless.

TheD · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:06:13 PM »

Feenyism is a heresy, condemed by the Pope.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:14:55 PM »

Quote from: TheD

Feenyism is a heresy, condemed by the Pope.

Source for this?

CM · « **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:48:14 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: TheD
Feenyism is a heresy, condemed by the Pope.

Source for this?

The father of lies.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2009, 05:17:25 AM »

Quote from: SJB

You and I do not have the same rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule. Until this is addressed, any discussion is pointless.

Not sure where you are getting that one, but fine. To the extent that Feeneyism denies BoD and BoB, yes, I agree that it is in error. However, to the extent that it repudiates the modernistic heresy (apparently, embraced by the SSPX, SSPV, and others) that faith can be "implicit", then, yes, I think that it is right on the mark. As I said before, I think that it is better to be too conservative as opposed to the alternative. In that respect, I do not see how anyone can condemn the ideas of Father Feeney as being heretical, except on the grounds of their being theological novelties, but then again, so is the idea of implicit faith.

CM · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2009, 06:04:04 AM »

Implicit faith is not only a novelty it is heresy.

After describing the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence infallibly says this: "Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity."

He is specifically stating that a person must know and believe correctly concerning the Trinity, and that anyone who does not is incapable of attaining salvation (as is more clearly seen in the rest of his decree; ie "This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.").

Arguing that "Feeneyism" is heresy has been tried, and it fails every time; it's an empty pursuit. Believing that one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, on the other hand, is definitely heretical.

The only way anybody will come to this truth is by adopting the correct rule of Faith.

In fact, I am certain that it is a mass exodus from this rule that has precipitated the crisis facing the Church today.

Jehanne · « **Reply #12 on:** September 30, 2009, 06:39:06 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Implicit faith is not only a novelty it is heresy.

After describing the Most Holy Trinity, Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence infallibly says this: "Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity."

He is specifically stating that a person must know and believe correctly concerning the Trinity, and that anyone who does not is incapable of attaining salvation (as is more clearly seen in the rest of his decree; ie "This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.").

Arguing that "Feeneyism" is heresy has been tried, and it fails every time; it's an empty pursuit. Believing that one can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, on the other hand, is definitely heretical.

The only way anybody will come to this truth is by adopting the correct rule of Faith.

In fact, I am certain that it is a mass exodus from this rule that has precipitated the crisis facing the Church today.

If I had to choose between the modernistic heresy of implicit faith and Feeneyism, I would choose the latter. Fortunately, however, I do not have to choose. It has been defined, de fide, by the Church, how to attain everlasting salvation and eternal life:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly...This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** September 30, 2009, 12:23:45 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
You and I do not have the same rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule. Until this is addressed, any discussion is pointless.

Not sure where you are getting that one, but fine. To the extent that Feeneyism denies BoD and BoB, yes, I agree that it is in error.

That's a serious thing. It is a mortal sin to knowingly deny a theologically certain doctrine. That's what the Church teaches quite clearly.

Quote

However, to the extent that it repudiates the modernistic heresy (apparently, embraced by the SSPX, SSPV, and others) that faith can be "implicit", then, yes, I think that it is right on the mark.

So an erroneous doctrine is right when it seems to oppose another more serious error? Is that what you are saying?

Quote

As I said before, I think that it is better to be too conservative as opposed to the alternative.

That's a false choice.

Quote

In that respect, I do not see how anyone can condemn the ideas of Father Feeney as being heretical, except on the grounds of their being theological novelties, but then again, so is the idea of implicit faith.

Fr. Feeney was opposing the outright DENIAL of the dogma of EENS. This is what was occurring in Boston at the time. The Holy Office letter was not condemning Fr. Feeney...it was explaining the correct understanding of the dogma...which was at odds with both Fr. Feeney AND those who were denying the dogma or obscuring it's meaning.

Jehanne · « **Reply #14 on:** September 30, 2009, 12:37:17 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Fr. Feeney was opposing the outright DENIAL of the dogma of EENS. This is what was occurring in Boston at the time. The Holy Office letter was not condemning Fr. Feeney...it was explaining the correct understanding of the dogma...which was at odds with both Fr. Feeney AND those who were denying the dogma or obscuring it's meaning.

Sure, it was advancing the heresy of implicit faith, which Pius XII (a progressive pope, according to most observers) also advanced, which paved the way for Vatican II. Father Feeney was never condemned. We all know this. As a matter of fact, even JPII did not condemn Feeneyism, but I do not have the docuмent where he (JP II) cites the three de fide pronouncements (Lateran, Unam Sanctam, Florence) but he does list the Denzinger references to them. I believe in both BoD and BoB, but I do not go beyond the limits that the Church has infallibly set, in spite of what the post-conciliar popes, SSPX, etc. are saying.