Author Topic: Fr. Feeney and Feeneyism (Read 5355 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** September 12, 2011, 04:13:54 PM »

So, I've heard and read alot about Fr. Feeney an Feeneyism, but am not overly familar with either. All I know about Fr. Feeney is that he was a Jesuit priest who was against Vatican II, believed in only water Baptism, and started a group called "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (I think that's the name) which has been accused of being a "hate group" because of its attitude towards the Jews.

What I cannot figure out is why there is so much controversy surrounding him among Trads. I've read where he supposedly committed heresy. Could someone please explain to me more about him and his beliefs? Thanks.

Charles · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2011, 05:10:22 PM »

I've been reading threads for quite a while now and I can't make up my mind. The arguments pro and con regarding Fr Feeney's view are both convincing.

Fr Feeney supposedly was reconciled without recanting, but as a member here pointed out (Telesphorus iirc), considering who was acting as pope at the time, that may mean nothing at all.

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2011, 05:12:11 PM »

All anyone needs to know is that any docuмent(s) claiming Fr Feeney was called to Rome or ex-commed because he failed to comply is Fraudulent.

Deliveringit · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2011, 05:15:41 PM »

Father Feeney was never ex-communicated because the Pope's signature was not on that ex-communication letter. Father Feeney also never committed heresy because "baptism of desire" has been only theological speculation, but never de fide Church teaching. What is fact is the dogma of Water Baptism, which Father Feeney believed in and promoted. Father Feeney also rejected the idea that non-Catholics could receive salvation, which also is in line with the Catholic dogma of "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Therefore Father Feeney was a true traditional Catholic upholding the Catholic faith.

It was the modernists "baptism of desire" and "invincible ignorance" promoters who tried to discredit Father Feeney. Those modernists wanted their pet theological concepts to be considered as fact. Its kinda like whats happening with the Global Warming and Evolution crowd. Instead of their scientific proposals remaining theory, they instead try to push it off as being fact.

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2011, 05:21:55 PM »

IOW-- there is no controversy re: Fr Feeney.

Daegus · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2011, 06:44:49 PM »

Quote from: Deliveringit

Father Feeney was never ex-communicated because the Pope's signature was not on that ex-communication letter. Father Feeney also never committed heresy because "baptism of desire" has been only theological speculation, but never de fide Church teaching. What is fact is the dogma of Water Baptism, which Father Feeney believed in and promoted. Father Feeney also rejected the idea that non-Catholics could receive salvation, which also is in line with the Catholic dogma of "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Therefore Father Feeney was a true traditional Catholic upholding the Catholic faith.

Thank you.

Quote

It was the modernists "baptism of desire" and "invincible ignorance" promoters who tried to discredit Father Feeney. Those modernists wanted their pet theological concepts to be considered as fact. Its kinda like whats happening with the Global Warming and Evolution crowd. Instead of their scientific proposals remaining theory, they instead try to push it off as being fact.

I personally have become sick of even talking about BoD and BoB, and just accept it as a possibility that I highly doubt happens or has happened for anyone. If a few of the saints taught it, *maybe* it might be possible, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily happens for anyone. I'm still waiting for someone to prove, without a doubt, that someone who was not baptised by water went to heaven. No one can prove someone was never baptised by water. Just because the Church has canonized someone who is believed to have died without water baptism, that does not necessarily mean that they did. This is just something we cannot really know.

Invincible ignorance DEFINITELY cannot save anyone. Definitely not. No saint pre-V2 has ever taught that.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2011, 08:58:31 PM »

Thanks Charles, Deliveringit, and Daegus for your replies.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2011, 09:54:54 PM »

When the time comes, people will realize that you can't cling too tightly to Holy Mother Church.

Were there any who were saved OUTSIDE the Ark of Noah? No... although I'd be willing to guarantee there was a WHOLE LOT of 'desiring' going on.

Gregory I · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2011, 11:19:48 PM »

Here is my most concise answer on Fr. Feeney: Fr. Feeney taught that, although one could theoretically be justified by BOD, nevertheless, that person STILL does not have what is required to go to heaven: The sacramental character of baptism.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2011, 10:10:25 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Here is my most concise answer on Fr. Feeney: Fr. Feeney taught that, although one could theoretically be justified by BOD, nevertheless, that person STILL does not have what is required to go to heaven: The sacramental character of baptism.

I agree with this answer.
If a person is sincere and is about to die, will God provide that person what they need, or will God wave the requirement and grant salvation? There needs to be an explicit ex-cathedra declaration regarding BOD specifically............hopefully "the desire" has sufficed all along!

Either way, the thing I find fascinating about the whole "Boston Heresy Case" is that there never was any heresy on the part of Fr. Feeney. Anyone who investigates beyond news media headlines will easily discover this fact. I also find it fascinating when I think about how Fr., being one of the first to deal with the newly emerging modernists of his day must have been completely flabbergasted at what was happening to the faith way back then.

Here's a snip from The Loyolas and the Cabots - a really awesome account of what the H happened back then -a great read if you've not read it yet.

....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....

On another note, I am puzzled about the fruits of the SBC, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart and Fr. Feeney. What or where are their / his fruits? I have no clue but it seems to me that his efforts have not born any fruits at all - any thoughts from anyone?

LordPhan · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2011, 10:47:33 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Here is my most concise answer on Fr. Feeney: Fr. Feeney taught that, although one could theoretically be justified by BOD, nevertheless, that person STILL does not have what is required to go to heaven: The sacramental character of baptism.

This is an act of heresy, BOD was always taught throughout the history of the church, there are Saints that were from BOB and BOD is also in the Catechism of Trent.

Quote

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:02:15 AM »

Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.

At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.

LordPhan · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:16:17 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.

At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.

It is a Dogma, Extraordinary Magisterium which you are asking for, is defined Dogma. ordinary Magisterium, which BOD and BOB pertain are Dogma's undefined but still required assent.

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:37:07 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: Stubborn
Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.

At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.

It is a Dogma, Extraordinary Magisterium which you are asking for, is defined Dogma. ordinary Magisterium, which BOD and BOB pertain are Dogma's undefined but still required assent.

One of the marks of a Dogma is that it's meaning does not change and we are bound to believe it because it was always a part of the Deposit of Faith.

BOD has dozens if not hundreds of different meanings, theological opinions and applications - the one thing they all seem to revolve around is the "unforeseen accident" or the "death bed conversion" - and though it has been taught but because there are so many different meanings, it is not a dogma, certainly not defined, and no one is bound to believe it. As such, one who chooses not to believe in BOD is not guilty of any heresy - obviously the same cannot be said of Sacramental Baptism.

LordPhan · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:42:33 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: LordPhan
Quote from: Stubborn
Why is it an act of heresy? Does not Our Lord Himself command that without water there is no salvation? Further, no one is bound to believe in BOD as it is not a dogma, as regards baptism, only Sacramental Baptism is binding.

At any rate, there is no "unforeseen accident" to God.

It is a Dogma, Extraordinary Magisterium which you are asking for, is defined Dogma. ordinary Magisterium, which BOD and BOB pertain are Dogma's undefined but still required assent.

One of the marks of a Dogma is that it's meaning does not change and we are bound to believe it because it was always a part of the Deposit of Faith.

BOD has dozens if not hundreds of different meanings, theological opinions and applications - the one thing they all seem to revolve around is the "unforeseen accident" or the "death bed conversion" - and though it has been taught but because there are so many different meanings, it is not a dogma, certainly not defined, and no one is bound to believe it. As such, one who chooses not to believe in BOD is not guilty of any heresy - obviously the same cannot be said of Sacramental Baptism.

This is false, BOD has been taught always by the Catholic Church, the fact someone or some people may have had heretically misinterpreted it is irrellevant. Your Definition of a Dogma is also false, Dogma is that which came from Christ or the Apostles and handed down to us through scripture or tradition.

Furthermore you are contradicting the official Catechism of the Catholic Church created by Trent and used for all Priests up until present Crisis in the Church.

I have not seen these dozens of different meanings, nor do I care about them, When someone is on their way to be baptized or is a catechuman and dies before recieving Baptism they are given sactifying grace through their desire to Join the Kingdom of Heaven.