Author Topic: Fr. Feeney and Feeneyism (Read 5324 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:46:48 AM »

I should also point out that when the Extraordinary Magisterium is invoked it is condemning people who have denied Dogma's of the Ordinary Magisterium, it is not a declaration that they now know the Dogma that wasn't known before, it is the correction of errors that have arisen due to heresy.

Stubborn · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2011, 03:43:41 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

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.

I cannot agree that it has always been taught. I can see where the Sacrament has always been taught - if not with the actual Baptism with Water of Our Lord Himself, then by His command before he Ascended into heaven. But BOD, unlike the Sacrament, has no Scriptural basis - quite the opposite actually.

Some notables who taught it either contradicted it in their other teachings as was the case with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - or retracted the teaching all together as was the case with St. Augustine.

At any rate, one cannot rely exclusively on the catechisms for the simple reason that they are constantly being revised, updated and changed. Even the Catechism of St. Pius V (I think that's the one) discloses in it's opening pages that catechisms are certainly not infallible and are subject to error.

IMO, saying BOD is dogma because many have taught it is pretty much the same as saying the NO is fine because the magisterium promulgated it. IOW, that is not sound reasoning when BOD contradicts defined Dogma which states the Sacrament is necessary.

Gregory I · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2011, 05:05:58 PM »

Stubborn, are we required to hold to the unanimous consent of theologians, since it is theologians who FORM the prelates theology?

LordPhan · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2011, 07:23:00 PM »

Quote

I cannot agree that it has always been taught. I can see where the Sacrament has always been taught - if not with the actual Baptism with Water of Our Lord Himself, then by His command before he Ascended into heaven. But BOD, unlike the Sacrament, has no Scriptural basis - quite the opposite actually.

It is not for you to decide if it was always taught, you are a laymen, the teaching is actually in the canons of trent aswell.

Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire for them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema (On the Sacraments in General, Dz. 847, emphasis added).

That is from the Extraordinary Magisterium, as for the Ordinary Magisterium I can personally can trace it back from the Catechism of Trent which was taught to all Priests from Trent to V2, before Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and more. The Earliest I can trace it back to is the year 392 where Saint Ambrose, he writes:

"But I hear that you mourn, because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism ... Does he not have the grace that he desired; does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he received. And hence it says ‘But the just man, if he be prevented with death, shall be in rest’’ [Wis. 4:7] (PL 16, 1374).

This is in relation to the Emperor Valentinian II who had asked St. Ambrose to Baptise him and was murdered before St. Ambrose got there.

Or lets read St. Robert Bellermine:

"Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism" (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).

Quote

Some notables who taught it either contradicted it in their other teachings as was the case with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas - or retracted the teaching all together as was the case with St. Augustine.

I note you cited no sources, either way, It was taught by Popes, Theologians and has always been taught by the Church, it is a Dogma. To deny it is to be a heretic.

Quote

At any rate, one cannot rely exclusively on the catechisms for the simple reason that they are constantly being revised, updated and changed. Even the Catechism of St. Pius V (I think that's the one) discloses in it's opening pages that catechisms are certainly not infallible and are subject to error.

The Cathechism of Trent is not Constantly being revised it was and is THE Catechism since Trent. BTW the Catechism of Trent IS the Catechism of St. Pius V.

Quote

IMO, saying BOD is dogma because many have taught it is pretty much the same as saying the NO is fine because the magisterium promulgated it. IOW, that is not sound reasoning when BOD contradicts defined Dogma which states the Sacrament is necessary.

This statement is false on so many levels, it is outright lie. the Novus Ordo is a novelty, BOD is a dogma of the Church taught for all time, error cannot be taught for all time. I quoted the Canon and it states Desire can substitute if neccesary.

Do not listen to Feeney, do not listen to the Dimonds, they will lead you to a deep pit of fire.

For more Reading,

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

Gregory I · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2011, 07:48:47 PM »

Actually Lordphan, without defending Fr. Feeney, that place where the Canons talk about desire is not about BAPTISM of desire, it is about the necessary disposition for reception of the sacrament of Baptism. It must be freely DESIRED to be received. This is what the Catechism of Trent teaches, that it is first of all NECESSARY to desire the sacrament, and then to receive it. That is what is meant by saying "WITHOUT BAPTISM OR ITS DESIRE" i.e. without baptism and its necessary predispositions...

THose who receive baptism WITHOUT desiring it commit the mortal sin of sacrilege. They receive the character, but not the grace. If they were to die after receiving this aptism sacrilegiously, they would go to hell; for they did not have the necessary predispositions of faith hope and charity.

LordPhan · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2011, 08:42:27 PM »

That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?

LordPhan · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2011, 08:46:46 PM »

We baptise children immediately because they cannot desire, we do not baptise Catechumens immediately because they can desire and will recieve entrance to the church through desire if they have the right dispositions for it.

The Sede mentality is very much like the Novus Ordo, Cafeteria Catholicism on the other extreme.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2011, 10:47:22 PM »

LordPhan said:

Quote

The Sede mentality is very much like the Novus Ordo, Cafeteria Catholicism on the other extreme.

Don't be intellectually lazy and lead others astray. Feeneyism is not the sede mentality. It is totally unrelated; there are Feeneyites in VII, like Brother André Marie at the St. Benedict Center.

I see this kind of sloppy junk all the time from people in the SSPX. It is that lack of integrity that may, just perhaps, be keeping God from showing you the light. Every word you say should be strictly questioned and measured. The above is simply inexcusable and you know far better than that.

An honest person seeks the truth; he doesn't try to "win" by unfairly and inaccurately tarring the other side.

Darcy · « **Reply #23 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:18:18 PM »

I had read something about the way they ran their compound with Fr. Feeney and the physical abuse (beating of the children). It was written by a nun who had left. I can't find that now. It was on line. :scratchchin:

...disturbing.

I don't know if that treatment is still advocated at their current center.
This is one thing that makes me shy away from the small Traditional communities.

I don't think it is dogma that children must be beat.

My understanding of the feeneyite position is no BoD, no BoB and no such thing as invincible ignorance. Very rigid, black and white.

roscoe · « **Reply #24 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:32:53 PM »

I do not for one moment believe Fr Feeney to be guilty of child abuse. Pls source for us.

Most important thing about Fr Feeney-- any paperwork claiming to call him to Rome or allegedly ex-comming him for not showing up is Fraudulent.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #25 on:** October 01, 2011, 11:37:02 PM »

SSPX pottage should hardly be compared to manna - especially with all the judaic and conciliar seasonings being added as of late. Of course it still has plenty of the gall and bile of insufferable pride to keep people coming back for more self-abasement.

edit: that's response to LordPhan's goofy line about "cafeteria catholicism" from sedes. You can have the feeneyite vinegar in conciliar, sspx, and sede dishes. Feeneyites aren't banned anywhere as far as I know.

Darcy · « **Reply #26 on:** October 02, 2011, 12:05:53 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

I do not for one moment believe Fr Feeney to be guilty of child abuse. Pls source for us.

Most important thing about Fr Feeney-- any paperwork claiming to call him to Rome or allegedly ex-comming him for not showing up is Fraudulent.

This is the link I have in my files for the info written by the nun who left. I do not recall reading that Fr. Feeney was at all involved but it was occuring in the children's quarters and perpetrated by the nuns.

However when I try to go to that link now it diverts to another page at the site.

http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20071007032205/www.romancatholicism.org/

maybe its buried in the archive somewhere.

(warning: there is a drive-by download on the page... /augustine-notes.htm)

its probably been compromised by jidf.

Gregory I · « **Reply #27 on:** October 02, 2011, 01:54:56 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

That is not what it means, where did you get that from? Babies do not have the ability to desire. Do you know what you just said?

WOW...again?

When the PARENTS desire to bring their child into the Church, the Parents desire for the Child to have faith supplied by the Church suffices for the CHILD'S NECESSARY DISPOSITION...

Read the Catechism of Trent:

"Dispositions for Baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Insane, delirious persons who were once of sound mind and afterwards became deranged, having in their present state no wish to be baptised, are not to be admitted to Baptism, unless in danger of death. In such cases, if previous to insanity they give intimation of a wish to be baptised, the Sacrament is to be administered; without such indication previously given it is not to be administered. The same rule is to be followed with regard to persons who are unconscious.

But if they (the insane) never enjoyed the use of reason, the authority and practice of the Church decide that they are to be baptised in the faith of the Church, just as children are baptised before they come to the use of reason.

Faith
Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.

Repentance
Another necessary condition is repentance for past sins, and a fixed determination to avoid all sin in the future. Should anyone desire Baptism and be unwilling to correct the habit of sinning, he should be altogether rejected. For nothing is so opposed to the grace and power of Baptism as the intention and purpose of those who resolve never to abandon sin.

Come on LP this is 101 stuff...

When the Council says "None can be saved without baptism or its desire" what do you think that means? I do not deny BOD in Principle, but this is NOT about that. This is about the NECESSARY DISPOSITIONS for Baptism as REVEALED in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism INTERPRETS and APPLIES the Teaching of the Council.

Just look at how it is phrased-"no one can be saved WITHOUT BAPTISM OR ITS DESIRE." The two are taken together, not divided. The necessity of desiring baptism is a PREREQUISITE that is NECESSARY for receiving the grace of the sacrament. Hence none are saved who do not desire baptism and vow to receive it.

Why else does the church reject those who do not want it? Because it can be received SACRILEGIOUSLY in which case the very waters which are meant to save you BRAND you for special condemnation in hell. The character is given, but not the grace.

What do you think the spanish inquisition was about?

LordPhan · « **Reply #28 on:** October 02, 2011, 04:56:07 AM »

I do read the Catechism of Trent, if you'd paid attention I quoted it, since it proves BOD.

I never once stated that Adults do not require a Desire to be Baptised, I stated the opposite.

But that has nothing to do with the Canon. Maybe it is an americanism, but why are you reading OR as if it was AND. Canon's are exact and in Latin. I don't have the Latin text on me, but if it was translated as OR and not AND then it means OR and is not slang.

Let's do a basic 101 on English. OR is Different from AND. AND means both parts of the sentence are required, OR means one of the two are required.

This is a Canon remember, not the Catechism.

You cannot just willynilly go about interpreting things as if we were Protestants.

The Church Rejects those who do not want it, because of previous Canon's that forbid forcing people to convert in any way shape or form on pain of Excommunication.

It works like this. If one is a child they do not need the desire, they have invincible ignorence and have not obtained to the state of Reason. They cannot sin either. They are innocents but they need to get rid of the stain of Original Sin.

Adults not only need to rid themselves of Original Sin but also of Mortal and Venial Sins. Once one has obtained Reason he is culpable for all of his actions. He must desire to repent, he must desire to obtain Grace and he must desire to join Christ's Church. If he does these things and a minion of Satan kills him before he can be Baptised by Water then he still obtains the Grace of God and may go to heaven(almost undoubtably Purgatory first since one cannot gain indulgences without proper Baptism). If he is not killed he must be Baptised by Water and the Holy Ghost to join the Church.

It is no different then the Sacrament of Penance, if one is about to die, he can make an act of Contrition and the Desire to obtain the Confession for the removal of his mortal sins is enough to remove them. If he makes a miraculous recovery he must go to Confession immediately.

COME ON THIS IS 101 STUFF :P

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2011, 06:01:29 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Stubborn, are we required to hold to the unanimous consent of theologians, since it is theologians who FORM the prelates theology?

Not as far as I know, at least not in regards to BOD - can you think of another example?

The following is from Fr. Wathen and it simply makes sense......
In support of this position[BOD], those who adhere to it refer to the many catechisms which contain it, and to numerous saints who held it, and, the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

The problem with this position is that (a) several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. (b) two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it;

He then goes onto numerate the contradictions here: http://fatherwathen.com/125.html

Now the CE has this snip about proxima fidei which agrees with Fr. Wathen:
.......It is styled next, proximate to heresy when its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm

From a Catholic Dictionary:
....A doctrine that theologians generally regard as a truth of revelation, but that has not been finally promulgated by the Church, is said to be proximate to faith (proxima fidei), and if such a truth is guaranteed as the logical conclusion from a revealed doctrine, it is called theologically certain (theologice certa)......
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36835