Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 25059 times)

Alexandria · « **Reply #15 on:** October 11, 2010, 02:11:25 PM »

I agree with you, Roscoe. Always we have to remember that there was no internet back then. Fr. Feeney was already a sickly man in the sixties. News filtered down to the useful idiots in the pews at a slow rate. If you didn't know the people who were informed about things, you didn't know what was going on.

Chicanery was always alive and well in the Church. Apparently it was thriving in Boston in general and the Jesuits in particular.

I have never been able to figure out why he is so disliked, almost universally it seems. But it is laughable that Fr. Leonard Feeney is the only thing that the members of the church - across the board from the left to the right - agree on.

One thing that I have noticed about people that hold what is termed an "extreme" view on one or many things is that they usually try to balance that out with being liberal in other areas. This could also be a possibility regarding Fr. Feeney's and the SBC's thoughts on VII/TLM.

God rest his soul.

trad123 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 11, 2010, 03:14:09 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: trad123
The main point is that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. In certain circuмstances it is possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to receive the effects of Baptism without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.

if water baptism is "absolutely necessary for salvation", then how could one not getting wet receive any effects of baptism...2 contradictory statements.....you either are baptised or are not......

Belloc, I'm not saying Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation but the effects.

From the Code of Canon law, canon 737 states: "Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #17 on:** October 11, 2010, 03:14:23 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: trad123
The main point is that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. In certain circuмstances it is possible for someone who has reached the age of reason to receive the effects of Baptism without having received the Sacrament of Baptism.

if water baptism is "absolutely necessary for salvation", then how could one not getting wet receive any effects of baptism...2 contradictory statements.....you either are baptised or are not......

I'd like to second that. If there is an exception to a rule then the rule is NOT "absolute". You can say it is almost absolutely necessary, but you cannot say it is absolutely necesary.

The problem the Cushingites have to deal with is that the Council of Trent and several other ex-cathedra statement say that it is absolutely necessary.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2010, 12:01:01 AM »

And the Gospel of John:

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Commentary

[5] "Unless a man be born again"... By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.

from http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm

I accept fully what the Holy Church teaches.

I'm just not sure what that is!

trad123 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2010, 01:31:20 AM »

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus

I accept fully what the Holy Church teaches.

I'm just not sure what that is!

Quote from: trad123

What the Church teaches:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Baptism_of_Desire.html

The link mentions Canon 1239.2, but not 737.1:

Quote

"Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".

Quote from: trad123

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was not included in the link:

Page 124-125

Quote
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.

Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/3john.htm

Quote

Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).

trad123 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 12, 2010, 01:54:44 AM »

Quote from: trad123

The link mentions Canon 1239.2, but not 737.1:

Quote
"Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".

Commentary on Canon 737.1

http://www.archive.org/stream/acommentaryonthe00charuoft#page/32/mode/2up

Quote

Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, either really or by desire 1 and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized.2 This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity8 lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient.

trad123 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:07:31 AM »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, properly speaking there is no such thing as a unbaptized saint.

All who have received Baptism by blood or desire have truly received the effects of Baptism.

anonymouse · « **Reply #22 on:** October 12, 2010, 09:51:20 AM »

Why would Christ, who set an example for us by being baptized by water himself, leave so much room for confusion over something as important as salvation, by allowing all kinds of baptisms to enter the picture, and create all kinds of confusion?

It seems that all these different baptisms - water, blood, desire - just create confusion and conflict.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #23 on:** October 12, 2010, 09:58:10 AM »

Quote from: anonymouse

Why would Christ, who set an example for us by being baptized by water himself, leave so much room for confusion over something as important as salvation, by allowing all kinds of baptisms to enter the picture, and create all kinds of confusion?

It seems that all these different baptisms - water, blood, desire - just create confusion and conflict.

There is no confusion the Church has spoken, and Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #24 on:** October 12, 2010, 10:18:11 AM »

To back up my post:

http://www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html

I feel sure that Fr. Feeney has written, and preached much good, but unless you accept all the de fide teachings of the Church you are outside the Church.

Belloc · « **Reply #25 on:** October 12, 2010, 10:19:57 AM »

Quote from: anonymouse

Why would Christ, who set an example for us by being baptized by water himself, leave so much room for confusion over something as important as salvation, by allowing all kinds of baptisms to enter the picture, and create all kinds of confusion?

It seems that all these different baptisms - water, blood, desire - just create confusion and conflict.

he set the example, but knows the heart and mind, hence knows what those that cannot get to water think and know..it is really not that confusing......

also, Christ did not have to be water baptized...

Goose · « **Reply #26 on:** October 12, 2010, 10:57:02 AM »

Quote from: trad123

Quote from: trad123
The link mentions Canon 1239.2, but not 737.1:

Quote
"Baptism, the door and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for salvation for all in re (actuality) or in desire".

Commentary on Canon 737.1

http://www.archive.org/stream/acommentaryonthe00charuoft#page/32/mode/2up

Quote
Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, either really or by desire 1 and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized.[/color]2 This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity8 lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient.

Compare that with one of your quotes in the link you provided earlier:

4. Pope Innocent III

Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. (Denzinger 388)

How did a "Priest" die w/o baptism?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #27 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:19:56 AM »

The way I understand this is the priest was not aware that he was not baptised, but because he persevered in the faith fully at his best, he received baptism of desire, (God knows his own) received the same effects as if he was watered baptised, although not the sacrament of baptism. The effects however were upon his soul therefore any sacrament he received was valid.

Alexandria · « **Reply #28 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:31:03 AM »

Quote

Baptism of blood and desire are de fide teachings.

Don't know if that is correct. IF they were, Fr. Leonard Feeney would have known that, wouldn't he?

Perhaps one of our arm chair theologians can comment.

anonymouse · « **Reply #29 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:47:47 AM »

Belloc,

Christ did not have to be baptized. Yet he was - with water - and He set an example for the rest of us.