Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 28461 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #150 on:** October 14, 2010, 04:54:43 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: MyrnaM
roscoe,
Quote
Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.

Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.

Blessings to you roscoe.

GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!

roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.

It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.

I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.

No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #151 on:** October 14, 2010, 04:57:06 PM »

Quote from: Charles

Quote from: trad123
Quote from: Charles
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?

That is because "Pope" Paul VI "absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication without requiring him to retract his position. The Novus Ordo is a smorgasbord of falsehood.

Ok, that makes sense.

So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ? I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?

If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?

Again just trying to solidify my own understanding. You have pretty much drug me off the path of embracing cut and dried Feeneyism.

Don't pay any attention to the people on CA. They are modernists who wouldn't know Traditional Catholicism if it was right in front of their faces. Buddhists and Muslims can only be saved if they convert to Catholicism.

roscoe · « **Reply #152 on:** October 14, 2010, 05:12:36 PM »

I will let Pope Clement V enlighten Myrna and her sarcasm

Infallible Papal Bulls condemning Templars-- and yes Myrna, the salvation of your soul is indeed at stake if you defy the Pope.

All published between Mar 1312 and Jan 1313

1-- Vox in Excelso
2-- Ad Providam
3-- Considerantes
4-- Nuper in Concilio
5-- 1 Dec 1312
6-- Licet Dudum
7-- 31 Dec 1312
8-- Licet Pridem

MyrnaM · « **Reply #153 on:** October 14, 2010, 05:44:49 PM »

Thank you, roscoe

innocenza · « **Reply #154 on:** October 14, 2010, 06:17:49 PM »

Trad123, re Billot:

Isn't a thesis a proposition which requires to be proved? Isn't what Cardinal Billot states in such no more than his judgment or opinion? Who decides if it has been demonstrated conclusively, and if/when it has attained de fide status?

Thank you.

trad123 · « **Reply #155 on:** October 14, 2010, 07:43:49 PM »

All the dogmatic theology manuals I own state a thesis for each teaching, even though that teaching may undoubtedly be de fide, like the teaching that Christ is truly God, for example.

This article will explain the authority of theologians:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

Charles · « **Reply #156 on:** October 14, 2010, 10:25:43 PM »

Quote from: Cheryl

Quote from: Charles
roscoe, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you can have fun over on wikipedia demanding citations

Oh Charles, be careful during BOB/BOD threads. I usually read them in a tennis match way, watching the posts go over the net and into the other court. There might be something lacking in this thread, but people passionate in their beliefs is not one of them. So that said, be careful about saying the words "dog in this fight", it might lead to a Mike Vick thread.

Disclaimer: Just trying to inject a little humor here. I'm sure Charles doesn't fight with his dog.

Me too, the joke being, there is a definition of Sedevacantism on wiki, so "it's true, it's true ! "

Charles · « **Reply #157 on:** October 14, 2010, 10:38:38 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Charles
Quote from: trad123
Quote from: Charles
So Fr Feeney took John 3:5 literally ? If yes, that, and the fact he was not required to retract his position, leaves the door open to take either position ?

That is because "Pope" Paul VI "absolved” Father Feeney from excommunication without requiring him to retract his position. The Novus Ordo is a smorgasbord of falsehood.

Ok, that makes sense.

So BoD is possible, but not in the way some use it to promote false ecuмenism ? I'm just seeing a lot of people on CA saying Buddists and Muslims can be saved. That's a bit much isn't it ?

If a Muslim rejects the Divinity of Christ, how can he be saved ?

Again just trying to solidify my own understanding. You have pretty much drug me off the path of embracing cut and dried Feeneyism.

Don't pay any attention to the people on CA. They are modernists who wouldn't know Traditional Catholicism if it was right in front of their faces. Buddhists and Muslims can only be saved if they convert to Catholicism.

Agreed. At best they are the fruit of modernism in their ignorance due to "showtime" and "stand up" homilies. Same old story. They claim the SSPX is in schism, someone quotes Hoyos, they don't reply, then make the same claim in the next thread that pops up with SSPX in the title.

They aren't worth the keystrokes.

There is a thread on EENS going on over there right now.

Cristian · « **Reply #158 on:** October 14, 2010, 10:46:18 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

Trad123, re Billot:

Isn't a thesis a proposition which requires to be proved? Isn't what Cardinal Billot states in such no more than his judgment or opinion? Who decides if it has been demonstrated conclusively, and if/when it has attained de fide status?

Thank you.

Hi Innocenza!

Quote

“Actually a good proportion of theses set forth in the ordinary manuals of theology, as well as in the classical masterpieces of this science (theology), have been defined as of faith by the Catholic Church”
Joseph Fenton, The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941; page 6.

This means that actually the term theses have a particular meaning and that all the theology manuals´ theses are not necessarily a matter of opinion. Usually the method followed by theologians is the enunciation of the thesis, then the author explain the meaning of the words, the theological note attached to it, who are the opponents and then he proofs it by divine revelation (Tradition and S. Scriptures), by the Magisterium of the Church and by reason, and finally it responds the objections.

To pick up one classical theological manual, that of J. Salaverri S.J. I found:

Theses 4: “Jesus promised immediately and directly to Saint Peter the Primacy of jurisdiction (supreme power)”

1) Relation of this thesis with the previous ones.
2) Notions: Here the author explains the words of the thesis.
3) Adversaries: Schismatics, Wicleff, Protestants, Gallicans, Rationalists and Modernists.
4) Teaching of the Church: from Vatican I and Leo XIII.
5) Theological note: “The thesis is de fide divina definita (defined as of divine faith) in the Council of Florence and of Vatican (DZ 694 and 1822).
6) Proof from Sacred Scriptures: which in this case is taken from Mt XVI (he proofs the text is genuine, and that the meaning of the words are those understood always by the Church, metaphor of the keys, etc)
7) Objections and Responses.

All this is almost 20 pages long! :)

See this too http://www.space.net.au/~nethow/Sede/theolnotes.htm

Cristian

MyrnaM · « **Reply #159 on:** October 14, 2010, 11:44:09 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: MyrnaM
roscoe,
Quote
Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.

Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.

Blessings to you roscoe.

GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!

roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.

It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.

I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.

No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".

I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.

Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.

The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.

Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.

roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.

roscoe · « **Reply #160 on:** October 15, 2010, 12:35:36 AM »

1-- There is NO SUCH THING AS A SEDEVACANTIST

2-- I agree that the NO church is not the Roman Catholic Church but it claims to be. A man claiming to be Pope who is not is an anti-pope.

2-- It is not up to Myrna to give us her 'point of view' re: the Fr GWS popes as anti-popes. As of yet No Church Authority has been cited telling us this.

3-- It is correct that the FR GWS popes were orthodox in belief. This is why( or one reason why) they were(are) NOT ANTI-POPES.

roscoe · « **Reply #161 on:** October 15, 2010, 12:42:26 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: MyrnaM
roscoe,
Quote
Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.

Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.

Blessings to you roscoe.

GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!

roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.

It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.

I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.

No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".

I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.

Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.

The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.

Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.

roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.

I completely disagree with the conception that the anti-popes beg w/ John XXIII(23) have not usurped the Church-- that is exactly what they have done. I hope U understand ' all that about the pope stuff' a little better now.

I have not actually read the Bulls of Clement V re: Templars. :smoke-pot:

roscoe · « **Reply #162 on:** October 15, 2010, 12:53:14 AM »

One way or another the anti-pope John XXIII(23) has not been legally elected. I am not aware of any Church Authority who has declared any of the FR GWS popes as illegally elected.

The MJ emoticon above was meant to be placed after the 1st paragraph-- my apologies.

innocenza · « **Reply #163 on:** October 15, 2010, 04:36:14 AM »

Trad123, Cristian --

Many thanks for the guidance and information!

Peace of Christ,
Janet C.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #164 on:** October 15, 2010, 09:59:33 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: MyrnaM
roscoe,
Quote
Myrna cannot bring herself to declare the v2 anti-popes but she still thinks Fr GWS popes were.

Roscoe, please get it right about what I believe which is that the VII "popes" in my opinion, are NOpope not even anti popes. Your note above makes it sound like I believe the VII "popes" are some sort of pope figure. Wrong! That is not what I believe. I am sedevacantist, remember.

Blessings to you roscoe.

GWS, only one man at a time could possible be the pope and Catholics didn't know at that time for sure which one, is what I was taught and what I believe. PURE AND SIMPLE!

roscoe with all due respect, why do you even care what I believe, you keep on and on about what I believe.

It is my understanding the anti-popes during the GWS were at least Catholic, and that is why they share the word pope, the NO "pope" I BELIEVE are not Catholic, thus they can't be any kind of pope, in my opinion.

I guess what I am trying to say to you, if you are going to post what I believe, at least get it correct.

No anti-pope is Catholic really. That's partly why they call them anti-popes. Similar thing with the term "Anti-Christ".

I suppose it depends on your position, although we all share the same Faith, we differ on who, what and where.

Now a Sedevacantist does not believe that the novus ordo is The Catholic Church, therefore any man sitting in the throne can't be an anti-pope, because an anti-pope upsurps the Church and since Vatican II is not the Church therefore, they can't be anti-popes but are just men. Now if a man began saying he was pope of the Lutheran chuch, you wouldn't call him an anti-pope would you? NO! In order to be an anti-pope you would have to upsurp the True Church and we all know the Lutheran is just a man made church, as is Vatican II.

The reason I agree that the men who claim to be popes during the GWS are anti-popes; because at least they had the Faith, Catholic Faith. Even Saints came out of all the different groups, while they did not agree who was the true pope.

Well that is the way I understand all that about the pope stuff, according to my point of view, FWIW.

roscoe, I have been reading your papal bulls, very interesting stuff, thanks again. Haven't finished yet.

Really any Traditional Catholic, sede or not, realizes that the NO is NOT part of The Catholic Church, and is instead part of the counterfit church. Of course, I'm a bit confused here. You say that all "Popes" of the counterfit Church aren't Popes or anti-popes but are just men. Yet why do you think Benedict XVI is anti-pope? Just curious. Personally, I believe that our Popes kind of run both Churches, mostly the counterfit church. The true Catholic Church they just vistit or look upon every once in a while. That being said, if we were to have an anti-pope, he would indeed be an anti-pope and not just a man, if that makes any sense.