Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 25526 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #60 on:** October 12, 2010, 06:41:36 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Unless I am mistaken, Myrna has also been taught that the Fr Popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes-- this is incorrect.

Several things to consider

1) There can only be one true pope at any time.

2) There were 3 claimants in the GWS

3) There are two possibilities, first none of the claimants were true popes, or only one of the three was a true pope

4) Considering the latter part of #3, the other two popes were then necessarily antipopes.

roscoe · « **Reply #61 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:17:20 PM »

The above is incorrect. First of all the time when there were 3 claimants to the chair of of Peter is only the very last stage of GWS. Before that there was a period of 32 yrs where there was both a FR and It Pope claiming to be true Pope.

Acc to Prof Pastor( and this has been posted numerous times)-- because the schism was only political in nature( no heresy, blasphemy or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs), at the time of settlement one was left free to call either the Fr or It Pope as True Pope and this stands today.

This is a major stumbling block to those who cannot conceive that the v2 'popes' are anti-popes. So there is a time in history when it could be said that there were technically 2 Popes at the same time.

If anyone thinks that the FR Popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes, please post a source besides the mistake in Fr Radecki's book.

trad123 · « **Reply #62 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:22:34 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Acc to Prof Pastor( and this has been posted numerous times)-- because the schism was only political in nature( no heresy, blasphemy or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs), at the time of settlement one was left free to call either the Fr or It Pope as True Pope and this stands today.

You're mixing two things together.

1) Whether a person was free to call either pope A or B without schism being imputed to them.

2) Whether in point of fact pope A or B was truly pope.

Quote from: roscoe

So there is a time in history when it could be said that there were technically 2 Popes at the same time.

There could never be more than one true pope at the time. Either all were not true popes, or only one was a true pope.

roscoe · « **Reply #63 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:28:29 PM »

Pls post a source besides the mistake in Fr Radecki's book that claims the FR popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes.

One more time-- Acc to Prof Pastor-- as part of settlement of GWS, one was left free to call either the Fr or It claimant the True Pope. Technically then it can be said that there was a time in history that there were two Popes.

Alexandria · « **Reply #64 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:36:38 PM »

Roscoe

Is this the Pastor who wrote the in-depth history of the popes?

trad123 · « **Reply #65 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:39:21 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Pls post a source besides the mistake in Fr Radecki's book that claims the FR popes of GWS were( are) anti-popes.

One more time-- Acc to Prof Pastor-- as part of settlement of GWS, one was left free to call either the Fr or It claimant the True Pope. Technically then it can be said that there was a time in history that there were two Popes.

My crux with this issue is that you believe it's possible that the Chair of Peter (that's SINGULAR) can have two persons sitting on it.

That's equivalent to saying that the Church can have TWO heads, like some sort of hydra.

roscoe · « **Reply #66 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:47:01 PM »

The GWS was unique-- If anyone has a prob with this, take it up with Prof Pastor-- not me. I am sorry that the specific vol and pg # cannot be recalled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Pastor

Scroll down for vols avail on line. I would suggest a perusal of the TOC of each vol for a prospectus on what the reader is interested in rather than tackling the whole 40 vol set.

With the exception of Fr Radecki's mistake, I highly doubt that a source can be cited claiming that the FR GWS popes are( were) in fact anti-popes.

Again-- this misconception is a major stumbling block to those who cannot see the v2 anti-popes.

trad123 · « **Reply #67 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:47:09 PM »

Edit: The Crux of the issue

Alexandria · « **Reply #68 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:49:18 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

The GWS was unique-- If anyone has a prob with this, take it up with Prof Pastor-- not me. I am sorry that the specific vol and pg # cannot be recalled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Pastor

Scroll down for vols avail on line. I would suggest a perusal of the TOC of each vol for a prospectus on what the reader is interested in rather than tackling the whole 40 vol set.

Someday I hope to own all of the volumes. How I would love to read those books!

Thanks for the link, Roscoe.

trad123 · « **Reply #69 on:** October 12, 2010, 07:49:33 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Technically then it can be said that there was a time in history that there were two Popes.

Did Pastor state this or is this your deduction from the fact that schism was not imputed to a person who believed either pope A or B was in fact pope?

roscoe · « **Reply #70 on:** October 12, 2010, 08:14:08 PM »

My recollection is that von Pastor says specifically-- one was left free to call either the FR or It Pope the True Pope as a condition of settlement of GWS-- and this because there was no heresy or blasphemy involved.

If Alexandra is interested in the hard copies, a number of vols can be found at addall.

roscoe · « **Reply #71 on:** October 12, 2010, 09:13:53 PM »

It should be understood also re: GWS-- no one could figure out who the validly elected Pope was( aside from the lack of any heresy or blasphemy). This is why the compromise was reached at settlement of schism.

roscoe · « **Reply #72 on:** October 12, 2010, 09:15:37 PM »

Actually there was one Pope of GWS who was in heresy but he recanted b4 settlement-- Pope John.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #73 on:** October 12, 2010, 10:54:08 PM »

Thanks for the links you posted on page 1 of this thread, 123. It would seem that this Baptism of Desire is limited exclusively then to only those catechumens or others who explicitly, specifically, desired Baptism of Water. Am I right? These would just be a few exceptions, then. Father Feeney must have been alarmed that these exceptions were being expanded to include all kinds of people, including those in the vague categories of "well, he would have desired baptism had he known that he needed to be baptized" and "he was searching for something but he didn't know it was baptism but he certainly had the desire" and so forth, and Father fought against that.

Still, it's hard to believe, as others here have stated, that F. Feeney didn't know the difference between the very limited possibilities for BOD as spelled out in the docuмents above, and the broad definition as being applied to modernists.

Were egotism and ambition really his only motives for rebelling as he did?

trad123 · « **Reply #74 on:** October 12, 2010, 11:09:08 PM »

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus

Thanks for the links you posted on page 1 of this thread, 123. It would seem that this Baptism of Desire is limited exclusively then to only those catechumens or others who explicitly, specifically, desired Baptism of Water. Am I right?

Actually:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

Quote

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=324

Quote

The doctrinal portion of the Holy Office letter ends with the declaration that, in the light of what the docuмent itself has taught, “it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical ‘From the Housetops,’ fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.” The issue of From the Housetops to which the letter refers contained only one article, written by Mr. Raymond Karam of the St. Benedict Center group, and entitled “Reply to a Liberal.”

The most important error contained in that article was a denial of the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit desire to enter the Catholic Church. There was likewise bad teaching on the requisites for justification, as distinguished from the requisites for salvation. The first of these faults has been indicated in a previous issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review.12

My understanding is this: since the Sacrament of Baptism is the gate through which we become members of the Church, a desire to become part of the Church of Christ is one and the same desire for Baptism.

A person who does not know that its necessary to belong to the Church, but who wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God implicitly desires to enter the Church.