Author Topic: Fr. Leonard Feeney - Who is he what did he teach? (Read 25301 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #30 on:** October 12, 2010, 12:21:03 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

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.

Many priest, nuns even Bishops know what is de fide but they seem to have a better answer, they refuse to follow Church teaching. Just look at all those who follow Vatican II, it is also de fide to believe in the first commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before ME! yet, look at the VII popes how they glorify the false gods. Fr. Feeney shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He is just another who is starting his own church and taking souls with him, only God knows where.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #31 on:** October 12, 2010, 12:22:58 PM »

Quote from: anonymouse

Belloc,

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

The sacrament was not yet instituted when St. John baptised Jesus that day, it was explained to me.

Can someone here explain this better, I only remember that part of which I posted. I will try to research it for my own sake.

Alexandria · « **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2010, 12:35:33 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: anonymouse
Belloc,

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

The sacrament was not yet instituted when St. John baptised Jesus that day, it was explained to me.

Can someone here explain this better, I only remember that part of which I posted. I will try to research it for my own sake.

I can give you the "Catholic Answers" answer from my years (Lord knows how I did it!!) of listening to the show. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know.

Circuмcision was the "baptism" of the old law. Since the Church did not begin until Pentecost, the need for water Baptism was not "officially" required until then. Which is why when people use the good thief as an example of someone entering heaven w/o water baptism, it is not a valid example since the Church had not been officially "born" yet, and the good thief joined the others in the "limbo of the just" until Our Lord ascended into Heaven.

Alexandria · « **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2010, 12:39:46 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Alexandria
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.

Many priest, nuns even Bishops know what is de fide but they seem to have a better answer, they refuse to follow Church teaching. Just look at all those who follow Vatican II, it is also de fide to believe in the first commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before ME! yet, look at the VII popes how they glorify the false gods. Fr. Feeney shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He is just another who is starting his own church and taking souls with him, only God knows where.

You make a few good points here, but it is inconceivable to me that a man would spend almost 15 years studying to be a Jesuit and not know that BOD/BOB are de fide teachings. Why then did he ignore those de fide teachings and zero in on the "No salvation outside the Church" dogma as being forgotten and ignored by others, when he was doing the very same thing regarding BOD/BOB?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #34 on:** October 12, 2010, 01:19:37 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: anonymouse
Belloc,

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

The sacrament was not yet instituted when St. John baptised Jesus that day, it was explained to me.

Can someone here explain this better, I only remember that part of which I posted. I will try to research it for my own sake.

I can give you the "Catholic Answers" answer from my years (Lord knows how I did it!!) of listening to the show. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know.

Circuмcision was the "baptism" of the old law. Since the Church did not begin until Pentecost, the need for water Baptism was not "officially" required until then. Which is why when people use the good thief as an example of someone entering heaven w/o water baptism, it is not a valid example since the Church had not been officially "born" yet, and the good thief joined the others in the "limbo of the just" until Our Lord ascended into Heaven.

Yes, thanks so much! Now I remember that exactly!

As for Fr. Feeney, I can't answer why he wanted to ignore that teaching, but I know it is de fide. Why he didn't know that, only God knows. That doesn't mean you and I have to make the same mistake he made.

These people for some reason, like to put God in a box or limit him. He instituted the sacrament, and only He can bend the rules, you do believe that, don't you. He gave us a teaching Church, and it is common sense that if someone loves God, as you and I do, but for some reason, they were not baptised, they should go to Hell???

What if you reading here weren't baptised? Yet, you love God and are doing your best to save your soul; unaware that you were really not baptised. "They" just told you that you were. Do you think God will send you to Hell when you die? I don't!

Gee, I am thinking now, maybe we should all go and be conditionally baptised, just in case. (Trying to make a point!)

Belloc · « **Reply #35 on:** October 12, 2010, 01:36:13 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Alexandria
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.

Many priest, nuns even Bishops know what is de fide but they seem to have a better answer, they refuse to follow Church teaching. Just look at all those who follow Vatican II, it is also de fide to believe in the first commandment. Thou shalt not have strange gods before ME! yet, look at the VII popes how they glorify the false gods. Fr. Feeney shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He is just another who is starting his own church and taking souls with him, only God knows where.

You make a few good points here, but it is inconceivable to me that a man would spend almost 15 years studying to be a Jesuit and not know that BOD/BOB are de fide teachings. Why then did he ignore those de fide teachings and zero in on the "No salvation outside the Church" dogma as being forgotten and ignored by others, when he was doing the very same thing regarding BOD/BOB?

people are faulty and tend to get blidners at times....also, Feeney was not infallible....but human and faulty...like us all....

Alexandria · « **Reply #36 on:** October 12, 2010, 01:37:02 PM »

Quote

As for Fr. Feeney, I can't answer why he wanted to ignore that teaching, but I know it is de fide. Why he didn't know that, only God knows. That doesn't mean you and I have to make the same mistake he made.

These people for some reason, like to put God in a box or limit him. He instituted the sacrament, and only He can bend the rules, you do believe that, don't you. He gave us a teaching Church, and it is common sense that if someone loves God, as you and I do, but for some reason, they were not baptised, they should go to Hell???

No, I find it hard to believe that only Catholics can go to Heaven. Although as a child I readily believed it since that is what I was taught. I vividly remember the day I found out that not everyone in the world was Catholic. I must have been around seven years old. I was shocked.

However, I think that saying that God is not limited to either His Church or Sacraments is a dangerous place to go since it appears to be a slippery slope to me. And, if that is so, why bother instituting a Church and Sacraments at all? Who are the rules and regulations for? Catholics only and everyone else gets an "invincible ignorance" pass? Something about that doesn't seem just to me.

Also, the dogma "outside the Church ...." is pretty cut and dry. It has now been so watered down that it is rendered meaningless.

trad123 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 12, 2010, 01:59:45 PM »

The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception

http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm

Alexandria · « **Reply #38 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:09:46 PM »

Quote from: trad123

The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception

http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm

Then why did he (Fr. Feeney) do it? Fr. Feeney seemed to be doing fine until he became entangled with two key SBC members who always were able to talk him out of doing the right thing - at least this is the impression that I got from reading several books and articles about him.

trad123 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:13:01 PM »

I'm willing to bet that some liberal "Catholics" were truly saying that there is salvation outside the Church, and in arguing this point they brought up the doctrines of Baptism of blood and desire, and Fr. Feeney was scandalized by this.

However, as Fr. Stepanich says:

Quote

The salvation of those baptized by way of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood comes about immediately, at death. Such souls or brought by God into His Church at death, and they enter into Heaven, not “outside the church,” but “inside the Church.” There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven, nor were “unbaptized” or “outside the Church” Saints among the Saints of God.

trad123 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:19:19 PM »

Quote

There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven...

And before anyone objects because you'll bring up the souls who died before the New Law you need to understand that he's saying that there is no soul in Heaven who did not receive the same effects.

Quote

The three varying terms, Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood, do not represent three different baptisms. What those terms do represent are three different circuмstances or situations in which God brings about consoles one and the same effect of the one and only Sacrament of Baptism.

That one and the same effect in all three cases is the cleansing of the soul from the stain of original sin, and the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul. And that is the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The results of that action of God in the soul, is that the newly baptized soul is raised from its previously natural state or condition to a supernatural state, while the further result is that such a soul is brought by God into His Church, so that it is no longer “outside the church, where there is no salvation.” Finally, a newly baptized soul finds the way open for entry into Heaven.

Alexandria · « **Reply #41 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:21:46 PM »

Quote from: trad123

I'm willing to bet that some liberal "Catholics" were truly saying that there is salvation outside the Church, and in arguing this point they brought up the doctrines of Baptism of blood and desire, and Fr. Feeney was scandalized by this.

However, as Fr. Stepanich says:

Quote
The salvation of those baptized by way of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood comes about immediately, at death. Such souls or brought by God into His Church at death, and they enter into Heaven, not “outside the church,” but “inside the Church.” There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven, nor were “unbaptized” or “outside the Church” Saints among the Saints of God.

Haven't you ever read his biography? Those "liberal Catholics" who were saying some wild things were his fellow Jesuits and they were being taught to students at Jesuit colleges in and around the Boston area.

trad123 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:23:56 PM »

It's no wonder we got Vatican II, the numbers looked good, but many did not know the faith properly.

I threw out My Catholic Faith catechism because it stated explicitly that there is salvation outside the Church.

SJB · « **Reply #43 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:37:17 PM »

Quote from: trad123

It's no wonder we got Vatican II, the numbers looked good, but many did not know the faith properly.

I threw out My Catholic Faith catechism because it stated explicitly that there is salvation outside the Church.

Was MCF trying to say there is salvation outside membership in the Church? This is what the Baltimore Catechism seems to be saying. I think it's worded poorly, but certainly not heretical.

trad123 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 12, 2010, 02:40:02 PM »

I don't remember, it's been like (edit:) nearly 2 years since I threw it out.