CathInfo.com

Fr Feeney believed in BOD and he believed that it justified those that received it.  The position that got him in hot water was the he believed that no one could be saved unless they first received the Sacrament of Baptism (which is not valid unless done with natural water).  So that implies that he believed that those who received BOD-only would not receive the grace of final perseverance.  He was not excommunicated for that position.  He was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome when the pope ordered him to go there (disobedience).  In fact, Ratzinger's CDF confirmed that the strict interpretation of EENS was permissible.  Don't you think that the modernists would have found a way to outlaw that position if they could?  So even if you believe as I do that Ratzinger had no authority, at least you can appreciate his frank admission that there is no evidence that strict EENS is a condemned position.  On the other hand, I see that multiple popes tolerated a more or less subtle denial of strict EENS despite the apparent support for strict EENS in the magisterium. So the debates are going to go on and on until someone in authority puts an end to it.  And maybe like the Molinism debate, it will go on until the end of time, although at least in that case, the anathemas have ceased.

I don't see a big issue with what you present here from Fr. Feeney, as long as that's *his opinion*, and not being presented as something that can't be denied without heresy.  That said I've seen other things in Bread of Life that are more concerning to me.  For instance I remember reading a quote where he said that if someone died justified by BOD and outside of mortal sin, he didn't know where that person would go, but neither to heaven or hell. If you just straight up said "yeah, if someone died justified by BOD and not in mortal sin, they would go to heaven, but personally, I just don't think any such people exist" that would make more sense to me.  

I personally don't think the "Feeneyite" view is anathema per se, my main issue is that many of those who take that position *also* think those of us who take the view the *vast* majority of trad clergy take, are heretics.

One way or another I think you're on the right track with that final bit.  I think a Pope (that everyone believes is valid) needs to either rule in favor of one side or the other, OR he needs to rule that both positions are allowed in the Church and the two sides can't anathematize each other, and thats that.  I *tend* to think the best way to resolve the issue would be to not anathematize either side, but to put some guardrails on the "loose EENS" position so it didn't involve getting *too* loose, but that of course is just my opinion.

Fr. Feeney answered correctly, we do not know where a BOD person would spend eternity because we mere humans cannot know. Heck, if we are to be honest about it, we cannot even know if the BOD person ever actually desired baptism, much less where he spends eternity.  

This is a practical issue though.  BOD as a doctrine doesn't say definitively whether any specific individuals really desired baptism, only "if they did, this is what would happen"

The saints and theologians who reward the BODer with heaven, no matter how positive they seem to be, are only speculating because that's all they can do in this matter.

Trent at least seems to imply it, as a possibility.

This is not true. Most who accept the dogma believe those who believe in a BOD are in error, not heretics. My opinion is when that belief turns to incessant preaching about a BOD - then the preacher is preaching heresy, but I do not think him a heretic. OTOH, When it gets to the point like it did with Lover of Truth where he blindly spammed the forums with dozens upon dozens of a BOD that continued for week after week even months, then that person has earned the title of heretic.  

Leaving aside that you pretty much seem to be deciding heresy vs error based on annoyance level, I didn't say that *you* think all who believe in BOD are heretics.  I didn't say *all* or *most* "feeneyites" think that.  I just said that  many do, which is true.

The only way you could argue would be I guess to say those people are really dimondites and not feeneyites, which I guess is an issue of terminology.  I use the phrase loosely anyway.

It would be nice for the "true" pope to come out and explicitly condemn or infallibly define a BOD, but I'd be surprised if that happens in our life time. In the mean time, the debates will go on with BODers quoting the Fathers and misunderstanding Trent, while the EENSers will go on quoting the Fathers and echoing Trent.  

  To be clear, I am not sede just like you aren't, I just worded it that way 'cause I know some people here are.

At any rate, BODers vs EENSers is a really weird way to frame the debate.  First, we all believe in EENS here.  Second,as Ladislaus has pointed out before, its possible even to hold to strict EENS and still believe in BOD.

 

I'd go a step further.  If you take the first "Anaphora" of the NOM, it's basically the Tridentine Canon (with very few variations).  If the NOM reform had simply implemented Canon I and that Mass had continued to be said in Latin, there would have been very little Traditional movement ... apart from, perhaps, the Feeneyite groups.  Most people became Traditional Catholics after watching clown Masses and altar girls and all this other junk.  I know that this is the stuff that opened my eyes to what was going on.

I will admit this is something I wonder about myself.  Certainly the NO as it is usually celebrated is highly problematic.  And I think that alone is sufficient reason to oppose it.  I've been to two novus ordo masses in my life and something felt wrong, both times.  The first when I was considering conversion, the second as a catechumen.

But was this *original* more conservative NO that you describe, itself sacriligous and offensive to God?  I don't know.  I imagine most people here would say yes, but I'm not sure myself.