Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 61

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 41869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline praesul

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #250 on: October 07, 2022, 12:56:30 AM »
Quote
I hear you, and have been saying that about the anti-BODERS who believe in an indefectible ecclessia docens below the level of solemn pronouncements - and then they have to reject Trent, solemn authority, anyway. But that's besides the point (and let's grant them that Trent is "ambiguous" about BOD and - for Lad- justification).

"Trent", as you call it, is not "ambiguous", but some people do not understand the inclusive use of the word or in the passage that is used by  many who hold to the error of BoD.


Here are the words of our Savior:

John 3:5 – Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

Logged

Offline epiphany

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #251 on: October 07, 2022, 01:38:56 AM »
Fr. Feeney was stripped of his priestly faculties in 1949 and excommunicated in 1953.  The excommunication was not lifted until 1972.
Clearly the traditional Church says that there is more than one form of baptism.
Logged

Offline praesul

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #252 on: October 07, 2022, 02:38:03 AM »

Quote
Fr. Feeney was stripped of his priestly faculties in 1949 and excommunicated in 1953.  The excommunication was not lifted until 1972.
Clearly the traditional Church says that there is more than one form of baptism.


Can you please share with me the official reason Fr. Feeney was disciplined? 

Logged

Offline epiphany

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #253 on: October 07, 2022, 11:29:44 AM »
Quote from: praesul on October 07, 2022, 02:38:03 AM
Quote from: praesul 10/7/2022, 2:38:03 AM

Can you please share with me the official reason Fr. Feeney was disciplined?
You can Google it, but here is a very brief description i found:

In 1949, weary of Feeney’s denunciations, Cushing silenced him and ordered the St. Benedict Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Feeney served as chaplain, off limits to Catholics.

Boston College then fired four of Feeney’s followers for using their classrooms as forums to promote Feeney’s version of the Extra Ecclesiam doctrine.

Soon after, the Jesuits expelled Feeney for refusing to report to a faculty appointment at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, a violation of his vow of obedience.

Undaunted, Feeney refused to leave St. Benedict Center or remove his collar. Instead, he publicly accused Cushing of heresy.

Feeney called on Pius XII to issue an ex cathedra statement reaffirming the non-negotiable nature of the Extra Ecclesiam doctrine.

To Feeney’s apparent surprise, the Holy See refused. Instead, it summoned him to appear before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to explain why he should not be excommunicated.

Feeney refused to abandon his followers at St. Benedict Center even for a brief journey to Rome. Summoned to the Vatican a second time, he refused again.

Finally, in 1953, Pius XII excommunicated Feeney for heresy. According to Cardinal John Wright, the Pope personally translated the edict into English.

Here is another good summary:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney in 1972 without his having to recant his heresy.
Logged

Offline praesul

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #254 on: October 07, 2022, 12:49:22 PM »
Quote from: epiphany on October 07, 2022, 11:29:44 AM
Finally, in 1953, Pius XII excommunicated Feeney for heresy.

Thank you for the response epiphany.

From my research I do not think that the statement that Father Feeney was excommunicated "for heresy" is supported by the official docuмents on record.

Father Feeney's excommunication is docuмented in the AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100. It indicates he was excommunicated ipso facto for not appearing in front of the tribunal of the Holy Office. Thus, according to the official record, canonical penalties are being rendered for disobedience rather than for "heresy".

This is not the first time that I have encountered the assertion that Father Feeney was excommunicated "for heresy" as you posted. It seems that this assertion is part of a wider information war that was clearly (and still is) waged to sway the hearts and minds of people who are trying to seek the truth of the matter. Another fact that has impacted my perceptions on this chunk of history is that the infiltrator modernist prelates that were in charge in the Holy Office at that time broke the protocols of secrecy and leaked highly sensitive internal correspondence related to this matter with the anti-Christ secular press. Then, the secular press in a coordinated fashion used this leaked correspondence and hammered home the narrative that "the doctrine of Father Feeney" on salvation was declared heretical by the Pope. This was false, but here we are with many people in 2022 continuing to recycle this false notion.

It seems to me that the teaching that water baptism is necessary for salvation is not a creation of a Catholic priest named Leonard Feeney. It is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ that was upheld by the Deposit of Faith.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 61
« previous next »