Quote:
So, in 1949 what was criticized (not “condemned”) by the Holy Office was a specific article that appeared in From the Housetops, entitled “Reply to a Liberal”. Bread of Life was not ”condemned.” In fact, Pope John XXIII assigned a certain Monsignor Francis Cassano (since deceased) to comb Father Leonard’s book for possible theological aberrations. The Monsignor himself related this fact to us and to other friends of the Center who visited him in his parish on the Hudson River. Monsignor Cassano had also been appointed by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello. He was a prominent Churchman in his day, a confidant of two Popes. He reported to Pope John XXIII that there was nothing “contrary to faith” in Father Feeney’s
writings. Cassano saw the difference between opinion and dogma, which is more than can be said for the theologians of Verbum, for as long as dogma is protected, the Church allows theologians to use their minds for the good of God’s Kingdom.
The Question becomes, "To what standard did he hold Fr. Feeney and the Bread of life to". Was it of the Conciliar Church or of the Old Church. In either Case , Fr. Feeney was in error in his position (in good faith , they say because of the faulty writing of Trent on it s Session on Justifiction ,6.4), as the Dimonds point it out, and explained to SBC, in their book ,, Outside the Catholic Church there is Absoultly No Salvation.
Fr. Feeney as far as we know held to a person could be justified before he was Baptised. When we say "Justified" , we mean in the State of Justification.
This put some in the position of having a "Field Day", against Fr. Feeney, like Bishop Kelly of SSPV., writing a hold book on that error.
Another fact , which most of us would never known if it wasn t for the Dimonds great work and book.