Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I think I'm going to have to research the entire Father Feeney story myself.  He seems to be just another victim of the lavendar mafia led by a certain cardinal with the last name of Montini who was probably signing Pope Pius XII's name to docuмents without Pope Pius XII's knowledge - behind his back like the sneak-thief Montini spent his whole wretched life.

I do notice that NO ONE was willing to debate Fr. Feeney on the issue while Fr. Feeney was alive.  

However, I will do my research.  

I think the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII was wiling to "debate" him.  They offered him a free trip to Rome but he turned it down in defiance.  If you were a good Priest and were offered a chance to air it out with them in person would you turn it down?

I apologize in advance to the crybabies who will thumb this down because they evaluate things on emotion apart from logic and get their thrills under the cover of darkness with their little vindictive thumb-downing.  

Since I know virtually nothing about Fr. Feeney I don't know if Lover of Truth is giving me a slap-down or not...   :sad:

And who knows?  Maybe my research will show Lover of Truth to be ENTIRELY correct.

I will probably start with that book put out by the SSPV "The Strange Case of Fr. Feeney."

I am entirely correct.  No slap down.  I have a lot of respect for you and your posts.

Thank you.  I've always been a fan of your posts.

Where should I start in my research on Fr. Feeney?  Do you recommend the SSPV book?

I HIGHLY recommend "The Catholic Church and Salvation" by Mosignor Fenton written in 1958 and sold by the SSPV.  

I have read Father Fenton's diary's at Catholic University.  He was trying to stop the nonsense at V2.  He would get in big fights with clergy on the definition of the Church and separation of Church and State and Religious Liberty.  He was trying to convince himself in 1963 that the council was not going to go the way he saw it going.  He was telling himself that no valid Pope would approve it.

He resigned in 1963 because I think he could not understand what was going on with the Church.

He liked Father Feeney his fellow Irish-man.  

He said something to the effect about him "I would like to see the old boy regularized".  Or something to that effect.  He called everyone old boy whether he liked them or not or whether they were old or not.

The key to understanding the Salvation issue is first to accept that it is true that theology manuals and even some few catechisms with the imprimatur and or nihil obstet did contain an erroneous way of teaching the salvation doctrine.

They took a famous writing by Bellarmine on the Church where he used the terms "body" and "soul" to describe what the Church and membership was and what it was not.  And slowly from there through the century before the death of Pius XII they twisted his meaning, I believe generally in all innocence, to mean the exact opposite of what he taught.

They expanded the definition of the Church and membership in order to square the No Salvation Outside the Church Dogma with their understanding of it.  The Feeneyites are correct about errors in approved books and even catechisms.  They are right about it being impossible to be saved outside the Church.

They are wrong in saying a non-member cannot be saved within the Church and they are wrong to deny the God cleanses the soul of Original Sin in the Baptism of Desire and in the Baptism of Blood so long as the non-member has all the other requisites necessary to be legitimately within the Church by at least an implicit desire.

The dogmas teaching no salvation outside the Church repeatedly say one must "belong" or be "joined" or "within" the Church in some way.  They never teach that one must be a member in order for salvation to be possible but repeatedly teach the contrary.

The feeneyites will say the Popes erred or we misinterpret what they wrote and they say Aquinas and all the others erred and the liturgy that celebrates saints who died without water baptism erred.  Anything but wow, all these Popes, Doctors, Saints and orthodox theologians can't be wrong.  

They also will thumb you down when they can't enter into an intelligent conversation about the issue.

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I think I'm going to have to research the entire Father Feeney story myself.  He seems to be just another victim of the lavendar mafia led by a certain cardinal with the last name of Montini who was probably signing Pope Pius XII's name to docuмents without Pope Pius XII's knowledge - behind his back like the sneak-thief Montini spent his whole wretched life.

I do notice that NO ONE was willing to debate Fr. Feeney on the issue while Fr. Feeney was alive.  

However, I will do my research.  

I think the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII was wiling to "debate" him.  They offered him a free trip to Rome but he turned it down in defiance.  If you were a good Priest and were offered a chance to air it out with them in person would you turn it down?

I apologize in advance to the crybabies who will thumb this down because they evaluate things on emotion apart from logic and get their thrills under the cover of darkness with their little vindictive thumb-downing.  

Since I know virtually nothing about Fr. Feeney I don't know if Lover of Truth is giving me a slap-down or not...   :sad:

And who knows?  Maybe my research will show Lover of Truth to be ENTIRELY correct.

I will probably start with that book put out by the SSPV "The Strange Case of Fr. Feeney."

I am entirely correct.  No slap down.  I have a lot of respect for you and your posts.

Thank you.  I've always been a fan of your posts.

Where should I start in my research on Fr. Feeney?  Do you recommend the SSPV book?

I HIGHLY recommend "The Catholic Church and Salvation" by Mosignor Fenton written in 1958 and sold by the SSPV.  

I have read Father Fenton's diary's at Catholic University.  He was trying to stop the nonsense at V2.  He would get in big fights with clergy on the definition of the Church and separation of Church and State and Religious Liberty.  He was trying to convince himself in 1963 that the council was not going to go the way he saw it going.  He was telling himself that no valid Pope would approve it.

He resigned in 1963 because I think he could not understand what was going on with the Church.

He liked Father Feeney his fellow Irish-man.  

He said something to the effect about him "I would like to see the old boy regularized".  Or something to that effect.  He called everyone old boy whether he liked them or not or whether they were old or not.

The key to understanding the Salvation issue is first to accept that it is true that theology manuals and even some few catechisms with the imprimatur and or nihil obstet did contain an erroneous way of teaching the salvation doctrine.

They took a famous writing by Bellarmine on the Church where he used the terms "body" and "soul" to describe what the Church and membership was and what it was not.  And slowly from there through the century before the death of Pius XII they twisted his meaning, I believe generally in all innocence, to mean the exact opposite of what he taught.

They expanded the definition of the Church and membership in order to square the No Salvation Outside the Church Dogma with their understanding of it.  The Feeneyites are correct about errors in approved books and even catechisms.  They are right about it being impossible to be saved outside the Church.

They are wrong in saying a non-member cannot be saved within the Church and they are wrong to deny the God cleanses the soul of Original Sin in the Baptism of Desire and in the Baptism of Blood so long as the non-member has all the other requisites necessary to be legitimately within the Church by at least an implicit desire.

The dogmas teaching no salvation outside the Church repeatedly say one must "belong" or be "joined" or "within" the Church in some way.  They never teach that one must be a member in order for salvation to be possible but repeatedly teach the contrary.

The feeneyites will say the Popes erred or we misinterpret what they wrote and they say Aquinas and all the others erred and the liturgy that celebrates saints who died without water baptism erred.  Anything but wow, all these Popes, Doctors, Saints and orthodox theologians can't be wrong.  

They also will thumb you down when they can't enter into an intelligent conversation about the issue.

Fenton is a great starting place. But if you want to get into the history of the cult, the group parenting, the child abuse, all the evils that went on under Leonard Feeney, you will see the fruits of his dissent. He basically allowed a lay woman to direct him and seize control over an organization, I don't presume to know the extent of what he knew about the child abuse, but had his actions born good fruit, I don't think the bad parts of the story would have existed.

He has his apologists, but they want to make him into a hero. That doesn't mean some of his complaints are not legitimate, but it is a complicated story with a lot of bias and subjective opinions.

Anyways, interestingly enough, Fr. Fenton and Feeney were practically living across town from one another!

And in response to the OP, oftentimes, Feeneyism held erroneously rather than the person being a heretic. I'm no friend to the Feeneyites, but I'd go to a valid old priest under the presumption that he was just caught up in the good parts of Fr. Feeney's movement and ended up getting entangled into their errors in good faith. Most Feeneyites believe Bergolio's claims and in the NO church, but are resisting most of the errors of modernism, to which Feeneyism was and is a response. When they see how bad it is in the NO Church, they must feel like they are preserving the Faith. With that view, getting them to see their error can be very hard to work through, especially with older priests.

Isn't "There is no salvation outside the Church" dogma?

 :confused1:
Since when does one become guilty of the sins of the priest from whom he receives Holy Communion?  Assuming the priest gives no reason for doubt in matter, form, intention, the communicant may receive Our Lord.  Even if a priest is in mortal sin, it is the priest who commits sacrilege, not the recipient!  Being a "Feeneyite" is not formally heretical.
BTW-I'm not a Feeneyite.

If a priest is known to be truly formally heretical, then it would be uncharitable to him to hear his mass or receive Communion.  It would then be a sin on the recipient's part as well.  The question is whether Feeneyism is a formal heresy. I know of no ruling confirming this.  

One can believe in EENS and still believe in both implicit and explicit baptism of desire.  

I think some people who believe in Baptism of desire still believe in EENS, while others, just throw away EENS and say everyone can have baptism of desire, even if they don't desire to be Catholic, because they believe in universal salvation.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Isn't "There is no salvation outside the Church" dogma?

Yes, it is a dogma, but few people believe it anymore. Instead, they think that nearly everyone goes to heaven.

One can believe in EENS and still believe in both implicit and explicit baptism of desire.  

Catholics, unless they are inculpably ignorant, MUST accept EENS and still believe that one can have both an implicit and explicit desire to join the Church, though that by itself does not save one, as the desire must be an effective desire accompanied by the other requisites, such as supernatural faith, and perfect charity, perseverance in living an upright life, sincere and persevering prayer to know and do God's will.

Not even the new Catechism teaches universal salvation ...

The council didn't really teach anything, it destroyed the certainty associated with tradition. Here is Lefebvre in 1966:

In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.

The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.

The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:
doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,

doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,

doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.

Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sɛҳuąƖity, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christian upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.

Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem, so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honour.

Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecuмenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.