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

Author Topic: Response to Neil Obstat  (Read 25008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2018, 12:50:30 PM »
Quote
3. Why do Feeneyites have such a bad reputation in the Trad world, to the point that everyone strongly dislikes them, they aren't welcome on most Traditional Catholic fora, they are often banned from Trad chapels, etc

Lots of reasons:

1.  The fake "Fr Feeney was excommunicated for being against BOD" narrative.  This put the St Benedict Center (which is in New Hampshire and Massachussets, by the way) at odds with vatican officials AND with "mainstream" catholics who never bothered to investigate further.  All of this happened pre-V2.

2.  +ABL (and the sspx) believed in BOD, in some way, so they are, by definition, antagonistic to Fr Feeney because of "the sspx is always right" and "the sspx is the savior of tradition" mindset of many of the laity.

3.  The sedevacantists also are pro-BOD, which puts them at opposition to Fr Feeney.  (Nevermind the contradiction that the purpose of sedevacantism is to throw out V2 as anathema, yet Sedes adopt BOD which was a precursor to Lumen Gentium's "universal salvation").

4.  Various other Trad movements (CMRI, FSSP) all accept BOD, so they are at odds with Fr Feeney.

Anyone else?  That's basically 99% of the catholic world who has a liberal understanding of EENS, all of whom blame Fr Feeney for "heresy" when they don't realize that the attacks on EENS have been happening since the early 1800s and that BOD acceptance was the major step necessary before V2 could happen.  The freemasons/satanists can't have the anti-christ's "one world religion" with EENS standing in the way.  The Church's "line in the sand" is too divisive.

BOD makes the conditions for a global religion possible by creating the idea that people can be saved in other religions and that their "partial truths"  are acceptable to God.  This psychological hurdle being cleared, the next step was V2's "ecuмenism" which has religions "dialogue on their similarities", with the differences being minimized (or forgotten).  The final step, a global religion like the Tower of Babel, is just a hop-skip-and-jump away.

Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2018, 02:23:06 PM »
.
Fr. Leonard Feeney had been a well-known professor in New England Catholic colleges, author of children's literature in use nationwide, and considered America's premiere theologian for many years before 1949. His framed picture was prominently placed on the walls of Catholic parochial schoolrooms for the children to see, only second to the framed picture of the Pope hanging on the same walls. When Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was going to take some time off from his regular TV show (which in those days was broadcast nearly live and not pre-recorded) the question arose as to who ought to be his temporary substitute during his absence. His recommendation was for Fr. Feeney, because he was the only man in America qualified for the task.
.
But the Modernists in Rome had other ideas. They wanted to get ready for some serious changes, and for that they needed a Council to make it all happen. They needed to hold a Council, but opposed to that there were two obstacles. Number one obstacle was they needed a Pope to make it happen. That was a big project with lots of pieces to arrange. Number two obstacle was that one naggingly staunch voice of Traditionalism that had to be silenced so as not to interfere with their plans; and there was one priest in particular who more than anyone else on planet earth embodied the power of that voice: Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now, Obstacle Number One was going to take some time, but Obstacle Number Two could be perhaps dispatched much more expediently. IOW they had to get Fr. Feeney OUT OF THE WAY so they could concentrate on Obstacle Number One: The Pope.
.
Suddenly one day, all the photographs of Fr. Feeney on all the school classroom walls across America were removed. They were hanging there one day, and the next day there was just a shadow of less-faded paint where the picture used to hang. How did the Modernists accomplish that magic trick? They used the services of one Francesco Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani to send a personal letter from Rome to the Archbishop of Boston, Mass., concerning the Obstacle Number Two. Then Abp. Cushing published it, under the auspices of it being some kind of official Church matter for the consumption of all the faithful (when it was in fact nothing of the sort). It was Romanita in action. They later would try the same tactics on Fr. Nicholas Gruner, among others, and they no doubt had done likewise many times in the previous 2,000 years. IOW business as usual, for Romans. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani would die in January of 1951, and Cushing would publish the (objectively invalid) excommunication of Fr. Feeney in 1953. Everything in due time. "These things must be handled delicately!" (Wicked Witch of the West, from "The Wizard of Oz")
.
They had to get Fr. Feeney out of the way, because they knew that if they got all the rest of their ducks in a row, this one priest alone would be able to prevent their Vatican II success from happening. And he would have. And they knew it. So he had to go.


Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2018, 02:47:26 PM »
I vaguely remember that as a child, and I remembered a picture being suddenly removed. At that time, I did not even know about Fr. Leonard Feeney. In our school, that picture was quickly replaced by a picture of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen who was widely popular with the laity.

I do, however, remember that my dad was quite upset. He told us that Father Feeney was not a heretic, but a good devout priest.

Long before Vatican II, in the mid to late 1950s, during the reign of Pius XII, my father could see the modernists at work already trying to destroy the Roman Catholic Church from within. Every day when my brother and I came home from our local parochial school, he would question us to see what the nuns and priests were up to. Often our discussion took place at the dinner table, giving us all indigestion.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2018, 03:03:15 PM »
I do, however, remember that my dad was quite upset. He told us that Father Feeney was not a heretic, but a good devout priest.

You needn't be an expert theologians to tell the good guys from the bad in that saga.  All anyone needed to do was to have a look at who Father Feeney's greatest enemies were ... Jews, liberal Catholics (like the Kennedies), and the heresiarch Cardinal Richard Cushing.  These were the ones spewing unabashed modernism and pushing for ecuмenism and "reform" well before Vatican II.  Even if you disagree with Father Feeney on BoD, Father was decidedly one of the proto-Traditonalists waging battle as the storms of Vatican II were starting to brew.  What a shame that he's now demonized by so many Traditional Catholics as somehow worse than the Conciliar modernists.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2018, 03:21:23 PM »
Ok, I updated my section on Feeneyism.

What is your position on Feeneyism?

I completely disagree with the Feeneyites, at least as I understand them. But I'll admit I've never looked into the issue very deeply. I only know what I've been told about them. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as taught by the Council of Trent. God is free and is not limited to His ordinary means. I also prefer St. Thomas Aquinas whenever he conflicts with St. Augustine. But I think that most of the endless discussions of EENS, implicit faith, membership in the Church, etc. are not time well-spent, unless you are a priest and/or trained theologian. For my purposes, every non-Catholic needs to be converted to the Traditional Catholic Faith and water baptized, period. That will be my recommendation for 100% of potential converts I come across. And I completely oppose the false ecuмenism of Vatican II which killed the Church's missionary spirit. But for me, opposing Vatican II is enough. I don't care if some priest wants to trace the false ecuмenism of Vatican II to some earlier seed, long before Vatican II. Practically speaking, the Church was OK before Vatican II and was not OK after it. So to me the whole thing is academic, like arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. The academic discussions of what is necessary for a pagan to save his soul completely bores me, as it should because it's not my field. It is above me, and above my training. I am only concerned with the practical: Send in the missionaries already! All non-Catholics need to be taught the whole Catholic Faith and water baptized. We Traditional Catholics have bigger fish to fry, like dealing with the neo-pagan Modern World. In summary, discussion of these topics requires theological knowledge -- it should be done by theologians trained in Traditional Catholic universities and seminaries. I am not a theologian, nor do I play one on TV. So I remain aloof from these discussions, which are not profitable for me (or for most Catholics) to engage in.