Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Response to Neil Obstat  (Read 1502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Struthio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 376
  • Reputation: +86/-57
  • Gender: Male
Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2018, 09:25:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @Neil Obstat

    A few years ago I read an early 1950s issue of the American Ecclesiatical Review online. If I recall correctly, it had an article by Joseph Clifford Fenton about the 1949 Holy Office letter; or maybe about a related topic. More fascinating, it had another article about the situation of and developments in the Church since St. Pius X. up to the 1940s. The article was portraying modernism as having been defeated. St. Pius X. had been somewhat hardhanded, which was no longer necessary. Problem is: I can't find the issue anymore. Do you (or anyone else here) have an idea where I can look for it?

    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17911
    • Reputation: +8175/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #31 on: September 14, 2018, 12:30:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @Neil Obstat

    A few years ago I read an early 1950s issue of the American Ecclesiatical Review online. If I recall correctly, it had an article by Joseph Clifford Fenton about the 1949 Holy Office letter; or maybe about a related topic. More fascinating, it had another article about the situation of and developments in the Church since St. Pius X. up to the 1940s. The article was portraying Modernism as having been defeated. St. Pius X had been somewhat hard-handed, which was no longer necessary. Problem is: I can't find the issue anymore. Do you (or anyone else here) have an idea where I can look for it?
    .
    You might check the archives of Catholic Family News, since the late John Vennari was a major fanboy of the same Fr. Fenton. 
    .
    Remember that in his last days, the prescient Pope St. Pius X foretold that Modernism would go underground for a while, but eventually would raise its head again once the penalties and admonitions he had put in place had been relaxed. So Fenton was working really hard to bring the Saint's prophesy to rapid fulfillment. Not exactly what would be expected of heroic virtue, eh? He may as well had been striving to make Freedom of Religion more popular, or making more widespread the infatuation with a pluralistic society. 
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6952
    • Reputation: +406/-159
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #32 on: September 14, 2018, 10:52:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Well, Bishop Williamson would disagree; he traces the rot back to the Renaissance.  I know you qualified it with "practically speaking" ... as in you had the Tridentine Mass, but we surely must know by now that the Crisis is about the faith and not just the Mass.
    Does bp Williamson believe that E rev around S or S rev around E? :confused:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6952
    • Reputation: +406/-159
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #33 on: September 14, 2018, 11:02:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    There are a lot of good points here by everyone. It's nice to see so much agreement for a change!   :farmer:
    .
    Nobody has mentioned the liberalizers by name, though. What about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?
    He circulated his one-page screeds of liberalism bilgewater-theology among seminarians and got away with it.
    He was like a termite chewing or a cancer growing and nobody was the wiser.
    He even faked archaeological discoveries to support evolution with his lies! He got away with that too!
    His offense against the Faith had become so great and recognized as such before he died he was refused Christian burial.
    But his worldly buddies found a way of getting that "rectified" before long -- maybe now Francis can canonize him.
    .
    Or Annibale Bugnini?  Remember, he was the guy that Freemasons convinced Pope Pius XII to put into an office of power.
    He survived the Pope, even though he started his dirty work during Pius XII's lifetime.
    But after 1958, Bugnini really went into high gear.
    Perhaps if Siri had been elected in 1962 he could have sent Bugnini packing but John XXIII wouldn't hear of it.
    No, Bugnini went full bore after Fr. Feeney was marginalized, making great strides toward Vat.II.
    Bugnini was buried behind a Freemason's grave stone.
    .
    And don't forget:
    Ives Congar, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, John Courtney Murray, and the infamous J. Ratzinger!
    Fr. Feeney was 100% aware of their rotten ideology and did whatever he could to fight it, but he had been neutralized.
    Thanks to Archbishop Cushing who was awarded the Red Hat for his accomplishment! Big happy times were ahead.
    For the Liberals that is.
    Every single one of these creeps were enemies of the thrice-defined dogma of the Faith.
    And I'm not talking about BoD or BoB. THE dogma is EENS.
    Fr. Feeney had been trained as a Jesuit, and had personally known these creeps.
    They were his contemporaries.
    Knowing them is why he left the Jesuits behind and founded the MICM -- Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
    (So often when told what MICM means, Newchurch nuns spout instinctively, "Oh, we don't like that!")
    (Could that be what irritates the busybodies who sneer their lips when they say "Feeneyism" and "Feeneyites?")
    (Or, is it the tried-and-true, knee-jerk erroneous presumption that BoD and BoB is what defines it/them?)
    .
    We need to keep reminding ourselves of that fact, that BoB and BoD were never issues of contention for Fr. Feeney.
    He was all about EENS and the missionary spirit in America.
    Bad teaching and irrational misinterpretation of BoD and BoB were destroying both THE dogma and the spirit.
    So they became something like an also-ran issue that got rare mention.
    But rare mention is all enemies like Fr. Martin Stepanich or mealy-mouthed Michael Matt needed to get their dukes up.
    (Let's all gang up on a great priest who defends the TLM like we PRETEND to do, and get some free publicity out of it!)
    .
    It took a special genius in Fr. Feeney to point out the key problem with Liberals/Modernists.
    He recognized that EENS was THE ISSUE that was being attacked, and because he did so he was virtually crucified.
    By foes and would-be friends alike.
    And what you see today is part of that. It's still happening.
    Every time you denounce "Feeneyism" and "Feeneyites" as if those are foul words, you're contributing to the problem!
    You make yourself part of the
    Edit
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8781
    • Reputation: +3463/-720
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #34 on: September 15, 2018, 07:56:28 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    You might check the archives of Catholic Family News, since the late John Vennari was a major fanboy of the same Fr. Fenton.
    .
    Remember that in his last days, the prescient Pope St. Pius X foretold that Modernism would go underground for a while, but eventually would raise its head again once the penalties and admonitions he had put in place had been relaxed. So Fenton was working really hard to bring the Saint's prophesy to rapid fulfillment. Not exactly what would be expected of heroic virtue, eh? He may as well had been striving to make Freedom of Religion more popular, or making more widespread the infatuation with a pluralistic society.
    The Point (May 1953)

    THE OVERSEERS OF AMERICAN THEOLOGY

    ....Of these doctrinal dictators, the three outstanding are Father Francis J. Connell, C. Ss. R., Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton, and Monsignor Matthew Smith. These three priests have emerged from nowhere to set themselves up as the official and unquestioned American theologians. Not even the Pope is able to speak to American Catholics without their mediation. His pronouncements require their interpretations, which infallibly follow, in order to make them clear and to show what he was really trying to say.

    The opinions and interpretations of Fathers Connell, Fenton, and Smith are disseminated by means of one journal, one university, and many newspapers. These are, respectively, The American Ecclesiastical Review, of which Fenton is the editor and Connell the associate editor; the Catholic University of America, at which Fenton was, and Connell is, Dean of the School of Theology; and the newspapers that print articles issued by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, of which Connell is the star performer, together with the Denver Register, of which Smith is the editor and featured columnist.

    Monsignor Fenton likes to make it appear that he is terribly strong and intransigent on the matter of dogma, and that he is persecuted on account of this by those with more liberal ideas. However, as is plainly evident to any long-term reader of Fenton’s Ecclesiastical Review, there is no lasting difference between him and the liberals; he merely says what they say two years later.

    In his interpretations of the doctrine “no salvation outside the Church,” his prize interpretations, Fenton lays down conditions for non-Catholic salvation that are so rigid and far-fetched that practically no one can meet them. (This is to show his “terrible strength.”) However, it does not bother him that those who want to go all out for getting non-Catholics into Heaven, do so using his reasons and his authority. All the liberals need is one little loophole, which Fenton gives. Through that loophole, the liberals are able, in their need, to squeeze every Protestant and Jew in America.....
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Struthio

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 376
    • Reputation: +86/-57
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #35 on: September 15, 2018, 08:49:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You might check the archives of Catholic Family News, since the late John Vennari was a major fanboy of the same Fr. Fenton.

    Thank you, Neil Obstat, but unfortunately google gives five results with no reference to what I am looking for.

    google: site:catholicfamilynews.org Fenton


    Remember that in his last days, the prescient Pope St. Pius X foretold that Modernism would go underground for a while, but eventually would raise its head again once the penalties and admonitions he had put in place had been relaxed. So Fenton was working really hard to bring the Saint's prophesy to rapid fulfillment. Not exactly what would be expected of heroic virtue, eh? He may as well had been striving to make Freedom of Religion more popular, or making more widespread the infatuation with a pluralistic society.

    I am interested in that article because it is of historical interest. I found another article of Joseph Fenton which shows his neo-modernist brazenness. It is an article of his published in 1960 about the motu proprio introducing the oath against modernism:

    Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism, By Mgr. Joseph Fenton, The American Ecclesiastical Review, Pages: 239-260, October 1960.

    Quote from: Joseph Fenton
    Yet, for the Modernists and for those who co-operated in their work, the immediate object of attack was always the faith itself. These individuals were perfectly willing that the Catholic Church should continue to exist as a religious society, as long as it did not insist upon the acceptance of that message which, all during the course of the previous centuries of its existence, it had proposed as a message supernaturally revealed by the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. They were willing and even anxious to retain their membership in the Catholic Church, as long as they were not obliged to accept on the authority of divine faith such unfashionable dogmas as, for example, the truth that there is truly no salvation outside of the Church.

    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17911
    • Reputation: +8175/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #36 on: November 13, 2018, 12:28:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    I just came back and read this thread again, and it remains as interesting as it did from the beginning.
    .
    .
    Quote from: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 01:29:10 PM
    Quote
    I know you qualified it with "practically speaking" ... as in you had the Tridentine Mass, but we surely must know by now that the Crisis is about the faith and not just the Mass.
    .
    Actually, there was no coherent, competing "new religion" or "newfaith" before Vatican II either. The Faith was intact. Perhaps some bad ideas here and there were brewing, but overall Catholic priests and bishops had the Faith before Vatican II. Ergo, the Crisis didn't start until Vatican II.

    You're talking about universal purity of doctrine, but I say: you will have a hard time finding purity of anything where human beings are involved. There are always rebels, idiots, poor students, heretics, and bad ideas even in the best of organizations and the best of times.
    .
    When I saw this post by Matthew, the analogy occurred to me as follows:
    ,
    "Actually, there was no coherent, competing 'new religion' or 'newfaith' before Vatican II either... Ergo, the Crisis didn't start until Vatican II."
    .
    Suppose you go to the doctor with annoying symptoms and he runs some tests, with the results coming back that you have cancer: a crisis.
    .
    That would be the "official announcement" or when it became known or "institutionalized" that your cancer exists and is a reality.
    .
    Does that mean you had no cancer before the doctor's diagnosis?  I hope you would say, "NO, the cancer was real before it was diagnosed."
    .
    Similarly, the NEW RELIGION or the NEWFAITH was likewise real before Vat.II, because the Modernists had been working hard all along.
    .
    The NEW RELIGION and NEWFAITH was perhaps in some ways incipient and not fleshed out, but its key elements were well underway.
    .
    The Modernists knew exactly what they were doing, it was merely a matter of how to announce it and protect it from being wiped out.
    .
    So the doctor recommends a treatment plan, with rigorous procedures and unpleasant experiences you will have to endure.
    .
    But at Vat.II, the doctor's remedy was subverted and the microbes or virulent diseased cells were not controlled or eliminated.
      At Vat.II the unclean spirit won the day, and followers of what they thought was the Church Teaching carried out the changes.
      They conformed the visible Church to the disease that the doctor would have fought against.
    .
    You don't think the doctor's plan is a good one and you seek alternative treatment. You want a more certain answer to your health crisis.
      You have known too many cancer patients who died after undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments.
      You do some research and find that in the 1930's a scientist won the Nobel Prize for discovering that cancer cannot spread in a high oxygen environment.
      You do more research to find that one way of maintaining high oxygen content in your blood is to foster in it an alkaline environment.
      Cancer requires an acidic blood system in order to grow because that depletes oxygen, according to this discovery, which is 30 years old.
      So you go looking and find ways of keeping acidity out of your body, and with persistence, the cancer disappears.
      The doctor is surprised by this development and tells you that he's never seen such a change in a cancer patient.
      He says, "After only one year, your tests show no remnant of your ever having had cancer in the past, this is unbelievable."
      But he doesn't go public with the news, nor does he write letters or publish a peer-reviewed article about it.
      He happens to be very interested in being promoted to the Board Certified elite group, so he can be president of the hospital.
    .
    At Vat.II, it would have been a historic event if the Church had pulled out of the Modernist trap and had protected Sacred Tradition.
      It would have been fairly impossible to hide the fact that Modernists were being exposed for their corruption.
      The doctors such as Fenton, et.al., would not have been the directors of the cure and recovery, but someone else could have been.
      Fr. Feeney could have been such a director, but for him to help, the patient, the Church, would have had to seek his aid.
      Father had seen the writing on the wall 20 years before, and had set his sights on defending EENS.
      Because the Modernist attack on the Church could not have survived if EENS had been protected and the Church Teaching had endured.
      Unfortunately for us all, the Church did not seek Father's aid, and so the cancer spread.
    .
    .
    As for the second part,
    "You're talking about universal purity of doctrine, but I say: you will have a hard time finding purity of anything where human beings are involved. There are always rebels, idiots, poor students, heretics, and bad ideas even in the best of organizations and the best of times."

    The purity of doctrine is one and the same as the Church's defined dogmas, for this is one and the same as God's revelation to man.
    .
    There is no corruption or lack of purity in the revelation of God.
    .
    Now, certainly there are mistakes man can make, and regarding dogma these mistakes are called ERRORS.
    .
    We can know what the errors of man are by learning and believing God's revelation given to us by defined dogma.
    .
    That's how important defined dogma is.
    .
    Now we have a new topic, as it were, but it's not really new. Because it's the same topic.
       Now we have the CMRI and their penchant for minimizing God's revelation given to us in defined dogma.
       They do this by claiming that BoD and BoB are defined dogmas of the Church.
       They say that if you don't accept their theological speculation (they don't call it that) then you're not welcome in their chapel.
       In other words, you must believe that these so-called defined dogmas are the Church Teaching (even though they are not).
       In so doing they cheapen defined dogma and they take away its importance.
    .
    The error of CMRI is to attack the very principle of dogma, when they say it is whatever their armchair theologians say it is.
    .
    There is a new thread on CI where an author of a new book Contra Crawford... posted his one-post-wonder contribution.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16