I'm rather disappointed to see someone, anyone for that matter, conflate what the followers of the great Fr. Leonard Feeney MICM, believe and teach is wholly defined by one small topic which isn't even their issue. BoD is a thing that others use to hurl accusations at them, without cause, and anyone who buys into that feeding-frenzy isn't practicing the virtue of charity.
.
Matthew, you are truly ignorant of what goes on among any of the several groups you refer to as "Feeneyites." Their signature issue is EENS and the conversion of America, which you blindly ignore to your own inadequacy of knowledge. Who else dares to say that their crusade is the conversion of America? Is that the theme of St. Dominic's Chapel, for example? If you would like it to become so, you couldn't do any better than to learn a few pointers from the parishioners, brothers and sisters of the "Feeneyites." I challenge anyone to find a group of Catholics anywhere that comprehensively teach the whole of Catholic Tradition and culture any more thoroughly than they do at the St. Benedict Centers. You have obviously never bothered to physically go to any of them to see for yourself, but instead rely on what others say about them. Their doors are always open to visitors.
.
You would be warmly encouraged to pay them a visit and see for yourself, if you really want to know the truth. Or, which is perhaps more likely, you will continue to go on in your narrow-mindedness and myopic ignorance of the reality.
So it's a combination of the unpopularity of their position and the black eyes they get from being lumped in with the Dimondites. They often get banned from forums simply because the moderator has concluded that Feeneyism is heresy.
https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml
Q. Is it, then, the will of God that all men should be Catholics?
A. Yes; because it is only in the Roman Catholic Church that they can learn the will of God; that is, the full doctrine of Jesus Christ, which alone can save them.
Q. Did Jesus Christ Himself assure us most solemnly, and in plain words, that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. He did, when He said to His Apostles: "Go and teach all nations, and teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth not all these things shall be condemned ...
Q. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that none can be saved out of the Church?
A. On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert this doctrine most emphatically.
Q. Why?
A. Because Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles have taught it in very plain language ...
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance ...
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Dearly Beloved Christians – When Our Divine Savior sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is Baptized," said the Son of the Living God, "shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned – or is damned. Hence, then, two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.
We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith. Human faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the authority of God, all the Truths that God has revealed; that is Divine Faith. To believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitating; for the moment you commence to doubt or hesitate; that moment you commence to distrust the authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His Word. Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting, without hesitating. Human faith is when we believe a thing upon the authority of men – on human authority. That is human Faith. But Divine Faith is to believe without hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God ... "Well, yes," says my Protestant friend "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God we must believe all that Christ has taught."
We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. Christ, then, we must believe, and that is the true FAith; we must believe all that Christ has taught,that God has revealed, and without that Faith there is no salvation, without that Faith there is no hope of Heaven, without that Faith there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it. "He that believeth not shall be condemned," says Christ ...
Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has." And so says the Catholic: God has given us such a means. What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the Truth that God has revealed? "The Bible," says my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say, "No; not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church God."
I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers into the bargain, to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the living God.
For, my dear people, if God had intended that man should learn His religion from a book – the Bible – surely God would have given that book to man; Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
"Feeneyites." Their signature issue is EENS and the conversion of America.
What is EENS? I just did a duckduckgo.com search as those letters stump me every time.In English: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
1. It's not just one or two people that say that "Feeneyites deny BoD, BoB" -- it's pretty much everyone. I'll admit it's the short version, and probably a highly simplified version. I'll also admit that I'm no expert on the intricate details of Feeneyism or the controversy that surrounds the group..
2. Are you saying that Feeneyites accept the doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?.
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. Are you suggesting there's some kind of evil Illuminati-level conspiracy throughout the Trad world (across the board, in every group, even though most Trad groups completely oppose each other) to denigrate the reputation of a group of integral Catholics whose only fault is being seriously apostolic? Are you saying everyone hates you because you're holy and good, or because everyone is just jealous? Sorry, I don't buy that. You have a long way to go if you hope to convince me..
4. Yes, insofar as it's possible, St. Dominic's Chapel would like to see the conversion of America. Now personally I don't see this small Resistance chapel having much of an influence beyond a 1.5 hour driving radius, especially with no resident priest, but you brought it up....
5. I had never heard of St. Benedict Centers nor did I know what they were about. I guess there isn't one anywhere near my hometown (same as TAN Books) nor my current stomping grounds (San Antonio area). And if there is, I can only conclude they must be doing a lousy job of putting themselves out there, being apostolic, garnering good publicity, etc..
6. If the nearest St. Benedict Center is more than 45 min. away, I certainly won't be visiting. Not from any apathy towards the truth, but because my duties of state don't allow it. Sorry..
7. You should be grateful that CathInfo is the ONE Traditional Catholic forum (with a membership greater than 50) that allows Feeneyites to join or speak at all. I'm not exaggerating here. Most forums exclude Feeneyites in their official rules/charter. Yes, I place the Feeneyite group/controversy in a ghetto so as not to annoy the rest of the membership, but if there is indeed a global conspiracy to slander the group as you claim, then I am doing more than 99.9% of people to help rectify that. I am giving you a platform to defend yourselves and make your case -- to put the "truth" out there, if indeed the truth is different than the common belief about Feeneyites..
I'm not afraid of the Truth..
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
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.
Practically speaking, the Church was OK before Vatican II and was not OK after it.
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.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.
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.I get what you're saying, but in reality, the crisis in the Church started in the 1800s, reached a peak when Pope Pius IX was imprisoned by the masons, then orthodoxy returned with Pope St Pius X. After St Pius X, liberalism resurfaced gradually, gradually, gradually, until V2 systematically opened the floodgates for practical change.
I get what you're saying, but in reality, the crisis in the Church started in the 1800s, reached a peak when Pope Pius IX was imprisoned by the masons, then orthodoxy returned with Pope St Pius X. After St Pius X, liberalism resurfaced gradually, gradually, gradually, until V2 systematically opened the floodgates for practical change.However the Church has had to grapple with heretics "both foreign and domestic" so to speak for all of its history. In the 30s things were certainly starting to get bad, like a small virus had infected the Church and was slowly infecting it - but we were still far better off than at many points before in Church history where the Church was facing heresies, schisms, anti-Popes, etc. It was only with Vatican II that the modernist virus brewing for a long time finally took over its "host cell"(the Catholic Church) so to speak. Before Vatican 2 we were dealing with a brewing crisis, but still a very much precedented one and a lot better off than at other times in Church history - it was only with John XXIII and Vatican 2 that the modernists took over and caused this unprecedented crisis that we've been grappling with these last 60 odd years.
So, yes, you can argue that until V2, the Faith taught to the laity was "orthodox" strictly speaking. But there were rumblings of modernism beginning to form like black clouds even in the 30s. Ideas always come before action. The change in ideas happened LONG before V2.
These black clouds were the modernist theologians, bishops and cardinals who had been teaching in the seminaries and in charge of the dioceses, since the 30s. They corrupted the priests/bishops/seminarians first, in anticipation of V2, since they knew that they would need the clergy to "sell" the laity on the changes. There's plenty of pictures i've seen from the 40s and 50s of liturgical "experimentation" going on (a lot in Germany and France) but these were not isolated events. Just as the freemasons "test the waters" for political reasons, so they did so with the changes in the Church.
Before Vatican 2 we were dealing with a brewing crisis, but still a very much precedented one and a lot better off than at other times in Church history - it was only with John XXIII and Vatican 2 that the modernists took over and caused this unprecedented crisis that we've been grappling with these last 60 odd years.Yes good points. V2 was the practical application of errors which started at the 1789 French Revolution. Pre-V2, the "brewing crisis" was caused by the modernists/freemasons and they are the same ones who trashed the Church at V2, when the crisis went from "brewed" to "boiling over". My point is that from the early 1800s til now, the common enemy is the same - freemason/modernists. You won't understand the problem completely, nor be able to solve it, until you recognize the enemy.
There are a lot of good points here by everyone. It's nice to see so much agreement for a change! :farmer:This, and thanks Neil and the others. It is refreshing.
.
I agree that the rot traces all the way back to the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. The peak of Christendom was St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's. It was all downhill after that.
However, if I woke up tomorrow and found myself in 1961 on a Sunday, and I chose NOT to attend my local parish (or any other parish) for Mass, I would be committing a MORTAL SIN worthy of sending me to Hell for eternity if I didn't repent and confess my sin to a priest before death.
That is what I mean by "The Church was OK before Vatican II".
Heck, the Protestants think the rot goes back before the Council of Trent, and they jumped ship (the ship being the Catholic Church) back in the early 1500's. Were they just forward thinking avant-garde, or were they a bunch of heretics?
We've always had bad priests, even priests so bad they taught heresy, whether formal or material.
However, it wasn't until Vatican II that heresy was institutionalized -- to the point that you were more likely than not to encounter heresy in its priests. The actual organization, the actual fundamentals of the post-Conciliar Church actually favored heresy. See my recent post about "isolated" problems vs. fundamental ones:
@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?
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:
.Edit
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
.The Point (May 1953) (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/category/1953/page/2/)
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.
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.
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.
..
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 05, 2018, 01:29:10 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/response-to-neil-obstat/msg625362/#msg625362)QuoteI 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.
I don't think it's correct to refer to him as "Fr. Feeney". The title "Father" indicates not just the character of holy orders, but spiritual fatherhood conferred by the Church. Now, Leonard Feeney was suspended and even excommunicated, so that it was mortally sinful for him to exercise his sacramental powers, which he did anyway. His spiritual fatherhood was taken away by the Church.
Calling him "Father Feeney" is like saying "Father Martin Luther" or "Father George Tyrrell" or "Bishop Nestorius".
I don't think it's correct to refer to him as "Fr. Feeney". The title "Father" indicates not just the character of holy orders, but spiritual fatherhood conferred by the Church. Now, Leonard Feeney was suspended and even excommunicated, so that it was mortally sinful for him to exercise his sacramental powers, which he did anyway. His spiritual fatherhood was taken away by the Church.
Calling him "Father Feeney" is like saying "Father Martin Luther" or "Father George Tyrrell" or "Bishop Nestorius".
It's pretty common knowledge that the excommunion was null, being it didn't follow canon law. Fr Feeney was never given the opportunity to object/explain his side, which is a foundational aspect of any legal system. The Modernists used PR/Media to label him a heretic, knowing that canon law was on his side. Fr Feeney was "convicted" by the media and in public opinion, just like the liberals do today. It was a total farce and still is.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, couldn't you say the same thing about +ABL, and by extension, the 4 original SSPX bishops? Just insert each of their names in your quote (above) in place of "Fr. Feeney"..
I mean, while we're rubber stamping all excommunications as automatically legitimate, despite any irregularities and/or injustices...
The part about Fr. Feeney not getting a trial really hit home with me.
Just like most people would say, "Am I doing the right thing?" if they were tasked with putting criminals to death, likewise the Church wants to be as certain as possible, before conferring the ULTIMATE PENALTY on a part of the Mystical Body of Christ. We're talking about cutting off a limb from the body. You want to be sure! Would you have one of your limbs amputated because the cashier at Target told you it was necessary? I'm sure you'd want more certainty than that.
It's pretty common knowledge that the excommunion was null, being it didn't follow canon law..
Fr Feeney was never given the opportunity to object/explain his side, which is a foundational aspect of any legal system.
The Modernists used PR/Media to label him a heretic, knowing that canon law was on his side. Fr Feeney was "convicted" by the media and in public opinion, just like the liberals do today. It was a total farce and still is.
Every condemned person says he was framed or railroaded.
So...if you found yourself on trial for murder, and you're innocent, you would say "I didn't do it" -- and someone would likely come back with "Hah! That's classic. Every criminal claims they didn't do it!".
In other words, that's neither here nor there.
The point is that there have been priests who got a bee in their bonnet about something or other, refused to obey their ecclesiastical superiors due to pride, used all kinds of legalistic sophistries to explain away their punishments and explain why they would ignore their censures, and normally never repented. Feeney is just the only one Americans have heard of.
This is completely false. He appealed for redress to the superior of the Jesuit order, who in response sent a Jesuit to speak with him, who (if I recall correctly) would assess the situation. Feeney refused to so much as speak with this man.Ok, but did the Jesuit Superior (and we all know how liberal the Jesuits are) follow canon law? Probably not, which is why Fr Feeney didn't speak with him.
I believe the archdiocese also summoned Feeney in to discuss his dispute as well.If rome has charged you, and the main heretic behind your charge is +Cushing, the head of the archdiocese, why would you talk to him? He already thinks you're guilty...he's the one who told rome about you.
And when Feeney appealed to Rome, he was summon to Rome to discuss the matter and refused to go.He appealed to rome to ask them 1) give me a formal notice and 2) explain what I did wrong. He never received this, in violation of canon law. He was just told to "go to rome".
Yes, he had numerous opportunities to explain his side to various levels of ecclesiastical superiors, and refused to do so.And all these superiors were acting in suspect ways, violating laws, and the rights of the defendent. It was a setup.
And all these superiors were acting in suspect ways, violating laws, and the rights of the defendent. It was a setup.Yep, I imagine that the smear campaign against the good Fr. Feeney was successful beyond their wildest dreams, so successful that it's going to be 100 years old before too long - and the masses still believe the crooks are good guys and the good guys are the crooks.
Example: If you're arrested out-of-state, and you ask the police for a phone call to call your VERY powerful lawyer friend, but they deny your phone call and appoint you some local 2-bit "defense lawyer", wouldn't you refuse to speak to this guy? Because legally, if you speak to him, then (in some states) this constitutes acceptance of your defense, which means the local judge can then call a trial and charge you. The smart/legal thing to do is to refuse to talk to this lawyer, avoid the trap, and wait to call your lawyer friend..
Concerning the worth of the decisions issued by Sacred Roman Congregations, let us recall that Saint Pius X, in the Decree Lamentabilii adjunct to the Encyclical Pascendi, condemned the modernist proposition according to which “They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.”
why would you take the side of an excommunicated priest against the Holy Office?ffice is wrong (!), the Jesuit order is wrong (!), the bishop of Boston is wrong (!)1. The Cardinal in charge of the Holy Office did not publish his charge against Fr Feeney into the AAS. Therefore, was it an official charge from the Holy Office? Legally, it can't be. Or, was it simply a letter from a Cardinal (in rome) to another Cardinal (+Cushing in Boston), disguised and reported as legit, so that liberals could silence someone speaking the truth? The fact that it wasn't formalized it quite telling.
the fact that you are putting the most sacred tribunal on this earth, the Holy Office, which operates under the direct supervision of the pope himself, on the level of a shady small town court kind of shows what's wrong with the Feeney side of this whole thing.Canon Law is a human invention and it operates just like any other legal authority. There are rules and procedures to follow, or else the law was violated. If any institution on the face of the earth should uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, it's the Church.
1. The Cardinal in charge of the Holy Office did not publish his charge against Fr Feeney into the AAS. Therefore, was it an official charge from the Holy Office? Legally, it can't be. Or, was it simply a letter from a Cardinal (in rome) to another Cardinal (+Cushing in Boston), disguised and reported as legit, so that liberals could silence someone speaking the truth? The fact that it wasn't formalized it quite telling.Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....
2. ?? You're defending the Jesuits? All this happened in the 40s. Just 20 years later, the Jesuits were the ones responsible for defending V2. You don't think they were super liberal in the 40s?
3. +Cushing was so liberal, he would've fit right in with any of our most Modernist commie "clerics" today.
Canon Law is a human invention and it operates just like any other legal authority. There are rules and procedures to follow, or else the law was violated. If any institution on the face of the earth should uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal, it's the Church.
You are obviously very biased against Fr Feeney and can't look at this situation objectively.
Seems like a good time to re-post evidence against the criminal who started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and Fr. Feeney - and for his efforts was later elevated to Cardinal....Interesting, the last link, Stubborn. "Fr Feeney was not available for comment of Archbishop Lefebvre's activities". Does anyone know what he thought about ABL and the SSPX?
Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing)
Archbishop of Boston Cushing, was made a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by Pope John XXXIII in 1958.
He was also one of the cardinal electors in the 1963 papal conclave, which selected Pope Paul VI.
He was on good terms with practically the entire Boston elite.
Cushing built useful(?) relationships with Jєωs, Protestants, and institutions outside the usual Catholic community.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jєωs of deicide charge.
He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church.[16] In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.
He was a member of the NAACP.
Oh, and his sister was married to a Jєω
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19450525&id=_JYgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3355,4088610) May 1945 - Cushing attends interfaith dinner
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=958&dat=19481127&id=YTlQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y1YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2185,630152) Nov. 1948 - Archbishop Cushing, dwelling on the need for brotherhood, pledged the friendship of American Catholics with Jєωs.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Archbishop Cushing says teaching the dogma of No salvation outside the Church is “teaching ideas leading to bigotry.” Group is censured for publishing quarterly magazine contending that persons dying outside the Church could not be saved.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19490422&id=2FwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1867,2814290) April 1949 - New catechism is changed, now upholds Boston College and Archbishop Cushing claim that there is salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19491029&id=0bwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s5wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5541,3830000) Oct. 1949 - Fr. Feeney silenced by Archbishop Cushing for preaching there is no salvation outside the Church.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19490427&id=P-lOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1853,4616441) April 1949 - Cushing states: “This absolute requirement of an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church, as a condition of salvation is clearly wrong. All theologians hold that faith and charity or perfect contrition involving an implicit desire to join the Church suffice for salvation.” (Sounds like LoT, Ambrose, &etc.)
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19530220&id=ogMiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k00EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2424,1672479) Feb. 1953 - Cushing excommunicated “heresy priest” for disobedience, not for heresy.
Link (http://www.jta.org/1970/11/04/archive/Jєωιѕн-leaders-express-sorrow-at-death-of-cardinal-cushing)
Nov. 1970 - Cardinal Cushing receives praise from the Jєωs
Jєωιѕн leaders expressed sorrow today over the death yesterday at the age of 75 of Richard Cardinal Cushing. Archbishop of Boston since 1944 and a friend of Israel and the Jєωs. Philip E. Hoffman, president of the American Jєωιѕн Committee, said “Jєωιѕн people throughout the world will always remember with satisfaction Cardinal Cushing’s efforts to achieve an honest and meaningful statement on the Roman Catholic Church and the Jєωs five years ago in Rome at the Second Vatican Council.” Cardinal Cushing he said, “was at the forefront in this tremendously important endeavor,” and “the positive results of Vatican Council II will be a lasting memorial to the Cardinal.” World Jєωry. Mr. Hoffman said, “has lost a friend and champion.” Seymour Graubard, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. said Jєωs the world over will always remember the dramatic plea Cardinal Cushing made on the floor of Vatican Council II five years ago in Rome. “His distinctive voice echoed through the chamber as he asked the Council to “cry out” against “any inequity, hatred or persecution of our Jєωιѕн brothers,”
The UAHC official added that Cardinal Cushing “was a liberal in the truest sense of the word, practicing the principles of ecuмenism long before the term became fashionable.”
Cardinal Cushing, whose efforts at ecuмenism extended to ѕуηαgσgυє oratory, received a rare tribute when he implored Vatican Council II to reject the doctrine of Jєωιѕн guilt for the death of Jesus. The bishops, who normally do not applaud speakers, did so for him.
Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19770701&id=Qo1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=93kNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7089,109998) July 1977 - Fr. Feeney, silenced in 1949, excommunicated in 1953 for condemning the teachings of Boston College that persons outside the Church could attain salvation after death, was reinstated in 1972 without having to recant his position.