I usually avoid discussions about Fr. Feeney, because I haven't studied much about him.

To get to the marrow Meg, you can check out the book "The Loyoals and the Cabots" I attached a PDF if you want to check it out. Below is the opening paragraphs of the book's Introduction which imo, if you only want the jist of the book, pretty much says it all - it's basically the same tactics that are still used today by the Libs to squash the opposition.

In a nutshell, some Harvard Students who attended some of Fr. Feeney's talks, protested to the dean of Harvard that Harvard  was teaching heresy against EENS. This is the snowball that was turned into a glacier, it is what started the whole smear campaign against the dogma and against Fr. Feeney.

"The Loyoals and the Cabots"

Introduction

This book is going to press one year after the people of the United States, and eventually the people of the
world were shocked by, a stubborn profession of faith made on the part of some Boston Catholics, who were
at once silenced and interdicted by the ecclesiastical and sacerdotal authorities in what has come to be known
far and wide as the “Boston Heresy Case.”

The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immєdιαtely suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most
Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never
accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be
noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation
made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished
by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being
punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.

Woops! Meant to put this in the other thread!

I do not believe you agree with St. Alphonsus.

Knowing that a BOD is not a sacrament, the great saint said:

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as the heretics say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire". -
From: (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)

Am I right, do you disagree with him here?

Sorry man, but this deserves a big How is it that BODers do not see that a BOD is justification by faith alone?

Trent says if anyone saith that men obtain justification without the desire for the sacrament, let him be anathema.
Trent NEVER says that *with* the desire, men obtain justification, only that without it there is no justification. Which means they purposely left the idea of justification via a desire up in the air. But they were quite clear on the necessity of the sacrament for salvation.

So BODers cannot say honestly, that Trent teaches such a thing as, "with a desire men are justified", and to say a BOD saves is a blatant misquote of Trent. BODers, if they are going to quote Trent, must do so honestly and can only say "without the desire, men are not justified" - which means what it says. What you said in bold is your own opinion shared by others, even other great saints - but that is *not* what the Church infallibly taught at Trent.

Which is to say the title of this thread should be changed to The Absurdity of the BODers

I agree entirely with St. Alphonsus. Let me ask you, if St. Alphonsus was alive, and you wrote to him, and he and the Popes who praised him (including Pope Benedict XIV, who once said "You have Bp. Liguori with you; why write to me; just ask him") corrected you, would you submit as a Catholic, or would you stubbornly resist him, which could come close to formal heresy?
St. Alphonsus teaches anyone who denies that Baptism of Desire justifies commits heresy. You can see that he did not interpret Trent like you do (and in Benedictus Deus the Pope forbad anyone to put their own unauthorized private interpretation spin on Trent without Papal approval, which St. Alphonsus had), and the reason is because there was no reason to include "and the desire thereof", using voto, the same word used for Perfect Contrition in reference to receiving the effect of the Sacrament of Penance in desire, if Baptism or its desire did not justify. It is said that no one can be justified without Baptism, or the desire thereof, so that it may be understood that Baptism is necessary for at least in voto, i.e. in desire and charity with contrition. This is confirmed in the Catechism.
·  
   Catechism of the Council of Trent (16^th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

To your questions, of course I don't disagree with St. Alphonsus. Protestants denied the necessity of the Sacraments because they denied that Baptism justified and thus was necessary for salvation. I condemn the Protestant idea and agree with St. Alphonsus.

Next, if you've read St. Thomas, you would know Baptism of Desire is not faith alone, which is dead, as St. James says (Jam 2:20), but precisely "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal 5:6), as St. Paul says, which immєdιαtely justifies, when it is joined to the desire of the Sacraments.

Here is St. Thomas: ·    St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13^th century): Summa Theologica, Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
“Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.” ..

“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Here is Fr. Haydock, on Cornelius, who was Baptized by Desire before any external Sacrament: "Can any man forbid water? &c. or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)"

Any other questions? God Bless.

Rather he taught it with force in an encyclical.

No.  It's not an article of Faith. 

Pius IX. Singulari Quidem. AD 1856.
‘This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.'

In the passage above Blessed Pius IX states in unambiguous terms that the possibility of salvation exists for those who die outside the church, not those who currently live outside the church.  Otherwise he wouldn’t have concluded the above passage with the clause “…unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”  This clause is the key to understanding the meaning of Pius' words.

A person that is in "Ignorance beyond his control" is a person who is incapable of thinking, one who is born or by some misfortune became brain damaged - and the default position there is that he is damned - "unless he is excused" by God.    

Whenever you think of the possibility of justification and salvation for the invincibly ignorant, do yourself a huge, giant favor and *never* use the term "invincibly ignorant", rather, hence forth *always* replace that term with: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".

Its probably asbestos.

We live in the society where 10-20% can produce all the food and necessary services for survival. Most other jobs are a distribution and management. The rest is a consumer who lives off a printed money.
This perspective is mentally devastating.

What a stupid response.

What is Calvinism but hyper-Augustinianism?

St. Augustine's theology is not infallible as clearly seen by the Church's condemnation of both Calvinism and Jansenism, both of which are deeply Augustinian, more than the Catholic Church I might add.

Oh my gosh this is stupid.... I'm a former Calvinist, and you don't know anything about Calvinism lol

Augustine was nowhere near Calvinist.  

The most you could *maybe* accuse him of is holding to double predestination, which I'm definitely not sure of, which would be "proto-Jansenism" with the caveat that if he was corrected by the Church he'd submit.

But its nowhere near Calvinism which has a *ton* of other baggage associated with it.  Denial of the sacraments, denial of the intercession of the saints, etc.

I wasn't gonna weigh in on the Feneey debate 'cause I'm not an expert on it (though I have commented before) but this was just too obvious a mistake and I had to comment.