Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: poenitens on October 15, 2023, 01:34:56 PM
-
THE NATIVE — A TRACT IN ONE ACT
Taken from here: The Point – December 1953 – Father Feeney's The Point (wordpress.com) (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-december-1953/)
The Curtain rises on what is plainly meant to be a Desert Island setting. A kangaroo scurries across the stage and some exotic bird-calls are heard in the distance, just to drive the thing home. Suddenly, emerging through a dense vine, a man appears. On his head is a pith helmet, around his neck a Roman collar, and under his arm a copy of the Denver Register. He is a missionary; and he is looking for the Ignorant Native.
As he stands staring about him, there is a sudden shout overhead. A figure comes hurtling down through the trees and lands upright in front of the Missionary.
Missionary (greatly excited) — Can it be? Look at me. Do you know what I am? Have you ever seen anyone like me?
Ignorant Native (emphatically) — I should say not.
M. — The Ignorant Native! At last have found you! And just in time. Come, we must hurry.
I. N. — Where are we going?
M. — I have been sent to bring you to America, to a huge celebration being given in your honor. A plane is waiting in the lagoon to fly us to New York.
I. N. — What did I do?
M. — What did you do? My dear man, as though you didn’t know. You have the distinction of being the very first person in all the world ever to have received Baptism of Desire.
I. N. (impressed) — You don’t say!
M. — Why, you are the very foundation of Baptism of Desire. It was invented in order to answer the question, “How is a native on a desert island, who is completely ignorant of the Catholic Faith, going to be saved?” Today, millions of people have Baptism of Desire, including almost every Jew in America. But it all rests on you. You were the first, and you opened the way to the others.
I. N. — And so you’re going to have a celebration for me?
M. — The greatest celebration we have ever had. As soon as we arrive in New York, there will be a ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue. There will be banquets and ceremonies in your honor all over the country. The week of your arrival is being declared National Native Week. Bishop Sheen is going to have you as guest of honor on his television program, and simultaneously he will begin a new series of talks, “Ignorance is Worth Having.” You are to be invited by Father Francis Connell to give a course of lectures at Catholic University on “Living Up to the Natural Law.” Father Keller wants to make a Christopher film short of you playing golf with Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. And, oh, I could go on and on.
I. N. — Will I be asked to make many speeches? I’m not too good at that.
M. — No, people will expect you only to affirm a few of the basic principles which the theologians agree are responsible for your having received Baptism of Desire. For instance, if you are asked to say something, you might simply declare your belief in the fact that God is, and is a remunerator.
I. N. — Oh, yes. I might simply do that … (confidentially) What’s a remunerator?
M. — Never mind. Perhaps we had better just ask you questions. Try this one — it expresses Baptism of Desire in a nutshell: Do you feel an inchoate longing to be implicitly united to whatever it is you would want to be united to if you knew what it was?
I. N. — Awww, now you’re teasing me.
M. — I most certainly am not teasing you. This is a very serious matter. Why, I’m beginning to wonder if you have Baptism of Desire at all!
I. N. — Of course I have Baptism of Desire. That’s why you’re going to have a celebration for me. Of course I have it … Except, there’s just one question I would like to ask.
M. — Yes?
I. N. — What is Baptism of Desire?
The Missionary hurries off, mumbling to himself; he is obviously in a state of great agitation. The Ignorant Native turns and climbs back into his tree. A kangaroo scurries across the stage. And the curtain falls.
-
Do you feel an inchoate longing to be implicitly united to whatever it is you would want to be united to if you knew what it was?
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
-
Do you feel an inchoate longing to be implicitly united to whatever it is you would want to be united to if you knew what it was?
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Yes, that line is hilarious. This expresses modern BoD "theology" in one sentence ... and tears it to shreds in one sentence.
-
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html
-
.
-
Excellent! Thank you for that. The next time the local daemonic circus performance (https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A763-Acrobat.htm) is scheduled for the monstrously ugly Paul VI Audience Hall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_VI_Audience_Hall), this script would be perfect to use for some indietrismo guerilla theater.
-
THE NATIVE — A TRACT IN ONE ACT
Taken from here: The Point – December 1953 – Father Feeney's The Point (wordpress.com) (https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-december-1953/)
The Curtain rises on what is plainly meant to be a Desert Island setting. A kangaroo scurries across the stage and some exotic bird-calls are heard in the distance, just to drive the thing home. Suddenly, emerging through a dense vine, a man appears. On his head is a pith helmet, around his neck a Roman collar, and under his arm a copy of the Denver Register. He is a missionary; and he is looking for the Ignorant Native.
As he stands staring about him, there is a sudden shout overhead. A figure comes hurtling down through the trees and lands upright in front of the Missionary.
Missionary (greatly excited) — Can it be? Look at me. Do you know what I am? Have you ever seen anyone like me?
Ignorant Native (emphatically) — I should say not.
M. — The Ignorant Native! At last have found you! And just in time. Come, we must hurry.
I. N. — Where are we going?
M. — I have been sent to bring you to America, to a huge celebration being given in your honor. A plane is waiting in the lagoon to fly us to New York.
I. N. — What did I do?
M. — What did you do? My dear man, as though you didn’t know. You have the distinction of being the very first person in all the world ever to have received Baptism of Desire.
I. N. (impressed) — You don’t say!
M. — Why, you are the very foundation of Baptism of Desire. It was invented in order to answer the question, “How is a native on a desert island, who is completely ignorant of the Catholic Faith, going to be saved?” Today, millions of people have Baptism of Desire, including almost every Jew in America. But it all rests on you. You were the first, and you opened the way to the others.
I. N. — And so you’re going to have a celebration for me?
M. — The greatest celebration we have ever had. As soon as we arrive in New York, there will be a ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue. There will be banquets and ceremonies in your honor all over the country. The week of your arrival is being declared National Native Week. Bishop Sheen is going to have you as guest of honor on his television program, and simultaneously he will begin a new series of talks, “Ignorance is Worth Having.” You are to be invited by Father Francis Connell to give a course of lectures at Catholic University on “Living Up to the Natural Law.” Father Keller wants to make a Christopher film short of you playing golf with Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. And, oh, I could go on and on.
I. N. — Will I be asked to make many speeches? I’m not too good at that.
M. — No, people will expect you only to affirm a few of the basic principles which the theologians agree are responsible for your having received Baptism of Desire. For instance, if you are asked to say something, you might simply declare your belief in the fact that God is, and is a remunerator.
I. N. — Oh, yes. I might simply do that … (confidentially) What’s a remunerator?
M. — Never mind. Perhaps we had better just ask you questions. Try this one — it expresses Baptism of Desire in a nutshell: Do you feel an inchoate longing to be implicitly united to whatever it is you would want to be united to if you knew what it was?
I. N. — Awww, now you’re teasing me.
M. — I most certainly am not teasing you. This is a very serious matter. Why, I’m beginning to wonder if you have Baptism of Desire at all!
I. N. — Of course I have Baptism of Desire. That’s why you’re going to have a celebration for me. Of course I have it … Except, there’s just one question I would like to ask.
M. — Yes?
I. N. — What is Baptism of Desire?
The Missionary hurries off, mumbling to himself; he is obviously in a state of great agitation. The Ignorant Native turns and climbs back into his tree. A kangaroo scurries across the stage. And the curtain falls.
:laugh1:
-
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html
What is this wicked garbage?
-
What is this wicked garbage?
Yeah, these people hate "Feeneyism" worse than Modernism, calling it "pernicious" and a "sickness of the soul". For them, Father Feeney was the greatest heresiarch since Arius.
It's actually much more a reflection of THEIR "sickenss of soul". They're oblivious to the fact that they themselves hold the same ecclesiology that Vatican II taught.
You'll also note that they care nothing for a Baptism of Desire as a rare phenomenon that applies to an occasional catechumen, but simply try to use BoD as a way to undermine EENS dogma.
-
Yeah, these people hate "Feeneyism" worse than Modernism, calling it "pernicious" and a "sickness of the soul". For them, Father Feeney was the greatest heresiarch since Arius.
It's actually much more a reflection of THEIR "sickenss of soul". They're oblivious to the fact that they themselves hold the same ecclesiology that Vatican II taught.
You'll also note that they care nothing for a Baptism of Desire as a rare phenomenon that applies to an occasional catechumen, but simply try to use BoD as a way to undermine EENS dogma.
Introibo is even worse than most, for him you're a Feeneyite if you don't believe jews can be saved, so for him Derksen, another vehement anti-'Feeneyite' is also a Feeneyite :jester:
Well, at least Introibo understood correctly that Feeney was condemned for preaching that jews, pagans and idolaters can't be saved.
-
Introibo is even worse than most, for him you're a Feeneyite if you don't believe jews can be saved ...
This cements exactly my observation. St. Robert Bellarmine limited BoD to catechumens, and both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus to those who had explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. So, for these bad-willed clowns, these Doctors are also "Feeneyites". As I said, they have no interest in a BoD that applies to the rare case of someone who intends to be baptized but dies beforehand, though meeting all the conditions stipulated by the Council of Trent to be properly disposed for the Sacrament of Baptism. No, for them, it's all about using (and extension of) BoD to gut EENS dogma and get non-Catholics saved. And they're too dumb (and/or bad willed) to realize that it means they accept the same ecclesiology that they declare to be heretical in Vatican II.
-
Funny how no one calling names or mocking the author has made any logical arguments against what he wrote….
-
Funny how no one calling names or mocking the author has made any logical arguments against what he wrote….
It's because invincible ignorance and BoD is emotional and not logical.
-
What is this wicked garbage?
Read further than the title and you'll see. Fr Feeney went further than rejecting BOD and BOB. He taught egregious heresy about salvation that is even more erroneous than Protestant salvation doctrine. The religious order he started was also chock full of problems from top to bottom. Are any of the sources that Introibo cites incorrect?
-
Introibo is even worse than most, for him you're a Feeneyite if you don't believe Jєωs can be saved
Has Introibo actually said that? I'm curious for a source if he has.
-
It's because invincible ignorance and BoD is emotional and not logical.
You also haven’t made an argument….
-
You also haven’t made an argument….
Because there are dozens on threads on cathinfo that have already gone through this with evidence.
-
Read further than the title and you'll see. Fr Feeney went further than rejecting BOD and BOB. He taught egregious heresy about salvation that is even more erroneous than Protestant salvation doctrine. The religious order he started was also chock full of problems from top to bottom. Are any of the sources that Introibo cites incorrect?
I read further, the article is pure BS. It begins with with this BS: "In reaction to this distortion of Catholic teaching, a Jesuit priest from Boston..."
Introibo will keep reading other bloggers who are as misguided as he is, believe them and spread more lies as he does here. Don't believe his crap.
If you never read anything else from a feeneyite, at least read the Introduction of the attached book (pdf), at least the first two paragraphs.
-
Funny how no one calling names or mocking the author has made any logical arguments against what he wrote….
As others have pointed out ...
1) There's nothing of substance in that link. It's just an emotional rant, with a link along the lines of, "For actual arguments against BoD, see Steven Speray."
2) Nobody's going to engage in a 300-page refutation of BoD every time some idiot shows up here and posts a link. There are numerous 200-page threads on CI hashing out all the arguments. If you wanted to raise your own arguments, you might get a response, but if you're too lazy to type out your own arguments but want to pretend you've refuted something by posting a link, you can run along, you troll.
Most of you "sedevacantists" who despise the truth about Baptism of Desire fall under your own condemnation as manifest heretics who are outside the Church. You declare the Vatican II ecclesiology heretical but hold the same ecclesiology yourself.
No sedevacantist who hates "Feeneyism" has ever refuted my argument about why you're heretics and non-Catholics by your own criteria.
-
Read further than the title and you'll see. Fr Feeney went further than rejecting BOD and BOB. He taught egregious heresy about salvation that is even more erroneous than Protestant salvation doctrine. The religious order he started was also chock full of problems from top to bottom. Are any of the sources that Introibo cites incorrect?
Forget about Father Feeney. Do you believe that a non-catholic (who dies in that state) can go to Heaven?
-
Let me summarize the core argument.
MINOR 1: Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical.
MINOR 2: Sedevacantists hold that those who publicly adhere to said heresy are manifest heretics who are outside the Church.
MINOR 3: Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" invariably hold the same ecclesiology that Vatican II has.
CONCLUSION: By their own critieria, Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" are manifest heretics who are not Catholics and are outside the Church.
MINOR 3 is the part that needs to be proven, and I have proven it numerous times. It's never been refuted, simply ignored. Note. Here we're not speaking of those who hold a position about BoD where, essentially, a Catechumen who plans on being baptized but happens to die before being able to can be saved. That is not a heretical position. But then those who hold that position don't tend to despise "Feeneyism". I'm talking about those SVs who hold that non-Catholics can be saved, which is 90% of all BoDers. Most prominent SV clergy are on record publicly declaring that non-Catholics can be saved. It is those SV clergy and laymen that fall under their own anathema.
Here's a proof for why they (or you, if it applies to you) hold the same ecclesiology that they condemn as heretical in Vatican II.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. de fide.
MINOR: SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jews can be saved without converting and become Catholic before they die.
CONCLUSION: SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jews can be in the Church without converting and becoming Catholic (since, if they can be saved, they must be in the Church somehow due to the MAJOR).
This ecclesiology in the CONCLUSION is the same ecclesiology they denounce as heretical in Vatican II.
Therefore, such Sedevacantists are manifest heretics (most are quite pertinacious) who are outside the Church and are not Catholics.
This has never been refuted, simply ignored.
-
Read further than the title and you'll see. Fr Feeney went further than rejecting BOD and BOB. He taught egregious heresy about salvation that is even more erroneous than Protestant salvation doctrine. The religious order he started was also chock full of problems from top to bottom. Are any of the sources that Introibo cites incorrect?
Again, maybe if you wanted to state an argument yourself, we would take some time to refute it. But you're not going to get away with being lazy and simply posting a link. That would be like me posting a link to the entire >100-page MHFM tract on Salvation Outside the Church and demand that you refute it. I get sick of the lazy types who simply post a link and demand that it be refuted.
Refute my argument about how most Sedevacantists who despite "Feeneyism" are, by their own criteria, manifest heretics who are outside the Church. Unlike yourself, I took the time to post it and didn't just paste in a random link.
-
Let me summarize the core argument.
MINOR 1: Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical.
MINOR 2: Sedevacantists hold that those who publicly adhere to said heresy are manifest heretics who are outside the Church.
MINOR 3: Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" invariably hold the same ecclesiology that Vatican II has.
CONCLUSION: By their own critieria, Sedevacantists who despise "Feeneyism" are manifest heretics who are not Catholics and are outside the Church.
MINOR 3 is the part that needs to be proven, and I have proven it numerous times. It's never been refuted, simply ignored. Note. Here we're not speaking of those who hold a position about BoD where, essentially, a Catechumen who plans on being baptized but happens to die before being able to can be saved. That is not a heretical position. But then those who hold that position don't tend to despise "Feeneyism". I'm talking about those SVs who hold that non-Catholics can be saved, which is 90% of all BoDers. Most prominent SV clergy are on record publicly declaring that non-Catholics can be saved. It is those SV clergy and laymen that fall under their own anathema.
Here's a proof for why they (or you, if it applies to you) hold the same ecclesiology that they condemn as heretical in Vatican II.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. de fide.
MINOR: SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jєωs can be saved without converting and become Catholic before they die.
CONCLUSION: SVs hold that various non-Catholics, Protestants, schismatics, Muslims, and Jєωs can be in the Church without converting and becoming Catholic (since, if they can be saved, they must be in the Church somehow due to the MAJOR).
This ecclesiology in the CONCLUSION is the same ecclesiology they denounce as heretical in Vatican II.
Therefore, such Sedevacantists are manifest heretics (most are quite pertinacious) who are outside the Church and are not Catholics.
This has never been refuted, simply ignored.
I agree. They hold the same perverse, heretical soteriology: the possibility of salvation without faith in Christ. They even make it possible for salvation for those who not only lack faith in Christ, but deny Christ. :facepalm:
The old mote in one's own eye.
The basis for an attack on Feeneyism is on that form of it which rejects even the possibility of salvation in votum. When those who attack Feeneyism include those who even deny Christ as having the potential for salvation in votum, they lose any semblance of credibility, and any validity to an objection to Feeneyism becomes ridiculous from them. They make Feeneyism attractive, since it is so opposed to their heresy. Thus, their condemnation backfires, and draws many to Feeneyism.
They create almost a need for Dimondism.
Good job, introibo and others of that ilk. Nice work there. :jester:
-
Has Introibo actually said that? I'm curious for a source if he has.
I don't know that he has. I retract any suggestion or implication that Introibo held to any heretical notion of BoD, as I have no proof of that. So I retract:
Good job, introibo and others of that ilk. Nice work there. :jester:
:pray:
And modify:
"Good job, those who include within BoD those who lack faith in Christ and even deny Him. Nice work there." :jester:
Thank you, Sneed, for that reminder and challenge.
-
I agree. They hold the same perverse, heretical soteriology: the possibility of salvation without faith in Christ. They even make it possible for salvation for those who not only lack faith in Christ, but deny Christ. :facepalm:
If I believed that non-Catholics (particularly infidels) could be saved by BoD, I would have to drop any objections to Vatican II ecclesiology, and all the error of Vatican I rest logically on that ecclesiology. Prots/schismatics who are baptized are a different story, since many of them are validly baptized, so BoD per se doesn't even apply to them and we're discussing BoD here.
-
If I believed that non-Catholics (particularly infidels) could be saved by BoD, I would have to drop any objections to Vatican II ecclesiology, and all the error of Vatican I rest logically on that ecclesiology.
Which is why the Trad movement itself, in so far as it likes to maintain opposition to Vatican II on theological and substantive grounds and not only regarding external worship (Latin liturgy, Old Mass, etc.), is roiled in contradictions: it deals with the sore on the skin, and doesn't reach the disease underneath that festers.
This problem applies to most of the R & R and Sedes. The Feeneyites are at least consistent in recognizing the disease and attempting to heal it. A former Feeneyite myself, I admire them, and Father Feeney, for that. They have other problems: their remedy is like healing a knee that needs replacement by amputating the leg.
-
Which is why the Trad movement itself, in so far as it likes to maintain opposition to Vatican II on theological and substantive grounds and not only regarding external worship (Latin liturgy, Old Mass, etc.), is roiled in contradictions: it deals with the sore on the skin, and doesn't reach the disease underneath that festers.
This problem applies to most of the R & R and Sedes. The Feeneyites are at least consistent in recognizing the disease and attempting to heal it. A former Feeneyite myself, I admire them, and Father Feeney, for that. They have other problems: their remedy is like healing a knee that needs replacement by amputating the leg.
I've never understood the hostility toward Father Feeney. Even if one holds that he ultimately got it wrong on BoD per se, he was absolutely not wrong in diagnosing the problem in the Church being related to widespread rejection of EENS dogma. He was the only one who basically saw the decline BEFORE Vatican II, and basically saw it coming. All else believed everything was great in the Church. Initially, Father sensed there was something wrong, but couldn't put his finger on it. It was after a long period of reflection that he came to the conclusion that the widespread denial of EENS was the problem. He was absolutely right ... whether one wants to argue that he threw the baby out of the bathwater later with his conclusions regarding BoD. But for that he's held in contempt and derision by Traditional Catholics everywhere, as if he had been a greater heresiarch than Luther or Arius, whereas it was his nemesis Cardinal Cushing who publicly stated, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." BoD didn't even come up for a couple years after Father Feeney's emphasis on EENS. And it's not just about soteriology, but because of defined EENS dogma, there's no getting around having to redefine the Church, so a new ecclesiology. Since no one can deny the thrice-defined dogma of EENS, the only way to "get non-Catholics saved" is by redefining Church. Rahner realized that this new ecclesiology/soteriology were the most revolutionary aspects of EENS ... even if no one else did.
-
I've never understood the hostility toward Father Feeney. Even if one holds that he ultimately got it wrong on BoD per se, he was absolutely not wrong in diagnosing the problem in the Church being related to widespread rejection of EENS dogma. He was the only one who basically saw the decline BEFORE Vatican II, and basically saw it coming. All else believed everything was great in the Church. Initially, Father sensed there was something wrong, but couldn't put his finger on it. It was after a long period of reflection that he came to the conclusion that the widespread denial of EENS was the problem. He was absolutely right ... whether one wants to argue that he threw the baby out of the bathwater later with his conclusions regarding BoD. But for that he's held in contempt and derision by Traditional Catholics everywhere, as if he had been a greater heresiarch than Luther or Arius, whereas it was his nemesis Cardinal Cushing who publicly stated, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." BoD didn't even come up for a couple years after Father Feeney's emphasis on EENS. And it's not just about soteriology, but because of defined EENS dogma, there's no getting around having to redefine the Church, so a new ecclesiology. Since no one can deny the thrice-defined dogma of EENS, the only way to "get non-Catholics saved" is by redefining Church. Rahner realized that this new ecclesiology/soteriology were the most revolutionary aspects of EENS ... even if no one else did.
I am not too familiar with Feeney, what did he get wrong per se?
-
I am not too familiar with Feeney, what did he get wrong per se?
In short, he tangled with one of the Church's enemies, his superior, Archbishop (then made Cardinal) Cushing. (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/justification/msg558599/#msg558599)
-
In short, he tangled with one of the Church's enemies, his superior, Archbishop (then made Cardinal) Cushing. (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/justification/msg558599/#msg558599)
Yes, the same heretical bishop who signed off on Dr. John Rock, the Catholic doctor who promoted the birth control pill; in fact Dr. Rock is credited with the invention of the birth control pill. The heretical Cardinal Cushing did nothing about it.
If you are interested in Fr. Feeney and want to read books: Bread of Life, Gate of Heaven, The Loyolas and the Cabots.
-
I am not too familiar with Feeney, what did he get wrong per se?
I'm saying that for those who believe he was wrong to deny BoD, he was still 100% right about EENS and the problematic V2 ecclesiology. There's certainly a way to salvage BoD by limiting it almost to the case of the catechumen (as St. Robert Bellarmine did), where it doesn't gut Catholic ecclesiology. But my point was that many Trads hate Father Feeney worse than Martin Luther, and the term "Feeneyite" is a stronger term of derision than "Lutheran" ... even though at best he made a mistake regarding BoD.
-
I'm pretty sure those who demonize the good Father Feeney do so mainly because they believe the lies that were fed to the whole world about him some 80 years ago. The enemy hates the truth, must suppress it, slander whomever speaks it, cover it up with other issues and so on, just the same as they are doing these days.
I mean, Trump is a crook himself, but he exposes the Left's crooks and lies all the time and look what they've done, are doing, and will continue to do to him - and there are a lot of ignorant people who believe the lying left is the good guys, and have them convinced that Trump and all Republicans or just conservatives who may or may not even like Trump, are the world's most low down lying "Maga maggots."
So it's similar in what they are doing to Trump, they did to Fr. Feeney first. It was of course a lot worse with Fr. Feeney because of the truth he defended. Too many souls and too much depended on the crooks shutting him up, they did that by slandering him into oblivion.
-
“The New Mass is a Protestant imitation of the True Mass, and anyone who says it is betraying the Catholic Faith.” Fr. Feeney
This came from Fr. Champagne, a Sede priest who knew and spoke with Fr. Feeney.
-
In his book called I believe After The Boston Heresy Case, Gary Potter published the text of a letter Father Feeney wrote to Pius XII. It's quite affecting. It's outrageous the way the situation was handled. It's a black mark on Pius XII, and his direction of the Church, that he didn't deal with this issue differently. That Father Feeney eventually got excommunicated and Cushing et al. escaped all censure whatsoever for bastardizing a dogma of the Church is terrible.
Vatican II was indeed a divine chastisement.
-
In his book called I believe After The Boston Heresy Case, Gary Potter published the text of a letter Father Feeney wrote to Pius XII. It's quite affecting. It's outrageous the way the situation was handled. It's a black mark on Pius XII, and his direction of the Church, that he didn't deal with this issue differently. That Father Feeney eventually got excommunicated and Cushing et al. escaped all censure whatsoever for bastardizing a dogma of the Church is terrible.
Vatican II was indeed a divine chastisement.
I wonder if this is the letter referenced by the Dimonds:
It was on September 24, 1952 that Father Feeney addressed a long, detailed letter to Pius XII. The letter went unanswered.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-pius-xii-father-feeney-the-dogma/
I'll try to find a copy online, or take a jpeg of it from the Gary Potter book. It's a very worthy docuмent, powerfully prophetic.
-
Still haven't found that letter online.
But as to Introibo, he seems to hold to the Thomist position as enunciated by Father Muller:
Reply: Pope Pius IX does not teach that invincible ignorance saves, nor does he teach that the invincibly ignorant can only be saved through baptism with water. The staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:
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 (invincible) 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 (invincible) ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
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.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation. (Emphasis mine).
As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God. Does this in any way detract from our duty to convert everyone to the One True Church? Hardly. If anything, it should make us work harder for the salvation of souls. In the natural order, if you knew someone was poor and starving, would you bring them food or rely on God to miraculously feed them?
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/12/four-degrees-of-feeney.html
Good for Introibo. I'm even more sorry for my spurious implication about him.
-
Here's Father Feeney's letter to Pope Pius XII, dated May 28, 1949. It's printed in Gary Potter's Book, After The Boston Heresy Case, pp. 140-141. Of course, this was years before the excommunication.
-
Still haven't found that letter online.
But as to Introibo, he seems to hold to the Thomist position as enunciated by Father Muller:
Good for Introibo. I'm even more sorry for my spurious implication about him.
Unfortunately, as I said, he believes in "implicit faith" and is one of the vilest heretics who hates EENS dogma.
4. Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB; implicit faith (invincible ignorance) will not save. (These Feeneyites reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX).
I was upbraided on Twitter by a Feeneyite in category #4 above. He claimed my post on "Self-Approved Theologians" of 11/22/21 made me a "heretic" since I accept implicit BOD. When I called him a Feeneyite, he rejected the appellation. Feeneyites are all those heretics who reject in whole or in part Church dogma on BOD and BOB. Of course, when I challenged my Twitter adversary to a written debate on a neutral forum, he declined and "bravely ran away" like all Feeneyites I've ever known.
This post will refute the "four degrees" of Feeneyism, especially those who deny BOD is available to those in invincible ignorance and have implicit faith (category #4 above). [Please note that this post will refer to Leonard Feeney without the title "Fr." Despite being a valid priest, he forfeits his right to his clerical title when solemnly excommunicated by the pope. Hence, we speak of Martin Luther, not "Fr. Luther."
Besides mocking Our Lord's words "if you believe not that I am He you shall die in your sins", and John 3:5, Introibo believes a whole host of lies of the most idiotic kind.
In short, Introibo believes in evolution, the Big Bang theory, that the Earth is billions of years old, heliocentrism, the theory of relativity (that is the bending of space-time :jester:), the official 9/11 narrative, the official Sandy Hook nareative, the moon landing, and pretty much everything else "the experts" say and if you doubt these things he'll mock you like a lunatic.
In like manner, he doesn't believe in the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith but "approved theologians" who explain the magisterium to mean the opposite of what it says.
He also believes Fr. Feeney was possessed.
Here are some statements from Introibo, I'm sure there's a lot more I missed.
In all that time, I've met Traditionalists (both in person and online) who give credence to a variety of things which I consider to be whacky ideas. They include (but are not limited to) the Earth being flat, every Jew in the world (yes, every single one) is part of a massive conspiracy to enslave humanity, 9/11 never took place and involved no Moslems, every single school shooting in the U.S. was a hoax, and werewolves are real. I do not share any of those convictions, and I will not get involved in protracted discussions regarding them. Personally, I think they make Traditionalists look and sound foolish, and it becomes harder to win converts.
If someone wants to believe the Earth is flat and/or the center of the universe, they can do so and also be true Catholics (although the former science teacher in me winces in intellectual pain to realize people can think that way). Hence, I will only argue the theological points, and not against the alleged "scientific proofs" of geocentrism.
As to evolution, the formation of the body can be admitted
Prior to the 1920s, scientists had always assumed the universe was stationary and eternal. In 1917, Einstein applied his new General Theory of Relativity to cosmology, and found that it would not permit an eternal, static model of the universe unless he fudged the equations in order to offset the gravitational effect of matter. This was the beginning of what would lead to the "Big Bang Theory," accepted by all scientists today. The standard model describes a universe which is not not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Not only all matter and energy, but even time and space themselves came into being at the initial cosmological singularity out of nothing or ex nihil. This is exactly the teaching of the Church!!
Thank you for this info. I like to stay on top of such things, as advances in science can only help prove God. However, we must be careful. I know of not one reputable scientist which holds to such an opinion. I would be most interested if you could cite me the video. I'll warn you and all my readers about a movie called "The Principle" released in 2014 by V2 apologist Robert Sungenis.
As a life-long New Yorker who was here on 9/11 as it unfolded, I can tell you that the majority of what was reported was accurate.
You would have me deny the infallibility of the One True Church of Christ while thinking the earth is the center of the universe, and 9/11 was a conspiracy. Oh, boy.
At the risk of sounding uncharitable, please forgive me if I decline to join you in this alternate "reality."
All lies? All delusional? Not a chance. People are now claiming no one was killed at Newtown [Sandy Hook] in 2012; it was rigged by the government.
Please.
Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy.
Yes, the moon landing was faked. So were the Columbine and Newtown shootings. Elvis faked his death and works as a clerk in my local supermarket. UFOs led by Bigfoot control the media and all people (except you) through mind control techniques. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat before you go to sleep.
7. Conspiracy theorists are people who disregard the manifest weight of the credible evidence to believe things that they wish to believe. That's you. Go away from where the evidence leads; the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist.
His mind is in a truly diabolical fog.
-
Unfortunately, as I said, he believes in "implicit faith" and is one of the vilest heretics who hates EENS dogma.
Besides mocking Our Lord's words "if you believe not that I am He you shall die in your sins", and John 3:5, Introibo believes a whole host of lies of the most idiotic kind.
In short, Introibo believes in evolution, the Big Bang theory, that the Earth is billions of years old, heliocentrism, the theory of relativity (that is the bending of space-time :jester:), the official 9/11 narrative, the official Sandy Hook nareative, the moon landing, and pretty much everything else "the experts" say and if you doubt these things he'll mock you like a lunatic.
In like manner, he doesn't believe in the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith but "approved theologians" who explain the magisterium to mean the opposite of what it says.
He also believes Fr. Feeney was possessed.
Here are some statements from Introibo, I'm sure there's a lot more I missed.
His mind is in a truly diabolical fog.
I'm not interested in his position on anything else but the issue of the necessity of explicit faith, as I associated him with a group of those who deny it's necessity.
You're quick on the trigger, and will not weigh the evidence before doing so. That's a bit of a common fault around here with many.
You quote a heading or description at the head of the piece. In the body, the part with the substantive discussion, he refers to Fr. Muller as "set(tting) forth perfectly the teaching of the Church," and states explicitly:
As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God.
Perhaps if you reflected a bit, you'd give this explicit statement of what he believes the weight it deserves, instead of grabbing onto his introduction to waylay him. Pathetic.
He was obviously - in light of his explicit statement - using "implicit faith" in the sense of something that is not explicit in the sense of visible, clear, and such that identifies one externally as a member of the Church. The quote above makes that rather obvious.
But noooooo! Marilus has determined that Introibo is a heretic, and what he says is simply sifted to prove that point, or to make an argument. Truth be damned.
As I said, pathetic.
-
If Introibo believes in BOD as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, why is he criticizing Fr. Feeney? Is it just because of the association of feeneyism with the Dimonds?
Fr. said that he did not know what happened with those who die with explicit faith but without water baptism, which is not in flagrant contradiction with what the doctors speculated. I think that the exact quote is in Bread of Life. The Dimonds are the ones who are saying that such persons (with explicit faith but no water baptism) definitely go to hell.
-
I'm not interested in his position on anything else but the issue of the necessity of explicit faith, as I associated him with a group of those who deny it's necessity.
You're quick on the trigger, and will not weigh the evidence before doing so. That's a bit of a common fault around here with many.
You quote a heading or description at the head of the piece. In the body, the part with the substantive discussion, he refers to Fr. Muller as "set(tting) forth perfectly the teaching of the Church," and states explicitly:
Perhaps if you reflected a bit, you'd give this explicit statement of what he believes the weight it deserves, instead of grabbing onto his introduction to waylay him. Pathetic.
He was obviously - in light of his explicit statement - using "implicit faith" in the sense of something that is not explicit in the sense of visible, clear, and such that identifies one externally as a member of the Church. The quote above makes that rather obvious.
But noooooo! Marilus has determined that Introibo is a heretic, and what he says is simply sifted to prove that point, or to make an argument. Truth be damned.
As I said, pathetic.
Oh, sure, sure. Go ahead and ask him whether this statement is heretical:
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”
Or maybe you'd prefer this one:
Bishop Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’? For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”
Please do report back whether the statements contradict the many times defined Church teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation in the opinion of the individual Introibo.
-
If Introibo believes in BOD as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, why is he criticizing Fr. Feeney? Is it just because of the association of feeneyism with the Dimonds?
Perhaps he'll tell you if you ask him. You might try contacting him.
I quoted what he believes, and he agrees with Father Muller, who is basically following St. Thomas's thought that explicit faith is necessary for salvation, and that necessary faith might come to someone by way an an angel or internal inspiration. Which would make it explicit faith in Christ, but not explicit to us.
-
Oh, sure, sure. Go ahead and ask him whether this statement is heretical:Or maybe you'd prefer this one:Please do report back whether the statements contradict the many times defined Church teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation in the opinion of the individual Introibo.
So now you're actually projecting what he might say "if," and declaring him a heretic on that basis?
Doubly pathetic.
-
So now you're actually projecting what he might say "if," and declaring him a heretic on that basis?
Doubly pathetic.
OK, mister, please explain how the fourth category of Feeneyites differs from Introibo's view and from the rest of the Feeneyite views.
Will you please put in the mental effort necessary to see that HE LITERALLY CALLS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN BOD FEENEYITES.
Feenyites say: 4. Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB; implicit faith (invincible ignorance) will not save. (These Feeneyites reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX).
I was upbraided on Twitter by a Feeneyite in category #4 above. He claimed my post on "Self-Approved Theologians" of 11/22/21 made me a "heretic" since I accept implicit BOD
What part don't you understand?
-
OK, mister, please explain how the fourth category of Feeneyites differs from Introibo's view and from the rest of the Feeneyite views.
Will you please put in the mental effort necessary to see that HE LITERALLY CALLS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN BOD FEENEYITES.
Feenyites say: 4. Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB; implicit faith (invincible ignorance) will not save. (These Feeneyites reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX).
I was upbraided on Twitter by a Feeneyite in category #4 above. He claimed my post on "Self-Approved Theologians" of 11/22/21 made me a "heretic" since I accept implicit BOD
What part don't you understand?
Seriously? I explained the sense of "implicit" that he used initially: it was used in a sense to counter the Feeneyist position he was attacking, which he understands as requiring "explicit faith" in the sense of openly confessed, evidenced by baptism - faith that is explicit to us. He rejects that faith must be explicit in that sense; it can be simply the Catholic faith internally believed, and "expressed" between the individual and God. In the latter sense, the faith is explicit as an expressed Catholic belief and faith.
You don't want to read it, but here it is again:
As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God.
There it is again. I highlighted a different part this time for you, which should help.
-
If Introibo believes in BOD as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus, why is he criticizing Fr. Feeney? Is it just because of the association of feeneyism with the Dimonds?
Fr. said that he did not know what happened with those who die with explicit faith but without water baptism, which is not in flagrant contradiction with what the doctors speculated. I think that the exact quote is in Bread of Life. The Dimonds are the ones who are saying that such persons (with explicit faith but no water baptism) definitely go to hell.
Because Baptism is the sacrament of faith. The sacrament requires water, one cannot have 'faith' without the sacrament.
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;