Author Topic: A little about Fr. Martin Stepanich (Read 1347 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** June 26, 2009, 09:29:59 PM »

Acc to Gary Potter in After The Boston Heresy Case, Fr Feeney was not ex-communicated( at least by Pius XII). If someone knows better than myself please advise, but the Dimonds are neo-Feeneyites and not true followers of Fr Feeney. My understanding of Fr Feeney's philosophy would be something like this-- DON'T COUNT ON BoD. I do not believe that he ever went so far as to say that there is no such thing.

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** June 26, 2009, 11:04:54 PM »

TCW has a post up now and Mr Hobson is still excoriating the Dimonds as 'Feeneyites', whereas my understanding is of them as NEO- Feeneyites.

It is true that Gary Potter is a v2 catholic, but his work taken as a history is excellent.

Raoul-- what is your opinion as to whether Fr Feeney was ex-commuicated by Pius XII as some seem to think? Give me something to read and I will compare it to Potter. If Fr Feeney was not ex-communicated by Pius XII then TCW does not have a leg to stand on.
It is my view that Pius XII was a friend of Fr Feeney, not an adversary. When the latter was complaining constantly about certain heretics suggesting salvation outside the Church, the Pope responded with Humanum Generis with it's emphasis on Extra....

Until someone proves to me that Fr Feeney was ex-communicated by Pius XII, I will stand by my interpretation of the Dimonds as NEO- Feenyites.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** June 26, 2009, 11:21:16 PM »

In addition to the Point articles by Fr Feeney and G Potter's book I had also prev read CG Clarke's Loyola's and Cabots. It is unfortunate the book leaves the impression that Pius XII was unresponsive to Fr Feeney's continued appeals to Rome for a declaration of doctrine.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2009, 12:02:11 AM »

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for refusing to go to Rome when summoned.

His excommunication decree is online, I believe.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2009, 12:11:50 AM »

Not by Pius XII he wasn't.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2009, 12:38:42 AM »

Raoul doesn't know anything about the relationship of Pius XII and Fr. Feeney, Roscoe.

I need to learn to keep my mouth shut when I don't know what I'm talking about. This is a good opportunity.

"My understanding of Fr Feeney's philosophy would be something like this-- DON'T COUNT ON BoD."

I agree with that 100%. My understanding of BoD has never been that if you die as a catechumen, you are saved. After all, not all who are baptized are even saved! BoD means that you MIGHT be saved, that it is POSSIBLE for God to save you, that you are not outside the Church. That's it.

The Neo-Feeneyites who make this into a divisive matter, to the point where they will not attend any sedevacantist chapels, are ignoring over a thousand years of Church history where many people have disagreed on this yet still remained Catholics in communion with each other. Will a catechumen who died be saved? That's like asking if any of us will be saved. None of us knows who is going to heaven. BoD only says that in rare cases it is within the realm of possibility for God to save someone who hasn't had an actual water baptism. Not that he will -- that he CAN.

BoD is just not the explosive issue that the Dimonds and their ilk want it to be. Even if they are right and no unbaptized person gets to heaven, do you think God is going to send those to hell who thought that a catechumen MIGHT get into heaven?

It's as if someone decided to start a schismatic church based on where aborted babies go. They don't like the softies who say that dead unbaptized babies go to limbo. So they start their own "Aborted babies go to HELL" Church.
Proving their own HELLISH spirit. ( I believe limbo is a somewhat more relaxing spot of hell, a sort of not-disagreeable dream state ).

Is it really so harmful to console ourselves that a catechumen might make it to heaven, even if it's not true? Is it harmful to hope that there is a place called limbo for unbaptized dead babies? BoD is only harmful when you take it to extremes like Vatican II, saying that having some vague impression of "God" is enough to get you into heaven, and thus destroying the impetus and urgency people should have to get baptized instantly after they realize that the Catholic Church is the one means of salvation.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2009, 01:22:42 AM »

Excellent article, Dawn, I hadn't read that one.

I will pray for the conversion of the Dimond Brothers and also ask forgiveness for the many times I have judged the final destination of others without having any authority to do so.

I will not pretend that I don't have a little "Michael Dimond" in me. It is a VERY satisfying feeling to damn others to hell. It's almost like being Mikey the Archangel himself, standing there proudly with your foot on the devil's neck, glowing with triumph. The problem is that our personal judgments have no reality. God's ways are not our ways.

In my case I don't usually go so far as to say someone is burning in hell ( though I have ). I just like making catchy, clever comments, a bad habit from my pagan days where I had to be sarcastic and "witty" 24/7 to fit in. It's kind of fun to tear someone to shreds with an off-the-cuff aside. I was sort of the male version of a "Mean Girl," I could take anyone down verbally.

I've been tormented by this lately -- the necessity of guarding one's tongue, as Father McKee of CMRI puts it. This is going to be the most difficult part of being Catholic for me. It's so tempting to trash-talk those who disagree with you, using cheap tactics to dismiss their arguments. Doing so is a sin as we make them more defiant and ratchet up their own pride -- along with ours.

As far as Michael Dimond goes, if he ceases his home-alone position and joins up with a sedevacantist group he can do lots of good. Since for some reason his website gets so much attention, any change in policy would be big news and I'm sure many would follow.