Author Topic: Father Christopher Feeney sspx  (Read 1309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1564
  • Reputation: +646/-901
  • Gender: Male
Father Christopher Feeney sspx
« on: June 29, 2020, 05:37:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Does anyone know if Father Christopher Feeney has been conditionally ordained?
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22438
    • Reputation: +12574/-3456
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #1 on: June 29, 2020, 08:17:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, more and more this is becoming an issue with the SSPX.  You can't just show up at a chapel and assume that there's no doubt about the priest sitting in the Confessional.

    They used to publish a directory called Cor Unum in which the priests were listed along with details regarding when and where they were ordained.  I doubt they have that floating around anywhere.

    Good name for a priest though!!!
    Vigano for Pope !!!


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5678
    • Reputation: +2681/-478
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #2 on: June 29, 2020, 08:37:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did an internet search and came up with this (I'm not sure where it is coming from in the SSPX, but it looks current based on the CÖVÌD-19 mention):

    https://fsspx.today/chapel/ny-warners/announcements/

    Fr. Christopher Feeney will transfer to Syracuse from the Chicago priory he will be the parish assistant priest. He will also be pastor of St. Athanasius in Endwell (Binghamton), NY  and he will be pastor of St. Jude in Pittston, PA. Fr. Feeney was ordained in 2010.

    If this is the same man who was ordained in the Novus Ordo diocese in CT, the fact that they mention he was ordained in 2010, leads me to believe that he was ordained in the NO Church AND was NOT conditionally ordained (or I would think they would have used that date in the announcement, not 2010).




    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7691
    • Reputation: +5783/-1711
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #3 on: June 29, 2020, 08:57:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • His name is not mentioned amongst the 2010 Winona ordinands at the end of this lead article of the Regina Coeli Report (see last paragraph, p.2):

    http://archives.sspx.org/rcr_pdfs/2010_rcrs/august_2010_rcr.pdf

    Technically possible he was ordained at one of the other seminaries that year, but given the fact he has been assigned to Syracuse/Warners (whose liberal faithful have a history of accepting not only abortive ναccιnєs, but also Novus Ordo refugees who were not conditionally ordained, like Fr. Voigt, Fr. Gallagher, and possibly others), it doesn’t seem likely.

    The question now remains: Was he conditionally ordained?

    For an answer to that question, you need only ask him, which is your right.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Frank

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 114
    • Reputation: +114/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #4 on: June 29, 2020, 10:26:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When he was in St Louis last year, he apparently was not conditionally ordained. He was described as “a priest in training”. He distributed communion at Mass until the faithful started to complain, then it stopped. He would say private Mass on the side chapel with a server. He then moved to his “new assignment” in Chicago, and that was the last I heard of him. Very troubling to say the least.  


    Offline SimpleMan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1060
    • Reputation: +332/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #5 on: June 29, 2020, 10:47:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, more and more this is becoming an issue with the SSPX.  You can't just show up at a chapel and assume that there's no doubt about the priest sitting in the Confessional.

    They used to publish a directory called Cor Unum in which the priests were listed along with details regarding when and where they were ordained.  I doubt they have that floating around anywhere.

    Good name for a priest though!!!
    I agree.  I wonder if they're related.

    As I always say, I'm not Feeneyite, I'm "Feeney-LITE" --- I will admit the possibility of someone being saved outside the visible corporate unity of the Church, but it's darned difficult.

    If you follow the modern, Novus Ordo-fueled "economy of salvation", it is actually easier for a non-Catholic, or even a non-Christian, to be saved, than it is for a Catholic, because their conscience accuses them of less, and since they supposedly can't be blamed for what they don't know, their "search for God" is going to be more primitive, and more atavistic, than that of a believer.

    And if a dog had a square mouth, he'd eat bricks.  (I bowdlerized that.)

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4413
    • Reputation: +2340/-1221
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #6 on: June 29, 2020, 11:38:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, more and more this is becoming an issue with the SSPX.  You can't just show up at a chapel and assume that there's no doubt about the priest sitting in the Confessional.

    They used to publish a directory called Cor Unum in which the priests were listed along with details regarding when and where they were ordained.  I doubt they have that floating around anywhere.

    Good name for a priest though!!!
    If the local diocese Latin Mass priest from the Novus ordo church started to come to our SSPX chapel to do the Latin Mass mass, I doubt that one parishioner would complain or know the difference. The SSPX is not what it use to be anymore, the faithful are not traditionalists, they just come because it is more serious than the Novus Ordo. They come because the Novus Ordo is a joke. 

    "In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king". 

    The SSPX today is a one eyed man, and the Novus Ordo is the blind man. The original SSPX and its faithful had two good eyes.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #7 on: June 29, 2020, 01:22:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • The Society’s official position is that the New Rites of Ordination and Consecration are valid on principle But can become doubtful if there is an external sign that the Bishop didn’t have the right intention. This position comes from Fr. Pierre-Marie, OP ( who is with Avrille which is now with the Resistance) 

    https://www.google.com/url?                    sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjNuI2D0afqAhXsl3IEHRBYAx0QFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsspx.org%2Fen%2Fvalidity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations&usg=AOvVaw2Zxd1V-qBeinP30rWQhBEy

    Any Resistance faithful who criticize the Society on this point have therefore shown themselves to be ignorant numbskulls
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
    Ephesians 2:8-9


    Offline Cryptinox

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 178
    • Reputation: +13/-24
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #8 on: June 29, 2020, 01:44:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree.  I wonder if they're related.

    As I always say, I'm not Feeneyite, I'm "Feeney-LITE" --- I will admit the possibility of someone being saved outside the visible corporate unity of the Church, but it's darned difficult.

    If you follow the modern, Novus Ordo-fueled "economy of salvation", it is actually easier for a non-Catholic, or even a non-Christian, to be saved, than it is for a Catholic, because their conscience accuses them of less, and since they supposedly can't be blamed for what they don't know, their "search for God" is going to be more primitive, and more atavistic, than that of a believer.

    And if a dog had a square mouth, he'd eat bricks.  (I bowdlerized that.)
    Only Catholics are Christians though

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3865
    • Reputation: +1394/-195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #9 on: June 29, 2020, 02:12:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Last Tradhican said it IMO. Good post.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6237
    • Reputation: +3546/-1033
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #10 on: June 29, 2020, 02:35:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    But can become doubtful if there is an external sign that the Bishop didn’t have the right intention.
    You just summarized the problem in the new rites...(1) the prayers/form no longer adequately provides the Church’s intention, so such intention must be provided by the minister.  In the True Rite, the intention of the minister is irrelevant because the prayer/form perfectly says what the Church intends.  
    .
    (2) Because the new rite NEEDS the intention of the minister to be valid, such intention is NECESSARILY INTERNAL because the prayer/form is too ambiguous and general.  Thus, there is NO EXTERNAL SIGN THAT THE INTENTION IS INVALID (or valid), unless you can read minds.
    .
    So the new-sspx’s policy is neither grounded in reality nor logical.  It’s also not consistent because it contradicts +Tissier’s past doubts on consexrations/ordinations.  


    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #11 on: June 29, 2020, 02:42:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You just summarized the problem in the new rites...(1) the prayers/form no longer adequately provides the Church’s intention, so such intention must be provided by the minister.  In the True Rite, the intention of the minister is irrelevant because the prayer/form perfectly says what the Church intends.  
    .
    (2) Because the new rite NEEDS the intention of the minister to be valid, such intention is NECESSARILY INTERNAL because the prayer/form is too ambiguous and general.  Thus, there is NO EXTERNAL SIGN THAT THE INTENTION IS INVALID (or valid), unless you can read minds.
    .
    So the new-sspx’s policy is neither grounded in reality nor logical.  It’s also not consistent because it contradicts +Tissier’s past doubts on consexrations/ordinations.  
    BS. From Fr. Marie O. P


    Solution of the difficulties: defect of intention
    1) We have never seen anything to suggest that the new rite was made in view of ecumenism with the Anglicans. The “ecumenical” argument envisaged the Eastern Rites. Let us revisit Dom Botte’s memoirs:
    If I was paying attention to this text it wasn’t because I had just finished a critical edition of it, but because my study of the oriental rites made me notice that the formula always survived under more evolved forms. Thus, in the Syrian Rite the prayer for the patriarch’s ordination was none other than the one in the Testamentum Domini, a reworking of the Apostolic Tradition. The same is true for the Coptic Rite where the prayer for the bishop’s ordination is close to that of the Apostolic Constitutions, another reworking of Hipploytus’ text. The essential ideas of the Apostolic Tradition can be found everywhere. Reusing the old text in the Roman Rite would affirm a unity of outlook between East and West on the episcopacy. This was an ecumenical argument. It was decisive.[117]
    The situation is quite different from that in which the new Mass was redacted, during which the reformers clearly manifested their desire for ecumenism with the Protestants who participated in the elaboration of the new rite. Such a rapprochement and such collaboration with heretics was a danger to the orthodoxy of the faith, and in fact resulted in a new Mass favens haeresim(favoring heresy). In this case the rapprochement is with rites in usage in the East by Catholics as well as by schismatics. The fact of desiring to establish cordial relations with these Rites does not manifest a priori any intention dangerous to the faith. And in fact the new rite does not deserve to be characterized as “favens haeresim,” even if one might have other valid reasons for refusing it.[118]
    If there are Anglicans who have adopted (ad libitum) a liturgy similar to Pope Paul VI’s rite, different explanations can be offered:

    I consider that the ordination on the occasion of Bishop Hänggi’s consecration is a very beautiful fruit of the efforts of the Council in liturgical matters. As a Protestant, I can only say that I could have participated completely in this liturgy (a few passages excepted), and that this could also be an example for the investiture of the Protestant ministers of the Church.[119]
    Consequently, nothing supports the allegation that conciliar Rome adopted the new rite because they share the ideas of the Anglicans concerning the episcopacy and their non-Catholic intention, even if the new rite is more easily acceptable to the Protestants than the old rite.
    2) The most contestable point of doctrine issuing from Vatican II as regards the episcopacy is collegiality. We know that Pope Paul VI himself was obliged to insert a nota explicativa prævia (preliminary explanatory note) 120 to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in order to avoid a heterodox interpretation being given to the Conciliar text. Here is the passage of this note that especially concerns us:
    A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members. Cf. Article 22, §1, at the end.
    In consecration is given an ontological participation in sacred functions, as is clear beyond doubt from tradition, even liturgical. The word functions is deliberately employed, rather than powers , since this latter word could be understood as ready to go into action. But for such ready power to be had, it needs canonical or juridical determination by hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office, or in an assigning of subjects; and it is given according to norms approved by the highest authority. Such an ulterior norm is demanded by the nature of the case, since there is question of functions which must be exercised by several subjects working together by Christ’s will in a hierarchical manner. It is clear that this “communion” has been in the life of the Church according to circumstances of the times, before it was, so to speak, codified in law”
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
    Ephesians 2:8-9

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #12 on: June 29, 2020, 02:46:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • More


    Solution of the difficulties: answers to the arguments
    Answers to the Arguments
    1) Undoubtedly, if the new rite were systematically invalid, the Catholic Church would be in a piteous state. Nevertheless, it still would not be without a hierarchy. Indeed, the bishops of the Eastern Rites would still remain, as they would continue to benefit from a valid ordination. And in the Roman Church, the bishops of Tradition would remain as well as–though for how long?—a few aged bishops ordained according to the former rite, all of them non-resident bishops. If the new rite were invalid, the Church would not be utterly without hierarchy: still, there would be an almost total disappearance of the Roman Church’s hierarchy, which seems hardly compatible with thespecial assistance of Providence over this Church, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches.
    2) Nor is it possible to make a definitive argument from the fact that the reform was examined by a commission of the Holy Office while Cardinal Ottaviani was Prefect. On the one hand, as we have seen, Dom Botte arranged things in such a way as to sideline the Holy Office’s representative during the meetings of the examining commission. On the other, it must be remembered that Cardinal Ottaviani had gone blind during the last part of his tenure. That is undoubtedly the reason why he began by letting the new Mass pass. Archbishop Lefebvre had to go and see him and insist that he reconsider his decision and sign The Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae. Just as he did with the new Mass, Cardinal Ottaviani could have allowed deficiencies to slip into the new episcopal consecration rite.
    3) There is no proof that Archbishop Lefebvre studied the reform of the episcopal consecration. A former seminarian even claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre had been tricked by a false report that presented Pope Paul VI’s reform as being in conformity with the Eastern rites. In fact, it is possible that Archbishop Lefebvre was shown the resemblance between the rite of Pope Paul VI and the Eastern rites, but in that there is no deception. The former seminarian of whom we speak was himself deceived by R. Coomaraswamy and did not notice this resemblance.
    Consequently, not much can be inferred from Archbishop Lefebvre’s silence, except a certain probability: it is likely that, if the new rite were certainly invalid, as some “Coomaraswamists” claim, then Providence would not have allowed a fact of such importance to escape the notice of a person manifestly chosen by God to guide faithful Catholics in this time of confusion.
    Conclusion
    We think that we have shown that the reasons for suspecting the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration as it was promulgated by Rome in 1968 are not at all serious. Moreover, the validity of the new rite could not be called into question without also calling into question the validity of several Eastern rites recognized by the Church from time immemorial. However, as we remarked at the end of the main response, if the new rite is still valid per se, it is quite possible that, owing to bad translations or an adaptation of the rite that strayed too far from the original, or because of a consecrator’s defect of intention, in certain particular cases we could have an invalid ceremony”
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
    Ephesians 2:8-9

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22438
    • Reputation: +12574/-3456
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #13 on: June 29, 2020, 02:50:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You just summarized the problem in the new rites...(1) the prayers/form no longer adequately provides the Church’s intention, so such intention must be provided by the minister.  In the True Rite, the intention of the minister is irrelevant because the prayer/form perfectly says what the Church intends.  
    .
    (2) Because the new rite NEEDS the intention of the minister to be valid, such intention is NECESSARILY INTERNAL because the prayer/form is too ambiguous and general.  Thus, there is NO EXTERNAL SIGN THAT THE INTENTION IS INVALID (or valid), unless you can read minds.
    .
    So the new-sspx’s policy is neither grounded in reality nor logical.  It’s also not consistent because it contradicts +Tissier’s past doubts on consexrations/ordinations.  

    I have to disagree.  This intention theology is faulty and has been invented and propagated precisely in order to back up this notion that "even though we don't think the Rite is doubtful, we think there still may be doubt".  That was so they could have their cake and eat it too.  While putting it out there for public consumption (including by the Vatican "authorities") that, oh, no, there really isn't a doubt, they could still resolve their secret doubts by justifying the practice of conditional ordination.  It was so as not to offend the Conciliar authorities.  "Oh, no, it's not your Rite that's doubtful, really ..."

    It is not required for the minister to intend the Sacramental effect, merely for the minister to DO what the Church does.  That's why atheists can validly baptized.  All they have to intend is, "I'm doing this thing that Catholics do." (and even that vaguely).  They don't have to believe that it has any effect.

    I had an SSPX priest who was conditionally ordained tell me that he himself had no doubts about his ordination, but he did it for "pastoral" reasons because a lot of the faithful at his chapel did have doubts.  So he wanted to put THEIR consciences at ease.

    See, I think the doubt theology evolved.  Most early Traditionalists held the NO Rite to be doubtful in and of itself.  So the SSPX used to do conditional ordinations without any kind of investigation or any requirement to demonstrate any reason for positive doubt, since the positive doubt was in the Rite itself.  When this began to shift, to appease the Conciliarists, they came up with a new justification for continuing to do conditional ordinations (so the faithful wouldn't start leaving their chapels).  So they came up with this "intention of the minister" problem to justify them.  Well, as time went on, as LastTrad pointed out, fewer and fewer Traditional Catholics cared, so now they've stopped doing them altogether.  That "intention of the minister" doubt is merely a negative doubt and it would require some positive doubt to establish whether or not conditional ordination would be licit in any particular case.  Now they just don't bother anymore because they don't feel the need to.
    Vigano for Pope !!!

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5678
    • Reputation: +2681/-478
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #14 on: June 29, 2020, 02:51:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm fairly certain that the OP was not interested in hearing why the SSPX thinks the new rites are valid.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


     

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