Author Topic: Father Christopher Feeney sspx  (Read 1196 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22207
  • Reputation: +12268/-6191
  • Gender: Male
Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2020, 02:52:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Father Cekada thoroughly debunked the comparison with Eastern Rite consecrations.

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #16 on: June 29, 2020, 02:53:58 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.
    My point is that the Resistance has no right to criticize the SSPX on this point( given that the Society’s position on this comes from a now Resistance Dominican)
    "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: 22207
    • Reputation: +12268/-6191
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #17 on: June 29, 2020, 02:54:12 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.

    Sure, but this is a thread drift that is not entirely out of bounds.  It doesn't appear that anyone has any knowledge to answer OP's original question.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22207
    • Reputation: +12268/-6191
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #18 on: June 29, 2020, 02:55:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My point is that the Resistance has no right to criticize the SSPX on this point( given that the Society’s position on this comes from a now Resistance Dominican)

    That's not valid logic.  Those in the Resistance have every right to disagree with those conclusions, regardless of who made them.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6057
    • Reputation: +3441/-1486
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #19 on: June 29, 2020, 02:57:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It is not required for the minister to intend the Sacramental effect, merely for the minister to DO what the Church does.  
    Ottaviani says that the new mass consecration REQUIRES a proper priestly intention for validity, or else the consecration may be (positively) doubted.  This logic would also apply to the consecrations, no?
    .

    Quote
    Most early Traditionalists held the NO Rite to be doubtful in and of itself. 
    If this be true, that’s just another positive doubt added to the mix. 


    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #20 on: June 29, 2020, 03:04:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's not valid logic.  Those in the Resistance have every right to disagree with those conclusions, regardless of who made them.
    No they don’t. The Avrille Dominicans are talked up on here as the intellectual powerhouse of the Resistance. By disagreeing with Fr. Marie, Resistance faithful are saying they know better than he does on this. In that case, they should criticize him( not just the SSPX) as he came up with the position. They should also leave the Resistance and start a new, purer movement ( as they know more than one of their brightest priests)
    Fr. Marie is probably one of the seminary professors training Resistance seminarians. If Resistance faithful don’t trust him, who do they trust?
    "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 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5479
    • Reputation: +2597/-1666
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #21 on: June 29, 2020, 03:10:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sure, but this is a thread drift that is not entirely out of bounds.  It doesn't appear that anyone has any knowledge to answer OP's original question.
    True.  However, there is enough doubt about Fr. Christopher Feeney's ordination to drive a Mack truck though it.  
    "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 Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6057
    • Reputation: +3441/-1486
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #22 on: June 29, 2020, 03:28:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    By disagreeing with Fr. Marie, Resistance faithful are saying they know better than he does on this.
    Maybe some do?  Until the Church decides, it's his opinion vs other's opinion.
    .
    Quote
    In that case, they should criticize him( not just the SSPX) as he came up with the position.
    That's a fair point.  My criticism is why did the new-sspx veer from +Tissier's position?  And to your point, why did the Resistance veer from him as well?  It's still opinion vs opinion, but I see no "new information" that necessitates a change from +Tissier's strong doubt.
    .
    Quote
    They should also leave the Resistance and start a new, purer movement ( as they know more than one of their brightest priests)
    That's just silly.


    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #23 on: June 29, 2020, 03:38:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe some do?  Until the Church decides, it's his opinion vs other's opinion.
    .That's a fair point.  My criticism is why did the new-sspx veer from +Tissier's position?  And to your point, why did the Resistance veer from him as well?  It's still opinion vs opinion, but I see no "new information" that necessitates a change from +Tissier's strong doubt.
    .That's just silly.
    My last point was a jab. I’m just emphasizing the point that this man is training Resistance seminarians( your future priests) If you want people to leave the SSPX over things like this( which some Resistance faithful seem to) then leave the Resistance as well
    "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 Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4244
    • Reputation: +2228/-1168
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #24 on: June 29, 2020, 06:28:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • My last point was a jab. I’m just emphasizing the point that this man is training Resistance seminarians( your future priests) If you want people to leave the SSPX over things like this( which some Resistance faithful seem to) then leave the Resistance as well
    I've been going exclusively to SSPX chapels since I came back to the Church 25 years ago. The SSPX as an organization from the beginning has always taught that people in any religion can be saved, which I do not agree with. The SSPX also grants annulments, which I do not agree with. The SSPX is basically just a coop of priests, what the SSPX teaches as an organization and what the individual priests believe is another story. Resistance people here disagree with Bp. Williamson on some points. Your logic only has traction with people who blindly follow groups. Do you think the way you do because you blindly follow groups? 

    I do not follow groups, I follow truth, which is the most important thing, specially today, when the shepherd is struck and the sheep are scattered. No group is 100% correct today. When we have a real pope, then we will have the source of truth to clarify all of these questions and doubts.
    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 Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22207
    • Reputation: +12268/-6191
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #25 on: June 29, 2020, 07:03:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No they don’t. 

    That's ridiculous.  No one owes "internal assent" to the opinions of any priest or bishop in the Traditional movement.


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • Reputation: +191/-238
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #26 on: June 30, 2020, 03:46:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .That's a fair point.  My criticism is why did the new-sspx veer from +Tissier's position?  And to your point, why did the Resistance veer from him as well?  It's still opinion vs opinion, but I see no "new information" that necessitates a change from +Tissier's strong doubt.
    By "position", do you mean a private note bishop Tissier wrote in response to being given a Coomaraswamy book and "having read it rapidly"? And wasn't that before the Avrille analysis?

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +165/-819
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #27 on: June 30, 2020, 05:07:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's ridiculous.  No one owes "internal assent" to the opinions of any priest or bishop in the Traditional movement.
    Then we are no better than Protestants. Yes, one may disagree with the their Trad priest/Society on minor points( one may hold to theistic evolutionists even though their priest is a creationist), but if you’ve gotten to the point where you think your priest is flat wrong about something like the validity of a Rite, you ought to find another place to go.
    Disagree with the SSPX on this? Fine, go to the SSPV( who view the New Rites as doubtful ) or if you want to remain at your SSPX chapel, don’t mouth off about how you disagree with your priest and the Society on the internet( just keep it to yourself) Not directed at you Lad- just making a broader point.
    "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: 22207
    • Reputation: +12268/-6191
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #28 on: June 30, 2020, 07:03:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Then we are no better than Protestants. Yes, one may disagree with the their Trad priest/Society on minor points( one may hold to theistic evolutionists even though their priest is a creationist), but if you’ve gotten to the point where you think your priest is flat wrong about something like the validity of a Rite, you ought to find another place to go.
    Disagree with the SSPX on this? Fine, go to the SSPV( who view the New Rites as doubtful ) or if you want to remain at your SSPX chapel, don’t mouth off about how you disagree with your priest and the Society on the internet( just keep it to yourself) Not directed at you Lad- just making a broader point.

    Catholics have regularly disagreed on various points of doctrine throughout history.  We owe assent ultimately only to the Magisterium, not to individual bishops or priests who lack jurisdiction or teaching authority.  Someone could be mostly aligned with the Resistance and yet disagree with something that one of the Resistance bishops says or believes.  To say that this is Protestantism, I don't even know what to say to that.

    So I must break communion with an entire group because I don't agree with one or two points that are not de fide and which Catholics in good faith are entitled to disagree about?

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1406
    • Reputation: +368/-272
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Father Christopher Feeney sspx
    « Reply #29 on: June 30, 2020, 07:48:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ...
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


     

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