Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Quo vadis Domine on June 29, 2020, 05:37:58 AM
-
Does anyone know if Father Christopher Feeney has been conditionally ordained?
-
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!!!
-
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 COVID-19 mention):
https://fsspx.today/chapel/ny-warners/announcements/ (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).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIPA5bESxbM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIPA5bESxbM)
-
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 (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 vaccines, 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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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 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 (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
-
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
-
Last Tradhican said it IMO. Good post.
-
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.
-
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 ecuмenism with the Anglicans. The “ecuмenical” 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 ecuмenical 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 ecuмenism 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 circuмstances of the times, before it was, so to speak, codified in law”
-
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 (https://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention). 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”
-
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.
-
I'm fairly certain that the OP was not interested in hearing why the SSPX thinks the new rites are valid.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
.
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.
.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
No they don’t.
That's ridiculous. No one owes "internal assent" to the opinions of any priest or bishop in the Traditional movement.
-
.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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
...
-
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?
I don’t disagree with what you say here and as I said my criticism isn’t directed at you. To reiterate- certain Resistance faithful have criticized the Society for not re-ordaining all NO priests who come in. The Society’s policy on this point is based on a position that comes from a priest who’s now a Resistance Dominican and seminary professor. All I’m saying is that if the Society’s attitude on the New Rites are grounds for leaving it ( and encouraging others to) the faithful who do so should avoid the Resistance as well ( if they wish to be consistent)
The disagreements between the Society and the Resistance are largely over words (and of course personalities), not anything serious or substantial
-
I’m absolutely confident, as I have a excellent source, that Father Feeney IS validly ordained.
-
I’m absolutely confident, as I have a excellent source, that Father Feeney IS validly ordained.
That's likely because you believe the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid, no?
I do not believe with certainty of faith that the new rite of ordination, and the new formula for the consecration of a bishop are valid, therefore, if Fr. Feeney is ordained in the new rite or his ordinating bishop was consecrated in the new formula, I do not believe he is a priest.
-
That's likely because you believe the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid, no?
I do not believe with certainty of faith that the new rite of ordination, and the new formula for the consecration of a bishop are valid, therefore, if Fr. Feeney is ordained in the new rite or his ordinating bishop was consecrated in the new formula, I do not believe he is a priest.
I'm actually curious as to how QVD knows he is validly ordained because I'm fairly certain that QVD does not typically believe NO ordinations are certainly valid. I can only guess that we were wrong and the priest was conditionally ordained. However, I don't trust that the SSPX does that.
-
I’m absolutely confident, as I have a excellent source, that Father Feeney IS validly ordained.
In my own house 2 years ago he told me he was not reordained and the sspx accepted his ordination as valid.
-
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 (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
Let's discuss the validity of the Novus ordo ordination rite, one of the "bastardized" rites, according to Bishop Tissier.
I don't think you want to go there... millennial trad-boy.
-
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 (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 vaccines, 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.
Father Feeney is on record as telling his faithful in the Pittston chapel, specifically NOT to ask him if he was conditionally ordained.
-
In my own house 2 years ago he told me he was not reordained and the sspx accepted his ordination as valid.
Perhaps we have another situation like Fr. Hesse: Old Rite bishop giving New Rite ordination. For me, that is still doubtful (albeit less doubtful), but I can see the SSPX being totally fine with it.
-
That's likely because you believe the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid, no?
I do not believe with certainty of faith that the new rite of ordination, and the new formula for the consecration of a bishop are valid, therefore, if Fr. Feeney is ordained in the new rite or his ordinating bishop was consecrated in the new formula, I do not believe he is a priest.
😂 I’m arguably the biggest skeptic on here of NO ordinations.
-
Father Feeney is on record as telling his faithful in the Pittston chapel, specifically NOT to ask him if he was conditionally ordained.
That seems sketch even to me.. and I'm more on the side of tending to think new ordinations are valid.... like why would you be afraid of this?
-
I am actually more worried if young presumably priests were validly baptized in the first place. For instance, fr. Albert OP was conditionally baptized at some point.
-
That seems sketch even to me.. and I'm more on the side of tending to think new ordinations are valid.... like why would you be afraid of this?
I've heard of stories of priests blowing-up over questions about ordinations. I think their position is, "Why is this lay person scrutinizing my Orders?"
But all the same, we're in the heat of the battle and rightfully need reassurance of our Holy religious's Orders.
I recall Father Voigt is rather proud that he had been conditionally ordained, at least two times. He admitted his mistakes but is proudly in the fold now.
-
I am actually more worried if young presumably priests were validly baptized in the first place. For instance, fr. Albert OP was conditionally baptized at some point.
Thats a great point, and how about the bishop that did the ordination? I mean it just becomes a rabbit hole of what ifs which is exactly what Pius XII was trying to get rid of.
-
Fr. Christopher Feeney was conditionally ordained, according to my sspx priest. I'm not sure if this was done recently or a long time ago. Conditional ordinations are usually kept hidden from the public.
-
Catholic Candle says (https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Catholic-Candle-List-of-priests-others-who-claim-to-be-priests.pdf):
'So-called “father” Christopher Paul Feeney Supposedly ordained in 2010 in the conciliar church of the diocese of Norwalk, CT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIPA5bESxbM The “new” SSPX has been sending the man on a “mass” circuit. Source: a Catholic Candle contributor and reader.'
Honestly Catholic Candle has an unusual home alone version of SSPX Resistance who is very definite that Francis is Pope, but there are no safe Masses in the whole US. CC also holds that sedes cannot ordain or be consecrated, so the 'so called' form of words is used for those who don't have old diocesan or SSPX orders.
Anyhow, there's no evidence Fr Feeney was conditionally ordained.
-
Catholic Candle says (https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Catholic-Candle-List-of-priests-others-who-claim-to-be-priests.pdf):
'So-called “father” Christopher Paul Feeney Supposedly ordained in 2010 in the conciliar church of the diocese of Norwalk, CT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIPA5bESxbM The “new” SSPX has been sending the man on a “mass” circuit. Source: a Catholic Candle contributor and reader.'
Honestly Catholic Candle has an unusual home alone version of SSPX Resistance who is very definite that Francis is Pope, but there are no safe Masses in the whole US. CC also holds that sedes cannot ordain or be consecrated, so the 'so called' form of words is used for those who don't have old diocesan or SSPX orders.
Anyhow, there's no evidence Fr Feeney was conditionally ordained.
An excellent source told me that he was conditionally ordained.
-
Any relation to the OG?
-
An excellent source told me that he was conditionally ordained.
Someone with the details could advise the editor of Catholic Candle. His listing (https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Catholic-Candle-List-of-priests-others-who-claim-to-be-priests.pdf) is not perfect, but there is much worse (I've seen a Pfeifferite listing which seemed almost to take his sect as the remnants of the Church and other equivalent oddities), and is accurate taking account of certain quirks, both Conciliar and sede ordinations and consecration are taken as automatically invalid, which is not right, not what any genuine expert would accept, and there seems a weird suspicion of the Greek Rite, whose orders were not grievously mangled by Paul VI