Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: FDS: Feeney Derangement Syndrome  (Read 16826 times)

0 Members and 33 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: FDS: Feeney Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #100 on: June 08, 2026, 05:23:09 PM »
1)In muslim countries christians live in hiding, that doesn't make them non-christians. The same goes for christians in North Korea or any country that persecutes Christians actively. Can you explain what you mean by "inherently public"?

2)St Thomas' argument regarding conscience means that following one's conscience DOESN'T ADD ANOTHER SIN. The belief itself (in an erroneous teaching) can be sinful if it's vincible ignorance, but following the erroneous conscience doesn't add another additional sin.

3)Not everything that comes from the mouth of a modernist is a lie or false. Otherwise, no one would be stupid enough to become a modernist. Modernists love to exaggerate valid teachings until they become a caricature.

1) I used the term inherently, but perhaps it should have been more substantially public or visible.  That's to be distinguished from something that's intrinsically invisible, which is the Protestant ecclesiology.  So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism is intrinsicallly visible, even if it's done in secret by one person and nobody else knows ... since it's a visible sign by which God confers grace.  Now, this also generally requires profession of the faith, etc. ... but those aspects of visibility are more of precept than of absolute necessity, since in consenting to or expression the intention to be baptized also implicitly entails a profession of faith, etc.  But the visiblity of the profession, etc. can be virtually contained within the visible reption of the Sacrament.  Now, those like St. Robert Bellarmine who held that only Catechumens could have a "BoD", but even then the Catechumenate was considered a visible adherence to the Church, to some extent.

2) Well, adhering to a WELL-FORMED conscience doesn't add sin.  If one's conscience is malformed due to other culpabile reasons.  And ... so what?  To hold that people are saved if they do not commit actual sin, that's nothing short of Pelagian heresy.  St. Thomas himself expalins this.  While St. Thomas Aquinas held that Baptism could be supplied for, he clearly taught that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, and he addressed this question, holding that they are not damned for the sin of infidelity but for other sins that became obstacles to their reception of the faith, which, had they not committed, God would have sent an angel if necessary to teach them the faith.

3)  I'm not sure what your point is here.  Yes, Modernists can speak the truth, and Rahner ... being one of the movers and shakers at the Council, knowing full well the agenda of the Modernists, was one of the forces who pushed for this redefinition of EENS and therefore of Catholic ecclesiology.  AND, sadly, he shows more intellectual honesty than many modern-day Trads.  How?  I've seen it stated now twice in different anti-Feeneyite tracts that the Church Fathers unviersally taught BoD ... which is a blatant lie.  Rahner, who would have loved nothing better than to find evidence among the Church Fathers for BoD, admitted that they generally rejected it, and admitted that even St. Augustine, the speculative originator of the notion, had even retracted it in the end.

But you really haven't addressed the elephant in the room, per the OP.

If various Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and Hindus can be saved ... then they must be IN the Church somehow.  Now, if not only Catholics but also these Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, etc. etc. are in the Church ... what then is the definition of "Church"?  Well, it's the Vatican II definition.

If you want to hold that, that's up to you ... but then you have nothing to stand on in rejecting the teaching of Vatican II.

Re: FDS: Feeney Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #101 on: June 08, 2026, 05:32:13 PM »

3)  I'm not sure what your point is here.  Yes, Modernists can speak the truth, and Rahner ... being one of the movers and shakers at the Council, knowing full well the agenda of the Modernists, was one of the forces who pushed for this redefinition of EENS and therefore of Catholic ecclesiology.  AND, sadly, he shows more intellectual honesty than many modern-day Trads.  How?  I've seen it stated now twice in different anti-Feeneyite tracts that the Church Fathers unviersally taught BoD ... which is a blatant lie.  Rahner, who would have loved nothing better than to find evidence among the Church Fathers for BoD, admitted that they generally rejected it, and admitted that even St. Augustine, the speculative originator of the notion, had even retracted it in the end.
Rahner on V2 and EENS for reference:

The Second Vatican Council positively asserts that it is possible for the non- Christian to attain salvation, though at the same time it declares that such salvation is achieved in ways that are known to God alone. In a tacit but noteworthy correction to the officially received theology which had hitherto been more or less unanimous on this point, it was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation, though here the distinctions between positive and negative atheism, between atheism of greater or lesser duration, usually accepted up to that point were not applied at the Second Vatican Council. The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual's own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church's conscious awareness of her faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis etc.


Problem of the "Anonymous Christian", Theological Investigations, Vol. 14


Re: FDS: Feeney Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #102 on: June 08, 2026, 09:00:25 PM »

It's amazing how thoroughly jewChurch propagandists have distorted &  buried the memory of Father Leonard Feeney.

Father was one of the few brilliant priest in the 1940's who knew the Faith and was prepared to fight for it.

When jew-masonry using American tax dollars and technology nuked Japan annihilating civilian populations, he immediately protested.  

Here's an article he wrote in "The Point" in 1952 describing the American Catholicism.
No other Catholic leaders had the guts to write the truth like this:

THE CHURCH MILITANT AND THE CHURCH DILETTANTE

On October 7, the Church commemorates in her liturgy the Battle of Lepanto. It was on this date, in the year 1571, that a small Christian fleet under the command of Don John of Austria halted and destroyed the powerful Turkish forces that were threatening to invade and overrun Europe.

To secure this miraculous victory, Pope St. Pius V, who then reigned, asked the faithful to storm Heaven with the Rosary, beseeching Our Lady to crush these enemies of her and her Son and to save Europe from their scourge.

That is why, on October 7, to commemorate the glorious victory of the Christians over the Mohammedans at Lepanto, the Church celebrates the feast of the Most Holy Rosary.

Lepanto was the last, late impulse of that great movement known as the Crusades, a movement which had begun in the final years of the eleventh century and which had as its purpose to rescue the Holy Sepulchre, the tomb in which the precious body of Christ had lain, from the hands of the infidels. It was for this that millions of Christians left homes and lands and families, to journey to a strange country, and there to shed their blood fighting a strange people, a people who rejected and despised their God, and who thereby made themselves the enemies of those who loved Him.


The Holy Sepulchre is today in the hands of the infidels, just as it was at the time of the Crusades. (It has, indeed, been turned into a giant Interfaith temple, with Mohammedans holding the keys to the place, and Catholics, Orthodox, Monophysites and others holding services there.) But if a Catholic of our day were to suggest going off to the Holy Land to fight for possession of the Holy Sepulchre, he would be immediately labeled, by his pastor and everyone who heard of him, “out of his mind.” For there is no group in the history of the Church with whom modern, successful American Catholics have less in common than the Crusaders.

There is nothing so remote from their interests and aspirations as trying to recapture the Holy Sepulchre.

But it is not merely in their unwillingness to fight for the Holy Sepulchre that American Catholics show their estrangement from the Crusaders. For the Crusades were more than a particular war for a particular objective at a particular time. They were motivated by a spirit, and that spirit has been shared by all faithful Christians at all times. It is a spirit that thinks the salvation of one’s soul is the most important task one has to accomplish, and is ready to sacrifice any lesser good to that end. It is a spirit that thinks the kingdom of Heaven is taken by violence, and that only the violent bear it away.

 It is a spirit that is sensitive to blasphemy, zealous to defend holy things, and wrathful when it sees them profaned. It is a spirit that thinks the enemies of Jesus and Mary ought to be the enemies of all Christians. It is a spirit that looks on life itself as a continual warfare: a warfare of right against wrong, of good against evil, of the seed of Our Lady against the seed of Satan; a warfare we must wage both within ourselves, to root out the evil that is there, and in the world outside; a warfare we must wage to save our souls, with the Cross as our shield and our standard.

There is nothing of this spirit among American Catholics. To them, life is not a warfare, but a pursuit for peace. They want to be peaceful both toward the evil that is in themselves and toward the evil that is in the world. They look on the Church as a kind of spiritual Rotary Club that has a slap on the back and a good word for everyone.



Despite the blasphemy, the lust, the greed and degeneracy that are accepted and expected commonplaces in American life, American Catholics still refuse to believe that this is a country opposed to Jesus and Mary.

 Despite this country’s continual and blatant profanation of the Holy Name of Jesus, despite its sniggering filth that constantly affronts the spotless purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, American Catholics still give no indication that the Faith has any enemies closer than J. Stalin.

 They show neither by their words nor by their actions any determination to stop these things or to separate and distinguish themselves from the people responsible for them. Instead, it seems that their main concern is to befriend these non-Catholic fellow-Americans of theirs, and to assure them that, whether they know it or not, and whether they like it or not, they have by their innate goodness and sincerity established themselves as members of the soul of the Church, on which account they are going to spend eternity in the Beatific Vision.

Every Catholic boy longs somehow for a crusade. He knows that that is what the Faith is meant to be — a glorious campaign for the love and honor of Jesus and Mary. And its fruits should be zeal, and courage, and sanctity, and greatness. But a Catholic boy in America does not find these things.

 Instead of the Faith being the most important thing in his life, something to give himself to wholeheartedly, something to fight for and to die for, the Faith is made to seem to him humdrum, and routine, and not nearly as exciting as most other things. He is told that the Faith is something that he is required to hold, but that others are not. He is told that people who are plainly enemies of Christ and His Church are fundamentally good-willed and are trying to serve God according to their lights. 

He is told that his primary duty is not preaching and protecting the sacred dogmas of the Faith, but is rather some cause like “brotherhood” that he has in common with those who reject such dogmas.


To an American Catholic boy, there seems to be no reason, no incentive for a crusade. The Church in America does not seem to need him to fight for it, or to want him to. It seems to be an organization that is politically powerful, wealthy, successful — and religiously unnecessary. It fights no battles and wins no victories. It produces no saints and inspires no heroes. It has no Don Johns, no St. Pius V’s, no Lepantos.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: FDS: Feeney Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #103 on: June 09, 2026, 01:34:10 AM »

This is simply not true as I've explained before.  I think we're talking past each other because you don't recognize there's a real distinction between what I described above and the ecclesiology of VII.  What this new ecclesiology purports to assert is that because false religions contain some truth, they are therefore an objective and public means of salvation.  They assert an objective, public way of salvation for the non-catholic precisely through a false religion, even worse, there is an invisible "church of Christ" that expands beyond the confines of the Catholic church uniting all "believers" together.  This is patently false.  A man can hold Scripture in his hands and twist it to his own destruction.  A Muslim can believe there is only one God and yet completely lack the supernatural virtue of faith.  This erodes and denies dogma.  One does not deny or erode dogma by admitting the possibility of someone converting and receiving forgiveness of his sins in the internal forum by a way only known to God.  Since this is a subjective reality, no one can know who this might apply to.  As a matter of fact, it is only a mere possibility, not even a probability, hence you cannot build a "theology" on it.  Perhaps one out of a million receives this grace, who knows?  The fact of the matter is that theologians and Popes have long held this is as a possibility. 

So, no ... you haven't mansplained anything, but have merely erected strawmen misrepresentations of both the Traditional dogma and of Vatican II.

Neither did the Traditional dogma merely teach that there's no salvation except BY the Church, nor did Vatican II merely teach that false religions are a means of salvation.  Both taught an ecclesiology that goes hand in hand with the soteriology.  You attempt to Vatican II as merely teaching a soteriology, about the causes of salvation.

So, only later, did Vatican II declare that the Holy Ghost has not refrained from using false ("Christians") religions as means of salvation, which nevertheless derive their efficacy from the true religion.  Of course, this statement certainly has a true sense.  Let's say that the Orthodox baptize an infant, who then dies before reaching the age of reason.  Was this not a case of a false religion being used as a means of salvation, which derived its efficacy from the true relgion (from the Sacrament of Baptism).  That's the one place that V2 refers to the "means" of salvation.

But the core error begins with the "subsistence" ecclesiology.  Now, once you subjectivize soteriology, as even most of the Trad clergy due, if some Prot preaches ya the Baable, and you accept it and believe in Jesus, and are and can be saved ... then the fact that these false religions can be a MEANS of salvation actually follows quite logically.

So ... epic fail.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: FDS: Feeney Derangement Syndrome
« Reply #104 on: June 09, 2026, 01:38:44 AM »
I don't understand how one can discuss EENS without discussing how one gets INto the Church ...which is through Baptism. ? I guess I'm not understanding.

You have it backwards.  What I'm saying is that you can have an understanding of BoD that does not gut Catholic ecclesiology, where you might have various candidates for Baptism who have professed their belief in and submission to the Catholic religion, and by profession of the true faith can be considered to be partially members of the Church, meeting some if not all of the criteria.

But they anti-EENS crowd immediately try to shift focus away from EENS to BoD, at which point they quote St. Thomas, etc. ... and "prove" BoD, and hide their EENS-denial behind a defense of "BoD" when the two, while they can and often do overlap, do not have to.  So, for instance, many of these will even laughably claim that baptized Protestants can be saved by "BoD".  That's because BoD has simply become code word for ... whatever it takes to get someone saved without their having to actually join the Church.