Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on November 29, 2023, 10:04:06 PM
-
I was reading the description of this book set and noticed a very interesting line.
https://stritabooks.com/abante/complete-manual-of-dogmatic-theology?keyword=sermons&category_id=0
Many Catholics living today can remember when priests were well trained in theology and could express the Faith properly in their sermons and in their writing. That is because they were given sound teaching at the seminary in Logic, Philosophy, and Dogmatic Theology from textbooks such as this 12 volume set. The famous Pohle-Preuss manual was used in many seminaries in America and other countries prior to the 1950's when seminary training began to go downhill.
This particular manual was used in the Jesuit seminary where Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was one called by his Jesuit superior "the greatest theologian we have in America...by far" was trained. This beautiful hardbound series is an exact reproduction of the edition originally published in 1911, and it was written by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle an edited by Arthur Preuss.
Joseph Pohle was a Jesuit and one of the founding faculty members of the Catholic University of America as well as a frequent contributor to the Catholic Encyclopedia. He died in 1922 after having produced one of the clearest and most succinct and useful systematic studies of Catholic theology ever published. This series is invaluable for priests, seminarians, and anyone interested in a systematic study of dogmatic theology.
What an interesting comment of praise. I think this is the same Feeney is that is wrongly attacked by many trads today..
-
You are right. I read books such as the Boston Hersey Case. His side of the story. Fr. Feeney was defending the Church. Defending against those watering down the dogma of no salvation outside the church. He was just as strong Fr. Coughlin on radio. Both were gagged, by who? Vatican? Who? God will have His day!
Chances maybe that we will see both these priests in heaven.
-
You are right. I read books such as the Boston Hersey Case. His side of the story. Fr. Feeney was defending the Church. Defending against those watering down the dogma of no salvation outside the church. He was just as strong Fr. Coughlin on radio. Both were gagged, by who? Vatican? Who? God will have His day!
Chances maybe that we will see both these priests in heaven.
Father Feeney was gagged by multiple people. Bobby Kennedy heard Father Feeney speak and complained to Cushing about it. Then there were a lot of Jews being converted at Harvard, so the Jews complained to Cushing (his sister was married to a Jew and they may have been cryptos). Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors in the 1940s were open Modernist heretics, and they silenced him due to pressure from Cushing, although being Jesuits and believing in free thinking, they were somewhat reluctant to do so. Finally, there were clearly some machinations from Cushing here, where he solicited that so-called Suprema Haec from the Holy Office, a docuмent which never appeared in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and was therefore not considered authentic Magisterium, and which was only published in Cushing's own Irish Ecclesiastical Review, and only almost two years after it was allegedly written and signed, right after the Cardinal who allegedly signed it had died. Cushing himself was a manifest heretic, as a biographer (who was favorable to him) quoted him as having said, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody [including the Church, I guess, via dogmatic definition] is gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." and at another time saying he'd never met anyone he thought might go to Hell.
Father Feeney, much maligned today by Trads (even more than conservative Novus Ordites), was the only one who basically saw Vatican II coming and who identified, beforehand, the root theological error behind Vatican II.
-
I was reading the description of this book set and noticed a very interesting line.
https://stritabooks.com/abante/complete-manual-of-dogmatic-theology?keyword=sermons&category_id=0
What an interesting comment of praise. I think this is the same Feeney is that is wrongly attacked by many trads today..
It is my understanding that Father Feeney was not a theologian.
-
It is my understanding that Father Feeney was not a theologian.
Not technically. I think his Jesuit superior used the term loosely or broadly.
-
It is my understanding that Father Feeney was not a theologian.
Not in the canonical sense of theologian, but Fr. Feeney was in the broad sense. He had completed the "long" form of the Jesuit scholasticate reserved from the "bright", he did post-graduate studies at Oxford, and he was a seminary professor in homiletics. Even modernist Avery Cardinal Dulles expressed gratitude to Feeney for the sound theological foundation he had planted in seminarians even if Dulles himself had strayed from those foundations.
-
"The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far."
- Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J. (Father Feeney's Jesuit Provincial)
"The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today."
- John Cardinal Wright (but later an enemy to the Center)
"One of the most outstanding prophets of our time."
- Hamish Fraser
Concerning “Bread of Life” by Fr. Leonard Feeney --
Pope John XXIII assigned Monsignor Francis Cassano (deceased) to review and examine Bread of Life by Father Leonard Feeney. He was to find any errors - nay, heresy. He reported there was nothing "contrary to faith" in Bread of Life. Msgr. Cassano eventually had a parish on the Hudson River and attested his conclusion to many people, including the Center itself. (This Monsignor was not a "nobody" - he had also been assigned by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello.) We hear lots of calumnies from Rome (and others) about Fr. Feeney
… But we never seem to hear of this particular report by Msgr. Cassano – which found no flaw in Father’s famous book, “Bread of Life.”
-
John Alexander Floersh (d. 1967), Archbishop of Louisville, prior to Vat II the Jesuits asked Abp. Floersh if they had permission to hear confessions in Louisville, and the Abp. replied "absolutely not." A priest ordained in 1943 told me that story. The Jesuits were filled with heresy long before Vatican II. No wonder the Jesuits and other modernists hated Fr. Feeney for preaching Extra Ecclesiam.
I uploaded a PDF of the book/chapter by Josephine Van Dyke Brownson (Orestes Brownson's granddaughter), Living Forever (1928). She has a chapter on "Baptism of Desire and of Blood." She says stuff that her grandfather never said, and never would say. I will not critique here what she said, but perhaps we can start another thread on what she says. This is just evidence that the whole Baptism of Desire nonsense was propagated long before the liberal Jesuits in the 30's, 40's, and 50's.
-
Unfortunately, on this forum Father Feeney is relegated to the virtual ghetto :facepalm:
-
Fr. Feeney ran afoul of Cardinal Cushing because Cushing felt that Feeney was attacking his sister and brother in law and because young Bobby Kennedy complained about him. Cushinf was unjust.
But Fr did wrong by not obeying his superior and going to his new assignment. He was wrong in setting up that cultish living arrangement with his followers. He was wrong to break up married couples. He was wrong to forbid the children of his followers to be raised by their parents. He was wrong in attacking Maisie Ward his former friend and publisher. He was wrong in making fun of Mother Cabrini.
-
Were you there?
-
Were you there?
I was in 1973 for a week, and can say I have no idea where some of these people come up with that type of bs.
-
Fr. Feeney ran afoul of Cardinal Cushing because Cushing felt that Feeney was attacking his sister and brother in law and because young Bobby Kennedy complained about him. Cushinf was unjust.
But Fr did wrong by not obeying his superior and going to his new assignment. He was wrong in setting up that cultish living arrangement with his followers. He was wrong to break up married couples. He was wrong to forbid the children of his followers to be raised by their parents. He was wrong in attacking Maisie Ward his former friend and publisher. He was wrong in making fun of Mother Cabrini.
Were you there?
-
Fr. Feeney ran afoul of Cardinal Cushing because Cushing felt that Feeney was attacking his sister and brother in law and because young Bobby Kennedy complained about him. Cushinf was unjust.
But Fr did wrong by not obeying his superior and going to his new assignment. He was wrong in setting up that cultish living arrangement with his followers. He was wrong to break up married couples. He was wrong to forbid the children of his followers to be raised by their parents. He was wrong in attacking Maisie Ward his former friend and publisher. He was wrong in making fun of Mother Cabrini.
I assume you're a Lefebvrite, correct? Is it also true that you're disobedient to what you perceive to be an Ecuмenical Council promulgated with Paul VI's so-called apostolic authority and over 60 years of encylicals, laws, disciplines, apostolic exhortations, etc., etc. from what you perceive to be the Catholic hierarchy?
If that is true, how can you consistently reproach Fr. Feeney for disobeying a vile heretic, B'nai B'rith man of the year, who called the salvation dogma nonsense and pioneered ecuмenical meetings while at the same time being okay with rejecting an ecuмenical council?
I don't know about those other things you mentioned, I doubt Feeney was doing anything obviously evil. In any case, the reason he was persecuted was because he preached no salvation outside the Church without compromise while the apostate hierarchs were getting ready to prove their faithlessness at Vatican II, completely vindicating Fr. Feeney who was pretty much the only one screaming that something is terribly wrong.
I invite everyone who has a negative impression of Feeney to listen (5 min) to his letter to Pius XII and reconsider:
https://youtu.be/Oqua2Nr5bLE
-
I assume you're a Lefebvrite, correct? Is it also true that you're disobedient to what you perceive to be an Ecuмenical Council promulgated with Paul VI's so-called apostolic authority and over 60 years of encylicals, laws, disciplines, apostolic exhortations, etc., etc. from what you perceive to be the Catholic hierarchy?
If that is true, how can you consistently reproach Fr. Feeney for disobeying a vile heretic, B'nai B'rith man of the year, who called the salvation dogma nonsense and pioneered ecuмenical meetings while at the same time being okay with rejecting an ecuмenical council?
Not only this, but the sedevacantists who attack Father Feeney for disobeying Cushing are also in self-contradiction. See, if ever there was a manifest heretic it was Cushing. "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." ... just to take one of dozens of heretical statements he made in public. According to SV principles, then, Cushing was a manifest heretic and therefore no longer the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.
-
I invite everyone who has a negative impression of Feeney to listen (5 min) to his letter to Pius XII and reconsider:
https://youtu.be/Oqua2Nr5bLE
When the entire world believed that all was well with the Church, based on the number of building projects in the US, Father Feeney was the only one who called out the decay that would lead to Vatican II. Prophetically, he stated in 1949 that "in 10 years it would be too late to save" the Church (at least in America). In late 1958, Roncall was "elected".
-
When the entire world believed that all was well with the Church, based on the number of building projects in the US, Father Feeney was the only one who called out the decay that would lead to Vatican II. Prophetically, he stated in 1949 that "in 10 years it would be too late to save" the Church (at least in America). In late 1958, Roncall was "elected".
A stunning prediction for sure. It's even the exact number of years, in 9 years Pius XII would still be alive.
-
Not only this, but the sedevacantists who attack Father Feeney for disobeying Cushing are also in self-contradiction. See, if ever there was a manifest heretic it was Cushing. "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." ... just to take one of dozens of heretical statements he made in public. According to SV principles, then, Cushing was a manifest heretic and therefore no longer the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.
Exactly, the question of disobedience is a red herring for both sedevacantists and Lefebvrites. The real question is what was Fr. Feeney attacked for and why wouldn't they tell him his charges? The answer is: He was attacked for preaching no salvation outside the Church and the modernists obviously couldn't just come out and say that, they had to weasel themselves around the dogma.
It's very clear which side was interested in preserving the Catholic faith whole and inviolate and it wasn't the judaizing Cushing and his ilk.
-
Fr. Feeney ran afoul of Cardinal Cushing because Cushing felt that Feeney was attacking his sister and brother in law and because young Bobby Kennedy complained about him. Cushinf was unjust.
But Fr did wrong by not obeying his superior and going to his new assignment. He was wrong in setting up that cultish living arrangement with his followers. He was wrong to break up married couples. He was wrong to forbid the children of his followers to be raised by their parents. He was wrong in attacking Maisie Ward his former friend and publisher. He was wrong in making fun of Mother Cabrini.
So, I checked who Mother Cabrini was, found out she is a saint, and also that in Fr. Feeney's The Point there is only praise for her.
Protestant America is a land where children are either pampered or prevented, and grow up to be either divorced or mercy-killed. It is a land which, having many religions and no certitudes, demands that a child get dogmatic about democracy and make a creed out of the slogan that creeds are of no importance. A determination to protect the Italian-Catholic children of America from this kind of enslavement was what forged our only American saint, Mother Cabrini. She said, “I shall have no peace until I have wrested every last infant from Protestant hands.”
From the beginnings of our country, Mother Cabrini’s purpose had been anticipated by Our Blessed Lady. In her mercy toward America, Our Lady arranged that most of the Protestantism of our land should be the Baptizing kind. Thus, in thousands of water-pourings, validly administered, New World babies with Protestant parents became members of the Church and subjects of the Pope. And countless of these infants were soon after taken up to heaven by Our Lady — where they remain happy hostages for the conversion of the land they, happily, never grew up in.
But from a later American apostle, Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, the tireless nun who died at Chicago in 1917, we can learn that most important lesson for contemporary Catholics. It has been preserved for us in Mother Cabrini’s own words: “We let ourselves be overcome by human respect, and cease to show ourselves true followers of Our Lord before the world … We see truth trodden underfoot, and we remain silent. Why? Because we are cowards. Oh, how we need to renew our faith, to rekindle our hearts in the sublime principles of our holy religion.”
As for "attacking" Maisie Ward and her husband, whose last name she didn't want to take, here is what Fr. Feeney said:
Publisher F. J. Sheed, a disappointed lawyer from Australia, who wandered into New York by way of London and an English wife (whom he affectionately calls “Ward”), has finally decided to go all out for the salvation of any Protestant who likes Sheed & Ward books. Even a Protestant minister can make the grade, as Mr. Sheed affirms in the following announcement:
“We were very sad indeed to hear that Dr. Hobart McKeehan, a Protestant minister who loved books and gave Sheed & Ward many excellent reviews, died last month in a car accident. Although we’re sure he spent Easter in Heaven, we had a Mass said for him.”
It turns out Mrs. Ward and Mr. Sheed are rank heretics. Here's some more:
Catholic Bible Week will be observed from September 28th to October 4th. In anticipation, Sheed & Ward has been plugging a publication called The Knox Bible. Here is one of Sheed’s plugs: “The Knox Bible is the first Catholic Bible since Gutenberg (now having its 500th anniversary) to be praised alike by Catholics and Protestants. 500 years is a long time to wait, but still it’s nice it’s finally happened.”
True, Frank Sheed, 500 years is a long time to wait. But aren’t you getting too little credit for the fact that “it’s finally happened”? It takes an awful lot of publishing know-how to get out a Bible that will be praised by both Catholics and Protestants, both papists and Baptists, both Hail Mary sayers and Blessed Virgin despisers.
Monsignor Ronald Knox’s British lack of faith is suspected by everyone who meets him. It ought as well be suspected by everyone who reads him. Often, though, as he writes, he has a way of concealing just what exactly is his meaning. If you squeeze Knox hard enough for copy, as his publishers, Sheed & Ward, seem to do, you will ultimately get him to reveal the shallowness that lies at the bottom of his thinking and the heresy at the bottom of his beliefs.
Having previously rephrased the Bible to suit his own doubts, and reduced the Holy Sacrifice to the Hollywood speed of The Mass in Slow Motion, just published by Sheed & Ward, Monsignor Knox innovates as follows: “We all know that a spiritual Communion, faithfully made, produces all the effects of sacramental Communion; God might have decreed that no Communions be made at all except spiritual ones.”
This statement marks the end of belief in our incorporation into the Body and Blood of Jesus, and makes the eatable reality of the Fruit of Mary’s Womb merely a ritualistic luxury. Just whom Knox means by the “we” in his “We all know … ” is hard to say. Possibly he means his Anglican friends and himself. For these friends are sure to be delighted by this statement and will make it to mean that as far as Knox is concerned, whether you have the Real Presence in your tabernacles or the “real absence,” it all amounts to the same thing.
There is cause for much rejoicing among Interfaith Catholics who have been embarrassed by the fact that canonized saints are an exclusively Catholic concern. By next fall, publisher Frank Sheed will have on the market an interdenominational treatment of the lives of the saints appropriately entitled Saints for Now.
Edited by that eminent authority on sanctity, Mrs. Henry Luce, the book will contain evaluations of well known saints by prominent English and American, Catholic and otherwise, authors.
Saints for Now should have a good sale. A great many people will be curious to read about Whittaker Chambers’ ardent devotion to Saint Benedict; and Bruce Marshall’s “world, the flesh, and Fr. Vianney” treatment of the Cure of Ars; and most curious to learn from Mortimer Adler just how a Jєωιѕн Thomist feels about the Catholic Saint he has been making his living on.
Congratulations to Sheed & Luce for sensing that this kind of text must have a few illustrations by Salvador Dali.
The way you phrased your post made it sound like you know quite a bit about Fr. Feeney, yet, upon investigating the points raised, only a vindication of Feeney could be found. Obviously I cannot just trust your other claims now, either.
Do you have any sources to back up your claim that Fr. Feeney mocked a saint or do you retract it?