Author Topic: Monsignor Fentons Credentials (Read 2984 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** December 10, 2015, 08:32:20 AM »

Quote

Mgr. Fenton’s credentials as a theologian are irreproachable. He was a Doctor of Sacred Theology and a Bachelor of Canon Law; he was professor of theology in several seminaries and at the Catholic University of America; he was editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review; and he was Secretary of the Catholic Theology Society of America, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, and Adviser to the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities. Nor could any reader of his excellent book The Catholic Church and Salvation in the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See deny that the various accolades he has thus received from the Church were well merited. John Daly

http://www.novusordowatch.org/michael-davies-evaluation.pdf

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2015, 08:36:55 AM »

Yet Msgr. Fenton not only accepted Vatican II but even considered its ecclesiology to be an "improvement".

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2015, 10:52:04 AM »

May 1953
In his interpretations of the doctrine “no salvation outside the Church,” his prize interpretations, Fenton lays down conditions for non-Catholic salvation that are so rigid and far-fetched that practically no one can meet them. (This is to show his “terrible strength.”) However, it does not bother him that those who want to go all out for getting non-Catholics into Heaven, do so using his reasons and his authority. All the liberals need is one little loophole, which Fenton gives. Through that loophole, the liberals are able, in their need, to squeeze every Protestant and Jєω in America.

The Faith is meant to be something clear and simple, which the Holy Father can teach us in innocent terms, and every man can and must know for his salvation and his happiness. But as long as Fathers Fenton, Connell and Smith are running the show, the Faith is going to be presented as something obscure and esoteric — something that can be known by no one but these priests, and those to whom it shall please them to reveal it.

McCork · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2015, 05:06:34 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yet Msgr. Fenton not only accepted Vatican II but even considered its ecclesiology to be an "improvement".

Sure would like to see the text surrounding your one quoted word of "improvement".

McCork · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2015, 05:20:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

The Faith is meant to be something clear and simple, which the Holy Father can teach us in innocent terms, and every man can and must know for his salvation and his happiness.

If that is what you believe, why can't you answer the long-standing question about Vatican I? I asked you to tell me what doctrines you believe with "divine and catholic" faith that were never taught solemnly.

Is it simple, or not. Make up your mind.

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** December 11, 2015, 05:23:55 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
The Faith is meant to be something clear and simple, which the Holy Father can teach us in innocent terms, and every man can and must know for his salvation and his happiness.

If that is what you believe, why can't you answer the long-standing question about Vatican I? I asked you to tell me what doctrines you believe with "divine and catholic" faith that were never taught solemnly.

Is it simple, or not. Make up your mind.

It's obvious you will never produce a teaching or lesson from the Church - either papal, solemn or magisterial - which accurately reflects your belief as regards the infallibility of the UOM as I asked.

It's also obvious you will never start a thread promoting the absolute necessity of any one of the sacraments unto salvation as I asked. (I completely understand why this one is an absolute impossibility for you to even attempt.)

So you give me no reason to give you the reply you ask for.

However.....I'm not sure if I can trust you on this and would need to think about it even if you agree to the terms, but I will give you one doctrine not solemnly defined, at least not far as I know of - but only under one condition.

The condition is that after I give you this doctrine, you start a thread about this doctrine and gather whatever teachings you can find about this doctrine and post them for discussion and you remain engaged in the discussion for the life of the thread. These are the terms.

But beware, if you are even only half way diligent and honest with yourself, you will find that this doctrine will dictate to your conscience that you need to abandon at least one error that you currently embrace as dogma.

Deal?

Now back to the topic of the Modernist Monsignor Fenton.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 11, 2015, 09:30:42 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Ladislaus
Yet Msgr. Fenton not only accepted Vatican II but even considered its ecclesiology to be an "improvement".

Sure would like to see the text surrounding your one quoted word of "improvement".

LoT (the OP) cited the text some time ago ... excerpts from Msgr. Fenton's diaries.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2015, 09:48:18 AM »

Msgr. Fenton's credentials are clearly excellent. Where are the credentials of those on all sides attacking his teaching?

McCork · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2015, 06:34:38 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

The Faith is meant to be something clear and simple

I agree with this. But....my question was asking you about a list of teachings you believe with "divine and catholic faith" that have NOT be solemnly taught. It's just that your new admission here about the Faith being "clear and simple" shows that when you refused to answer me, it was not clear and simple to you.

I am sorry, but giving me "one" thing you believe really has nothing to do with my question. It's really ALL.

Yes, I already gave you my word I will start a thread. Stop being a typical Feeneyite and questioning my good will. My priority right now is waiting for ihsv to fulfil his intention to discuss with me.

McCork · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2015, 07:07:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Ladislaus
Yet Msgr. Fenton not only accepted Vatican II but even considered its ecclesiology to be an "improvement".

Sure would like to see the text surrounding your one quoted word of "improvement".

LoT (the OP) cited the text some time ago ... excerpts from Msgr. Fenton's diaries.

I'm glad I asked, and I'm glad I pursued the quote....because you took it out of context and destroyed the meaning of what he said. Here it is:

“I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. I must start with the basic notion of the Church, which is that of a people ‘transferred’ from the kingdom of darkness into the realm of light. The Council left out the background of the Church. It minimized or glossed over the fact that the Church faces opposition, not just from hostile individuals, but from the ‘world.’” (Nov. 23, 1968)

You tried to say that he was convinced, in the past tense, that it was an improvement. But it is clear from the context that is NOT what he said. It is clear he is speaking of the future about what he should do if he wants something accepted saying, "My main thesis will have to be".

I am glad I asked, for the sake of truth, and Msgr. Fenton's reputation.

sword of the Spirit · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2015, 07:11:11 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Msgr. Fenton's credentials are clearly excellent.

And I had a client tell me recently, "He has his MCSE, but can't preform the basic commands."

Catholictrue · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2015, 07:38:17 PM »

Mccork, when one considers the quote from Fenton as you present it, your attempted defense of his statement is without any merit.

In the quote (as it has been presented), Fenton is clearly endorsing as acceptable (not rejecting as inadmissible) the position that theology on the Church has been "improved" by Vatican II. He is adopting that as his position going forward. He is not rejecting that position. In regard to a heretical or false teaching, a Catholic can't say: "considering it an improvement will have to be my thesis going forward." No, that's not how a Catholic acts.

He wrote: >>>My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council.>>>

His statement is completely untrue. Vatican II's theology on the Church was heretical, as this video clearly proves.

Vatican II taught the heresy that baptized members of sects that dissent from Catholic teaching are in the Church of Christ. That is a denial of Catholic dogma.

Fenton's statement (as presented) reveals that either he didn't read the text of the council carefully or he understood nothing about Catholic teaching on the Church. (His numerous false and made-up teachings on salvation have also been docuмented). The aforementioned quote, among other things, demonstrates that Fenton does not deserve to be considered a quality theologian.

McCork · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2015, 03:13:28 AM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Mccork, when one considers the quote from Fenton as you present it, your attempted defense of his statement is without any merit.

In the quote (as it has been presented), Fenton is clearly endorsing as acceptable (not rejecting as inadmissible) the position that theology on the Church has been "improved" by Vatican II. He is adopting that as his position going forward. He is not rejecting that position. In regard to a heretical or false teaching, a Catholic can't say: "considering it an improvement will have to be my thesis going forward." No, that's not how a Catholic acts.

He wrote: >>>My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council.>>>

His statement is completely untrue. Vatican II's theology on the Church was heretical, as this video clearly proves.

Vatican II taught the heresy that baptized members of sects that dissent from Catholic teaching are in the Church of Christ. That is a denial of Catholic dogma.

Fenton's statement (as presented) reveals that either he didn't read the text of the council carefully or he understood nothing about Catholic teaching on the Church. (His numerous false and made-up teachings on salvation have also been docuмented). The aforementioned quote, among other things, demonstrates that Fenton does not deserve to be considered a quality theologian.

You don't have to tell me about Vatican II being heretical. I already know it, and believe all the papal claimants promoting it are false popes. And, no thanks for EVER recommending any video from the Feeneyite Dimonds.

Back to Fenton. His diary entry shows that he was having trouble with the Council, as did everyone in his day. Even some of the staunchest opposition to Vatican II in the 70's were in confusion in 1968 trying to accept the council. Normally upon approval of a General Council, there is no personal crisis for accepting it, but Fenton shows by his diary entry that he is having trouble, and that what he plans to say is delicate and controversial, and could blow up in his face.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2015, 05:24:38 PM »

McCork:

1. Since you are defending the statement of a man who called Vatican II's heretical, false, and disastrous ecclesiology an improvement, obviously you need to learn about and be told about Vatican II.

2. It makes sense that you would never want to view or watch videos by MHFM and the Dimonds. You are a person in darkness. Truth clearly pains you, as proven by your completely dishonest response on the straightforward meaning of Fenton's statement. Your response on that matter alone proves that you are a man of lies; for it's obvious, to an honest person, that Fenton identified Vatican II's false ecclesiology as authentic Catholic teaching. That demonstrates that Fenton was in heresy, and that he didn't understand the Church's teaching. But since you are a liar, you tried to spin the facts you don't want to accept.

3. The Dimonds aren't 'Feeneyites', but Catholics who adhere to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Church on the necessity of Baptism and the Catholic faith for salvation. By not only rejecting, but calling the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church on this matter a heresy, as you do, you heap even greater condemnation on yourself. This is the Catholic Church's teaching, which you condemn:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439:“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

McCork · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2015, 08:05:39 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

But since you are a liar, ...

Yup.....you are a Dimond Feeneyite!!