Does anyone know what Fr. Feeney was doing for the Mass in the time he was so called "ex communicated", (1953) to the time he died ,, I believe in 1975 or so ?
During that time period he was under three different Popes, Vat II had come in, and it appeared he was obedient to all three Popes.
We Know John XXIII brought in the new Mass, followed by Paul VI.
Did he say the new mass in obedience, or did he recognize it as a false debacle, and always stuck to the Traditional mass of Pope Pius V
Can anyone out there fill in the Blanks ...
In answer to your question, Director, everything Stubborn says is true here:
In 1973, my family and I went to Still River, MA. for the True Mass celebrated by Fr. Leonard Feeney. (I think it was Still River).
As far as I know, it is common knowledge that Fr. Feeney never ever said the new "mass".
Of all the priests who never said the Newmass, Fr. Leonard Feeney was the most prominent and steadfast, and it can be reasonably supposed that ALL OTHER priests who did so, such as Fr. Gommar de Pauw and Fr. Hannifin (Fr. Pfeiffer's mentor), among others, in some way derived their courage to take such action BECAUSE of the solid trail blazed by Fr. Feeney.
He had been graced with the experience of observing the Modernism of Newrome firsthand in 1949, so you could say he had a "heads-up" before most of the others ever saw the danger approaching. It's all based in DOGMA.
I just re-read the OP and can tell you that Fr. saw what was happening well before V2. I remember listening to one of Brother Francis' cassette tapes where he was talking about what was happening to the Church right after V2.
In that tape, brother Francis quoted something Fr. Feeney said many years earlier - something along the lines of: "Fr. Feeney said; I have placed my finger on the cause of the turmoil. It is on account of the rejection of the holy doctrine of No salvation outside the Church that we are where we are today..........."
This is true. Fr. Feeney identified the subtle rejection of EENS that was afoot in 1949, and while the Vatican was unable to refute him, they looked around for SOME OTHER REASON to punish him, which is a most typically Liberal tactic practiced all over the world in the modern Liberal Newchurch, and it was a key tenet of how the unclean spirit of Vat.II was able to undermine Church doctrine at the Council and in its wake.
As I recall, it was later in the year that he said he "put his finger on the cause."
Another thing Fr. Feeney always preached was, no matter what the pope says or does, he is still the pope and we must never think differently. He never went into much more detail about that far as I remember, but it was clear that "he remained the pope's good servant - but God's first", aka St. Thomas More.
This is also true. He was the first, and he was likewise the most qualified to make this judgment. A very popular TV and radio program starring Bishop Fulton J. Sheen had faced a difficulty when Sheen was planning to take 2 weeks off. He told his producer that Fr. Feeney was the only priest in America qualified to substitute for him in his absence.
In 1948 the framed photograph of Fr. Feeney hung on the walls of thousands of elementary schools from coast to coast, and in 1949, in ONE DAY, all those portraits were removed by the various principals. That is the power of Rome, and that is how the unclean spirit of Vat.II first reared its ugly head ― silently.
This apt comparison to St. Thomas More is noteworthy on at least two different levels. First, while St. Thomas was speaking of the King, specifically Edward VIII of England (I remain the King's good servant ― but God's first),
Fr. Feeney was speaking of the pope, whoever he may be.
And second, it took quite a while for St. Thomas to be canonized (400 years!), and so too, it's going to take quite a while for Fr. Feeney. Let's hope it's less than for St. Thomas!