CathInfo.com

Honest questions here;

Does the fact that the Novus Ordo lifted his "excommunication" in 72 seem as a sign from God to you?

Or, do you just equate it to, they lifted it because he did not openly reject Vatican II, so on that note it was a type of "reward" (at least in the eyes of the Vatican).

I just think that was done only because a friend of Father Feeney appealed on his behalf to get it lifted, and all Father Feeney was asked to do was to recite the Nicene Creed, which he of course had no problem doing.  So it was considered an act of kindness sought by a friend.

Now, most anti-Feeneyites conflate the excommunication (for disciplinary reasons) and a doctrinal condemnation.  Under John XXIII, the works of Father Feeney were examined by theologians in the Vatican and cleared of containing any error.  Yes, you can argue that Roncalli was an Anti-Pope, but the Cardinals who did the study were merely wrapping up something that started before Roncalli, and were appointed already by Pius XII before Roncalli's election.

You have to apply an extremely exaggerated understanding of infallibility to push SH as if it had the authority even of an Encyclical, much less something more solemn.

There's a lot of funny-business with SH also.  1) it never appeared in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and Canon Law indicates that only thing that appear in AAS are part of the authentic (even if merely-authentic) Magisterium.  Why wasn't there?  When Rahner included it in his edition of Denzinger, again elevating its authority, because he liked it, the footnote cites "Irish Ecclesiastical Review" as the source, a first for a Denzinger entry.  2) Cushing sat on the docuмent for nearly 2 years, and released it almost immediately after the Cardinal who had purportedly signed it had died.  Why?  It would immediately have been useful to Cushing.  Was the text tampered with?

There's no "signature" of Pius XII on it either, but a mere statement internal to the docuмent that "Pius XII" had "approved it".  Why not then put it in AAS?  Well, Pius XII did in fact have to approve of everything that went in there, and ... perhaps he rejects it?  We don't know.

As for Fr. Feeney rejecting Trent ... I draw everyone's attention to what Trent actually taught, namley, that JUSTIFICATION cannot happen without Baptism and/or the votum (depending on your reading of it).  Father believed this.  So ... what was his heretical contradiction of Trent again?  He merely distinguished between justification and salvation, which is quite legitimate.  Melchior Cano, OP, a respected theologian writing after Trent, made the same distinction, holding that infidels could be justified but no saved.  Disagree with Father Feeney all you want, but that distinction has not been condemned.

Finally, Father Feeney started off by merely calling out the rejection of EENS, and Baptism of Desire didn't even enter into the discussion until a couple years later ... when he recognized, as I point out here, that it was the chief weapon by which those who hate EENS dogma have been attempting to undermine it.

And the biggest problem with the Trads who reject EENS (even if we prescind from the question of BoD proper) is this ...

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
MINOR:  Various non-Catholics, heretics, schismatics, infidels, Hindus in Tibet, Jews, etc. can be saved. (held by 99% of Trad clergy)
CONCLUSION:  Various non-Catholics, heretics, schismatics, infidels, etc. can be IN THE CHURCH.

That is in fact the genesis of the Vatican II ecclesiology ... which these Trad clergy unwittingly all hold, despite condemning it as heretical out of the other sides of their mouths.  If these are able to be saved, then these are able to be in the Church.  So what does that do to your definition of "the Church"?  It now consists not only of Catholics, baptized members of Christ's body who profess the true faith, are in the communion of the Sacraments, and are in submission to the Vicar of Christ ... so the Church contains not only these, but also various random "Hindus in Tibet", Jews (who hate Christ), Muslims, infidels, Protestant heretics who hate Our Lady, Orthodox schismatics, etc. 

So in your opinion, "most" of the Trad bishops are "heretics?" Is that what you are saying?

Are you an idiot where you cannot read?  That's what I said almost verbatim.

They are heretical on this point.  Now, this does not mean they are pertinacious heretics.  Some are, some are not.  I have no way of sorting that out.  You have clearly demonstrated that you are, so that you're not a Catholic but a manifest heretic who's outside the Church.

III. The Reconciliation
In 1972 Father Feeney was supposedly “reconciled” to the Church. If Father Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant his position. Yet, he was never asked to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Father Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his teaching on “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” Why not? Because those of the Archdiocesan establishment who arranged for the reconciliation knew the facts of the case and that Father Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but for disciplinary reasons.

In fact, as part of the reconciliation ceremony, Father Feeney was asked to profess one of the three Creeds of the Church. So, without any objection, he devoutly recited the Athanasian Creed. This ancient and venerable creed begins and ends with these solemn words:

Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. … This is the Catholic Faith; unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Therefore, Father Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn’t be, because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this.
Rather, Father Leonard Feeney was unjustly treated and persecuted by fellow churchmen in positions of authority who abused the authority of the offices they held and brought up uncanonical charges of disobedience to this priest of Christ’s Church. We conclude, then, with the following summary of those binding and infallible definitions of the Church Magisterium concerning salvation that Father Feeney simply affirmed, taught, and defended as they were solemnly declared:

• Outside the Catholic Church there is positively no salvation (Lateran IV: Denz. 430; [802]; Pope Boniface VIII: Denz. 468-69; [870, 875]; Council of Florence: Denz. 714; [1351]; Pius IX:1716-17; [2916-17])
• The Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of the Church (Florence: Denz. 696; [1314]; Council of Trent: Denz. 895; [1671]);
• Anyone not Baptized (sacramentally) is not a member of the Catholic Church (Trent: Denz. 895; [1671]), that is, he is not “truly incorporated into the Church”(Pope Leo IV- Council of Valence III: Denz. 324);
• Baptism is in water ONLY, the two (water and Baptism) are inseparable, and neither is separable from its link with the other (Pope St. Leo I: Tome-Council of Chalcedon I), and must be confessed as such (Council of Vienne: Denz. 482; [903]; Trent: Denz. 858; [1615]);
• The Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (Pope Benedict XIV: Denz. 1470) for adults and for children alike (Vienne: Ddnz. 482; [903]), and is optional for NO ONE (Trent: Denz. 861; [1618]).

The facts presented in this short article need to be made known so that the good name of Father Leonard Feeney, M.I.C.M., can be restored among Catholics and the immutable dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church be once again proclaimed from the housetops.


https://catholicism.org/father-feeney-fact-sheet.html