Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Petertherock on May 01, 2015, 07:49:15 PM
-
I am currently reading the book the Loyola's and the Cabot's as it is required reading for Third Order members of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have heard that the problems of Vatican II started long before the 1960s and this book illustrates that perfectly. The problems of VII started around the time of WWII. I have heard Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center referred to as the original trads and I have to agree.
The recent modernist heresy began when Church officials ended the teaching of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. Forget about BOB or BOD as I'm not getting into that. The Church has always taught that outside of the Catholic Church, the Church which Christ Himself founded, there is no salvation. Fr. Feeney was censured for teaching this truth, this dogma of the Faith. Moreover, three teachers at Boston College were removed from their positions because they refused to teach heresy. Once this filth that started in Boston that there was salvation outside the Church, and teachings from the Bishop and Archbishop that even enemies of the Church could be saved that was the beginning of the end for the Church and the beginning of the new religion of VII.
Once the heretics were teaching in seminaries, the communists and the Masons and the Jews that was it. Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
-
Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
I hear Father Feeney and those who believe like him called heretics by trads even more than the conciliar popes (or antipopes). They seem to hate his beliefs even more than those of Vatican II and the conciliar sect.
-
Ah, you have learned well, grasshopper.
:geezer:
-
Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
I hear Father Feeney and those who believe like him called heretics by trads even more than the conciliar popes (or antipopes). They seem to hate his beliefs even more than those of Vatican II and the conciliar sect.
Indeed, Matto. Indeed.
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
I'd take it back much further, I'm afraid ... at least in many subtle ways.
-
Keep reading it Peter - that is the best written history of the whole mess that there is.
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.
-
Keep reading it Peter - that is the best written history of the whole mess that there is.
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.
Yes, the bird was already flying upside down at that point.
-
Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
I hear Father Feeney and those who believe like him called heretics by trads even more than the conciliar popes (or antipopes). They seem to hate his beliefs even more than those of Vatican II and the conciliar sect.
Could you give a couple examples of 'trads' who refer to Fr Feeney as a heretic..?
:detective:
-
Keep reading it Peter - that is the best written history of the whole mess that there is.
The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.
MO is that After Boston Heresy Case by G Potter is the best history of 'the whole mess'.. :cheers:
-
I am currently reading the book the Loyola's and the Cabot's as it is required reading for Third Order members of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have heard that the problems of Vatican II started long before the 1960s and this book illustrates that perfectly. The problems of VII started around the time of WWII. I have heard Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center referred to as the original trads and I have to agree.
The recent modernist heresy began when Church officials ended the teaching of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. Forget about BOB or BOD as I'm not getting into that. The Church has always taught that outside of the Catholic Church, the Church which Christ Himself founded, there is no salvation. Fr. Feeney was censured for teaching this truth, this dogma of the Faith. Moreover, three teachers at Boston College were removed from their positions because they refused to teach heresy. Once this filth that started in Boston that there was salvation outside the Church, and teachings from the Bishop and Archbishop that even enemies of the Church could be saved that was the beginning of the end for the Church and the beginning of the new religion of VII.
Once the heretics were teaching in seminaries, the communists and the Masons and the Jews that was it. Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
Very good, PetertheRock! :applause:
May Our Lord God and Our Lady bestow many blessings upon you.
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.
I have heard Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center referred to as the original trads
Only by the Feeneyites themselves. Their opinion and self-glorification are, however, ultimately irrelevant because no traditional Catholic considers them that, since they obstinately refuse Church doctrine.
The recent modernist heresy began when Church officials ended the teaching of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. Forget about BOB or BOD as I'm not getting into that. The Church has always taught that outside of the Catholic Church, the Church which Christ Himself founded, there is no salvation. Fr. Feeney was censured for teaching this truth, this dogma of the Faith.
The modernist heresy started in the late 19th century, but the modernist crisis stared with Vatican II. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for repeatedly refusing to comply with several summons to Rome. Hardly the actions of an innocent man.
Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
Feeneyite propaganda is sickening to anyone who knows what exactly they are refusing (teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century, and of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Council of Trent), all in the name of supposedly guarding dogma. I am sure many people are wondering why Matthew is allowing such a disease of judging the Infallible Magisterium to practically take over this forum. We can conclude that either he thinks it is licit to be a Feeneyite (in which case he is leading souls astray), or he agrees with them (which would be even worse), or he has simply lost control, in which case he should consider using some of the means at his disposal as moderator and remember that the freedom of professing error has been condemned by the Church.
-
You need to click the link and do a little reading on what happened when +Cushing (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31043&min=8&num=1) could no longer stand hearing from his non-Catholic friends about one of his priests who preached the dogma.
Don't be another one of +Cushing's stooges.
-
MO is that After Boston Heresy Case by G Potter is the best history of 'the whole mess'.. :cheers:
I never read that one, perhaps Peter will and post some of what it has to say.
The Loyolas and the Cabots, which docuмented pretty much everything, is an excellent read for anyone who wants to see what actually happened and why. It's sad to see how the enemy was already so well situated within the Church back then.
-
Fr. Feeney was truly a Saint to defend the truths of the dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus against the heretics that were teaching heresy in all the Catholic Colleges.
I hear Father Feeney and those who believe like him called heretics by trads even more than the conciliar popes (or antipopes). They seem to hate his beliefs even more than those of Vatican II and the conciliar sect.
Could you give a couple examples of 'trads' who refer to Fr Feeney as a heretic..?
:detective:
Half the people on CathInfo, my friend. Where have you been?
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.
Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.
-
Feeneyite propaganda is sickening to anyone who knows what exactly they are refusing
You, sir, are the one whose attacks against the faith are downright revolting. You are a servant of the devil and an enemy of the Faith. There's not a lick of difference between you and Jorge Bergoglio where it comes to actual theological principles.
Clearly the devil is laughing right now that he has bamboozled 98% of all Traditional Catholics who accuse Vatican II and the V2 Popes of heresies and errors into fiercely promoting the SAME heresies and errors that they pretend to condemn. What a master-stroke on his part; you're being played for fools by the devil. I can actually envision the conversation between the demons: "Demon: Hey, look, Satan, I convinced these morons to promote the same heresies that they accuse Vatican II of. Satan: Hilarious. Well done. What a bunch of fools."
What's even more ironic is that it's the Sedevacantists who are the most rabid enemies of EENS and yet out of the other side of their mouth they accuse V2 of soteriological heresies. What a bunch of fools. And they declare the V2 holders of their own errors to be manifest heretics outside the Church. Our Lord warned that we shall be judged with the same measure that we ourselves judge. Consequently, the SVs who promote heresies against EENS will be judged as manifest heretics outside the Church by Our Lord Himself.
You had better start praying deeply, fools, before you lose your souls.
If I held to your soteriology and ecclesiology, then I would immediately renounced Traditional Catholicism and would make haste to get back into communion with the Holy See.
-
Feeneyite propaganda is sickening to anyone who knows what exactly they are refusing (teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century,
What an incredible liar you are. BoD was floated as an admittedly-speculative opinion by St. Augustine: "After considering it over and over again, I find that ..." St. Augustine later RETRACTED the opinion and issued some of the most "Feeneyite" quotations you'll EVER find in the history of Catholic theology. And, after St. Augustine, there was not another peep on the subject until about the year 1200. Meanwhile, 7-8 Church Fathers openly rejected Baptism of Desire. You have the audacity to LIE and claim that this constitutes the "teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century". Such lies can only come from you father, the devil, the father of lies. It's the same with Father Laisney who lyingly claimed a "unanimous consensus of the Fathers" when if anything the opposite is true.
-
First of all, being attacked by heretics is a badge of honor. I consider it a great honor indeed to be subjected to the same hatred you express for the Jesuits, the greatest defenders of the Papacy for many centuries.
Second, when I said that Feeneyites refuse doctrines taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century I was referring to baptism of blood, as you well know. Since the 4th century onwards the Church has venerated several saints for whom She Herself has said that they died as catechumens, i.e. without water baptism, but as martyrs, baptised in their own blood (e.g. St. Emerentiana, St. Victor of Braga etc.). Feeneyites try to get around this by saying that there was a mistake in the records and that they must have been baptised before death, but they fail utterly because what is important is that the Church has venerated people who She said were not baptised, thus teaching through Her OUM that some can be saved even without water baptism, a doctrine which the Feeneyites obstinately call heresy.
Now, as for those who try to muddle the water of Fr. Feeney's excommunication by transferring the focus to Abp. Cushing (who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire), their attempts are easily defeated by quoting the actual decree of excommunication, which has nothing to with Abp. Cushing and everything to do with Fr. Feeney repeatedly refusing to appear in Rome and explain his extremist views:
SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
DECREE
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
Acta Apostolicae Sedia (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-45-1953-ocr.pdf)
-
First of all, being attacked by heretics is a badge of honor. I consider it a great honor indeed to be subjected to the same hatred you express for the Jesuits, the greatest defenders of the Papacy for many centuries.
Second, when I said that Feeneyites refuse doctrines taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church since at least the 4th century I was referring to baptism of blood, as you well know. Since the 4th century onwards the Church has venerated several saints for whom She Herself has said that they died as catechumens, i.e. without water baptism, but as martyrs, baptised in their own blood (e.g. St. Emerentiana, St. Victor of Braga etc.). Feeneyites try to get around this by saying that there was a mistake in the records and that they must have been baptised before death, but they fail utterly because what is important is that the Church has venerated people who She said were not baptised, thus teaching through Her OUM that some can be saved even without water baptism, a doctrine which the Feeneyites obstinately call heresy.
Now, as for those who try to muddle the water of Fr. Feeney's excommunication by transferring the focus to Abp. Cushing (who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire), their attempts are easily defeated by quoting the actual decree of excommunication, which has nothing to with Abp. Cushing and everything to do with Fr. Feeney repeatedly refusing to appear in Rome and explain his extremist views:
SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
DECREE
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
Acta Apostolicae Sedia (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS-45-1953-ocr.pdf)
PapalSupremacy is yet another disciple of +Cushing.
PapalSupremacy knows what he is doing, saying "Abp. Cushing who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire" gave you away.
Next time, click the link and use some of those links as proof that "Abp. Cushing who in that newspaper article was merely teaching implicit baptism of desire".
Honestly, PS has nothing on Nado.
-
First of all, being attacked by heretics is a badge of honor.
Here is an example, roscoe, in answer to your question. There are many others if you read the BOD / "Feeneyite" subforum.
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.
Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.
Another attack on the Jesuits whose founder is a Canonised Saint and of which Fr Feeney was a member. I hope the Forum is wise enough to figure it out. :sleep:
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.
Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.
I think it is all part of the timeless war between the Children of God and the Children of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. The eternal battle between Our Lady and the Father of Lies. Old heresies never die but they re-appear over and over again throughout the time since Eve's fall, just in a different fashion, but it is all part of the crafty work of the Enemy to cause the loss of souls and distract people from the True Faith, only path of human salvation.
There are some who attribute our present day Modernism, killer of all Divine mysteries and eternal truths, to the French Revolution and even before, since times of Reformation. The Heresy of Liberalism as we experience it today can be traced to times of Descartes (XVI Century) as Fr. Wathen explains here:
The Liberal climate in which we are immersed has the subver- sive dignity of having been propounded by those who are considered the fathers of modern philosophical thought: Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza (1632-1677), Voltaire (1694-1778), Hume (1711-1776), Rousseau (1712-1778), Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), Schelling (1775-1854), especially Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), Feuerbach (1804-1872), Karl Marx (1818-1883), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), all of whom so disconnected modern man from both the seen and the unseen world, and even natural rationality, that he is now prey to 'every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14).
The result of their influence, sewn in the world by Jewry and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, is an all-pervasive climate of muddled and petulant sub- jectivism. The Church condemned the books of these disorbited stars no sooner than did they appear. But this did not succeed in preventing the vapors of their beguiling errors from filling the nostrils and brains of the people of what was once Christendom. Nor did it prevent individuals within the Church under Masonic discipline from injecting their conjurings into their philosophical and theological postulations, and eventually codifying them into the decrees of the Second Vatican Council.
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.
Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.
Another attack on the Jesuits whose founder is a Canonised Saint and of which Fr Feeney was a member. I hope the Forum is wise enough to figure it out. :sleep:
What are you blabbering on about? This is just a statement of fact. It was Jesuit theologians who first started to promote the notion that people can be saved without belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. I am not attacking all Jesuits or the Jesuit order per se; as you know I have the highest regard for Father Feeney, and there have been many great Jesuit saints. Yet it's also true that some of the most rabid modernists even today are Jesuits. This has absolutely nothing to do with the holiness of St. Ignatius.
-
My apologies. Because your post mentions the Renaissance, I took it to mean that you were referring to the Jesuits from the beginning --same same Melchior Cano.
I agree that the modernist 20th Century 'jesuits' have played a big part in the v2 anti-church. It is in fact, those in his own order that Fr Feeney was complaining about. :reporter:
-
BTW--- i recall you taking a cheap shot at the alleged 'Molinists' in the past.
There is No Such Thing as a 'Molinist' any more than there is such a thing as a 'sede' --- Paul V has seen to that. :fryingpan:
-
My apologies.
No problem.
-
The problems of VII started around the time of WWII.
No, they started in the 19th century, when the enemies of the Church began their infiltration of the seminaries, which St. Pius X noticed and warned about in Pascendi.
Keep going. Even Bishop Williamson traces the problems to the Renaissance. There was a growing emphasis on the natural vs. the supernatural and a growing subjectivism in theology, spearheaded by the Jesuits. This led to a subtle but discernible trend towards Pelagianism which finally came to a full expression in Vatican II.
I think it is all part of the timeless war between the Children of God and the Children of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. The eternal battle between Our Lady and the Father of Lies. Old heresies never die but they re-appear over and over again throughout the time since Eve's fall, just in a different fashion, but it is all part of the crafty work of the Enemy to cause the loss of souls and distract people from the True Faith, only path of human salvation.
There are some who attribute our present day Modernism, killer of all Divine mysteries and eternal truths, to the French Revolution and even before, since times of Reformation. The Heresy of Liberalism as we experience it today can be traced to times of Descartes (XVI Century) as Fr. Wathen explains here:
The Liberal climate in which we are immersed has the subver- sive dignity of having been propounded by those who are considered the fathers of modern philosophical thought: Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza (1632-1677), Voltaire (1694-1778), Hume (1711-1776), Rousseau (1712-1778), Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), Schelling (1775-1854), especially Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), Feuerbach (1804-1872), Karl Marx (1818-1883), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), all of whom so disconnected modern man from both the seen and the unseen world, and even natural rationality, that he is now prey to 'every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14).
The result of their influence, sewn in the world by Jewry and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, is an all-pervasive climate of muddled and petulant sub- jectivism. The Church condemned the books of these disorbited stars no sooner than did they appear. But this did not succeed in preventing the vapors of their beguiling errors from filling the nostrils and brains of the people of what was once Christendom. Nor did it prevent individuals within the Church under Masonic discipline from injecting their conjurings into their philosophical and theological postulations, and eventually codifying them into the decrees of the Second Vatican Council.
Excellent analysis.