Author Topic: What was Fr. Feeney preaching against? (Read 711 times)

Exurge · « **on:** April 10, 2014, 03:17:26 PM »

Ambrose said:

Quote

The SBC began this mess in the 1940s, and now we are living with their tree of rotten fruit. All Catholics everywhere believed in Baptism of Desire. This is a heresy.

What i read was that Fr. Feeney was simply preaching No Salvation Outside the Church, not against bod/bob, because already during his time in America almost everyone believed that even Protestants could be saved just like that and that they didn't need to become Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2014, 03:23:00 PM »

That sounds right. I seem to recall that he realized that no one believed in EENS any longer and only later, as he matured in his own study of the subject, did he come to reject Baptism of Desire.

Ambrose · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2014, 03:50:07 PM »

Quote from: Exurge

Ambrose said:

Quote
The SBC began this mess in the 1940s, and now we are living with their tree of rotten fruit. All Catholics everywhere believed in Baptism of Desire. This is a heresy.

What i read was that Fr. Feeney was simply preaching No Salvation Outside the Church, not against bod/bob, because already during his time in America almost everyone believed that even Protestants could be saved just like that and that they didn't need to become Catholic.

That is where the starting point was, and if they had stayed on track, all of us would have supported them as great defenders of the Faith.

There is no doubt that some Catholics were holding a watered down idea of EENS, and that it needed to be opposed. Pope Pius XII himself recognized the problem and wrote about it in Humani Generis. Fr. Feeney also recognized the problem and opposed it.

The problem came when the SBC published an essay that contained a denial of implicit Baptism of Desire. This was the specific problem that drew the attention of the Holy Office, leading to the 1949 letter correcting this error.

At some point, however, the SBC shifted from their denial of implicit Baptism of Desire to a denial of explicit Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Their teaching was then summed up by the statement, "water or damnation."

While the denial of implicit Baptism of Desire is erroneous, the denial of Baptism of Desire in and of itself is heretical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2014, 04:10:07 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

While the denial of implicit Baptism of Desire is erroneous, the denial of Baptism of Desire in and of itself is heretical.

Please disregard Ambrose's pretending to be the Holy Office.

Ambrose · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2014, 04:13:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
While the denial of implicit Baptism of Desire is erroneous, the denial of Baptism of Desire in and of itself is heretical.

Please disregard Ambrose's pretending to be the Holy Office.

There is no pretending here. The Holy Office has specifically taught that the denial of implicit Baptism of Desire is an error.

The Council of Trent and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium both teach Baptism of Desire. To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:28:33 PM »

Exurge - What Fr. Feeney was preaching(not preaching against) is what is important. He was summoned to the holy office three times to defend himself, but refused to show. He was disobedient and guilty of heresy -

Fr. Feeney wrote:

“Q. If you got into the State of Justification with the aid of ‘Baptism of Desire,’ and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?

A. Never.” [Ibid., p. 121.]

To say such a thing is to deny or doubt a dogma properly so-called, which is the sin of heresy.

http://www.stpiusvchapel.org/articles/4-the-case-of-fr-leonard-feeney.html

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:05:10 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
While the denial of implicit Baptism of Desire is erroneous, the denial of Baptism of Desire in and of itself is heretical.

Please disregard Ambrose's pretending to be the Holy Office.

There is no pretending here.

So then you really ARE part of the Holy Office?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:06:57 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

To say such a thing is to deny or doubt a dogma properly so-called, which is the sin of heresy.

Except that there IS no BoD dogma.

Ambrose · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:11:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
While the denial of implicit Baptism of Desire is erroneous, the denial of Baptism of Desire in and of itself is heretical.

Please disregard Ambrose's pretending to be the Holy Office.

There is no pretending here.

So then you really ARE part of the Holy Office?

No, but I can read, and I have read what they have taught and submit myself as all Catholics must do to avoid eternal Hell.