St. Athanasius was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
ABL was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
AB Vigano was "excommunicated" for disobedience, "Why would we still try to listen to him today?"
Funny, Fr. Feeney will continue to be slandered for defending the 3 Dogmas on EENS precisely because they are the ones constantly being attacked but I never met any of them that even know what dogma is and never read the three dogmas. So, for your benefit, here they are:
Even if someone considered the excommunication of Father Feeney just (it was not), it says nothing about his doctrine. So Archbishop ("No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense") Cushing was left untouched despite his pertinacious manifest denial of defined dogma, as were Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors (with equally heretical statements on public record), but it was Father Feeney who was excommunicated ... simply for invoking his rights in Canon Law to be informed of the charges against him before excommunication (they did that even for +Vigano ... though +Lefebvre was
ipso facto)).
In any case, nobody has ever demonstrated where Father Feeney ever denied a single word of Trent, even among those who believe in the standard interpretation of the famous passage in Trent.
Trent was speaking about "justification", and Father Feeney believed in "justification by
votum". So where's his heresy? Even if you disagree with his distinction, the Magisterium has not ruled on the distinction, and, as I pointed out, other respected and non-condemned post-Tridentine theologians, notably Melchior Cano (and another whose name escapes me) distinguished also between justification and salvation.
So where's Father's "heresy"? Eh?
These guys always point to
Suprema Haec, which doesn't even come close to meeting he notes of infallibility and of being irreformable (these same people ignore other Holy Office rulings they don't like), but there's serious question about its authenticity. Canon Law stipulates that various docuмents must appears in AAS in order to be knowable as "authentic Magisterium", and it's PRECISELY to prevent shenanigans that this provision was laid out, since the Popes reviewed everything that went in there. As pointed out, Cushing sat on the docuмent until after the Cardinal who allegedly wrote and signed it had died. I wonder why, since it would have benefitted his case from the very beginning, and there's no other record of it other than what we see in the "Irish Ecclesiastical Review" (even the reference to it in Denzinger by Rahner ... though it doesn't belong there by any stretch, having nothing resembling "dogma" about it, to be a "Source of Dogma", except that Karn "Anonymous Christian" Rahner liked it and wanted to puff up its authority, even referring to it by the first two Latin words, unprecedented for Holy Office rulings, to give the impression of its having quasi-Magisterial authority).
Finally, the dogmatic SVs are the most dogmatically anti-Feeneyite, and they're the ones who puff the authority of this letter ... oblivious to the fact that it condemns them as heretics and schismatics, since SH contains the very same ecclesiology that these same SVs denounce as "heretical" in Vatican II and justifying their rejectio of it.
Topic: Feeney the nut job (Read 32497 times)