But why focus on the past? It doesn't solve the problem of the here and now.

If Father Feeney was right or if he was wrong does not help us now.  All it does is cause an overly emotional reaction on both sides.

And when people are overly emotional the devil has more to work with.  This is my point.  I don't have to take sides.  I don't have to understand the particulars. 

Where are the good fruits?

Yes. What Fr. Feeney should have done is gone to Rome and clarified his position to the Holy Father. The Church has condemned any form of denial of baptism of desire. If he intended to condemn it, then his own position would be condemned. Turns out, under Pope Paul VI, and after Vatican II in fact, he was reconciled to Vatican (which some would say was, by now, the "conciliar church"), simply by professing the Athanasian Creed. So Fr. Feeney died visibly united to the Church and the chapter should be closed. Fr. Feeney erred by not going to Rome when he was summoned to go. 

Quote from: AnthonyPadua 17/10/2024, 17:15:42
Not only has the Church not done this but the Church also has never taught baptism of desire.

Of course she has. Please read the below carefully: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

[the textbook definition of a condemnation of doctrine as being harmful - MM]

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

Regardless of the theological issues, I think it was uncharitable to call Father Feeney a nutjob.  Having said that, I'm guessing this thread will be moved to the Ghetto.

If you truly believe EENS, then why aren't you converting everyone you know?  Maybe you are?

Is this post even for real?  EVERY Catholic must believe in EENS.  It's a defined dogma of the Church, and every Catholic should be trying to convert everyone they can.  It's only Bergoglio who condemns prosletysm.  AND you are accusing others of emotionalism?

Of course she has. Please read the below carefully: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076

Yet another newbie sock puppt account?

So-called Suprema Haec is in no way a "teaching" of the Church.  First of all, it's not even "authentic Magisterium" by the definition of Canon Law, as that garbage doesn't even appears in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis ... a canonical requirement.

Secondly, we have no idea whether the letter is even authentic and hasn't been tampered with.  Only place it was published was in Cushing's own "Irish Ecclesiastical Review", and Cushing sat on it for nearly two years before publishing it, for no apparent reason, since it would have benefitted him out of the gate ... he sat on it until the man who allegedly signed it died, at which point he could no longer confirm or deny the authenticity of the letter.

This is from the Archheretic and Modernist Cushing, who famously stated, "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense."

Is this another moron SV who thinks that the Pope issues infallible and irreformable teaching every time he passes wind?  I love it also how SVs attack Father Feeney for being disobedient to Cushing whereas by their own criteria (where manifest heresy deposes), Cushing was not in fact the Cardinal Archbishop of anything, having been deposed by manfiest heresy, nor were Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors in possession of any authority for their (well docuмented heresies).

Of course, very few SVs are geocentrists and accept the Holy Office decision that not being geocentrist is proximate to heresy, and very few SVs accept the Holy Office rejection of "Rewarder God" theory (or even mention it).  These bad-willed and malicious anti-EENS SVs pick and choose which Holy Office decisions they want to consider infallible and which ones they decie they want to ignore.

Cardinal Franzelin (calling out various erroneous decisions by popes such as Honorius in the past):

Cardinal Franzelin, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura, Thesis 12, edition 1875, p. 119: “Likewise, there can be and are docuмents not only private but put forward entirely from the Pastoral Office concerning a doctrine of faith or morals by which it is determined to some extent to warn, persuade, command, reprehend, or prohibit the propagation of some opinion or error, without intending to proclaim a definitive sentence by which the whole Church would be bound. And that itself is not an ex cathedra statement. ‘For often the popes respond to private questions of this or that bishop, by explicating their opinion concerning the things proposed, not by passing a sentence by which they will that the faithful would be obligated to believe’ (Melchior Canus, Canus 1. VI. c. 8. ad 7). In this sense the two letters of Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople are rightly recalled.”

But this garbage doesn't even rise to that level, since we have no proof that Pius XII (who was in very poor health) ever saw, knew about, or approved said letter ... or whether it was issued by the same Modernist heretics who would shortly thereafter bring us the glories of Vatican II.  In fact, its omission from AAS suggests it was something they just snuck out there, since presumably Pius XII would review and approve everything in AAS ... but was hardly a subscriber to the Irish Ecclesiastical Review.

Yes. What Fr. Feeney should have done is gone to Rome and clarified his position to the Holy Father. ... Fr. Feeney erred by not going to Rome when he was summoned to go.

That's your opinion, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrinal questions in hand.  Fr. Feeney had rights under Canon Law to be informed of the charges against him so that he could prepare a defense, but those rights were denied him, and at that point he concluded that he was simply being railroaded in a "show trial" that would be use against EENS dogma.  It's similar to how +Vigano was given a chance to defend himself against the charges of heresy/schism but refused to go, knowing full well that it would be a show trial.  At least +Vigano was informed clearly of the charges against him ... whereas Fr. Feeney was told nothing.

The foundational problem that the trad detractors of Fr. Feeney have is their timeline. In their world, Nostra Aetate is heresy and the guys who pushed it at V2 are heretics and not legitimate clergy. But the SAME clergy with the same public beliefs who ran around promoting false ecuмenism in the 1950's were magically ok and it is the word of those men we should take. They want to doubt the conclave of 1958 but at the same time believe Fr. Feeney would get a fair hearing from the same individual who is known to be an infiltrator and anti-apostle under orders to keep Siri and Ottaviani out of the office. These men did not magically change their stripes in 1958.