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.

Absolutely.  Indeed, all the Church's bishops and theologians were completely orthodox in the 1940s and 1950s, but then woke up on morning and then all apostasized en masse.  Cekadists (those who hold to his false theory that theological consensus is effectively a rule of faith) believe that when nearly all the Church's theologians agreed in something in 1957, for instance, they were basically infallible, but then ignore the fact that these same theologians universally approved of and endorsed Vatican II and its teachings as perfectly orthodox and Catholic.  So this body of theologians and bishops who were effectively infallible in 1957/1958 suddenly all became apostate heretics in 1962 (or thereabouts)?

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.

Archbishop Vigano didn’t go to Rome.   I don’t blame him or Father Feeney.  Why go to Rome to be murdered??    Do we answer to God or a false church of communist sodomites?  

At some point, they are going to have to admit that Pius XII put the guys in place to get us to V2 and he's not some glorious pope. History is hard to argue with.

Yes.  While Pius XII was certainly a legitimate pope, his was the watershed papacy that led directly to Vatican II.

Pius XII:

1) appointed, during his protracted reign, nearly every bishop who would brings us the glories of V2
2) opened the door the evolution
3) opened the door to NFP as "Catholic Birth Control" (even if one agrees with his position, he didn't clarify it to prevent it form turning into what it has)
4) failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (which would have prevented Vatican II)
5) rolled out the proto-Modernist Holy Week Rites (rejected as contamined with Modernism by many of the SVs that at the same time promote SH as if it were a solemn dogmatic definition)
6) began allowing various liturgical experimentations (such as the "Mass of the Future")
7) permitted some of the first Ecuмenical meetings

Pius XII enabled and set into motion what happened at Vatican II.

Now, I believe that from about 1955 on, his health collapsed (possibly due to poisoning) to the point that he left the day-to-day administration of the Church to the curia (within which had been entrenched some obvious Modernists, and likely even Masonic / Communist infiltrators).

If a Pope does absolutely nothing else during his entire reign, his #1 job is to appoint good, solid, orthodox bishops.  Instead we get the likes of "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." Cushing.  You're telling me that no orthodox priests could be found to be appointed to that position?  Not only was Cushing a heretic on EENS, he was also a Modernist on many other fronts, a pioneer ecuмenist, religious indifferentist (I think his sister was married to a Jew), etc.  So Pius XII didn't have this guy vetted for orthodoxy before appointing him to that position?  That's a grave dereliction of duty.  Perhaps instead of delivering 2-hour long-winded speeches to midwives and just about every other group (most of which nobody read), he could have busied himself with the selection of solidly CATHOLIC bishops?

Pius XII made Roncalli a Cardinal ... despite the file on him as being suspect of Modernism.

Pius XII also sent Montini to Milan, some claim as a punishement for outing priests behind the Iron Curtain to Stalin (who were then executed).  Yeah, some punishment.  But even if you don't believe that, putting Montini in Milan still got him fairly close to the papacy:

After the death of Cardinal Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster in 1954, Montini was appointed to succeed him as Archbishop of Milan, which made him the secretary of the Italian Bishops Conference.  Pius XII presented the new archbishop "as his personal gift to Milan". He was consecrated bishop in Saint Peter's Basilica by Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, since Pius XII was severely ill.

On 12 December 1954, Pius XII delivered a radio address from his sick-bed about Montini's appointment to the crowd in St. Peter's Basilica. Both Montini and the Pope had tears in their eyes when Montini departed for his diocese with its 1,000 churches, 2,500 priests and 3,500,000 souls. On 5 January 1955, Montini formally took possession of his Cathedral of Milan. Montini settled well into his new tasks among all groups of the faithful in the city, meeting cordially with intellectuals, artists and writers

Of course, once they got Roncall in there, one of his first official acts was to elevate Montini to a Cardinal.

There are many Catholic laity and clergy who aren’t converting people but shoving mortal sin down our throats.  Bergolio isn’t the only one preaching a different gospel.  

You do this repeatedly, take a hypocritical approach of condemning others for being attached to their "own ideas" ... based on the criteria of YOUR "own ideas".

Theological disagreements, even among Catholics, have been around since the beginning of the Church, many of which remain unresolved to this day, since the Church has not intervened.  In fact, even our rejection of Vatican II currrently stands in the status of our "own ideas", since there's no authoritative condemnation having issued from the Church.

This is such absolutely hogwash.  You proudly accuse others of proud and then attack them for clinging to their own ideas because they don't line up with YOUR ideas.

I am more middle of the ground (and don't you dare take this out of context)  I am not clinging to anything that has not already been clearly defined by the Church.  

I have no problem with men discussing theological issues that haven't been defined.  I do have a problem with men being uncharitable in their discussion.

Please read all of my posts on this thread in context.

I wasn't happy with Gunter calling Father Feeney a nut job, either.

If there still a particular thing you think I should be corrected on, then please quote it and give the correction.

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?

Same as "Why focus on Vatican II?"

People are not, for the most part in this thread, being overly emotional. People are explaining what did happen with Father Feeney and refuting what didn't happen.

As for cause-and-effect around emotion, it's more complicated and extraneous to the topic of this thread (except insofar as this is how the enemy wins, by exploiting emotion).

People who know that they have a tendency to become overly emotional might want to think twice before wading into certain discussions, especially those of which they don't already have some grasp. People who know they have this tendency to become emotional might want to cut their losses and do a quick silent examen. There you'd find the good fruits.

Taking what I said out of context yet again.

I never said anything against EENS. 

I am accusing men of being too emotional.

I am a woman and it is right for me to express my emotions.

Like I said in another post on the forum men are suppose to help women through their emotions, not tell them they are too emotional or tell them not to have emotions.

There is no "right" to express one's emotions. And (apart from one's husband or confessor) that's not men's job. 

Now, if we could leave it to those who'd focus on the topic, it would help the readers here.

Ughh!!!

Discussing things requires a balance between ideas and practicality.  It requires listening and responding.  Most people take their biases and apply it to what they think others mean.

I began this thread with questions and a frustration with Gunter for being so rude.

I was trying to have a discussion,  but then someone accused me of slander and I became emotional.  I am sorry.  Then my posts were about defending myself.