Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 18, 2015, 11:08:19 AM
-
A little bird sent me a letter yesterday:
Fr. Gavin Bitzer has an independent chapel in Louisville, KY. This chapel operates a small school
http://olpchapel.org
Fr. John O'Connor is retired but assists Fr. Bitzer on occasion.
Fr. Bitzer was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre in the 80's, but I don't know his history of leaving the SSPX. He's visited Fr. Pfeiffer's location in Boston several times to my knowledge, but I am unaware of his relationship with Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko. I do know that Fr. Voigt spent part of one year not long ago teaching and helping Fr. Bitzer in Louisville. Fr. Bitzer is not part of Fr. Pfeiffer's group, however. Neither is Fr. Bitzer a sedevacantist.
Fr. Bitzer says Mass almost every Sunday.
-
If I lived in or around Boston, KY, I'd certainly be looking into this chapel right about now.
To the person who sent me the letter: I am not from Kentucky, so I'm not aware of every independent chapel, or every priest who left the SSPX over the years. I will freely admit my knowledge and "radar" is decidedly SSPX-centric.
I know very little about Sedevacantist circles, the dozens of independent chapels that dot the United States, or Indult circles.
No one told me about this chapel before I received your letter.
-
Our Lady of the Pillar is Feeneyite. Staunchly so. Fr Hewko has tried to convert them. But some of the OLMC laity attend Mass there as well. I don't know anything other than that.
There is a Thuc line in Union, KY.
-
Nevermind.....
-
I don't live in the States; and, although I've attempted to contact Father King to see if it is still safe, I go to the Society of St Pius X's Mass in Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, I am grieved to see Father Pfeiffer falling, as the articles here would suggest I know that he made a stand against the liberalising of the Society very early on. The goings-on (which I cannot follow) with a doubtful Bishop and, I think, breaking away from Bishops Williamson and Faure are gravely wrong. There is an 'Eleison Comment' talking about certain priests changing very fast. It is sobering to think of how the Devil works -- I myself am weak-minded and perverse and will cling to Our Lady. Please pray for me.
Bear in mind I only consider myself a sincere 'Resistant' after looking at a copy of the ''Recusant'' earlier this week (Bishop Fellay's scandalous letter of June 17 2012) so I know little or nothing other than what I've gleaned here. These are loose ideas I had.
I would suggest writing to His Lordship Bishop Williamson, who can be contacted at:
Regina Martyrum House
17, West Cliff Road
Broadstairs,
Kent CT10 1PU
England
I am sure the good Bishop will be able at least to put people in touch with a sound priest.
I believe Father Chazal has rebuked Fr Pfeiffer over this dubious Bishop -- I think he is in Asia, am I correct? There is also a Mexican Father, Zendejas, whom I also know of only through the internet. At least in the June of this year he was with Bishop Williamson at a conference in New York State and His Lordship acknowledged a St Dominic's Chapel at which he says Mass. I'm afraid I have only the Internet to go on.
This may of course all be old-hat and it's certainly the ignorant advising the informed.
Be assured of a Rosary (a 5-decade Chaplet) and a small corporal penance tonight both for Catholics suffering from Father Pfeiffer's apparent fall and for the priest's soul.
God bless,
Patrick Gray
-
Nah,nah Our Lady of Pillar is Feenyite, but it's a good place. The faithful there are pious, decent folk. It is actually quite annoying for some people on here to say in ignorance that they need to be converted. They are good Catholics devoutly keeping the Faith. Fr. Hewko obviously needs some conversion unfortunately...
-
Fr. Bitzer was the priest at St. Joseph's in Greenwood, Indiana for a few years. He Later went to Louisville and Fr. O'Connor took over at St. Joseph's. During these years, Fr. O'Connor, Fr. Bitzer, and Fr. Wathen (Evansville, IN) worked together, filling in for each other as needed. This was before St. Joseph's was turned over to the SSPX.
Fr. Bizter is not sedevacantist (at least he wasn't when I knew him) though I've never heard him specifically condemn sedevacantism.
-
Our Lady of the Pillar is Feeneyite. Staunchly so. Fr Hewko has tried to convert them. But some of the OLMC laity attend Mass there as well. I don't know anything other than that.
There is a Thuc line in Union, KY.
Nah,nah Our Lady of Pillar is Feenyite, but it's a good place. The faithful there are pious, decent folk. It is actually quite annoying for some people on here to say in ignorance that they need to be converted. They are good Catholics devoutly keeping the Faith. Fr. Hewko obviously needs some conversion unfortunately...
I'm not sure if you are referring to me but I did not say they need to be converted.
-
Nah,nah Our Lady of Pillar is Feenyite, but it's a good place. The faithful there are pious, decent folk. It is actually quite annoying for some people on here to say in ignorance that they need to be converted. They are good Catholics devoutly keeping the Faith. Fr. Hewko obviously needs some conversion unfortunately...
Beware of Feeneyism. Fr Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 and excommunicated in '52 for denying Baptism of desire and of blood. In doing this he opposes approved authorities (the 'Summa', St Ambrose). His reconciliation with the conciliar church without having to abjure his heresy (the decree was never rescinded) only indicates to me that the Religion of Man will tolerate any species of error but not the True Faith.
Feeneyism is a particularly pernicious heresy, and Fr Feeney's a particularly sad fall, because it infests Catholics sound on other matters, e.g. an excellent grasp of the Church's doctrine on the Jєωs, avoiding both any sympathy for the chief enemy of the Church and yet holding out the light of the Faith to the darkened and ruined sons of Israel.
-
But how, exactly, does red-lighting this chapel ("Feeneyite" though it be) help Catholics to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church?
I fail to see how.
This chapel passes my minimalist, back-to-basics "Trad Checklist" for evaluating a chapel:
1. Is the priest properly ordained in the old rite (by a bishop who himself was ordained/consecrated in the old rite)?
2. Was the priest FORMED in a Traditional seminary, or at least has the priest fully converted to Tradition? Does the priest defend Tradition, and attack Modernism, Vatican II and the Conciliar religion sufficiently to teach/warn his congregation of their dangers?
3. Does the priest say the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass in Latin, and only give/recommend the other Sacraments according to the Pre-Vatican II form as well?
What, are you going to be more quick to baptize a pagan if you attend this chapel regularly?
Unless there are OTHER issues with this priest/chapel, besides theoretical "Feeneyism", I won't refrain from recommending this chapel.
For what it's worth, I'm not a Feeneyite. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, along with St. Thomas Aquinas.
-
So how, exactly, does red-lighting this chapel ("Feeneyite" though it be) help Catholics to keep the Faith during this Crisis in the Church?
I fail to see how.
What, are you going to be more quick to baptize a pagan if you attend this chapel regularly?
Unless there are OTHER issues with this priest/chapel, besides theoretical "Feeneyism", I won't refrain from recommending this chapel.
For what it's worth, I'm not a Feeneyite. I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, along with St. Thomas Aquinas.
Can I recommend that you ask a priest about that one...
-
I went to Mass at OLOP between 2005-2011 regularly and Fr. Bitzer is awesome! The chapel is awesome and the people were awesome! I never even knew they were / he was a feeneyite - and I are one.
They pray the rosary before Mass and include praying for the pope as one of their intentions before each rosary so some sede's may condemn OLOP for that, but other than that, get there early or plan to park a long ways off and standing room only if you aren't there at least 10 minutes early.
-
How can people who resist the society go to a feeneyite mass? Both groups hold doctrine that is against that of the Catholic church.
-
I won't refrain from recommending this chapel. ("Feeneyite" though it be)
If being excommunicated by the Holy Office for denying Catholic Teaching (i.e Baptism of desire and blood) is something minimalist for your radar, I'd strongly recommend you upgrade your radar or to talk to a sound priest before promoting heretical places...
-
At SSPX Mass today, during the sermon the priest said no one will get to heaven without the sacrament of baptism. He also said there is no other way to have mortal sin forgiven after baptism without the sacrament of confession.
It's not heresy any more, it's dogma fyi.
-
I won't refrain from recommending this chapel. ("Feeneyite" though it be)
If being excommunicated by the Holy Office for denying Catholic Teaching (i.e Baptism of desire and blood) is something minimalist for your radar, I'd strongly recommend you upgrade your radar or to talk to a sound priest before promoting heretical places...
First, for "full disclosure" I am a registered parishioner in the Diocese of Spokane, WA, never miss Mass on Sunday, and 99% of the time what is available to me is a 1969 Missal Mass. I also believe and hold to EVERYTHING the Baltimore Catechism says on the Sacrament of Baptism. I ONLY mention this so that people will be aware of my background, and that I don't have a "pony in this race".
Father Leonard Feeney WAS NOT excommunicated for "denying Catholic Teaching"; he WAS excommunicated on February 13, 1953 by the Holy See "for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority due to his refusal to comply with the summons" (to appear before the Holy Office). He allowed himself to remain in this state until 1972 when he asked for, and received, reconciliation with the Church from Pope Paul VI, without having to retract his previous views or writings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney
As Stubborn attended this chapel for several years yet was unaware it was "Feeneyite" (and he is a follower) they evidently are not "dogmatic" on the topic.
-
I have virtually every sermon Fr. Bitzer preached at St. Joseph in Greenwood from 1991 through 2002. I've listened to most of them. From his preaching, one would never guess that he is a Feeneyite. He's never discussed the impossibility of Baptism of Desire in my presence, nor have I heard him say anything that would make me even think that he might be.
Is Feeneyism somehow highlighted at the chapel? How did the posters who say he's a Feeneyite know this? I'm just curious. Of course, I would assume that he is strictly by his association with Fr. Wathen whose book, Who Shall Ascend clearly demonstrates a Feeneyite mindset.
I just find it hard to believe that a man could preach for 11 years and not be able to be identified as a Feeneyist by his sermons yet it seems to be "common knowledge" today to the point that people would "warn" about it. Frankly, warnings about Feeneyism seems to me to be as stupid as warnings about sedevacantism or sedeplenism.
-
So does a Catholic go to a heretical worship because he's pretty sure that nothing heretical will be said? That is certainly easier than staying home on Sundays.
-
I won't refrain from recommending this chapel. ("Feeneyite" though it be)
If being excommunicated by the Holy Office for denying Catholic Teaching (i.e Baptism of desire and blood) is something minimalist for your radar, I'd strongly recommend you upgrade your radar or to talk to a sound priest before promoting heretical places...
First, for "full disclosure" I am a registered parishioner in the Diocese of Spokane, WA, never miss Mass on Sunday, and 99% of the time what is available to me is a 1969 Missal Mass. I also believe and hold to EVERYTHING the Baltimore Catechism says on the Sacrament of Baptism. I ONLY mention this so that people will be aware of my background, and that I don't have a "pony in this race".
Father Leonard Feeney WAS NOT excommunicated for "denying Catholic Teaching"; he WAS excommunicated on February 13, 1953 by the Holy See "for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority due to his refusal to comply with the summons" (to appear before the Holy Office). He allowed himself to remain in this state until 1972 when he asked for, and received, reconciliation with the Church from Pope Paul VI, without having to retract his previous views or writings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney
As Stubborn attended this chapel for several years yet was unaware it was "Feeneyite" (and he is a follower) they evidently are not "dogmatic" on the topic.
He was excommunicated by the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII and was "reconciled" (without having to retract his previous views) to the Conciliar Church by Paul VI.
That's enough for me.
-
So does a Catholic go to a heretical worship because he's pretty sure that nothing heretical will be said? That is certainly easier than staying home on Sundays.
My question is how does everyone seem to know for a fact that Fr. Bitzer is actually a Feeneyite to the extent that he is actually a heretic? I also question whether most people labeled as Feeneyites (especially by anonymous forum members) are actually heretics. I know from personal experience about being labeled an excommunicate by anonymous posters on forums. It happens on CathInfo with regularity.
-
I won't refrain from recommending this chapel. ("Feeneyite" though it be)
If being excommunicated by the Holy Office for denying Catholic Teaching (i.e Baptism of desire and blood) is something minimalist for your radar, I'd strongly recommend you upgrade your radar or to talk to a sound priest before promoting heretical places...
First, for "full disclosure" I am a registered parishioner in the Diocese of Spokane, WA, never miss Mass on Sunday, and 99% of the time what is available to me is a 1969 Missal Mass. I also believe and hold to EVERYTHING the Baltimore Catechism says on the Sacrament of Baptism. I ONLY mention this so that people will be aware of my background, and that I don't have a "pony in this race".
Father Leonard Feeney WAS NOT excommunicated for "denying Catholic Teaching"; he WAS excommunicated on February 13, 1953 by the Holy See "for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority due to his refusal to comply with the summons" (to appear before the Holy Office). He allowed himself to remain in this state until 1972 when he asked for, and received, reconciliation with the Church from Pope Paul VI, without having to retract his previous views or writings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Feeney
As Stubborn attended this chapel for several years yet was unaware it was "Feeneyite" (and he is a follower) they evidently are not "dogmatic" on the topic.
So basically he knew his propositions were going to be condemned and tharted justice by Holy Mother Church. Doesn't sound like a person or a position to defend.
-
Nah,nah Our Lady of Pillar is Feenyite, but it's a good place. The faithful there are pious, decent folk. It is actually quite annoying for some people on here to say in ignorance that they need to be converted. They are good Catholics devoutly keeping the Faith. Fr. Hewko obviously needs some conversion unfortunately...
Beware of Feeneyism. Fr Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 and excommunicated in '52 for denying Baptism of desire and of blood. In doing this he opposes approved authorities (the 'Summa', St Ambrose). His reconciliation with the conciliar church without having to abjure his heresy (the decree was never rescinded) only indicates to me that the Religion of Man will tolerate any species of error but not the True Faith.
Feeneyism is a particularly pernicious heresy, and Fr Feeney's a particularly sad fall, because it infests Catholics sound on other matters, e.g. an excellent grasp of the Church's doctrine on the Jєωs, avoiding both any sympathy for the chief enemy of the Church and yet holding out the light of the Faith to the darkened and ruined sons of Israel.
Sure, I'll look into it since I don't care about Feeneyism much.
To me as a person who has wandered in there on occasion, OLOP is fine because Father Bitzer doesn't pound about Feeneyism nor do the faithful speak of it except for one or two elderly folks. Am I missing something here?
-
I have virtually every sermon Fr. Bitzer preached at St. Joseph in Greenwood from 1991 through 2002. I've listened to most of them. From his preaching, one would never guess that he is a Feeneyite. He's never discussed the impossibility of Baptism of Desire in my presence, nor have I heard him say anything that would make me even think that he might be.
Is Feeneyism somehow highlighted at the chapel? How did the posters who say he's a Feeneyite know this? I'm just curious. Of course, I would assume that he is strictly by his association with Fr. Wathen whose book, Who Shall Ascend clearly demonstrates a Feeneyite mindset.
I just find it hard to believe that a man could preach for 11 years and not be able to be identified as a Feeneyist by his sermons yet it seems to be "common knowledge" today to the point that people would "warn" about it. Frankly, warnings about Feeneyism seems to me to be as stupid as warnings about sedevacantism or sedeplenism.
I can understand TKGS' concern if Fr Bitzer is not truly a Feeneyite. However, if he is and his attendants are, I still do not think his chapel should be on a list of recommended chapels...even if he doesn't preach Feeneyism from the pulpit.
-
Not that many seem much to care about Fr. Feeney truth, but the following has the history of their story. They wanted it out as the media and liberal Catholics ("pious frauds") - in lock-step with the condemned Modernist Church - would not give their efforts to defend Catholic Doctrine a fair hearing. They were quick to bury the Center and Fr. Feeney, as many here are quick to do. But - oh! - we must hear the story of Arch. Lefebvre, we must read about him and understand his point of view and give him fair time and etc. etc. Maybe God raises up other people besides the Archbishop - even just a "lowly" priest (who was considered the finest theologian in the US). Where is objectivity, a love of truth - and charity in this regard?? It is grievous to see how some people go at Fr. Feeney as though he is the second coming of Martin Luther. At least say that his intention was right. Pray, with detachment, to the Holy Ghost. You will see "the finger of God is here."
https://hieronymopolis.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/architects-of-confusion-scanned-by-hieronymopolis.pdf
To mention again, the original version of the Catechism of the Council of Trent has no mention of Bap. of Blood or Desire, but makes WATER an absolute necessity. It's what the Council of Trent says and it is of definition.
If St. Thomas Aquinas lived after the following definitions were made - he died in 1274 - it is assumed that as a Catholic and priest and teacher and preacher he would have dropped any "desire" theory he held --
#2 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
#3 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
And thank God and Our Lady for OLOP and Fr. Bitzer.
-
Fr. Feeney converted 100 Jєωs. How many Jєωs have you converted lately? He did not attempt to convert them by saying, "Oh, do not worry you good souls, if somehow baptism passes you up, in your sincerity, your good nature, your rejection of your falsehoods, God will save you." No, this courageous priest converted them by giving them the truth of all ages, "If you will be converted, receive the sacrament of Baptism." Do any of the liberal Catholics on this website honestly believe that St. Peter was crucified upside down because he preached Baptism of Desire? How many Catholics have read Mike Malone's book, "The Only Begotten," which is a defense of Fr. Feeney? The book has 2,000 footnotes from the fathers and theologians. My guess is none of you, with the exception of a few.
-
Bishop Williamson came to Our Lady of the Pillar and did Confirmations there about two years ago. He praised Fr. Bitzer and said his church was "very Catholic."
To TheRealMcCoy - How do you know Fr. Hewko tried to "convert" Fr. Bitzer? Did he tell you that - or are you just hoping?
-
The discussion has become about feeneyism which is usually isolated in its own subforum. I am in the middle of this debate. I believe in BOD and BOB but only for those who believe in the true faith and believe in the trinity and the incarnation. I do not believe people in false religions can be saved (as many many traditionalists believe). So I take flak from both sides because I am in the middle (though I must admit that I get more flak from the anti-feeneyites).
-
The discussion has become about feeneyism which is usually isolated in its own subforum. I am in the middle of this debate. I believe in BOD and BOB but only for those who believe in the true faith and believe in the trinity and the incarnation. I do not believe people in false religions can be saved (as many many traditionalists believe). So I take flak from both sides because I am in the middle.
One cannot be in the middle because our Redeemer said, "I will have you hot or cold."
-
The discussion has become about feeneyism which is usually isolated in its own subforum. I am in the middle of this debate. I believe in BOD and BOB but only for those who believe in the true faith and believe in the trinity and the incarnation. I do not believe people in false religions can be saved (as many many traditionalists believe). So I take flak from both sides because I am in the middle.
One cannot be in the middle because our Redeemer said, "I will have you hot or cold."
My beliefs are in the middle, but I do not believe it is being lukewarm. I just take the position of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori and many other saints. So according to you Saint Alphonsus Liguori (and the thousands of other saints who believed in BOD and BOB for those who believed in the trinity and incarnation) was lukewarm.
-
Our Lady of the Pillar is Feeneyite. Staunchly so. Fr Hewko has tried to convert them. But some of the OLMC laity attend Mass there as well. I don't know anything other than that.
There is a Thuc line in Union, KY.
I never mentioned Fr Bitzer. I said "them". I'll let you figure out who I meant.
-
Bishop Williamson came to Our Lady of the Pillar and did Confirmations there about two years ago. He praised Fr. Bitzer and said his church was "very Catholic."
To TheRealMcCoy - How do you know Fr. Hewko tried to "convert" Fr. Bitzer? Did he tell you that - or are you just hoping?
Do you know if I am in favor of or against Feeneyism?
-
For the past 20 years, I have attended Mass at Fr. Bitzer's (St. John the Baptist and, later, Our Lady of the Pillar) in Louisville, KY. I know the situation far better than the armchair generals on this board.
Here are the facts:
#1 Fr. Bitzer, a known "Feeneyite", was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre himself. He was a brother at St. Benedict Center prior to entering the seminary. His "Feeneyite" position didn't deter the Archbishop from ordaining him.
#2 In all the years that I have attended his Masses, I can tell you that every single thing he says from the pulpit is absolutely in line with Church teaching. He takes the time to prepare his sermons, and if he doesn't have one prepared, he doesn't give one. He does not give improptu, off-the-cuff sermons. Every sermon is thoroughly Catholic, imbued with quotes from the fathers, doctors, councils and popes. He doesn't simply say something, he says something and then backs it up with solid quotes. Everyone here, I am sure, has at one time or another heard a sermon from a priest where the priest says something that is wrong, or in error, because he hasn't prepared his sermon. This simply doesn't happen here because of the preparation that goes into the sermons. He also never talks about himself.
#3 We have a wide assortment of people in attendance, "Feeneyites" and "non-Feeneyites", sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists. No one pushes any of these positions. The individual conscience on these issues is left to the individual. The kindness and true Christian charity that exists among the chapel attendees is rare, is genuine, and is edifying. Most of us here prefer to be left alone. All of the "loudmouths", if you will, have long-since switched (of their own accord) to attending the SSPX chapel a few blocks away. Which is fine by us.
#4 Fr. Bitzer is a rare breed of priest who KNOWS he has no authority, and behaves accordingly. He is very quiet, does not like to draw attention to himself, and takes his priestly duties far more seriously than the average SSPX priest. He does not get involved in things that aren't his business. He stays out of the trad politics that have been so destructive to other chapels. He simply does his job.
#5 He is supportive of Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, and visa versa. Bishop Williamson came to our chapel and administered Confirmations (nearly a hundred) the year before last, spent a day at the school and thoroughly enjoyed himself. This year he sent Fr. Bitzer a letter asking if we would be needing him to come back for confirmations, and he would happily do so. While he was here, he praised Fr. Bitzer and the chapel in general, saying that it was "very Catholic".
#5 He is not himself a sedevacantist, and does not talk about the subject. He recognizes that he has no authority to determine the status of the current claimant, and simply leaves the question alone.
#6 The chapel itself, once a former protestant church, has been transformed into a beautiful Catholic building, a fitting place for the Holy Sacrifice. The atmosphere in the chapel itself is very quiet, and everyone, even the children, comports themselves respectfully (more so than at any other chapel that I have attended, which have been quite a few). The altar boys are the trad equivalent of the Palatine Guard. Everything is as precise and dignified as can possibly be. Some people may find this "oppressive" because they're used to children jumping pews and conversations going on in the back at their chapels. One needs only to meditate on what truly goes on at the holy sacrifice and one will soon appreciate that things are "different" here.
#7 To those who would refuse to hear Mass because the fellow next to him "might" be a "Feeneyite" (or might not be), you need a special kind of help that I can't provide. And if you think the personal views of the priest on this topic compel you to stay home and condemn from a distance, there's nothing I can do to change your particular form of Donatism.
-
TheRealMcCoy - You may not know how you come across, but to be quick to throw out the (Commie-technique) term "Feeneyite" as you often do, and often immediately do, and you know you do, seems a show of hostility, even if you now try to act disingenuous in this regard.
When you say them, if it doesn't mean Fr. Bitzer along with his chapel, then it certainly seems to mean at least the people at OLOP - but Fr. Hewko has never had that opportunity to "convert" them as he has never publicly addressed them, though visiting the place. If you meant Fr. Hewko trying to "convert Feeneyites" in another venue, that's not how it came across and it is disingenuous to try and make it appear otherwise.
You ask if it is known if you are pro- or - anti Feeney ... don't you know? But it certainly seems you have a frothing anti-ax to grind about it.
Good job IHSV.
-
Nah,nah Our Lady of Pillar is Feenyite, but it's a good place. The faithful there are pious, decent folk. It is actually quite annoying for some people on here to say in ignorance that they need to be converted. They are good Catholics devoutly keeping the Faith. Fr. Hewko obviously needs some conversion unfortunately...
Beware of Feeneyism. Fr Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 and excommunicated in '52 for denying Baptism of desire and of blood. In doing this he opposes approved authorities (the 'Summa', St Ambrose). His reconciliation with the conciliar church without having to abjure his heresy (the decree was never rescinded) only indicates to me that the Religion of Man will tolerate any species of error but not the True Faith.
Feeneyism is a particularly pernicious heresy, and Fr Feeney's a particularly sad fall, because it infests Catholics sound on other matters, e.g. an excellent grasp of the Church's doctrine on the Jєωs, avoiding both any sympathy for the chief enemy of the Church and yet holding out the light of the Faith to the darkened and ruined sons of Israel.
Where is Ladislaus when you need him?
This little "exposition" is full of so much inaccurate and false information that it strains crediblity. It reads like a page from EWTN.
Father Bitzer has been at the service of faithful Catholics for many years. He worked with Father James Wathen for a long time. As far as I know he believes it the solemnly defined doctrine of exclusive salvation as found only in the Catholic Church. That is what his "heresy" is.
-
So does a Catholic go to a heretical worship because he's pretty sure that nothing heretical will be said? That is certainly easier than staying home on Sundays.
Does a Catholic go to such a Mass with a priest who believes in salvation outside of the Catholic Church even though he may not say anything in particular about it?
-
Fr. Feeney converted 100 Jєωs. How many Jєωs have you converted lately? He did not attempt to convert them by saying, "Oh, do not worry you good souls, if somehow baptism passes you up, in your sincerity, your good nature, your rejection of your falsehoods, God will save you." No, this courageous priest converted them by giving them the truth of all ages, "If you will be converted, receive the sacrament of Baptism." Do any of the liberal Catholics on this website honestly believe that St. Peter was crucified upside down because he preached Baptism of Desire? How many Catholics have read Mike Malone's book, "The Only Begotten," which is a defense of Fr. Feeney? The book has 2,000 footnotes from the fathers and theologians. My guess is none of you, with the exception of a few.
And here in is the kernel of the matter, Father Feeney was going about making many converts. That is an undeniable fact. It was in fact his preaching against the Jєωs that motivated his heretical Bishop to call in a favor from Rome and have him silenced. An Americanist Bishop we might add who was quite friendly with the Jєωs and the wealthy protestant families whose children he was converting, both of whom were complaining to him about it.
The whole affair was a politically motivated and a put up job, which took advantage of a politically active Vatican.
-
For the past 20 years, I have attended Mass at Fr. Bitzer's (St. John the Baptist and, later, Our Lady of the Pillar) in Louisville, KY. I know the situation far better than the armchair generals on this board.
Here are the facts:
#1 Fr. Bitzer, a known "Feeneyite", was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre himself. He was a brother at St. Benedict Center prior to entering the seminary. His "Feeneyite" position didn't deter the Archbishop from ordaining him.
#2 In all the years that I have attended his Masses, I can tell you that every single thing he says from the pulpit is absolutely in line with Church teaching. He takes the time to prepare his sermons, and if he doesn't have one prepared, he doesn't give one. He does not give improptu, off-the-cuff sermons. Every sermon is thoroughly Catholic, imbued with quotes from the fathers, doctors, councils and popes. He doesn't simply say something, he says something and then backs it up with solid quotes. Everyone here, I am sure, has at one time or another heard a sermon from a priest where the priest says something that is wrong, or in error, because he hasn't prepared his sermon. This simply doesn't happen here because of the preparation that goes into the sermons. He also never talks about himself.
#3 We have a wide assortment of people in attendance, "Feeneyites" and "non-Feeneyites", sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists. No one pushes any of these positions. The individual conscience on these issues is left to the individual. The kindness and true Christian charity that exists among the chapel attendees is rare, is genuine, and is edifying. Most of us here prefer to be left alone. All of the "loudmouths", if you will, have long-since switched (of their own accord) to attending the SSPX chapel a few blocks away. Which is fine by us.
#4 Fr. Bitzer is a rare breed of priest who KNOWS he has no authority, and behaves accordingly. He is very quiet, does not like to draw attention to himself, and takes his priestly duties far more seriously than the average SSPX priest. He does not get involved in things that aren't his business. He stays out of the trad politics that have been so destructive to other chapels. He simply does his job.
#5 He is supportive of Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, and visa versa. Bishop Williamson came to our chapel and administered Confirmations (nearly a hundred) the year before last, spent a day at the school and thoroughly enjoyed himself. This year he sent Fr. Bitzer a letter asking if we would be needing him to come back for confirmations, and he would happily do so. While he was here, he praised Fr. Bitzer and the chapel in general, saying that it was "very Catholic".
#5 He is not himself a sedevacantist, and does not talk about the subject. He recognizes that he has no authority to determine the status of the current claimant, and simply leaves the question alone.
#6 The chapel itself, once a former protestant church, has been transformed into a beautiful Catholic building, a fitting place for the Holy Sacrifice. The atmosphere in the chapel itself is very quiet, and everyone, even the children, comports themselves respectfully (more so than at any other chapel that I have attended, which have been quite a few). The altar boys are the trad equivalent of the Palatine Guard. Everything is as precise and dignified as can possibly be. Some people may find this "oppressive" because they're used to children jumping pews and conversations going on in the back at their chapels. One needs only to meditate on what truly goes on at the holy sacrifice and one will soon appreciate that things are "different" here.
#7 To those who would refuse to hear Mass because the fellow next to him "might" be a "Feeneyite" (or might not be), you need a special kind of help that I can't provide. And if you think the personal views of the priest on this topic compel you to stay home and condemn from a distance, there's nothing I can do to change your particular form of Donatism.
Finally some truth. Thank God for an honest Catholic man.
-
Thank you as well for adding clarity.
-
:really-mad2: Feeneyite is a sect!!!
Delete the invitation to visit this chapel!This is a work of the devil to offer this mass and to put in danger the souls! They don´t believe one of our dogmas, they are like the Orthodox SCHISMATIK!!!
And Father Hewko there goes to this schismatic group to hear confessions, it´s a scandal! To say he goes there to convert them is modernism and how Fr. Chazal said before: it is something that Bishop Fellay says but it is not catholic. We all with Archbishop Lefebvre have condemned such a thing (even Fr. P did it in the past! He accused Bischof Fellay of that!). We can´t work with those who are in error! It is also not right to enjoy them with the excuse to convert them. As it is not right that Moran Amborse enjoyed the GOC!>Genuine Orthodox Church of America.
The Feeneyite and the Priests that belongs to this schismatic group do not believe in the Baptism of Desire! And this is no joke! As the archbishop Lefebvre said: if you do not believe in one truth of the Church (dogma), you do not belong to the church!
THEY ARE NOT CATHOLIC! So delete this evil invitation to this sect!
-
:really-mad2: Feeneyite is a sect!!!
Delete the invitation to visit this chapel!This is a work of the devil to offer this mass and to put in danger the souls! They don´t believe one of our dogmas, they are like the Orthodox SCHISMATIK!!!
And Father Hewko there goes to this schismatic group to hear confessions, it´s a scandal! To say he goes there to convert them is modernism and how Fr. Chazal said before: it is something that Bishop Fellay says but it is not catholic. We all with Archbishop Lefebvre have condemned such a thing (even Fr. P did it in the past! He accused Bischof Fellay of that!). We can´t work with those who are in error! It is also not right to enjoy them with the excuse to convert them. As it is not right that Moran Amborse enjoyed the GOC!>Genuine Orthodox Church of America.
The Feeneyite and the Priests that belongs to this schismatic group do not believe in the Baptism of Desire! And this is no joke! As the archbishop Lefebvre said: if you do not believe in one truth of the Church (dogma), you do not belong to the church!
THEY ARE NOT CATHOLIC! So delete this evil invitation to this sect!
With all due respect Ecclesiae is severely discombobulated. He/she cannot string together a coherent sentence. Do we allow this on CathInfo.?
-
Our Lady of the Pillar is Feeneyite. Staunchly so. Fr Hewko has tried to convert them.
"convert"? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
With all due respect Ecclesiae is severely discombobulated. He/she cannot string together a coherent sentence. Do we allow this on CathInfo.?
This was so bad that I initially took it for sarcasm.
-
Nah,nah Our Lady of Pillar is Feenyite, but it's a good place. The faithful there are pious, decent folk. It is actually quite annoying for some people on here to say in ignorance that they need to be converted. They are good Catholics devoutly keeping the Faith. Fr. Hewko obviously needs some conversion unfortunately...
Beware of Feeneyism. Fr Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 and excommunicated in '52 for denying Baptism of desire and of blood.
:sleep:
And Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, his bishops excommunicated, his Society suppressed and condemned as schismatic.
-
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!
Error I:
Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation"
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.
Error II:
The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional
The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.
Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.
Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."
We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth.
He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).
Error III:
The Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation"
Let us preface this section by saying the Council of Trent clearly teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification. The Council anathematizes anyone believing the contrary. It is very explicitly stated in Session VII, Canon 4 on the sacraments in general:
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual; let him be anathema (The Church Teaches, 668; Dz 847).
We must be wary of ambiguous translations from the original Latin. (The accuracy of Latin is supreme and must be respected.) In a recent flyer published by the Feeneyites entitled, "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent," an ambiguous translation of Session VI, Chapter 7 (Dz 799) is used: "...the instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith,’ without which no one is ever justified....". Now the Latin has: "sine qua nulli unquam contigit iustificatio." In the Latin original, therefore, the phrase "without which" (or, in the Latin original, "sine qua", is a feminine pronoun meant to agree with a feminine noun) refers to the "faith" (a feminine noun in Latin) and not to "sacrament" (a neuter noun in Latin meant to agree with a neuter pronoun). If it was "sacrament" the Council Fathers wanted to highlight "without which no one is ever justified," they would have written "sine quo."
The English translation of Chapter 7 as found in The Church Teaches (TCT 563) accurately reflects the Latin (The Church Teaches, TAN Books & Publishers). In this edition, this important sentence is correctly translated: …The instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified." The correct translation of the original Latin expresses the Church’s traditional teaching and refutes the Feeneyite error.
When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circuмstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.
It is false to pretend that Canon 4 of Session VII (TCT 668) of the Council of Trent (quoted above) on the "Sacraments in General" deals with justification as opposed to salvation. Desire is explicitly mentioned in this canon, for when it uses the expression "aut eorum voto," it admits that the grace of justification can be obtained by desire of the sacraments. It is also false to say that Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session VII of the Council of Trent deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed Canon 4 (of Session VII) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation." In that context, the expression "grace of justification" appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in Session VI, Chapter 16. That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning which disregards the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire only arrives at false conclusions.
That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One need not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. For instance, there are many definitions of the Church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception. This does not invalidate the Immaculate Conception! For instance Pope St. Zosimus wrote: "nullus omnino —absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin. Such a "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, that is, in this particular case, not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, but it is not necessary to expect it on every page of her teaching. Silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember so as not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites. They accuмulate quotes on the general necessity of baptism as if these quotes were against baptism of desire. The very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire! These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water.
Lack of proper Thomistic theology is the root of the error of the Feeneyites
To remedy the errors of Modernism, St. Pius X ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and theology. A book like Desire and Deception,[10] authored and published by Feeneyites, is very dangerous for its opposition to St. Thomas. Let us hear St. Pius X:
We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us. They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.[11]
In obedience, we must consider the sacramental theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He distinguishes three elements in each sacrament:
the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum - sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament.
An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et re - sacrament and reality, which, in the case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element.
The ultimate reality, res sacramenti - the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e., sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as a child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.
A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person attached to his sin, for example, a person who has stolen and refuses to render that which he stole, places an obstacle which deprives his baptism of its ultimate effect, that is, sanctifying grace.
It is a fact that one can go to hell despite having the character of baptism. Yet, we know there are saints in heaven, such as the saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) who do not have the character of baptism. But nobody, however, dying with sanctifying grace goes to hell, says the Council of Trent. Contrariwise, nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to heaven.
For the third element of baptism, i.e., the infusion of sacramental grace, the necessity of baptism for salvation is absolute. This third element is found in each of the "three baptisms," and even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church. Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism[12] includes the "three baptisms."
The necessity of the exterior element (#1 above) of baptism, i.e., the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element as the only means at our disposal to receive the third element, that is, living Faith. The sacrament itself is "...’the sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified," says the Council of Trent (TCT 563). See how the Council of Trent clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element, i.e., living faith, faith working through charity? One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, in St. John’s Gospel (chap. 3). That which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, that is, the infusion of new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be reborn, "born of the Spirit." The water is mentioned only once as the means for that rebirth, the only means at our disposal. This is not meant to limit God’s power. He can infuse this new life (justification) even without water, as he did to Cornelius (Acts 10).
There is an appalling confusion in the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with the sacramental character and with what they refer to as "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice." Their confusion regards the second and third elements (see above) of the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church. Dare one add with St. Pius X, as the cause of their error, a certain pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the popes, fathers, doctors, and saints?
Conclusion
Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God,[13] but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:1-2).
How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error concerning baptism of desire and blood, they might embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith. Their error caricatures the Catholic Faith and gives easy weapons to the enemies of dogma!
Not knowing the justice of God [interior sanctifying grace of justification by living faith] and seeking to establish their own [exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments], [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (cf. Rom. 10:3).
We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace as inseparable from true faith, hope and charity, and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto - in reality or at least in desire" as taught by the Council of Trent.
In this time of confusion in the teaching of the Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing what the Church has always believed and taught "in the same meaning and the same words," not changing one iota to the right or to the left, for falling from the Faith on one side or the other is still falling from the true Faith, "without faith no one has ever been justified" (Council of Trent, TCT 563).
Let us pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ may give them the light to see and the grace to accept the age-old teaching of our holy Mother the Church by her popes, fathers, doctors and saints, and that, correcting themselves, they may serve the Church rather than change her doctrine.
-
I won't refrain from recommending this chapel. ("Feeneyite" though it be)
If being excommunicated by the Holy Office for denying Catholic Teaching (i.e Baptism of desire and blood) is something minimalist for your radar, I'd strongly recommend you upgrade your radar or to talk to a sound priest before promoting heretical places...
People are completely retarded when it comes to the Feeneyite matter. You boneheads consider Father Feeney a greater enemy of the faith than the modernists. In fact, you deem Cushing one of the greatest defenders of the faith.
Father Feeney was NOT excommunicated for denying Catholic teaching. He was excommunicated for refusing to go to Rome. Suprema Haec is nothing but a garbage fraud docuмent created by Cushing himself. Even if you don't believe that, it's NOT part of the authentic Magisterium in any way, as it did not appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Yet the same morons who spout on about an extremely suspicious docuмent published only by Cushing and never appearing in any official publication of the curia still think it's perfectly fine to reject the teachings of an Ecuмenical Council. Yet every teaching in Vatican II is absolutely consistent with your own Suprema Haec ecclesiology. All of Vatican II rests on SH. Go pound salt, you bunch of bad-willed morons.
-
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
:roll-laugh1:
Retard, it's a dogmatic teaching of Trent that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Even if you believe in BoD, you must say that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto, not that they are saved "without" the Sacrament of Baptism. Your opening statement is heretical.
-
Bishop Williamson came to Our Lady of the Pillar and did Confirmations there about two years ago. He praised Fr. Bitzer and said his church was "very Catholic."
Here's a sensible man.
-
@Ladislau you wrote: "And Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, his bishops excommunicated, his Society suppressed and condemned as schismatic."
Do not compare Fr. Leonard Feeney[/u] with Lefebvre but study the truth! Archibishop Lefebvre had never renounced a dogmatic truth of the Church. You should study Lefebvre! Read this: "Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecuмenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc."
More see>>>http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
-
@Ladislau you wrote: "And Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, his bishops excommunicated, his Society suppressed and condemned as schismatic."
Do not compare Fr. Leonard Feeney[/u] with Lefebvre but study the truth! Archibishop Lefebvre had never renounced a dogmatic truth of the Church.
So if the Vatican was wrong to excommunicate Lefebvre, then why couldn't it have been wrong in excommunicating Feeney? You obviously miss the point. Your criterion is simply that you agree with the one but disagree with the other. So your appeal to "authority" is utterly disingenuous and rooted in dishonesty and bad will when it comes to this particular issue. And, as I pointed out, your copy-paste job is heretical from the outset. Baptism of Water, aka the Sacrament of Baptism, is absolutely necessary for salvation, and your statement that people can be saved without the Sacrament is heretical, denying the teaching of Trent.
-
@Ladislau
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either.
1. Lefevbre was never excommunicated because of renouncing the true doctrine!
2. and he was not excommunicated by a saintly Pope!
-
@Ladislau
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either.
1. Lefevbre was never excommunicated because of renouncing the true doctrine!
2. and he was not excommunicated by a saintly Pope!
Nor was Feeney. Again, you have the blinders of bad will impeding your sound judgment. Feeney was excommunicated for failing to heed a summons to Rome.
So the Magisterial authority now depends on how "saintly" a particular pope happens to be, eh?
You get hereticaler and hereticaler with every post.
-
Lefebvre kept the faith, he never renounced the true doctrine!
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"
-
We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood !
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday the people of the Feeneyite Movement will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage they are doing to the Church.
-
Ecclesiae has given us a long list of arguments in favor of Baptism of Desire. We would assume, according to his arguments, that Fr. Feeney is in hell; after all, BOD runs contrary to the fathers and doctors, and is therefore a heresy in his estimation. I am a Catholic who likes to gamble. I will bet my salvation that Fr. Feeney is in heaven. Any takers?
-
The discussion has become about feeneyism which is usually isolated in its own subforum. I am in the middle of this debate. I believe in BOD and BOB but only for those who believe in the true faith and believe in the trinity and the incarnation. I do not believe people in false religions can be saved (as many many traditionalists believe). So I take flak from both sides because I am in the middle (though I must admit that I get more flak from the anti-feeneyites).
As you know, though, Matto, I (and most Feeneyites -- with the exception of the radical Dimondites) have no serious problem with your position. I cannot find fault with anyone who follows the opinion of St. Thomas on this issue. I disagree with the St. Thomas opinion but do not consider it non-Catholic. I follow the theology of the later, anti-Pelagian St. Augustine myself. As long as someone upholds the absolute necessity of the SACRAMENT of Baptism for salvation, doesn't continue to disparage this Holy Sacrament, essentially considering it optional, and believes in explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as a minimum for salvation, I respect your opinion on BoD. What irritates me to no end is when people (such as a few on CI) disparage and blaspheme the Sacrament of Baptism, believe in Pelagian subjectivist salvation, and deny the dogmatic teaching of Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. If you believe in BoD, you MUST state that people who are saved this way receive Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved "without" the Sacrament. That's why I get so deeply irritated with most of those who are hostile to Feeneyism. Most of them heretically deny the teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation, and very few of them are not also Pelagians. AND, ironically, their ecclesiology is absolutely in line with Vatican II ecclesiology; they have absolutely NO BUSINESS whatsoever rejecting even the smallest iota in Vatican II.
-
Lefebvre kept the faith, he never renounced the true doctrine!
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"
I love the edifying platitudes. Unfortunately, you have absolutely lost touch with Catholic teaching regarding the Magisterium and teaching authority. Your approach to dogmatic truth is more Protestant than it is Catholic.
-
We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood !
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday the people of the Feeneyite Movement will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage they are doing to the Church.
Coming from a heretic like yourself, this means very little.
-
As pope Francis said: "Who am I to judge?" :wink:
:facepalm:
-
Ecclesiae has given us a long list of arguments in favor of Baptism of Desire. We would assume, according to his arguments, that Fr. Feeney is in hell; after all, BOD runs contrary to the fathers and doctors, and is therefore a heresy in his estimation. I am a Catholic who likes to gamble. I will bet my salvation that Fr. Feeney is in heaven. Any takers?
Father Feeney will be canonized some day.
-
Ladislau, take care of the salvation of your soul. You judge me and condemn me without reason but with the stupid comparison of Holy Lefebvre with a man who was in error. I pray that the love of Christ and His holiness penetrates into your heart. God bless you!
-
Ecclesiae has given us a long list of arguments in favor of Baptism of Desire. We would assume, according to his arguments, that Fr. Feeney is in hell; after all, BOD runs contrary to the fathers and doctors, and is therefore a heresy in his estimation. I am a Catholic who likes to gamble. I will bet my salvation that Fr. Feeney is in heaven. Any takers?
I'm with you here.
Fr. Feeney received the sacrament of Extreme Unction before he died. He is among the faithful departed, much to the dismay of Ecclesiae - whom it seems, believes that sacrament is of no use.
-
Nobody claims that this poor man in hell! Don´t you know the teaching of the Church? The Church not even judges the soul of Judas. It not addressed officially which person is in hell. To judge a soul, whether or not he is in hell or not, is not our duty!
-
The Church has not proclaimed Martin Luther in hell, yet St. Alphonsus says that he died in a brothel with his head next to the toilet. Perhaps he received Confession by Desire.
-
We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood !
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday the people of the Feeneyite Movement will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage they are doing to the Church.
You do not have a clue. What is it, did you discover the true faith last month, 3 months ago - a year, 5 years? - and now you have it figured out?
FYI, I hope you are only a relative newbie to tradition, at least you have an excuse for your ignorance, no excuse for your pride, but your ignorance, I think possibly yes. If you've been in this for many years now, all I can say is you are one sorry representative and better to keep quiet. It is painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood !
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday the people of the Feeneyite Movement will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage they are doing to the Church.
You do not have a clue. What is it, did you discover the true faith last month, 3 months ago - a year, 5 years? - and now you have it figured out?
FYI, I hope you are only a relative newbie to tradition, at least you have an excuse for your ignorance, no excuse for your pride, but your ignorance, I think possibly yes. If you've been in this for many years now, all I can say is you are one sorry representative and better to keep quiet. It is painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Indeed, and you might remind the fellow that the Americanist heresy is in part, the denial of the doctrine of exclusive salvation as found in the Catholic Church, it is not belief in that solemn doctrine, and it is Americanists who see it as heresy.
-
Ecclesiae, are you actually Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer?? Respectfully wondering...
-
:really-mad2: Feeneyite is a sect!!!
Delete the invitation to visit this chapel!This is a work of the devil to offer this mass and to put in danger the souls! They don´t believe one of our dogmas, they are like the Orthodox SCHISMATIK!!!
And Father Hewko there goes to this schismatic group to hear confessions, it´s a scandal! To say he goes there to convert them is modernism and how Fr. Chazal said before: it is something that Bishop Fellay says but it is not catholic. We all with Archbishop Lefebvre have condemned such a thing (even Fr. P did it in the past! He accused Bischof Fellay of that!). We can´t work with those who are in error! It is also not right to enjoy them with the excuse to convert them. As it is not right that Moran Amborse enjoyed the GOC!>Genuine Orthodox Church of America.
The Feeneyite and the Priests that belongs to this schismatic group do not believe in the Baptism of Desire! And this is no joke! As the archbishop Lefebvre said: if you do not believe in one truth of the Church (dogma), you do not belong to the church!
THEY ARE NOT CATHOLIC! So delete this evil invitation to this sect!
Stop slobbering all over your keyboard. It's truly disgusting, and it's not helping your position at all.
When you've sobered up, perhaps we can attempt to have an intelligible exchange, albeit one-sided.
-
Ladislau, take care of the salvation of your soul. You judge me and condemn me without reason ...
Nonsense. I quoted from your own post wherein you deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-
I don't deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation!
I am sorry but this is madness! I believe in everything what our Holy Catholic Church says and I defend the catholic faith. Stay catholic! :incense:
God bless
-
@Merry
In this case I have to praise Father Pfeiffer! Yes, what I write might come from him and he's absolutely right! God's blessing and peace be upon him. May God deliver and protect him! Oremus
-
I will bet my salvation that Fr. Feeney is in heaven. Any takers?
I would never bet my salvation that any non-canonized person is in heaven, but I would bet money that he was in heaven if it were possible to know.
-
@Merry
In this case I have to praise Father Pfeiffer! Yes, what I write might come from him and he's absolutely right! God's blessing and peace be upon him. May God deliver and protect him! Oremus
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
Despite being "anti-Feeneyite", and knowing that I hold the dogma of exclusive salvation and attend OLP chapel, Fr. Pfeiffer has never refused me the sacraments on those occasions that I go to Boston, and hasn't broached the topic of EENS/BoD/BoB with me in years. The last time he did was nearly 20 years ago. He has always treated me as a Catholic, as do his parents. In fact, when there is no Mass in Boston on Sundays, many of the Boston people go to Our Lady of the Pillar as a backup. And since things have gotten weird in Boston, we have others who have decided to attend the "Feeneyite chapel" on a regular basis.
The same can also be said of St. Benedicts, which is the SSPX chapel in Louisville. Sometimes we have to go there to fulfill our Sunday obligation, and have always been welcome. Many of their parishioners come to OLP when they're not able to attend their regular afternoon Mass.
With the exception of a few old bats, most of the trads hereabouts are adult enough to put their priorities in their proper order.
I am often amused at the people on this board who post comments about the situation down here, who clearly are as ignorant as the day is long.
Ecclesiae, I don't understand how you can type as you do with both feet in your mouth. It sounds painfully contorted.
-
It's quite easy for people to label Fr Bitzer as a "Feeneyite" simply because he was involved with the St Benedict Center way long ago. But, the "Feenyite" label means many things. To Fr Feeney and the St Benedict Center, it means you are a defender of "the dogma", as they call it, the main issue of our day, which is "outside the church there is no salvation." THIS is Fr Feeneys main concern, i.e. The fight against the growth of ecuмenism in the 30s, which we see today as culminating in the anti-Christ's and UN's hoped for "one world religion".
"Feeneyism" is NOT solely concerned with BOD or BOB, as the whole baptism debate is a ridiculous waste of time, and is best left to those who can debate with rational intentions and theological motives. Otherwise, the devil uses this topic to promote uncharitable, scandalous, and hateful comments, with disunity and frustration as the result.
Having attended Fr Bitzers masses many times, and knowing many people who have attended his masses EVERY Sunday for 20+ years, I can say that I've never heard of him preaching ANY sermon on the baptism topic. It's a non issue.
-
It's quite easy for people to label Fr Bitzer as a "Feeneyite" simply because he was involved with the St Benedict Center way long ago. But, the "Feenyite" label means many things. To Fr Feeney and the St Benedict Center, it means you are a defender of "the dogma", as they call it, the main issue of our day, which is "outside the church there is no salvation." THIS is Fr Feeneys main concern, i.e. The fight against the growth of ecuмenism in the 30s, which we see today as culminating in the anti-Christ's and UN's hoped for "one world religion".
"Feeneyism" is NOT solely concerned with BOD or BOB, as the whole baptism debate is a ridiculous waste of time, and is best left to those who can debate with rational intentions and theological motives. Otherwise, the devil uses this topic to promote uncharitable, scandalous, and hateful comments, with disunity and frustration as the result.
Having attended Fr Bitzers masses many times, and knowing many people who have attended his masses EVERY Sunday for 20+ years, I can say that I've never heard of him preaching ANY sermon on the baptism topic. It's a non issue.
Well said!
-
Father Feeney contradicted the council of Trent. He said in the bread of life that souls can attain sanctifying grace buy a perfect act of love of God. However, he also says that these souls that don't receive the character of baptism cannot be saved although they have sanctifying grace. He says he does not know where they go. The Council of Trent on the other hand , says that if any man says that the sanctifying grace given by our Lord Jesus Christ does not have the power to save souls then let them be anathema.
-
We defend the Faith from every angle of attack, and that includes the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood !
Every heresy is a grave threat to the Church. This modern Americanist heresy of Feeneyism is just as dangerous as other heresies. They all attack the Catholic Faith.
Maybe someday the people of the Feeneyite Movement will come to realize this fact, and make amends for all the damage they are doing to the Church.
You do not have a clue. What is it, did you discover the true faith last month, 3 months ago - a year, 5 years? - and now you have it figured out?
FYI, I hope you are only a relative newbie to tradition, at least you have an excuse for your ignorance, no excuse for your pride, but your ignorance, I think possibly yes. If you've been in this for many years now, all I can say is you are one sorry representative and better to keep quiet. It is painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Stubborn is really showing how he Catholic he is , not by answering and disproving this man's accusations, but simply saying that he knows nothing about Catholic tradition.
Well done.
-
@Pax Vobis
We confess our faith not only in our hearts but also with words and actions. That is why we say in the holy mass the Creed. Words but also where we are and where we worship God is a confession of faith. Therefor it is forbidden for us to worship God in a Buddhist temple, or in a Greek Orthodox Church or with the Protestants, because if we do that, we confess or faith. So we confess to have the same faith that they represents. No matter how catholic you are in your heart and no matter if you believe in the Baptism of desire or not, entering the chapel of the OLP (Feeneyite) you confess to don´t believe in the Baptism of desire, because you are in such a chapel that represents this heresy. Independently of what the priests preaches or believes.
What I say here is Catholic doctrine.
With your words but also with your actions, and a visit of a chapel, you confess your faith. So if you attend mass at the OLP Chapel, you confess the same faith! No matter if the priest does´t propagate heresy. I am sorry. Believe in what you want to believe. I say only what the Catholic doctrine says, and I don´t want to hurt or provoke anyone. God bless you!
-
Stubborn is really showing how he Catholic he is , not by answering and disproving this man's accusations, but simply saying that he knows nothing about Catholic tradition.
Well done.
Stubborn is employing the time-honored use of the "You're stupid" argument. When all else fails, when one just doesn't know how to answer, or the arguments previously made are simply too weak to be rehashed, the individual simply declares that the person with whom he disagrees is simply too stupid to know anything.
There is a core group of CathInfo members who routinely make this argument on a variety of issues though the issues usually revolve around baptism of desire and sedevacantism.
-
@Pax Vobis
We confess our faith not only in our hearts but also with words and actions. That is why we say in the holy mass the Creed. Words but also where we are and where we worship God is a confession of faith. Therefor it is forbidden for us to worship God in a Buddhist temple, or in a Greek Orthodox Church or with the Protestants, because if we do that, we confess or faith. So we confess to have the same faith that they represents. No matter how catholic you are in your heart and no matter if you believe in the Baptism of desire or not, entering the chapel of the OLP (Feeneyite) you confess to don´t believe in the Baptism of desire, because you are in such a chapel that represents this heresy. Independently of what the priests preaches or believes.
What I say here is Catholic doctrine.
With your words but also with your actions, and a visit of a chapel, you confess your faith. So if you attend mass at the OLP Chapel, you confess the same faith! No matter if the priest does´t propagate heresy. I am sorry. Believe in what you want to believe. I say only what the Catholic doctrine says, and I don´t want to hurt or provoke anyone. God bless you!
No one is hurt but please know that a lot of what you have proposed here is hogwash.
What do you say about someone who attends Mass at an SSPX, or sedevacantist Chapel where they believe in salvation outside of the Church, and salvation by ignorance?
According to your propositions one could say that such chapels represent heresy. Do you go to either one?
-
@Merry
In this case I have to praise Father Pfeiffer! Yes, what I write might come from him and he's absolutely right! God's blessing and peace be upon him. May God deliver and protect him! Oremus
Are you that womanly theatrical wetback Pablo?
-
@Merry
In this case I have to praise Father Pfeiffer! Yes, what I write might come from him and he's absolutely right! God's blessing and peace be upon him. May God deliver and protect him! Oremus
Are you that womanly theatrical wetback Pablo?
I think it's probably Brandon Wainscott. Brandon is a local.
-
Ecclesiae,
You are missing the point, which is, that OLP chapel DOES NOT MAKE AN ISSUE of "3 Baptisms". It's not discussed publicly. Sure, there are chapel members who have private opinions but that's the extent of it. OLP does not have a LABEL, other than being independent. They care about keeping alive the traditions of the Faith; everything else is a distraction.
If you want to "label" OLP chapel so you can then chastise them, go right ahead. But your label isn't based on facts.
-
Fr. Feeney converted 100 Jєωs. How many Jєωs have you converted lately? He did not attempt to convert them by saying, "Oh, do not worry you good souls, if somehow baptism passes you up, in your sincerity, your good nature, your rejection of your falsehoods, God will save you." No, this courageous priest converted them by giving them the truth of all ages, "If you will be converted, receive the sacrament of Baptism." Do any of the liberal Catholics on this website honestly believe that St. Peter was crucified upside down because he preached Baptism of Desire? How many Catholics have read Mike Malone's book, "The Only Begotten," which is a defense of Fr. Feeney? The book has 2,000 footnotes from the fathers and theologians. My guess is none of you, with the exception of a few.
And here in is the kernel of the matter, Father Feeney was going about making many converts. That is an undeniable fact. It was in fact his preaching against the Jєωs that motivated his heretical Bishop to call in a favor from Rome and have him silenced. An Americanist Bishop we might add who was quite friendly with the Jєωs and the wealthy protestant families whose children he was converting, both of whom were complaining to him about it.
The whole affair was a politically motivated and a put up job, which took advantage of a politically active Vatican.
Robert Kennedy asked Richard Cushing to suppress Fr. Leonard Feeney
According to the memoirs of Edward Kennedy it was his brother Robert who asked Archbishop Richard Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney...
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Kennedy
-
Father Feeney was NOT excommunicated for denying Catholic teaching. He was excommunicated for refusing to go to Rome.
For the sake of truth, a couple of quick facts:
1. Father Feeney's position on the theological speculation of "Baptism of Desire" was first published 1952 in his book, Bread of Life. That was three years after the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949, which makes impossible that it was his denial of "Baptism of Desire" the cause of the controversy which led to his excommunication.
2. Fr. Feeney was never accused of holding heresy, but only disobedience. Contrary to the public perception, it was not the Saint Benedict center Catholics who were accused of heresy, but vice versa, the SBC Boston Catholics accused their ecclesiastical and academic superiors at Harvard of heresy for denying the thrice defined infallible dogma of Outside the Church there is no Salvation. In 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated "on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority." Even the Holy Office would not name "heresy" as the real issue.
-
@Pax Vobis
NO! You are missing the point! I talked with Fr. Gavin Bitzer and he still does´t believe in the Baptism of desire. So he is an heretic. He DOES NOT BELIVE IT! So he does not believe all the truth of our catholic faith and if you miss to believe in one point, you do not belong anymore to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Remember how many have chosen to die as martyrs as to take the holy communion from the hand of an Heretic? Think about St. Hermenegild for example! And even if the priest would think catholic and have the true faith, he should say in public: we are an independent chapel and we take distance of the heresy to don´t believe, in a Baptism of desire.
About the Baptism of desire, the truth is: there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith! But if a person has faith, and want to be baptized but something happens, and can not be baptized because he dies, he was baptized because of the desire. This is our catholic faith and something what the priest and his chapel do not believe.
-
Stubborn is really showing how he Catholic he is , not by answering and disproving this man's accusations, but simply saying that he knows nothing about Catholic tradition.
Well done.
Stubborn is employing the time-honored use of the "You're stupid" argument. When all else fails, when one just doesn't know how to answer, or the arguments previously made are simply too weak to be rehashed, the individual simply declares that the person with whom he disagrees is simply too stupid to know anything.
There is a core group of CathInfo members who routinely make this argument on a variety of issues though the issues usually revolve around baptism of desire and sedevacantism.
Well, being that this is not in the correct forum to beat the dead horse further, asking the hypocrite to keep quiet seemed the appropriate course of action.
Pope Pius IX taught that it was absolutely necessary to use dogmatic decrees to refute error - why drag this on and on - use dogmatic decrees to refute feeneyism, but do it in the right forum.
-
@ J. Paul
You should also not go to a sedevacantist Chapel! They are unfortunately in error.
I attend Holy Mass of the Resistance!
If you can´t find a Resistance priest, you should save money and at least take a flight to one of the bishops masses, no matter where they are. This is our sacrifice and the cross that we carry, but also a blessing! Do not be conformed to this world and don´t seek the easy way. Don't Compromise the Truth!
Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." We have to know the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Faith and we are on the safe way to heaven!
-
If you can´t find a Resistance priest, you should at least take once a year take a flight to one of the bishops masses, no matter where they are. This is our sacrifice and the cross that we carry, but also a blessing! Do not be conformed to this world and don´t seek the easy way. Don't Compromise the Truth!
-
Ok, so you had a PRIVATE conversation with a priest. But this is NOT PUBLIC knowledge. I've never heard what Fr Bitzer's view on Baptism is. He never preaches on it, talks about it, etc. How do you know he hasn't changed his mind? You don't. And if the priest chooses not to make these things public, then only he knows. So quit spreading half-truths about HUNDREDS of chapel members based on one, PRIVATE conversation. It's dishonest and short sighted.
-
The Boston Heresy Case
(This article by Hamish Fraser appeared in Approaches No. 64, Easter 1979. It has been posted on the Apropos website: www.apropos.org.uk )
http://www.apropos.org.uk/docuмents/BostonHeresyCase22-10-2013_000.pdf
-
St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.
These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.
Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.
-
St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.
Neither St. John Chrysostom nor St. Basil taught anything of the sort. St. Ambrose's opinion is arguable at best,
These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.
As per usual with all Cushingites you fail to cite the 7 or 8 Church Fathers who REJECT Baptism of Desire. You pretend to paint a picture of "unanimous consensus" by selectively citing only the one or two who agree with you.
I could just as lyingly claim: "St. Augustine, St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, St. Fulgentius, St. John Chrysostom all explicitly reject baptism of desire. These men are all doctors of the Church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were againt Traditional, capital t, of the Church".
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.
Diabolical garbage.
-
St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.
These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.
Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.
Falsehoods and lies:
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
Ambrose: "...then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated."
Now if you want to read actual dogma and doctrine:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441
ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Paul,
You're a newbie here. Matthew has set certain rules concerning the topic of EENS/BoD/BoD and has designated a specific part of the forum for discussions of these issues. I'll even provide a link to that. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=forum&f=28) There you will find hundreds of threads that answer every conceivable objection you can drudge up.
The topic of this thread is in reference to Our Lady of the Pillar. If you're local and don't feel you can attend, then that's between you and God. Perhaps you hold an ecclesiastical office that empowers you to pontificate to the rest of us about Mass attendance at a "Feeneyite" chapel? What'd I'd like to hear from you is either a condemnation of, or explanation for, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Voigt, both of whom said Mass for us at Our Lady of the Pillar, and administered the other sacraments. I'd also like to hear a condemnation of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko for inviting Fr. Bitzer down to Boston, knowing full-well his position, to assist at a pontifical high Mass with Bishop Williamson. Be consistent, please. And since these priests are clearly eccuмenists, engaged in communicatio in sacris by worshiping and saying Mass with and for "heretics", any objection you have to assisting at Mass at OLP would equally apply to assisting at Mass with any of the above-mentioned resistance priests.
You are also unaware of the relationship and history of Fr. Bitzer and Bishop Faure, which I find amusing.
And your drinking buddy, Ecclesiae, condemns going to Mass at Fr. Bitzer's and advocates flying around the world rather than assist at Mass here. Yet, he's more than willing to go to the Institute of Christ the King (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38410&min=10&num=5), the priests of which embrace the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, the New Mass, etc.
I would certainly go for example, to the holy mass of a good and kindly priest of the Institute Christ the King. Most priests became Priests in this Institute with good intentions!
Ecclesiae is willing to give the benefit of the doubt, attributing "good intentions" to the Institute/Novus Ordo priests, but because of his rabid hatred of Fr. Feeney, he can't extend the same courtesy to that priest or Fr. Bitzer.
You're silent about that. Those wretched Feeneyites are the real enemy!
That being said, all of your canned objections to the Church's teaching regarding baptism and salvation have been answered, in extreme detail, numerous times, ad nauseam, in the forum mentioned above. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=forum&f=28) Perhaps you think you're some white knight coming to defeat the barbarian hordes, but I assure you, you bring nothing new to the table. And rehashing the same arguments over and over again is extremely boring for most of us, and it serves no purpose but to derail the thread.
-
Oh, and a condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre would also be in order. He ordained Fr. Bitzer, knowing his position.
I'll wait.
-
What'd I'd like to hear from you is either a condemnation of, or explanation for, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Voigt, both of whom said Mass for us at Our Lady of the Pillar, and administered the other sacraments.
I'd think twice about using Fr. Voigt in this example, because he also said the daily Masses plus 1 or 2 Sundays at Holy Family Chapel in Melbourne, Fl. for 2 weeks around this time last year.
-
What'd I'd like to hear from you is either a condemnation of, or explanation for, Bishop Williamson and Fr. Voigt, both of whom said Mass for us at Our Lady of the Pillar, and administered the other sacraments.
I'd think twice about using Fr. Voigt in this example, because he also said the daily Masses plus 1 or 2 Sundays at Holy Family Chapel in Melbourne, Fl. for 2 weeks around this time last year.
I don't know anything about Holy Family Chapel. Also, I'm not the one demanding god-like perfection from the priests; I'm not the quasi-Donatist here. Paul and Ecclesae are. The ball is still in their court.
-
St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.
Neither St. John Chrysostom nor St. Basil taught anything of the sort. St. Ambrose's opinion is arguable at best,
These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.
As per usual with all Cushingites you fail to cite the 7 or 8 Church Fathers who REJECT Baptism of Desire. You pretend to paint a picture of "unanimous consensus" by selectively citing only the one or two who agree with you.
I could just as lyingly claim: "St. Augustine, St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, St. Fulgentius, St. John Chrysostom all explicitly reject baptism of desire. These men are all doctors of the Church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were againt Traditional, capital t, of the Church".
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.
Diabolical garbage.
Perhaps, but we must remember that it is the product of modern sentimental theology.
When there are such controversies always return to antiquity, this is not to be found in the ancient Fathers who were so much closer to the pure doctrines before theologians began to ponder them.
-
Quote:
I would certainly go for example, to the holy mass of a good and kindly priest of the Institute Christ the King. Most priests became Priests in this Institute with good intentions!
Good and kindly priests most of whom were ordained by conciliar Bishops and we know what questions that raises. But, forgive me above all, beware!.... the "feeneyites".
:facepalm:
-
If we look at "21st century theologians" the list is absurd, is so many..
We can't trust almost none of them. Where they are formed? in protestant universities? in masonic lodges? you bet most of them are.
Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) is one good example when consider a theologian thesis. He had good Catholic background (studying in good places since he was 16 years old), still many of his writing were censured because of heresy. Most of his works didn't teach heresy and were published at the time he was alive.
He was indeed very talented and has many merits (and was highly praised in universities) but still none of his years of studying have prevented him teaching heresy. That's why their doctrine is to be considered with caution.
NNOCENT XI 1676-1689
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php
http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/suorces-of-catholic-dogma/sources-of-catholic-dogma-1100-1200/
See at the bottom
-
Here's Pope Innocent XI with 65 listed "extreme laxity in resolution" Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dqm.htm#cgw
Unfortunately a copy of Suarez books that were condemned survived (http://nypost.com/2015/04/07/300-year-old-book-ordered-destroyed-by-pope-found/)
I haven't read the book but there must be a very good reason Pope Innocent XI ordered this book to be burned.
-
One of the greatest mistakes of last 200 years was re-allowing Society of Jesus to gain power. After the death of its founder the Society gave us saints and good work but at some point they started to focus on political influence rather than God. I think we can see clearly what kind of formation Jesuits receive with Francis being "a good Jesuit".
-
Oh, and a condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre would also be in order. He ordained Fr. Bitzer, knowing his position.
I'll wait.
It is also known that Archbishop Lefebvre and Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M, former Superior of the "Feeneyite" Slaves of the Immaculate Heart Monastery in Richmond, New Hampshire had a cordial and friendly relationship at all times. It seems then than the SSPX general disdain towards Fr. Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center came later on, fueled perhaps for the SSPX Fr. Fr. François Laisney's book is Feeneyism Catholic? widely marketed and spread by the Society.
-
Oh, and a condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre would also be in order. He ordained Fr. Bitzer, knowing his position.
I'll wait.
It is also known that Archbishop Lefebvre and Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M, former Superior of the "Feeneyite" Slaves of the Immaculate Heart Monastery in Richmond, New Hampshire had a cordial and friendly relationship at all times. It seems then than the SSPX general disdain towards Fr. Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center came later on, fueled perhaps for the SSPX Fr. Fr. François Laisney's book is Feeneyism Catholic? widely marketed and spread by the Society.
I believe that it has always been there however it, was in full bloom when Father Laisney's liberal treatise was being promoted by the Society. The astute eye could see back then that they were gravitating towards the conciliar ideas about salvation. That now seems to be no obstacle to union with the conciliar church.
Father Wathen made a very competent rebuttal of Father Laisney's propositions on which he based the book.
-
To all who say to avoid Fr. Bitzer's Mass, here is one of the sermons from Fr. Gavin Bitzer. Listen to the priest you say is a heretic, if you can.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/RMUPBFeI5Hc[/youtube]
In case it doesn't embed properly, here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5Hc
-
how does every discussion about BoD and BoB descend into such chaos?
these things are not positive declarations from the church, they occur but to my knowledge they are not defined.
pretty sure you cant Quote Cantate as infallible when the definition of infallibility of the Pope did not occur yet
Ezekiel:
21 But if the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my commandments, and do judgment, and justice, living he shall live, and shall not die.
22 I will not remember all his iniquities that he hath done: in his justice which he hath wrought, he shall live.
23 Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live?
this day of october from his royal highness the clown
-
To all who say to avoid Fr. Bitzer's Mass, here is one of the sermons from Fr. Gavin Bitzer. Listen to the priest you say is a heretic, if you can.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/RMUPBFeI5Hc[/youtube]
In case it doesn't embed properly, here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMUPBFeI5Hc
I just listened to this again for I think the fourth or fifth time in a few years and I think that Fr. Bitzer is as excellent a priest as this sermon demonstrates - and in the interest of righteousness, deserves a public apology from those in this thread who know absolutely nothing about him at all, yet falsely accused him of being a heretic, holder of some non-existent heresy - only for the sake of keeping hungry sheep from being fed by him. That is scandal and those who promoted it in this thread should be ashamed.
-
Stubborn:
I just listened to this again for I think the fourth or fifth time in a few years and I think that Fr. Bitzer is as excellent a priest as this sermon demonstrates - and in the interest of righteousness, deserves a public apology from those in this thread who know absolutely nothing about him at all, yet falsely accused him of being a heretic, holder of some non-existent heresy - only for the sake of keeping hungry sheep from being fed by him. That is scandal and those who promoted it in this thread should be ashamed.
Maybe this question has been addressed already, but let me ask it again. Since Fr. Bitzer's chapel is very close to Boston, have the priests in Boston, KY ever brought up the person and ministry of Fr. Bitzer in a sermon, in a conference setting or in conversation. I ask this because Fr. Pfeiffer has never been shy about discussing the credentials of other priests with whom he takes exception.
-
Maybe this question has been addressed already, but let me ask it again. Since Fr. Bitzer's chapel is very close to Boston, have the priests in Boston, KY ever brought up the person and ministry of Fr. Bitzer in a sermon, in a conference setting or in conversation. I ask this because Fr. Pfeiffer has never been shy about discussing the credentials of other priests with whom he takes exception.
Not that I am aware of.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Eyeb056Zx0/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fr. Bitzer is the one standing behind Fr. Pfeiffer's right shoulder.
-
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Eyeb056Zx0/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fr. Bitzer is the one standing behind Fr. Pfeiffer's right shoulder.
That is one misleading photo --
To those unfamiliar with the Resistance, it might seems like the Boston, KY operation
A) is synonymous with the Resistance
B) is supported by Bp. Williamson
C) has 10 priests and 1 bishop
None of which is true, of course.
The reality, on the contrary, is that the Boston KY group:
A) is actually a small Mass center with a half-dozen far-flung mission chapels, served on an erratic basis by (2) priests total
B) rejects Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure, and does not have the blessing of either.
C) Consists of exactly 2 priests now. Quite insignificant, even for a group as small as the Resistance.
-
The picture was taken in 2012. Things have certainly changed since then.
One of the reasons of the photo was to put a face with the name.
There's a lot of politics and jockying for position going around, and its important to note that Fr. Bitzer doesn't involve himself with those types of things. Like I said previously, he simply does his job. And he does it well.
-
Matthew:
That is one misleading photo --
I would have to agree. That doesn't mean that ihsv had necessariliy any ulterior motives in publishing it. However, the photo in no way represents the "resistance" situation today, nor do I think it ever did in the past. Boston, KY today is composed basically of two priests, a lay director of operations and, perhaps, a couple of seminarians, if even that.
-
This is a fairly recent photo, possibly misleading only to those not up-to-date with the situation in Boston and with the Resistance. These were many of the priests (and bishop) who were concerned over the SSPX, or had left/been put out of it. At this point they were meeting after Bishop Williamson had been expelled.
If I am not mistaken, it was even previous to this that a few months after his famous "Pentecost sermon," Fr. Pfeiffer had arranged for a big get together of families to the Boston, KY area, in what seemed to be an effort to begin "a little St. Marys" around there. Bishop Williamson addressed those, mostly lay people, who attended that "conference."
-
My posts to this thread aren't showing up. :scared2:
-
Matthew: That is one misleading photo --
I would have to agree. That doesn't mean that ihsv had necessariliy any ulterior motives in publishing it. However, the photo in no way represents the "resistance" situation today, nor do I think it ever did in the past. Boston, KY today is composed basically of two priests, a lay director of operations and, perhaps, a couple of seminarians, if even that.
And a female choir director, several lay residents who live there. More laity than clerics. Kinda weird for a religious institution. Progressive.
-
(I think) That photo was taken when Bishop Williamson came to Ky to give confirmations. (But he did come to Ky twice in the span of a year, so maybe this was BEFORE confirmations) All the local priests, friends, etc who knew + Williamson were casually invited to Boston for a small get together.
I think +Williamson was the "uniting" factor here, not the "resistance" agenda, at least for Fr Bitzer. The Louisville chapel has been a "resistance"/independent chapel since Fr Wathen in the 70s, so they've been "ahead of the curve", in a manner of speaking, for a while.
-
Is this chapel still in use ? There are no recent bulletins on the website.
-
Is this chapel still in use ? There are no recent bulletins on the website.
Holy necro-bumps, Batman!
You just bumped a thread that was resting in peace for 7 years.
I'm guessing the chapel is kaput, given what you said that the website suddenly doesn't post bulletins.
-
Holy necro-bumps, Batman!
You just bumped a thread that was resting in peace for 7 years.
I'm guessing the chapel is kaput, given what you said that the website suddenly doesn't post bulletins.
Ha, sorry. Not just the bulletins, but I used to see vehicles parked there on weekdays. I assume they were school staff. I haven't noticed any vehicles there the last few times I drove by.
I hope they are still there. I have to get away from the local diocesan bunch.
ETA: I also called the number listed a couple of times and got no answer.
-
OLP is very much active. Holy Mass is at 9:15 AM on Sundays. The Mass times during the weekdays varies from week to week.
-
OLP is very much active. Holy Mass is at 9:15 AM on Sundays. The Mass times during the weekdays varies from week to week.
Thank you, good to know. Would you mind if I send you a pm with a couple of questions ?
-
Thank you, good to know. Would you mind if I send you a pm with a couple of questions ?
Disregard, I got ahold of someone at the chapel. All good.