Choose style:
Subscription Options:

One-time Donations:

Author Topic: Feeneyism  (Read 13024 times)

Dominus est

Feeneyism
« on: January 14, 2011, 04:43:pm »
My head spins every time I try to sort it out.

How can someone say Fr Feeney was wrong, and then so passionately argue against post VII ecumenism ?
J+M+J

James02

Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2011, 05:32:pm »
It varies.  There are some Catholics who disagree with him over explicit desire and baptism of blood.  And there is a Catholic argument for both.  I am pretty much a Feeneyite, but over explicit desire, I am unsure.  This would be someone who plans on getting baptized, but is killed.  Or the baptism of blood, where certain people went to their deaths with their Catholic friends and masters (this happened with slaves in Roman times) professing Faith and getting killed.  Really it is a small number.

When you cross over to implicit desire it gets more troubling, and they have to be VERY careful about crossing over into Pelagian heresy.  For example, saying someone lived a "good" life and so "earned" his salvation is heretical.  The only thing I have come across in the Church is a very low level communication in the 40's (a protocal, which is extremely fallible) says that with implicit desire, there must be SUPERNATURAL faith, and perfect Charity.  As far as I know, there is zero historic evidence of anyone coming upon savages and discovering one professing Jesus and dedicating his life to serving others out of a love for God.  We do have evidence (scriptural) of God miraculously sending someone to baptize a pagan, which fits with Fr. Feeney.  So even if this "protocal" is theologically correct, we have zero evidence that this ever saved anyone.

"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"

"We can not guarantee success.  We can only deserve it."

"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things.  What if:  all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"

And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.

WanderingPenitent

  • A spiritual Knight-Errant.
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Total likes: 1
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2011, 07:03:pm »
This is why it is simply not a mortal sin to believe it, not that it has ever been confirmed. The point of the doctrine is not to enforce the idea that non-Catholics can go to Heaven, just that we cannot be sure of the state of the souls of all unbaptized (even if the probability of their salvation is near zero). The point is to leave it up to Mystery, like oh so many other things in doctrine.

Just because someone isn't a Feeney-ite does not mean they believe the exact, polar opposite of what Fr. Feeney argued either. That is presumptuous at the very least. It would be like saying because I don't believe Mary was immaculate conceived means I don't believe Mary was ever virgin either. And only the Protestants have that kind of thinking. The Eastern Orthodox certainly believe she was ever-virgin. Very few theological issues are necessarily on clear two part distinct positions.

Fr. Feeney was right to preach against ecumenism. But so do the SSPX, and they are not Feeney-ites. All Catholics agree that there is not salvation outside the Church. But the disagreement is whether someone can enter the Church without physically and visibly receiving the sacrament of baptism. One side argues that God never bound Himself to such things, the other retorts to say if that is the case, than can't people be miraculously baptized?

Invincible Ignorance is the idea that coming across a native never exposed to the modern world that  they might already love God, even if they know next to nothing about Him, and do their best to be charitable, serve Him, show gratitude, and even have sorrow for their wrongdoing. One side says that if they are truly saved than God would have miraculously sent someone to baptize them, the other says that God may very well extend His salvation to such a person, but we just can't know until we have a beatific knowledge of the Mystery of Salvation Itself.

But both agree, the chances of coming across such a person is next to zero. People in general need the Gospel, that's why we are supposed to preach it and spread it. The non-Feeney-ites are not necessarily ecumenists. On the contrary. They understand very well that lies which are not the Gospel remove someone from invincible ignorance because it causes that person to be non-charitable, untrue, and anti-God. They do not doubt human nature for a moment. We are a fallen race, and need Christ and His Gospel. No Catholic (heretics who claim the name aside) disagrees on that.

Personally I am very much a non-Feeney-ite, but I am also an orthodox, Roman, Catholic Christian, or at the very least as much as I am able to be at the moment. I'm not saint obviously and work out my salvation with great fear and trembling, precisely because I am reminded of times I forget to work out my salvation at all. But I know that God is with me not because someone poured water over my head as a child, but because He loves me. The water was just an outward sign of that inward Grace, which is precisely the definition of a sacrament.

"I would rather fall with Adam,
than rise with all your gods."
-G.K.Chesteron

James02

Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2011, 07:18:pm »
I've come to the conclusion that the Church needs to settle this matter.  If not, then at least set up a framework inside of which differing opinions would be allowable.  The Church teaching on predestination is an excellent example of this.  We desperately need (among many things) a new defense against a neo-Pelagian type heresy rampant among Catholics.
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"

"We can not guarantee success.  We can only deserve it."

"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things.  What if:  all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"

And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.

QuisUtDeus

  • Guest
Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2011, 08:11:pm »
The Church has settled the matter.  You will find discussion of BoB/BoD in theological texts long before V2.  Fr.  Feeny unsettled it.

Being trad and not following Fr. Feeny are orthogonal precisely for this reason.  Abp. Lefebvre wasn't a "Feenyite" for example.


James02

Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2011, 08:14:pm »
I am unaware of it being settled.  I am interested in this.  Can you provide a few places where it was settled?

And "implicit desire" is not settled.
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"

"We can not guarantee success.  We can only deserve it."

"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things.  What if:  all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"

And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.

James02

Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2011, 09:46:pm »
I see there is another active discussion ongoing in this forum.  So I'm bailing.  I am actually completely objective on BoD and BoB.  On the Feenyite side, they point to the anathemas of Trent, and these are not easily brushed aside.  In fact, a Feeneyite can just sit on those two anathemas during any debate, and they are in a strong position.  "Which anathema do you want me to come under?" is a very valid question, which those in opposition can not answer.

On the other side, you have the catechism of St. Pius V and the catechism of St. Pius X both stating that baptism of desire is salvific.  And this is also not easily brushed aside.  I gets ridiculous to claim that these are not infallible.  That is true, but that is pretty weak.

The quote from Innocent II seems weak to me.  An unbaptized PRIEST raises a lot of questions about this quote.

So I am truly undecided on explicit BoD.  The term "explicit" really is superfluous. 

 On implicit BoD (and this is just an insensible phrase meaning Pelagianism) I find nothing to support it.
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"

"We can not guarantee success.  We can only deserve it."

"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things.  What if:  all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"

And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.

Christus Imperat

Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2011, 09:55:pm »
In the other thread I posted links to books by SSPX theologians which exhaustively take apart Fr. Feeney's position.    Here is a more condensed article: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
The greatest of all misfortunes is never to have known Jesus Christ: yet such a state is free from the sin of obstinancy and ingratitude. But first to have known Him, and afterwards to deny or forget Him, is a crime so foul and so insane that it seems impossible for any man to be guilty of it. For Christ is the fountain-head of all good.  --- Leo XIII, Tametsi

Christus Imperat

Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2011, 09:59:pm »
My head spins every time I try to sort it out.

How can someone say Fr Feeney was wrong, and then so passionately argue against post VII ecumenism ?

Because the Church's actual and very clear position is a via media between these errors.  It is like saying, "How can someone say Pelagius was wrong and then so passionately argue against Jansenism?" 
The greatest of all misfortunes is never to have known Jesus Christ: yet such a state is free from the sin of obstinancy and ingratitude. But first to have known Him, and afterwards to deny or forget Him, is a crime so foul and so insane that it seems impossible for any man to be guilty of it. For Christ is the fountain-head of all good.  --- Leo XIII, Tametsi

Gerard

  • Banned for disrespecting the Holy Father, snarkiness, and rad-traddy negativism
  • Member
  • Posts: 4,690
  • Total likes: 2
Re: Feeneyism
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2011, 10:21:pm »
It's my belief that if anyone is saved who to our senses was not a Catholic.  It's because God physically provided the sacrament even though we weren't witness to it.  So, they died a Catholic in fact if not in a Church register.  I have a strong belief in the gratuitious miracle, especially at the end for folks that haven't benefitted from the Church's instruction.  I leave it all up to God and do not doubt or nuance any dogmatic teachings.  I find that BOD and BOB understood without the physical sacrament weaken my faith. 



Subscription Options:

One-time Donations: