FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Another EENS, please be patient...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Fr. Hardon's doctoral thesis on St. Robert Bellarmine and EENS may just prove to be right up your alley, as he cites numerous encyclicals from Bl. Pius IX up through to Bl. Pius XII:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/...dy_003.htm

What about the 1917 Code's teaching on baptism (can. 737)... do you think it touches upon doctrine enough to be considered a doctrinal decree?
(05-02-2011, 04:45 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Trent said, "without them or the desire for them" (Denz. 847).

Work with me here for a moment.....................

I understand what you are saying - there is no need for anyone to interpret what you are saying because you are speaking clearly regarding the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's (UOM) teaching. I also understand the Church's teaching on the UOM regarding the authority that the UOM has.

Supposing for a moment that Trent actually said "without them or the desire for them", Trent still declared the Sacrament as being a necessity for salvation........see below.

Again, supposing for a moment that Trent actually said "without them or the desire for them", Trent still did not say that  the desire for them granted salvation, only the grace of Justification.

.............here we go.......

The Council of Trent - 7th Session
Decree on the Sacraments:
Decree on the Sacraments in General: Canon 4
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous,

I am stopping right here in the middle of Canon 4 to hopefully show more clearly what Trent declares - namely that, 1) The Sacraments are necessary for salvation and 2) they are not superfluous (iow - not needed; unnecessary; irrelevant) - - - (re-read the first part of the canon above if need be - I underlined what part of the canon is important for this discussion and it must be clear as crystal in your head)


Now onto the rest of Canon 4:
and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Here we see that the desire thereof not only does not grant salvation, it also does not grant justification - the desire thereof only grants the grace of justification.

Now here we are REALLY splitting hairs, but I ask you SouthpawLink, in light of *just this one* infallible canon that explicitly defines "without them or the desire for them' does not even grant justification - only *the grace* of justification, IOW, it only can put one in a position or the proper disposition *to be* justified.................

Question #1) How on God's green earth did any body derive "or the desire for them' to be "a" (not "the") "Baptism of Desire" that awards salvation?
Question #2) This Canon, infallibly declared and is absolutely without error because it is defined under the protection of the Holy Ghost - furthermore, we are bound by Holy Mother the Church under penalty of anathema to believe and hold this Canon as a deposit of faith, carefully safeguarded and echoed by Holy Mother Church since the time of the Apostles. So my question #2 is.................Do we believe this canon - or a BOD as taught via the UOM?   

I await your reply - (anyone can feel free to hop on in here too!) 

ps - if you say the canon and the UOM teachings do not contradict each other, I'm gonna come over there and bop you in the nose  :laughing:
.  I need a vacation from this debate.  ;)
Hang on stubborn, u lost ME...lol.

Is not the grace of Justification (That is the grace bestowed by being justified) sanctifying grace? And isn't that all that is necessary to put man in a right relationship with GOd and make wim capable of attaining to eternal life?

Or do you mean the grace of Justification, as in Justification itself, as in, the grace of being made a knight, the grace of receiving a present, etc. The grace of justification referring to the state of being justified itself? How is that seperable from sanctifying grace? I can understand if it is a disposition, but this canon does not speak of dispositions. I am on your page, but in a different paragraph. Catch me up, what did you just do?

Actual;ly, the context of that canon equivocates salvation and the grace (received) through justification. What else is salvation but being made justified?

I think that if you are trying to show that a person who is justified is not necessarily glorified, this is not the canon to use.

If you interpret salvation as glorification, then all you are saying is that the sacraments are necessary to bring about glorification, i.e., only those who receive the sacraments receive the gift of perseverance.

I think you need to elaborate on that point to drive it home.
I think I will make my position clear, as it is often easily misrepresentable:

I am not a Feeneyite anymore than I am a Brownsonite or a Meullerite or an Abp.-George-Hayite.

I am a Roman Catholic seeking to be loyal to the authentic and universal magisterium, both ordinary and Solemn.

However, I have read alot of Church history, and I notice something: Though the Church will never defect, the balance of temporal power in the church between the wheat and the Tares fluctuates. The Tares are crafty, and at one point made up 80% of what was being considered Orthodox Christianity (Arianism, ad 325). Again, at other times the Wheat has been more prevalent, such as during the Counter-reformation. But nevertheless, the Tares remain, sowing their own poisonous seed and reproducing after their kind, as is appropriate for weeds.

One of these seeds from what I can tell is founded in human doubt of Divine Providence. Some theologians simply do not see how God can overcome physical circumstances to bring men of "good will" what they need for salvation. THey therefore go on to reason that since GOd is (apparently) unwilling to overcome our circumstances to bring us his life-giving sacraments, perhaps there is a way to enjoy at least a limited effect, without the Sacrament itself. Enter Baptism of Desire, hereafter reffered to as BOD.

Now, since we all know what we are talking about, Let's simply jump into the Heart of the issue: The Council of Trent; Did this Holy and Ecumenical Council, infallible and binding on the souls of all Catholics actualy teach Baptism of Desire?

I will give this as my Hermeneutic: I will allow the Council to interpret itself: THat is, where one part of the council seems vague or contradictory, I will refer to the same concept as explicated by the council in another place to enlighten our view of it, to hopefully come to the realization of what the Council Fathers themselves intended, and to avoid rash presumption:

First, in order to understand what I view as the principal error of BOD, we must have an even more fundamental understanding: Original sin. For as Pope Pius XII readily recognized:

"Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ." -Humani Generis-

So, what is the Coucnil's understanding of Original sin, Which Pope Pius Indicates is necessary to understand correctly?

Session 5, Canons 1-3 of The Council of Trent:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

So Original sin places us under the wrath of God and makes us his enemies, loses for us original justice, causes spiritual death, and carries with it real guilt which is in each one of us personally, as our own personal guilt. This is clear.

Now, unless Original sin be remitted, there is no salvation: for as the council of Florence rightly defined: “All those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone, descend to hell where they are punished, but with different punishments.”

SO in order to be saved, we must have original sin washed away, as well as all mortal actual sin.

This is what baptism is for, as can be seen above in the 3rd canon of the 5th Session of the council of Trent.

Baptism was given to take awy sin and to make us fit for heaven. Now, some contend that the Council of Trent taught BOD in the 4th Chapter of the 6th session, when it is stated:

CHAPTER IV. 
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

“By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, except through the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

First off, this is a slightly faulty translation. The Phrase “Except through” is the Latin word “Sine” and it literally means “Without.” so read : “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
This alrady puts a different spin on the phrase: Instead of an either/or position (cannot be saved except through baptism, or the desire for baptim) We are reading more of a both/and position (Cannot be saved  without baptism, or the desire for it, i.e. without baptism AND the desire for it).

The council of Trent is not speaking of Baptism on the one hand, and the desire for it on the other, it is saying that the regeneration of the person can only take place Through baptism and its desire. They are being spoken of as a single unit. You cannot be baptized against your will in other words: You must willingly come to the waters of baptism to be baptized. In fact, to desire baptism is a Necessary predisposition in order to be justified, but the predisposition in itself is not what conveys that justice:

Watch: Session 6, Chapter 6

CHAPTER VI. 
The manner of Preparation.

“Now they (adults) are DISPOSESD UNTO the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they PURPOSE to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this DISPOSITION it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.”

So you could in a certain sense say that the Desire for Sacramental water baptism can effect the translation of the man from a state of sinfulness to justice INASMUCH as it MOVES THEM TO BE BAPTIZED, the same as with faith; We are saved by faith inasmuch as we act on that faith and are baptized. We are not saved by faith alone. But the desire for sacramental water baptism belongs to the ACT OF FAITH. Therefore to say that the desire to be baptized is the instrumental cause of any persons salvation is tantamount to saying that one can be saved by faith alone, without obliging the person to be baptized. But the good intention is not the instrumental cause of justification
READ ON:

Session 6 Chapter 7:

CHAPTER VII. 
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

“This disposition, or preparation, is FOLLOWED by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”
So AFTER we are properly disposed to being justified, which disposition LEADS to our justification and may be seen as its root, just as faith is the root cause of salvation, we are THEN justified.

Let me emphasize this: The Council makes a clear before and after distinction: Before we were surely disposed toward justice, but we are still in our sins, and we still have ORIGINAL SIN on our soul, which in and of itself, without even one personal sin, is sufficient to damn us:
Moving on.

“Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified...”

Remember, the Final Cause is the Goal: Why we are doing it. The Efficient Cause is who is doing it: Jesus. The Meritorious cause is who has won it for us: Jesus. The istrumental cause is BY WHAT MEANS IT IS PERFORMED: BAPTISM.

So it must be clear, that when Trent speaks about being saved by Baptism or its desire, it is saying you must be properly disposed to receive the instrumental cause at the hands of Christ: Baptism. The Council of Trent defining itself and bearing witness.

So, in light of all this: Let's look at all the occurences in the council of Trent where the Phrase “desire” is used in reference to the sacraments:
Session 6 canon 4

“And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (I did not insert the phrase “without”, there are several different faithful English translations of Trent)

So, this simply means you cannot be saved without baptism and its proper disposition, that is desiring it; for to be baptized under bad motive is a sacrilege which is a mortal sin and is damning, even in the midst of the waters of baptism themselves, and all that baptismal purity, sin is commited which kills the life of the soul.

Session 7 Canon 4

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Simply saying the same as above: You cannot be saved without either the Sacraments or the right disposition; which is the desire to receive them. Because the desire, or Vow (Voto) to receive something is an act of faith which is saving, but only in as much as it causes one to act because remember the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE of our justification is:

BAPTISM.

BOD is the mediate cause of Justification, inasmuch as it disposes us us properly toward Christ: But Baptism alone is the immediate instrumental cause; NOT DESIRE.

Another way to phrase this is that there is no way to be made a member of the Church EXCEPT through Sacramental Water Baptism ONLY. And only members of the Catholic Church are saved because:

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

I again refer to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:

“27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.”

Oh bother, what can he be talking about?

Let's Look at Mystici Corporis Christi:

22. “Actually ONLY those are to be included as MEMBERS of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

SO guess who is not a member of the Church? Jews Pagans Heretics and Schismatics: i.e. The Orthodox, Wiccans, Protestants and Jews.

I know it hurts, but I think we can swallow it. :)
Stubborn and Gregory I,
Kindly cite one post-Tridentine, distinguished* theologian who interpreted the Council of Trent and Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus in the same manner as you both have.  I have trouble following the private interpretations of laymen, neither of whom has a doctorate in sacred theology.  Thank you!  :)


* An author of a multi-volume manual of theology (or canonist), who taught at a Catholic seminary (before Vatican II, of course).  Here's a list which shows examples of what I have in mind: http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2007/05/...brary.html

The following document explains quite well what I mean when I say, "distinguished theologian": http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=27&catname=2
(05-03-2011, 07:49 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Hang on stubborn, u lost ME...lol.

Is not the grace of Justification (That is the grace bestowed by being justified) sanctifying grace? And isn't that all that is necessary to put man in a right relationship with GOd and make him capable of attaining to eternal life?

Or do you mean the grace of Justification, as in Justification itself, as in, the grace of being made a knight, the grace of receiving a present, etc. The grace of justification referring to the state of being justified itself? How is that seperable from sanctifying grace? I can understand if it is a disposition, but this canon does not speak of dispositions. I am on your page, but in a different paragraph. Catch me up, what did you just do?

Actual;ly, the context of that canon equivocates salvation and the grace (received) through justification. What else is salvation but being made justified?

I think that if you are trying to show that a person who is justified is not necessarily glorified, this is not the canon to use.

If you interpret salvation as glorification, then all you are saying is that the sacraments are necessary to bring about glorification, i.e., only those who receive the sacraments receive the gift of perseverance.

I think you need to elaborate on that point to drive it home.

Ok, first, Trent's canon 4 says the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. IMO, this is what BODers neglect to ever read, or they are not reading what is written - or they make it superfluous via BOD, which, of course, is not a Sacrament.

At this point, it should not be necessary to go any further ----Trent said no sacrament = no salvation. BOD is not a sacrament = BOD can save no one. This is the constant teaching of the Church which is what Trent echos. We could end the entire discussion right here knowing what Trent declared - and knowing that BOD is not a sacrament.

Next, I was trying to prove the point that the desire thereof are words that confound BODers because somehow, they believe those words grant salvation - but that is not even close to what it actually says. 

As for what "the grace of justification" means in that context, you are correct and I completely agree.

What I was doing was taking the BOD side of the debate - I was supposing that their interpretation of the desire thereof is proper..................I was attempting to exaggerate the situation and show that even if their interpretation of what the words the desire thereof was proper - it STILL does not say that the desire thereof grants salvation.

Hope that clears it up, sorry for the confusion but welcome to the club lol.

Anyway, since no one answered, I'll try again...............................

Question #1) How on God's green earth did any body derive "or the desire for them"  to be "a" (not "the") "Baptism of Desire" that awards salvation?
Question #2) This Canon, infallibly declared and is absolutely without error because it is defined under the protection of the Holy Ghost - furthermore, we are bound by Holy Mother the Church under penalty of anathema to believe and hold this Canon as a deposit of faith, carefully safeguarded and echoed by Holy Mother Church since the time of the Apostles. So my question #2 is.................Do we believe this canon - or a BOD as taught via the UOM?   

(05-04-2011, 07:33 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Stubborn and Gregory I,
Kindly cite one post-Tridentine, distinguished* theologian who interpreted the Council of Trent and Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus in the same manner as you both have.  I have trouble following the private interpretations of laymen, neither of whom has a doctorate in sacred theology.  Thank you!  :)


* An author of a multi-volume manual of theology (or canonist), who taught at a Catholic seminary (before Vatican II, of course).  Here's a list which shows examples of what I have in mind: http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2007/05/...brary.html

The following document explains quite well what I mean when I say, "distinguished theologian": http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=27&catname=2

I will do as you asked, but not until you answer my questions below.
(I gotta leave shortly, but will reply whenever I get back)

Question #1) How on God's green earth did any body derive "or the desire for them' to be "a" (not "the") "Baptism of Desire" that awards salvation?
Question #2) This Canon, infallibly declared and is absolutely without error because it is defined under the protection of the Holy Ghost - furthermore, we are bound by Holy Mother the Church under penalty of anathema to believe and hold this Canon as a deposit of faith, carefully safeguarded and echoed by Holy Mother Church since the time of the Apostles. So my question #2 is.................Do we believe this canon - or a BOD as taught via the UOM? 

Stubborn Wrote:Question #1) How on God's green earth did any body derive "or the desire for them' to be "a" (not "the") "Baptism of Desire" that awards salvation?
Question #2) This Canon, infallibly declared and is absolutely without error because it is defined under the protection of the Holy Ghost - furthermore, we are bound by Holy Mother the Church under penalty of anathema to believe and hold this Canon as a deposit of faith, carefully safeguarded and echoed by Holy Mother Church since the time of the Apostles. So my question #2 is.................Do we believe this canon - or a BOD as taught via the UOM?

1.  I can only tell you that theologians have interpreted "or the desire for them" in support of baptism of desire.  As I noted in a previous post, Pohle-Preuss, Tanquerey, Hervé and Ott all referred to Sess. VI, chap. 4 (Denz. 796) and Sess. VII, can. 4 (Denz. 847) as supporting the doctrine of baptism of desire.

Hervé: "Ex ipso Tridentino et ex dictis constat Baptismum esse necessarium sed in re vel in voto; ideo extraordinarie suppleri potest.  Porro, juxta doctrinam catholicam, duo sunt quibus suppleri potest sacramentum Baptismi, actus nempe caritatis perfectæ cum voto Baptismi et martyrium.  Hæc autem duo, quia vices gerunt Baptismi fluminis seu aquæ, Baptismata ipsa dicuntur, ut, sub uno nomine quasi generico, cum illo comprehendantur; ita actus caritatis cum voto Baptismi vocatur Baptismus flaminis, et martyrium appellatur Baptismus sanguinis" (Manuale Theologicæ Dogmaticæ, vol. 3, sec. 571, p. 562; the citations to Trent appear on the following page, 563).

Tanquerey: "Tridentinum declaravit: 'Post Evangelium promulgatum nunquam fieri translationem a statu veteris Adam a statum gratiæ sine regenerationis lavacro aut ejus voto'; quod manifeste supponit lavacri seu Baptismi votum aliquando sufficere ad justificationem" (Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, vol. III, sec. 517 Bc2, p. 363; cf. Denz. 796, 847, 898).

Pohle-Preuss appears to teach explicit baptism of desire: http://www.archive.org/stream/sacraments...t_djvu.txt (scroll down to pages 243-244)

Ott: "The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible 'without washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same' (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto).  D 796.  Cf. D 847, 388, 413" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 356-7).

2.  I understand that the canon was infallibly declared and is without any error whatsoever, and that we are bound under pain of sin to believe it.  Where you and I (and the theologians) disagree, however, is our respective interpretations of the canon.  You see a contradiction where -- it's very likely -- none exists.
(05-04-2011, 07:33 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Stubborn and Gregory I,
Kindly cite one post-Tridentine, distinguished* theologian who interpreted the Council of Trent and Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus in the same manner as you both have.  I have trouble following the private interpretations of laymen, neither of whom has a doctorate in sacred theology.  Thank you!  :)

That's almost too easy SouthpawLink...............Fr. Feeney was certainly distinguished, he is one that comes immediately to mind.

......the Rev. Leonard Feeney, 67, a defrocked Jesuit who in the '30s and '40s was one of the nation's best-known Catholic theological popularizers and convert seekers. Time Magazine Jan 01, 1965


Father Feeney’s genius as a writer, speaker and theologian, was attested to by some of the most prominent Catholic figures of his day.

John Cardinal Wright once referred to Fr. Feeney as "The greatest theologian in the Catholic Church today."

Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that the only substitute he would allow on his radio show was Father Feeney.

Frank Sheed, of Sheed and Ward said, "For Father Feeney, dogma is not only true; it is breathlessly exciting. That is his special vocation. . . to make his readers feel the thrill."

During Father's days at Oxford, Lord Cecil, the famous Oxford don admitted, "I am getting more out of my association with Leonard Feeney than he could possibly get from me." Of the Jesuit's writing, Cecil said, "it shines with a pure, clear light."

The Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., Fr. Feeney's Jesuit Provincial, called him "The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far."

The greatest theologian we have in the United States, by far." - — Rev. John J. McEleny, S.J., (Father's Jesuit Provincial)

After Father Feeney’s death in 1978, the great Scottish apostle of Christ the King, Hamish Fraser, eulogized him as "one of the most outstanding prophets of our time.