FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "Feeneyites"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
"Feeneyites"

Many people use the term here at Fisheaters. It seems to me to be an easy way for some people to cast doubt on a specific topic without doing the necessary research to come to an informed conclusion.

My question is this: Does anyone here know the TRUE story of Fr. Feeney? Have you seen with your own eyes the documents that supposedly condemn Fr. Feeneys position?
(01-17-2012, 11:19 PM)Spencer Wrote: [ -> ]"Feeneyites"

Many people use the term here at Fisheaters. It seems to me to be an easy way for some people to cast doubt on a specific topic without doing the necessary research to come to an informed conclusion.

My question is this: Does anyone here know the TRUE story of Fr. Feeney? Have you seen with your own eyes the documents that supposedly condemn Fr. Feeneys position?

Lack of proper Thomistic Theology Is the root of the error of the Feeneyites

They have 3 grave errors.
Here is the link
The three errors of the Feeneyites
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeney...eyites.htm
(01-17-2012, 11:19 PM)Spencer Wrote: [ -> ]"Feeneyites"

Many people use the term here at Fisheaters. It seems to me to be an easy way for some people to cast doubt on a specific topic without doing the necessary research to come to an informed conclusion.

My question is this: Does anyone here know the TRUE story of Fr. Feeney? Have you seen with your own eyes the documents that supposedly condemn Fr. Feeneys position?

Well, here's a link to the decrees from the Archbishop of Boston, leading up to Pope Pius XII, declaring him excommunicate.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul10rea.htm
(01-17-2012, 11:27 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-17-2012, 11:19 PM)Spencer Wrote: [ -> ]"Feeneyites"

Many people use the term here at Fisheaters. It seems to me to be an easy way for some people to cast doubt on a specific topic without doing the necessary research to come to an informed conclusion.

My question is this: Does anyone here know the TRUE story of Fr. Feeney? Have you seen with your own eyes the documents that supposedly condemn Fr. Feeneys position?

Well, here's a link to the decrees from the Archbishop of Boston, leading up to Pope Pius XII, declaring him excommunicate.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul10rea.htm
OUCH.
Roma Locuta Est is becoming a really stupidly abused catch phrase. 

Here's what happens. 

Rome Speaks.  Some error related to the deposit of faith is cut off. 

Then some new angle is expressed by dissenters to wiggle around it. 

Origen was condemned and Universal Salvation is a no go.  Great. But now, century upon century later we have people trimming Origenism to exclude the fallen angels and we have "Hope that Hell is Empty" crowd. 

Reading over the last few threads, I see the same pattern emerging. 

We've got the Dimond brothers being referenced constantly as the "Feeneyites" when the aren't representative of  Fr. Feeney's position.  If I want to know Fr. Feeney's position, I go to Fr. Feeney's writings and the people that agree with him.  The Dimond Brothers are their own case, and they seem to have a good skill in reading doctrine, but they have a really bad habit of reading those they condemn accurately.  I remember reading a condemnation of Chris Ferrara and I looked up the original Ferrara text and by a slight punctuation change, they either misread or changed Ferrara's statement. 

Alongside this we've got Fr. Cekada writing against the "Feeneyites" telling us we can't simply know what the Magisterium teaches us from a plain reading of Magisterial documents, we need everything reinterpreted by "theologians."  (And somehow Pius IX reprimanding theologians by telling them not to stray from the Magisterium means that the laymen have to follow the theologians.  Isn't that the way Vatican II gutted the Church? )  We've had Disobedient Popes telling us to obey disobedient Bishops telling us to obey disobedient priests and the result is chaos.

And in the mix is the attitude that anyone who disagrees with anyone else's position is putting their soul at risk in mortal sin or outside the Church or whatever else. We can then hurl insults at them because the Church is made in our own image and anything that deviates from that  we can both condemn and refuse to engage with.  Whether it be because the Pope isn't actually as infallible as the fallible theologians try to sell it in either pre or post Vatican II years,  so he can't be Pope, or finding some attempt to wiggle around someone dying without perceptible water baptism or any sacraments but they still get to Heaven,  based on some purely hypothetical and imaginary scenario that makes them feel better.

Why not join the party I say?  I am therefore settling it by teaching Magisterially by Desire.  I also desire that all theologians despite what they say in print or vocally implicitly agree with me. Consensus by Desire we'll call it.  Therefore I am able to speak infallibly that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of the Blood do exist.  And the mechanism of this is at the last moment of life, an Angel I call "Memel" baptizes those individuals imperceptibly to human eyes with true and natural water just after giving them infused knowledge of the faith and gaining the consent of their will. 

I have spoken the cause is finished.  Anyone who disagrees with me is outside the Church and in mortal sin.  Unless of course you sincerely desire not to be. (That would be incommunication by desire)

Feel free to look for wiggle room now. 



Apropos this thread, from another recent thread Emphasis supplied by yours truly):

(01-18-2012, 12:43 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]Baptism of Desire is an ancient belief that has been supported by many Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church.

When Father Feeney was reconciled to the Church he admitted to the baptism of desire, but denied that it would allow you to enjoy the beatific vision.  On the flip side he admitted it would save those people from the torments of Hell.  What happened to these people he didn't know.  He also argued that he believed if someone truly desired baptism God would someway provide the the necessary water, such as by an angel.  He also stressed this was just his opinion and that he would not condemn the idea of salvation of baptism of desire offering salvation as heretical.  He denied a just person in a state of grace could possibly go to Hell, but insisted they would be baptized with water somehow. 

The weight of tradition and theology firmly supports baptism of desire, but the Church does allow you to take the Feeney approach provided you admit this is just an opinion and make the qualifications that Feeney did. It is a controversial and extreme minority position. 


The topic gets contentious here since this reconciliation happened after Vatican II and the SSPX is staunchly opposed to Feeneyism.  In addition some more independent minded Feeneyites outright see baptism of desire as heretical (a position the Church does not allow you to take).  
The St. Benedict Center in Still River, MA are "Feeneyites" and they have full faculties in the diocese and are not excommunicated.



This is a post I found on Catholic Answers...

>It is true as far as I can determine that Fr. Feeney was officially excommunicated for a narrow interpretation of "The Dogma" >

No, he was excommunicated solely for his refusal to obey an order to report to Rome and be questioned by the Holy Office. (He refused, he claimed, because he had been convinced by Mrs Clark that once there he would not have been questioned, but summarily forced to live out his days in an Italian retreat center - in hindsight a prepostrous notion, but at the time Feeney as so close to being a nervous wreck he may have believed it).


At any rate, Feeney was never disciplined by anyone for his teachings.


The Holy Office, it is true, had three years earlier issued a letter a letter to Cardinal Cushing attacking Feeney's position. Feeney considered that letter to be rank heresy.


He appealed to the Pope. When subsequently Pius XII issued "Mystici Corporis", Feeney said it matched his views entirely. In fact, when that encyclical came out, there was jubilation at Feeney's headquarters. They thought that he had been vindicated.


But so long as Cardinal Cushing remained alive there was no effort by anyone to mend things with Feeney.


Pius's Vatican was not about to encourage any kind of priestly disobedience. Pius was, remember, faced with pressure all across the Communist world on priests to lure them into front groups opposing the hierarchies and serving the leftists. Whatever Feeney's motives had been for disobeying his superiors, there was no way that in the 1950s Pius would let signals go out that priests might buck their bishops.


As soon as Cardinal Medeiros replaced Cushing, though, everything changed.


Medeiros immediately made it a personal mission to reconcile Feeney. Pius by then was long dead, and the world was so awash with disobedient priests that mending things with Feeney would mean nothing bad for Church discipline.


Feeney, though, had by then moved out of the Archdiocese of Boston to the Diocese of Worcester. Medeiros, nonetheless, prevailed on Bp Harrington of Worcester to work everything out. Feeney insisted on, and got, explicit assurance from the Holy Office that he could continue advocating his strict interpretation of "extra ecclesia..." I have a copy of a letter from the Diocese of Worcester attesting to that.

At the formal reconciliation between Feeney and the Diocese, which took place on a sidewalk, not in any church or chapel, because Feeney was adamant that it not appear he was being juridically rehabilitated or anything, Feeney neither apologized for, nor recanted, anything.


Nor was he asked to do so.


All that happened was that Feeney and the Bp's representative said a prayer together and then Feeney recited a profession of his faith.


He deliberately chose for that profession the Athanasian Creed, because it - alone of all the official Creeds - includes the provision saying "the Apostolic Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation"


The position of Thomas Stark on our List, at least as far as it comes across to the List, is not Feeneyism. Whatever it is, it's not Feeneyism.


Thomas seems to be saying that even within the Catholic Church there is no salvation for those not meeting Thomas's standards. In particular, last minute joiners are neither wanted nor welcome. And supposedly God isn't interested in getting any deathbed conversions.


That's simply not Feeney's position. He fully accepted the Catholic doctrine that since the Atonement God will somehow provide everyone with whatever graces are needed to be saved. For Feeney the only issue was insisting that all such providing had to include sacramental baptism. Somehow, somewhere.


Regards, ..."

One of my very good friends who is now a canon lawyer wrote:

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:00:31 -0800 (PST)


Dear Bill and John,


Just to give you guys the background, Fr. Feeney made more than a few mistakes -- I`m not among the hardcores who think he was perfect, but among the group who think he was a gifted thinker, but all too human. In the end, he and the majority of his followers were reconciled with the Church.


Yeah, we still take a strict view of the dogma "Outside the Church no Salvation." (EENS) With regards to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (BOB/BOD), this is not generally well known outside Feeneyite circles, but there was never uniform denial of its existance. Ray Karam, later Fr. Cyril, was mostly concerned about its wide interpretation and abuses. Fr. Feeney denied BOB/BOD, but always stated that this was merely his personal opinion. Rather, his main effort was the dogma EENS.


My debt of gratitude goes back to the Feeneyites, particularly Mother Teresa of St Anne`s House in Still River (reconciled in 1988), Mother Mary Clare Vincent of St. Scholastica Priory in Petersham, MA (reconciled circa 1973), Br. Charles Coulombe in Monrovia, CA (never came under censure, but his superior Br. Leonard Mary was reconciled with Fr. Feeney), and Br. Thomas Augustine of St. Benedict Center in Still River (sacramentaly reconciled, and soon to be canonically reconciled). It is my sincere hope that Br. Francis` community in New Hampshire will seek regularization soon as well, but this is still at a difficult stage because there is a lot of sympathy in NH for Lefebvrism.


It was in fact Fr. Lafitte`s (SSPX)infamous claim that Pope Paul VI acted invalidly in removing the excommunication of Fr. Feeney, that both sparked my interest in canon law, but more importantly, alerted me to the anti-Catholic nature of the SSPX. What struck me was not so much Feeney`s strict interpretation of EENS, but that the SSPX would deny Vatican I`s Dogmatic Constitution on Church, which dogmatically defined the pope had universal ordinary jurisdiction. ..
(01-18-2012, 02:33 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]...(A)lerted me to the anti-Catholic nature of the SSPX.

So, now the Feeneyites are saying the FSSPX is 'anti-Catholic'?
(01-18-2012, 03:18 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2012, 02:33 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]...(A)lerted me to the anti-Catholic nature of the SSPX.

So, now the Feeneyites are saying the FSSPX is 'anti-Catholic'?

Yes, as are Ven. Pius XII, Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, St. Thomas Aquinas, Marcel Lefebvre, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, the Council Fathers of Trent, etc.  LOL
Pages: 1 2 3 4