FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Father Leonard Feeney (1897-1978)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
When Father Feeney was excommunicated in the early 1950s for not appearing in Rome and then the excommunication was lifted in 1972 when all Father Feeney needed to do was recite the Athanasius Creed in the presence of an Auxiliary Bishop of Boston (ironically Father Feeney's followers joke that Father was the only one of those present who believed in that Creed) why was Father allowed to hold the strict interpetation of the Dogma he courageously fought for if it was heresy. Could it be in the 1950s the hierarchy still knew the laity believed in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church) while 20 years laity the modernists had completely destroyed that dogma so they humored Father Feeney and his followers and let them hold that dogma. I read that in 1980 the religious order (The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) visited Archbishop Lefvrbrve in St. Mary's , Kansas and discussed the dogma with him, he apparently didn't think they held a heresy because at mass in St. Mary's the Archbishop gave the Feeneyites communion after they spoke to him. This Dogma regardless of  how you interpret it is a foundational dogma stating that the Church is not one of many paths to salvation but the only road.
(05-17-2012, 01:06 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]When Father Feeney was excommunicated in the early 1950s for not appearing in Rome and then the excommunication was lifted in 1972 when all Father Feeney needed to do was recite the Athanasius Creed in the presence of an Auxiliary Bishop of Boston (ironically Father Feeney's followers joke that Father was the only one of those present who believed in that Creed) why was Father allowed to hold the strict interpetation of the Dogma he courageously fought for if it was heresy. Could it be in the 1950s the hierarchy still knew the laity believed in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church) while 20 years laity the modernists had completely destroyed that dogma so they humored Father Feeney and his followers and let them hold that dogma. I read that in 1980 the religious order (The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) visited Archbishop Lefvrbrve in St. Mary's , Kansas and discussed the dogma with him, he apparently didn't think they held a heresy because at mass in St. Mary's the Archbishop gave the Feeneyites communion after they spoke to him. This Dogma regardless of  how you interpret it is a foundational dogma stating that the Church is not one of many paths to salvation but the only road.

What's your source for his having been excommunicated?
Excommunicated  or banished i'm not sure which but he was at least in the public mind excommunicated although it was proably not legally done. I believe the Jesuits did bounce him but their not the church even though they think they are.
Yes, the Jesuits did bounce him! And this was treated as if it was an excommunication, by those who opposed him (and this hasn't changed). I don't think there's an answer to your question except that some people recognized that Fr. Feeney was elderly and they wanted to clear their conscience of any wrongdoing to him, so they went through the motions of appearing to 'receive' him back into the Church. It's true he never changed his position on that doctrine even when it became so problematic for him and his students.

He is said to have said that if the Holy Father ever defined dogmatically the other 2 baptisms as salvific, he would accept his word as final. He can't be called a heretic, therefore, at least not in fairness. 
Father Feeney was the proto-martyr of what became the Spirit of Vatican 2 and he was way ahead of all the other orthodox folks who would suffer over the past 60 years.
(05-17-2012, 07:03 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]Father Feeney was the proto-martyr of what became the Spirit of Vatican 2 and he was way ahead of all the other orthodox folks who would suffer over the past 60 years.

True.
He was certainly excommunicated, for his disobedience rather than his heresy: http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-c...ons.htm#a3

If Vatican II had followed the plan of the Synod of Rome, his views would have been properly anathemized.  Feenyism is only not officially a heresy because of Modernist interference.
One does have to choose what to believe, and I don't think I'll be condemned for believing the people who were closest to Fr. Feeney at the time. All of this has been replied to on their websites, as you know, I'm sure. Anyone with good will can read those pages for themselves, if they care to, and ask the editors any questions. I have no reason to think they're lying.
(05-17-2012, 08:25 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]One does have to choose what to believe, and I don't think I'll be condemned for believing the people who were closest to Fr. Feeney at the time. All of this has been replied to on their websites, as you know, I'm sure. Anyone with good will can read those pages for themselves, if they care to, and ask the editors any questions. I have no reason to think they're lying.

Well, who says they are lying?  If they deny he was excommunicated, I suppose they would be, since he was.  They are mistaken about Church teaching, but that doesn't mean they are liars, just mistaken.  This has been gone over time and time again.  Feeney was wrong about the three Baptisms, very wrong.  In order to deny the truth of the three baptisms, the Doctors of the Church are made to be liars, the Ecumenical Councils spoke falsely and the Popes are all heretics.
(05-17-2012, 08:15 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]If Vatican II had followed the plan of the Synod of Rome, his views would have been properly anathemized.  Feenyism is only not officially a heresy because of Modernist interference.

Maybe God didn't want it defined? Maybe some things are left with a little mystery? I know there have been Popes who wanted to definitively settle the predestination debates, but for various reasons haven't.

Fr. Cekada has a helpful article where he traces the doctrine of Baptism of Desire in the teaching of a bunch of theologians and while all teach it, only a handful teach it as de fide or fidei proxima. Most teach it as theologically certain or common doctrine.  The censure for these is merely temerity, rather than heresy. This work defining the notes says this about  rejecting such a doctrine (usually a mortal sin):

"Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption."

Sure it appears in the CCC and the Roman Catechism, but Catechisms in general leave a doctrine at the level it is (this was made explicit by then Cardinal Ratzinger regarding the CCC).

This is probably why denial of baptism of desire is not seen as sufficient for breaking communion with the Church and may, in some cases, not even be a sin.
Pages: 1 2