FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you (/showthread.php?tid=29485)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-25-2009

(07-25-2009, 05:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 04:31 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 03:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 

How do you know this?

I don't know this. Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I should have said he was probably summoned to Rome because of his position on EENS. Maybe the bigger question is WHY Fr. Feeeny never made it to Rome. If he didn't know the reason for the summons, maybe he should have just went to Rome and found out.

- Lisa 

You said, "Of course...", that's why I asked you the question. The question of  WHY Fr. Feeeny never made it to Rome is also interesting, but really a completely different question.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - James02 - 07-26-2009

Quote: Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

No perception needed.  He was persecuted for converting heretics and therefore stirring up trouble.

Anyhow, this answers you question.  There were serious problems before Vat. II (just read some St. Pius X).  Fr. Feeney saw it, and he saw what was coming.  He chose to fight it, and got burnt pretty bad.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - didishroom - 07-26-2009

(07-25-2009, 03:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 

Yes things were quite liberal actually. People think false ecumenism was born at Vatican II. In fact it was quite prevalent in the 40s though it was called Inter-Faith then. Fr. Feeney was not censured for preaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. His position of those topics developed years after his explusion from the Jesuits and "excommunication" from Rome. The priests and bishop had publically denied the dogma EENS itself saying the Church never taught such a thing.


Fr. Feeney also made many converts of the children from rich Protestant American families(including Temple Morgan, as in JP Morgan, who died just this past year as a trappist monk), who were friends of the archdiocese and complained to the bishop. He became very embarrassed and tried to silence Fr.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - didishroom - 07-26-2009

(07-25-2009, 05:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 04:31 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 03:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 

How do you know this?

I don't know this. Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I should have said he was probably summoned to Rome because of his position on EENS. Maybe the bigger question is WHY Fr. Feeeny never made it to Rome. If he didn't know the reason for the summons, maybe he should have just went to Rome and found out.

- Lisa 

Personally I think he should have just gone away in order to settle the question. However he was being summoned to discuss "his doctrine." According to Canon Law one cannot be summoned to a trial without being told the charges. Him and Rome went back and forth with the Holy Office refusing to say why he was being summoned. He reasoned that he had no obligation to go to Rome and that all punishment resulting from his reluctance was null and void. That's why his "excommunication" was not valid.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - didishroom - 07-26-2009

Quote:One point which I consider important to establish was that Fr. Feeney was not a "Feeneyite".
His Order did not make up this theology. Their works on the subject of Baptism are in complete agreement with Fr. Feeney.

Though it is true that the controversy AKA The Boston Heresy Case had nothing to do with Baptism of Blood or Desire. Fr. developed those points years after his expulsion from the Jesuits, the censursing of St. Benedict Center, his "excommunication" and formation of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Stubborn - 07-26-2009

(07-25-2009, 05:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 04:31 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-25-2009, 03:57 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: My understanding was that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he failed to appear in Rome after several summons – a direct disobedience to legitimate Church authority. Of course, the summons was related to his strict interpretation of EENS, but that’s not why he was excommunicated per se. It is also my understanding that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. Interesting that he fought what he perceived to be liberalism in the Church even in the 1940s. 

- Lisa 

How do you know this?

I don't know this. Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I should have said he was probably summoned to Rome because of his position on EENS. Maybe the bigger question is WHY Fr. Feeeny never made it to Rome. If he didn't know the reason for the summons, maybe he should have just went to Rome and found out.

- Lisa 

He was summoned, 2 or 3 times yet he refused to go. The sham excommunication was for disobedience.
He did not go because he was concerned that by going, there would be no one to expose the truth and crooks (his superiors.) Had nothing to do with EENS.

Quote:The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine.


The book "The Loyolas and the Cabots" is a fascinating read for anyone interested in what happened back then regarding Fr. Feeney and the "Boston Heresy Case". Amazing, but true.

Here is an on-line version: http://catholicism.org/book-loyolas-and-the-cabots.html




Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-26-2009

(07-26-2009, 10:10 AM)didishroom Wrote:
Quote:One point which I consider important to establish was that Fr. Feeney was not a "Feeneyite".
His Order did not make up this theology. Their works on the subject of Baptism are in complete agreement with Fr. Feeney.

Though it is true that the controversy AKA The Boston Heresy Case had nothing to do with Baptism of Blood or Desire. Fr. developed those points years after his expulsion from the Jesuits, the censursing of St. Benedict Center, his "excommunication" and formation of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

"didishroom" Wrote:Fr. Feeney was not censured for preaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

It very hard to tell what you are saying here.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Credo - 07-26-2009

James02 Wrote:If we had stayed militant, the USA would have been a completely Catholic country by 1960.

This is debatable. Nineteen-fifties Catholicism in America was largely external, in general. Firstly, consider that everyone involved in Vatican II, to a man, was trained in the wonderful 1920s, 30s, and 40s (including the highly influential American contingent). "Yes-men" were being consecrated bishops left and right, catechism was largely rote memorization and the liturgy was not appreciated. We make a huge mistake to think that what we see at our SSPX or FSSP chapel nowadays is somehow a time capsule of what things were like in the first half of the twentieth century and before. This is not to say there weren't many souls striving for holiness in those days. Yet while American Christianity look nice statically in the 1950s, it was a weak house. A few gusts of challenge came from secularism and the whole structure went reeling. Does this justify a gutting of the customs of the Latin Rite, and an injection of liberalism? No, but we need to keep things in perspective.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - James02 - 07-26-2009

Credo, you read me wrong.  I agree with you.  I point to the Fr. Feeney case to show things were not all good before Vat. II.  If we had a Church with priests like Fr. Feeney in the 60s, the USA would be Catholic.  The Protestants were already starting to self destruct in the 20s and 30s. 


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Stubborn - 07-26-2009

(07-26-2009, 06:24 PM)James02 Wrote: Credo, you read me wrong.  I agree with you.  I point to the Fr. Feeney case to show things were not all good before Vat. II.  If we had a Church with priests like Fr. Feeney in the 60s, the USA would be Catholic.  The Protestants were already starting to self destruct in the 20s and 30s. 

Great post James02!

Credo as well - thanks!

Free fish for each :)