Pope says "'Feeneyites' are NOT heretics"
#31
didishroom Wrote:

 

With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox. (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)
“Quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs… .”  There are lots of armchair inquisitors out there who should pay attention to that one.
http://catholicism.org/this-just-in-pope...es-ok.html

The Pope says??? No Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has said. You must be clear. For instance I like to use the writings of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini when defending the rights of the Holy Roman Emperor. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini later became Pope Pius II. And it would be disingenuous for me to say that Pope Pius II wrote in defense of the rights of the Holy Roman Emperor when in fact he did not. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini wrote the defense only as a Cardinal, not as Pope.
Reply
#32
What is a teaching of the Church then? Does all the Church have to believe it to be a teaching? What makes a undefined doctrine a doctrine that must be believed? I ask sincerely your thoughts.
Catholics are bound to believe all dogmatic definitions set by the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is also infallible when it is unanimous in teaching a doctrine. Now since BOD has never been defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Fathers all disagreed on it and the Ordinary Magisterium is copletely divided on it, no Catholic is bound to believe it. And those that insuate that is should be believed are treading on dangerous ground. 
 

 Oh really? Now what is it in what they did is the problem that the excommunications are anulled?
I'm not sure that's even a real sentence.
 
Enlighten us. It was what they held and continue to hold, namely, that the new forms for the Sacraments are not good in themselves for the Faith of Holy Mother Church's Children and the problematic and rash wording of Vatican II.
No they were excommunicated for disobedience. And their criticisms of the new Mass and Sacraments don't venture into the possibility of heresy.
 

  
Not being an manifest obstinate formal heretic is not incompatible with holding objective error rather than the truth.
Which means then that you are accusing Fr. Feeney of being a material heretic.

 Fr. Feeney held no belief against any defined dogma but he was in error over Sacramental Theology, he could have known better but the Church was in a sad state of affairs as it was doctrinally. God looks at the heart.
It is your OPINION that his theology was flawed. His theology was never condemned by the Church despite submitting all his writings to the judgment of the pope. Bl. John XXIII had Fr.'s book Bread of Life reviewed for heresy and the monsignor who reviewed said it contained no error. Paul VI did not make him recant an error. He even made a statement that supports Feeney's view. The Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission said the view of Fr. Feeney is NOT heretical and his Order is fully within the Church. The local Ordinary do not see his Order as heretical. As Cardinal, Pope Benedict said they were not heretics and even met with one of the superiors of the Order. As Cardinal he even visited an abbey that was still honors Fr. Feeney and even defended him in their books. A book by a Third Order member defended Fr. Feeney and his theology in a book that received an Imprimtur, which says the book is free any doctrinal or moral error.
But you know better.

 But not all questions on Faith or Morals have been settled in the Church definitely/dogmatically, do you not realize this? This is one of those questions. The sin of heresy has to obstinate and willful denial of a defined Sacred Dogma or a doctrine that is held with certitude by the Church.
You realize you're helping my case by proving that Fr. Feeney was not guilty of the sin of heresy.
Reply
#33
didishroom Wrote:
Catholics are bound to believe all dogmatic definitions set by the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is also infallible when it is unanimous in teaching a doctrine. Now since BOD has never been defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Fathers all disagreed on it and the Ordinary Magisterium is copletely divided on it, no Catholic is bound to believe it. And those that insuate that is should be believed are treading on dangerous ground.

Which bishops currently deny BOD?  Have there been an theologians in the past 50 years who've written against BOD being infallible?  I think the only one "divided" on whether BOD was true was Fr. Feeney (who was not even a theologian!).  Rome has not changed her position on BOD.  The only difference between the Holy Office of yesteryear and the CDF of today is that the latter rarely condemns anyone.

Reply
#34
Quote:Which bishops currently deny BOD?  Have there been an theologians in the past 50 years who've written against BOD being infallible?  I think the only one "divided" on whether BOD was true was Fr. Feeney (who was not even a theologian!).  Rome has not changed her position on BOD.  The only difference between the Holy Office of yesteryear and the CDF of today is that the latter rarely condemns anyone.

No, no, that's the distinction being made and which needs to be made.

That merely denying BOD is a dogma or positively Revealed, is different than denying it in general, which are likewise different than claiming (as Fr Feeney originally did) that it is positively excluded by revelation.

For example, I believe BOD. But I dont believe it is as revealed truth of Faith. I just think it is one of God's unrevealed means that we may have good hope He very likely uses in His mercy for the innocent unbaptized.

But the crucial technical distinction (that effects how we speak of these things, and act) is that I dont hold that with the certainty of faith like I do the title to salvation guaranteed by water baptism.

But that is very different than denying it outright. And yet, under my opinion, I also cant say someone who does deny that hope (though I dont really understand why they'd want to) is a heretic strictly speaking, as long as they dont claim it's positive exclusion is a dogma either. And Ratzinger here seemed to agree.
Reply
#35
Quote:That merely denying BOD is a dogma or positively Revealed, is different than denying it in general, which are likewise different than claiming (as Fr Feeney originally did) that it is positively excluded by revelation.

7HC, I think it would be more accurate to say that Father Feeney questioned and critiqued the speculations on BOD, showed that they were being used to undermine clear Catholic dogma, and demonstrated that revelation knows nothing of a waterless baptism. At least this is the stance he took in his only published book on the matter.
Reply
#36
Maybe, but I was under the impression that he, or at least many of his original followers, were initially denying even the hope of it, not merely taking the "agnostic, but cautiously optimistic" attitude that I take, and which you seem to take some version of. That is, claiming that Revelation positively excluded any possibility of it, not merely that Public Revelation "knew nothing of" it as you say.

Reply
#37
7HC, your points are well taken, and yes, I was paraphrasing Fr Feeney's thought when I wrote "revelation knows nothing of a waterless baptism". But that does summarize what Fr. Feeney taught: No water, no baptism; no baptism, no Church membership; no Church membership, no salvation.

However, the evidence that Fr. Feeney did not deny BOD totally is in chapter 7 of Bread of Life when he says that a catechumen might possibly be justified by his faith and desire prior to baptism, but still needed the sacrament "celebrated in water" (John 3:5; Council of Vienne) to be a true member of the Church and attain eternal salvation, and that God in his providence would somehow get it to him. How he does this is not up to us to determine.

Some think this is hair-splitting, but I think there is an important distinction made. Desire can obtain some of the graces of baptism prior to its actual administration, but is not able to supply the place of baptism.

Edited to add: Here is an interesting related video by a non-Feeneyite:


Reply
#38
I thought that the Council of Trent made BOD and BOB a dogma or at least a doctrine can someone please provide the relevant texts from that council?
Reply
#39
Trent didnt mention blood in any of the canons.

Really, blood would be just a subset of desire anyway, as it can be assumed any non-baptized martyrs dying do desire baptism. The case it was mainly distinguished for was the Holy Innocents, but they were Jewish boys before the New Covenant, so that doesnt really make sense. But some theologians later tried to form a distinction, but since non-baptized martyrs are going to be people who desire baptism anyway, I dont really see that.

Trent does mention desire. It said something like, "If anyone deny that water baptism, or at least ["aut," the exclusive disjunction] the desire thereof, is required for salvation, let him be anathema"

If you actually syntactically analyze this, it hardly "dogmatizes" desire. "Or at least" stops the theory of desire from being condemned, but it does not positively define it in the same way as the main clause. It shows merely what the most lenient non-condemned position is.

The statement of Trent says that everyone is condemned unless they A) believe baptism is necessary for salvation, or B) at least admit that at least desire for it is necessary. This isnt saying the latter position is necessarily true, just that it isnt condemned. That it is an acceptable position.

Someone who said desire could save, wasnt anathemized as a heretic. But that isnt the same thing as saying they are right or that it was Revealed. Something can be non-Revealed and yet also not contradict Revelation.

Trent did not say, "If anyone deny that Desire can suffice in place of water baptism, let him be anathema." It merely said that, when it came to the necessity of baptism, believing in the power of desire was non-condemned proposition, excluded from the anathema. But that isnt the same as positively defining it in itself.
Reply
#40
didishroom Wrote:The Ordinary Magisterium is also infallible when it is unanimous in teaching a doctrine.
HOW is it unanimous then? Do you even know what the Ordinary Magisterium is? It is not merely the Fathers! Universal (unanimous) theological consensus on a doctrine in ONE PERIOD in time is enough for a Pope to define a Sacred Dogma. That does not mean he will of course. That is what happened with Our Most Blessed Mother Mary's Immaculate Conception. Is it that hard to make these distinctions that you ought to here.
 
Quote: Now since BOD has never been defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Fathers all disagreed on it and the Ordinary Magisterium is copletely divided on it, no Catholic is bound to believe it. And those that insuate that is should be believed are treading on dangerous ground.
That is false. Some Fathers did hold to it like Saint Cyprian who spoke about Baptism by blood. Therefore they are not in unanimous rejection of it. Also both the Doctor per excellence of the Church and the Doctor per excellence for the specific theology that deals with this question, namely, moral theology, are in agreement on it and the latter St. Alphonsus even calls it de fide. And both are Canonized Saints too. Catholics are bound to believe de fide teachings, and the teachings of the Church's Doctors carry weight. Their doctrines are not to be taken lightly.
 
Quote:Enlighten us. It was what they held and continue to hold, namely, that the new forms for the Sacraments are not good in themselves for the Faith of Holy Mother Church's Children and the problematic and rash wording of Vatican II.
No they were excommunicated for disobedience. And their criticisms of the new Mass and Sacraments don't venture into the possibility of heresy.
Then why are they still not in full communion with the Church according to the Roman Pontiff? They were clearly excommunicated for "an schismatic act". Disobedience in itself is not a schismatic act. What then is their supposed schism? They as priests were suspended long before the so-called "disobedience". Why?
Quote:Not being an manifest obstinate formal heretic is not incompatible with holding objective error rather than the truth.
Which means then that you are accusing Fr. Feeney of being a material heretic.
Maybe he was. That is for the Church to decide though. I believe he was certainly in error. I absolutely believe he was in material ERROR. The sin of Heresy is specifically choosing to willfully stay in your error knowing it is an error. I don't believe Fr. Feeney had the knowledge or at least could not make the proper distinctions. He was no moral theologian. He alone is inadequate to answer the question anyhow.

Quote:Fr. Feeney held no belief against any defined dogma but he was in error over Sacramental Theology....
It is your OPINION that his theology was flawed.
Yes, an theological opinion that is according to your very quote allowed by the Church. So what is your problem?

Quote:His theology was never condemned by the Church despite submitting all his writings to the judgment of the pope.
A lot of priests' theologies have never been condemned by the Church, does not make them truth?! It is judged as error by the traditional moral theology of the CHURCH DOCTOR St Alphonsus Liguori, and I add that is the Doctor PER EXCELLENCE OF MORAL THEOLOGY. A doctor, saint and very holy bishop carries more weight than a priest to me, especially when this is his question to answer.
 
Quote:Bl. John XXIII had Fr.'s book Bread of Life reviewed for heresy and the monsignor who reviewed said it contained no error.
That's real encouraging. Get your book reviewed in a time of heretics in the highest places of the hierarchy. The reviewer could have been just as lacking in knowledge as Fr. Feeney. And they were according to the Vatican letter against him which PRE-DATES the review. You uphold the judgment of the later time with more problems than the one eariler with less? You are being swayed by something (I say, pride) in your opinion. Why don't you study both sides more? That is the scholastic thing to do. And don't forget prayer to the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding beforehand. God will guide you in His truths, but you must be open to the truth or at least the possibility that you are wrong. Don't be stuck with arrogance in your opinions (on things other than defined Dogma, that is), I had that problem once. I'm only warning you. You know human nature, you know that we are more easily inclined to err than not. There is no sin in being unknowingly wrong, but there is in knowingly being so and not correcting yourself.

Quote:Paul VI did not make him recant an error. He even made a statement that supports Feeney's view. The Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission said the view of Fr. Feeney is NOT heretical and his Order is fully within the Church. The local Ordinary do not see his Order as heretical. As Cardinal, Pope Benedict said they were not heretics and even met with one of the superiors of the Order. As Cardinal he even visited an abbey that was still honors Fr. Feeney and even defended him in their books. A book by a Third Order member defended Fr. Feeney and his theology in a book that received an Imprimtur, which says the book is free any doctrinal or moral error.
But you know better.
By God's Grace, I believe so though I desire they rather have more Knowledge than I. To continuely seek truth on the path to God, Infinite Truth, staying in His Church is sanctifying. Not all truths are defined dogmas of our Holy Mother the Church, not all truths are even theological doctrines.
All those you have mentioned also accept the novus ordo forms, do you think their opinions mean that much to me. They were not Popes speaking with Infallibility on the theological matter at hand. Their opinions on Fr. Feeney's relationship with the Church is neither here or there. It has nothing to do  with whether he was in objective error or not, especially when they themselves may be as well. And I believe they are, if not on this subject, then certainly others.

Quote:You realize you're helping my case by proving that Fr. Feeney was not guilty of the sin of heresy.
Yes, because I agree with you. But I still believe he was objectively in error nonetheless. Sin is subjective, error can be both objective and subjective. I give Fr. Feeney the benefit of the doubt for his personal sanctity and the circumstances and times we are in, just as I do with Pope John Paul II, the Sufferer under the Sun.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)