Judases in the Church
#21
(05-22-2010, 04:46 PM)salus Wrote: If Father Feeney thought there were Judases in the church in 1954, he would be shocked by what has happened since, a complete destruction of the church., then again father feeney was at the forefront of sounding the alarm long before all the other followed suit but it was too late by then.

Yes, but then why did he feel the need to reconcile with them in the 1970s when things were at their worst?
Reply
#22
What did he do to reconcile?  Same thing the SSPX did.  Ask that the excommunication be lifted.  Neither Fr. Feeney nor the SSPX "recanted" anything.  They threw a bone to the Vatican to save face and the excommunications were lifted.
Reply
#23
(05-24-2010, 10:56 PM)James02 Wrote: What did he do to reconcile?  Same thing the SSPX did.  Ask that the excommunication be lifted.  Neither Fr. Feeney nor the SSPX "recanted" anything.  They threw a bone to the Vatican to save face and the excommunications were lifted.

But the SSPX asked for the excommunications to be lifted as a prelude to doctrinal discussions.  Fr. Feeney did everything he could to avoid going to Rome to defend his doctrine. 
Reply
#24
I don't know.  I do know he never recanted.  And all he had to do was say the Athanisian (sp?) creed, which paradoxically includes this:
" “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt shall perish everlastingly . . . .”

And I do know that a religious order he founded, whose central tenet is that no one is saved outside the Church, is in good standing with the Church.

Now if someone wants to debate the different facets of EENS, that is fine.  However, it is a lie to say you are not Catholic if you believe what Fr. Feeney taught.
Reply
#25
(05-24-2010, 09:48 PM)Jesse Wrote: As for Arun's comment about "the new blood in the Tank"... I guess it's not the good ol' boys club anymore, eh?  Good thing that Catholic means "universal" and not "screw the rest of you who weren't here before and don't agree with everything I say."

I don't recall making any statement to the effect that either
A) Catholic does not mean universal
B) Catholic means "screw the rest of you who weren't here before and don't agree with everything I say
or
C) All of the above

Please direct me to the relevant statements from which you have formed a substantial and grounded basis that these are my beliefs?

Quote:It's the new blood that is going to save the Church from her current crisis.

Yep, sure is. Like my kids, for example. andthe many other children at our SSPX-run school.
But I sincerely doubt any crisis-saving will come from modernist youth, which is what you appear to be inferring. Please notice I said appear to be inferring. If I have this wrong, feel free to correct me and reassert your position with a greater level of clarity.
Reply
#26
(05-24-2010, 11:13 PM)James02 Wrote: I don't know.  I do know he never recanted.  And all he had to do was say the Athanisian (sp?) creed, which paradoxically includes this:
" “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt shall perish everlastingly . . . .”

And I do know that a religious order he founded, whose central tenet is that no one is saved outside the Church, is in good standing with the Church.

Now if someone wants to debate the different facets of EENS, that is fine.  However, it is a lie to say you are not Catholic if you believe what Fr. Feeney taught.
Quote:And I do know that a religious order he founded, whose central tenet is that no one is saved outside the Church, is in good standing with the Church.

Now if someone wants to debate the different facets of EENS, that is fine.  However, it is a lie to say you are not Catholic if you believe what Fr. Feeney taught.

Do you trust the Conciliar Church on doctrinal matters though?  If all of this was settled before VII you would have a point.  But the "good standing" and what not is claimed under current authorities, who are Judases by Fr. Feeney's standard.

The modern authorities allow conservative Anglicans in who don't have to renounce their old beliefs, and they also stopped proselytizing to the Orthodox, another conservative body.  Why wouldn't they consider Fr. Feeney's followers in good standing too? 

Reply
#27
(05-24-2010, 11:56 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(05-24-2010, 11:13 PM)James02 Wrote: I don't know.  I do know he never recanted.  And all he had to do was say the Athanisian (sp?) creed, which paradoxically includes this:
" “Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt shall perish everlastingly . . . .”

And I do know that a religious order he founded, whose central tenet is that no one is saved outside the Church, is in good standing with the Church.

Now if someone wants to debate the different facets of EENS, that is fine.  However, it is a lie to say you are not Catholic if you believe what Fr. Feeney taught.
Quote:And I do know that a religious order he founded, whose central tenet is that no one is saved outside the Church, is in good standing with the Church.

Now if someone wants to debate the different facets of EENS, that is fine.  However, it is a lie to say you are not Catholic if you believe what Fr. Feeney taught.

Do you trust the Conciliar Church on doctrinal matters though?  If all of this was settled before VII you would have a point.  But the "good standing" and what not is claimed under current authorities, who are Judases by Fr. Feeney's standard.

The modern authorities allow conservative Anglicans in who don't have to renounce their old beliefs, and they also stopped proselytizing to the Orthodox, another conservative body.  Why wouldn't they consider Fr. Feeney's followers in good standing too? 

Touché!!!
Reply
#28
(05-24-2010, 11:36 PM)Arun Wrote:
(05-24-2010, 09:48 PM)Jesse Wrote: As for Arun's comment about "the new blood in the Tank"... I guess it's not the good ol' boys club anymore, eh?  Good thing that Catholic means "universal" and not "screw the rest of you who weren't here before and don't agree with everything I say."

I don't recall making any statement to the effect that either
A) Catholic does not mean universal
B) Catholic means "screw the rest of you who weren't here before and don't agree with everything I say
or
C) All of the above

Please direct me to the relevant statements from which you have formed a substantial and grounded basis that these are my beliefs?

I'm sorry, I got a little defensive from posts on other threads that have put down new people in Fish Eaters because they think differently than the old crowd.  I apologize for any assumptions I made about your beliefs and the sharp way in which I responded.

Quote:
Quote:It's the new blood that is going to save the Church from her current crisis.

Yep, sure is. Like my kids, for example. andthe many other children at our SSPX-run school.
But I sincerely doubt any crisis-saving will come from modernist youth, which is what you appear to be inferring. Please notice I said appear to be inferring. If I have this wrong, feel free to correct me and reassert your position with a greater level of clarity.

What I meant by new blood was new people coming to tradition and tradition growing.  These people growing tradition can be the children of trads, converts to the church, NO Catholics realizing what's up, etc.

Again, my apologies for assumptions and the way in which I responded.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
#29
Quote: Do you trust the Conciliar Church on doctrinal matters though?
No, I rely on dogmatic proclaimations from Church councils and Popes.

Quote:  If all of this was settled before VII you would have a point.  But the "good standing" and what not is claimed under current authorities, who are Judases by Fr. Feeney's standard.
My point was that CatholicThinker is full of crap.  He insinuated that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.  Then came out and said if you deny baptism of desire you are an heretic.  Total crap.  If he read his own link, he would see Fr. Feeney was excommunicated due to grave disobedience to Church authority.  Not due to any heresy.  Bottom line, neither the pre Concilliar nor the post Concilliar Church viewed Fr. Feeney's position heretical.

Now getting back to your point, which I am trying to figure out.  You muddied the waters with your use of the term "reconciled".  Fr. Feeney did exactly what the SSPX did.  He got the excommunication lifted.  That is all.  And your point is what?
Reply
#30
(05-25-2010, 01:23 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Do you trust the Conciliar Church on doctrinal matters though?
No, I rely on dogmatic proclaimations from Church councils and Popes.

Quote:  If all of this was settled before VII you would have a point.  But the "good standing" and what not is claimed under current authorities, who are Judases by Fr. Feeney's standard.
My point was that CatholicThinker is full of crap.  He insinuated that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.  Then came out and said if you deny baptism of desire you are an heretic.   Total crap.  If he read his own link, he would see Fr. Feeney was excommunicated due to grave disobedience to Church authority.  Not due to any heresy.  Bottom line, neither the pre Concilliar nor the post Concilliar Church viewed Fr. Feeney's position heretical.

Now getting back to your point, which I am trying to figure out.  You muddied the waters with your use of the term "reconciled".  Fr. Feeney did exactly what the SSPX did.  He got the excommunication lifted.  That is all.  And your point is what?


Spoken like a true Feenyite!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)