Father Leonard Feeney (1897-1978)
#11
(05-17-2012, 08:41 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(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:

"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 Catechisms, 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.

All true.  But temerity towards common doctrine is not healthy, neither.
Reply
#12
(05-17-2012, 08:44 PM)Parmandur Wrote: All true.  But temerity towards common doctrine is not healthy, neither.

Yeah, I edited my post (but not in time for your reply) to note it is usually a mortal sin.
Reply
#13
(05-17-2012, 08:15 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.

Haha!  The last thing I had ever heard to come across in my life was someone saying that Fr. Feeney was SAVED by the Second Vatican Council!

:)

-- Nicole
Reply
#14
(05-17-2012, 09:12 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-17-2012, 08:15 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.

Haha!  The last thing I had ever heard to come across in my life was someone saying that Fr. Feeney was SAVED by the Second Vatican Council!

:)

-- Nicole

Life is ironic.  If Vatican II had stayed on point, this question would have been dealt with adequately.  The blooming of Feeneyism is just another fruit of Modernism.
Reply
#15
no, the fruit follows the bloom.  If the bloom is Feeneyism, then one fruit might be that folks (lay and higher-ups) take a closer look at doctrines which have such solemn and yet contradictory definitions over time.  Maybe he was just shining a light on the subject.  Ever wonder why he was not excommunicated for doctrinal reasons when they had him in the cross-hairs, but instead on the 'lesser charge'?  Many people believe that was done because he had become such a thorn-in-the-side.
Reply
#16
(05-17-2012, 10:25 PM)perducatnos Wrote: no, the fruit follows the bloom.  If the bloom is Feeneyism, then one fruit might be that folks (lay and higher-ups) take a closer look at doctrines which have such solemn and yet contradictory definitions over time.  Maybe he was just shining a light on the subject.  Ever wonder why he was not excommunicated for doctrinal reasons when they had him in the cross-hairs, but instead on the 'lesser charge'?  Many people believe that was done because he had become such a thorn-in-the-side.

He was legitimately excommunicated on the disobedience charge.  As far as what he preached when he was with the St. Benedict Center group, there was no doctrinal basis upon which to excommunicate him that I know of.

-- Nicole
Reply
#17
I wonder if anybody here can pinpoint to an era or part in Church history where EENS and water baptism ONLY for salvation was ever discussed or was the contention of a vigorous debate as when Fr. Feeney showed up with his linchpin  or keystone theory that we have today (promoted vigorously by the Dimond Bros and others from Fall River SBC).  None whatsoever that I know.  That holy Scriptures speaks otherwise and actually negates the feeneyite theory is good enough for all of us who do not hold to that strict interpretation of John 3:5, sans the Council of Trent's or the desire thereof.  How the water only theorists have missed this important and integral scriptural passage is beyond me.

Quote:[From 1582 D-R]

Romans 2:
6 And mercy to thee, O Lord; for thou wilt render to every man according to his works.    (Psalm 61:13)

12. For whosoever have sinned without the Law, without the Law shall perish: and
whosoever have sinned in the Law, by the Law shall be judged.
13. For not the hearers of the Law are just with God: but the doers of the Law shall be
justified.
14. For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, naturally do those things that are of the
Law: the same not having the Law, themselves are a law to themselves:
15. who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience giving testimony
to them, and among themselves mutually their thoughts accusing, or also descending,
16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel, JESUS
CHRIST.

See also  Matt. 7:21, James 1:22 et seq., Deut. 10:17, Acts 10:34


Reply
#18
(05-18-2012, 02:11 AM)Vincentius Wrote: I wonder if anybody here can pinpoint to an era or part in Church history where EENS and water baptism ONLY for salvation was ever discussed or was the contention of a vigorous debate as when Fr. Feeney showed up with his linchpin  or keystone theory that we have today (promoted vigorously by the Dimond Bros and others from Fall River SBC).  None whatsoever that I know.  That holy Scriptures speaks otherwise and actually negates the feeneyite theory is good enough for all of us who do not hold to that strict interpretation of John 3:5, sans the Council of Trent's or the desire thereof.  How the water only theorists have missed this important and integral scriptural passage is beyond me.

Quote:[From 1582 D-R]

Romans 2:
6 And mercy to thee, O Lord; for thou wilt render to every man according to his works.    (Psalm 61:13)

12. For whosoever have sinned without the Law, without the Law shall perish: and
whosoever have sinned in the Law, by the Law shall be judged.
13. For not the hearers of the Law are just with God: but the doers of the Law shall be
justified.
14. For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, naturally do those things that are of the
Law: the same not having the Law, themselves are a law to themselves:
15. who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience giving testimony
to them, and among themselves mutually their thoughts accusing, or also descending,
16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel, JESUS
CHRIST.

See also  Matt. 7:21, James 1:22 et seq., Deut. 10:17, Acts 10:34

Well, dogma is developed in reaction to errors.  That nobody was gung-ho about this particular error until the 40's is why it is still in limbo (as it were) is telling, as opposed to really persistently popular errors like Nestorianism which popped up relatively early in comparison.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)