Feeneyism
Feeneyism is the doctrinal position which is associated with Leonard Feeney (1897–1978), a Jesuit priest and a founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which advocated a strict interpretation of the doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation").
Lionel: For me it is the traditional centuries -old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, without the use of the False Premise. I interpret EENS with the Rational Premise and I call it Feeneyism. When EENS and the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are interpreted with the False Premise , I call it Cushingism. Wikipedia is Cushingite even in this report on Feeneyism.
_____________________
Leonard Feeney[edit]
Feeney was a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Jesuit order. The order dismissed Feeney in 1949 for disobedience, and on February 4, 1953, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (known then as the Holy Office) declared him excommunicated "on account of grave disobedience to Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings."[1] He was reconciled to the Church in 1972.[2] Feeney co-founded the group known as the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary with Catherine Goddard Clarke.
Lionel: He did not have to recant. He recited the Athanasius Creed which states all need Catholic faith for salvation. The excommunication was lifted.
_______________
Salvation and baptism[edit]
Catholics traditionally believe that sacramental baptism ("baptism of water") is the only way to be properly baptized. In addition, "the Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament."[3]
Lionel: True but it is hypothetical and speculative only, always. We cannot administer the Baptism of blood.We cannot judge any particular person who will be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.We do not know anyone who has been saved in invincible ignorance etc.
For us humans, there are no practical exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
So it is O.K to cite the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance but do not project them as exceptions to EENS. This was the objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.
_____________________
The belief in water baptism and the doctrinal position that those who are outside the Catholic Church are not saved can be found in the writings of the early fathers and the rulings of ecumenical councils. For instance,
Pope Eugene IV, in the Council of Florence declared:
Feeney felt that, in the previous two centuries, some tended to broaden the notion of "baptism of desire" to include all who try to live good lives, even those who desired no relationship with the Catholic Church. Feeney argued that those who are truly sincere will be led by God to the Catholic Church. He also accepted no form of baptism as opening the way to salvation other than by water and only within the Catholic Church, but he did say that this was an opinion. He denied the salvational efficacy of the mere wish alone, even the explicit wish to be baptized, and held that God must have provided those martyrs who apparently died for the faith without being baptized with a minister and water to baptize them before their death.[7]
Feeney and his followers maintain that there is a contradiction between the Second Vatican Council's document Lumen gentium and earlier authoritative statements, which they interpret as saying that non-Catholics are indiscriminately damned.
Lionel: When Lumen Gentium is interpreted with the False Premise it contradicts EENS but when it is interpereted with the Ratioinal Premise it is in harmony with Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.
Wikipedia does not make the distinction between the False and Rational Premise.This was also the mistake of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
His followers interpret the Catholic Church's declarations that outside of the Church there is no salvation as excluding from salvation people such as the American Indians who lived between the times of Christ and Columbus, because they could not have been baptized (unless some Christian missionaries did manage to reach and baptize them in the Catholic faith).[8]
Splits[edit]
After Feeney's death, his spiritual descendants soon split into several groups because of various power struggles. The two most prominent both use the name Saint Benedict Center. All use the pre-Vatican II form of the Roman Rite liturgy.
Three of these groups are located on or near the land to where Feeney moved in Still River, Massachusetts:
- The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a group of men and women in private vows, staff the Saint Benedict Center. Their apostolates include education (operating Immaculate Heart of Mary School), publishing and a summer camp for boys and girls. They were raised to a Public Association of the Faithful in 2017 by Bishop Robert McManus.
- The Sisters of the Saint Benedict Center operate Saint Anne's House, an order of diocesan right in the Diocese of Worcester.[9]
- St. Benedict Abbey is a house of Benedictine monks.
The other branch, located in Richmond, New Hampshire, has no official recognition by the Catholic Church.[10][11] The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) classifies the center in Richmond, as well as the group's publishing arm Immaculate Heart Media, as an anti-Semitic hate group.[12][13]
Lionel: They deny that they are anti-Semitic. They interpret EENS with the Rational Premise and they also interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. The SPLC, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and Bishop Peter Libasci, Bishop of Manchester use the False Premise to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II. This is unethical and dishonest.It was also the mistake of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
____________________
The SPLC wrote that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary "continue to endorse Feeney and to defend him from charges of anti-Semitism, despite his well-documented hatred of the Jews" and noted that in 2004, Bishop McCormack had rebuked the group as "blatantly anti-Semitic", and that in 2005, a brother of the Slaves had given a speech calling out the "Jewish nation" as "the perpetual enemy of Christ."[12] The center denies being anti-Semitic.[14][13]
Lionel: Fr. Leonard Feeney was referring to the Jewish Left (ADL, SPLC) and not Jews in general. The ADL, SPLC,Zionists and Masons do not represent Orthodox Jews and all Jews.There is no central authority for the Jews like the Catholics have the pope.
Fr. Leonard Feeney's predictions about Boston have come true.
__________________________
In January 2019, the vicar for canonical affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester stated that the group had been directed to stop representing themselves as Catholic.[11][15]
Lionel: The Judicial Vicar for the Diocese of Manchester, Fr. Georges de Laire, wanted the St.Benedict Center to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism( invisible cases are objective in the present times and so there are practical exceptions for EENS ) instead of with Feeneyism ( invisible cases are invisible and so there are no objective exceptions for EENS ).This is irrational, unethical and heretical. It is schism with the past Magisterium which was Feeneyite.It is not Catholic.
_______________________
The diocese published a clarification of the status of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the St. Benedict Center, declaring that they were neither approved by the diocese nor considered to be Catholic.[16] The diocese and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome found unacceptable that the St. Benedict Center teaches that non-Catholics cannot be saved.[17]
Lionel: They accept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance as hypothetical and speculative only, always. So for them they cannot be practical and known exceptions to EENS in 1949-2021.This is common sense.They do not confuse what is invisible as being visible to make the dogma EENS obsolete.
The norm for salvation in the Church has always been faith and baptism. If there are exceptions for the norm it can only be known to God.The baptism of desire is not the norm.The Lefebvrists and liberals interpret the baptism of desire with Cushingism.
______________________________
That same document further states that priests are forbidden to say Mass at any church or chapel owned by the St. Benedict Center or the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Lionel: The diocese of Manchester has deprived the religious community and the lay people at St. Benedict Center, NH, from having the Eucharist available in the chapel. Since Bishop Peter Libasci and the CDF want them to affirm EENS and Vatican Council II with the False Premise, like the Curia of Bishop Peter Libasci.This issue could be clarified in a court case underway in New Hampshire.
__________________________
In 1978, three sisters from Feeney's original group sought to become Benedictine nuns. Nuns from Stanbrook Abbey helped establish their priory, which was formally erected in 1984 as Saint Scholastica Priory.[18] The nuns were later joined by a group of Benedictine monks who were established as Saint Mary Monastery, a dependent house of Pluscarden Abbey.
Condemnation of Feeneyite view[edit]
In a 1949 letter to Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) condemned Feeney's teaching that only those formally baptized in the Catholic Church can be saved. The Holy Office affirmed that those baptized by their desire can be saved.
Lionel: Literally there are no baptism of desire cases. This is the issue. So there are no objective exceptions for EENS.If Fr. Georges de Laire does not use the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS he will be affirming the strict interpretation of EENS, of the present day St. Benedict Center, in New Hampshire.
____________________
This letter was sent by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani to Cardinal Cushing and had a private sign in the end, meaning that the 1949 correspondence was supposed to be read only by the two cardinals and not distributed.[19][20]
This letter is a footnote to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847 DS 3866-3872, in its section "Outside the Church there is no salvation".[21]
Lionel: The Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 847-848 on Invincible ignorance can be interpreted with the False or Rational Premise and the conclusion will be different.The Diocese of Manchester interprets CCC 847-848 with the False Premise and want the St. Benedict Center, NH to do the same. They refuse to do so and so they are being coerced with a harsh Decree of Prohibitions. -Lionel Andrades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism
OCTOBER 13, 2021
Judge Joseph A. Diclerico Jr., in New Hampshire, has to be asked if he considers invisible people as visible in 2021.Is this a premise in any discussion, secular or religious ? Since this is the present reasoning of Fr.Georges de Laire.
OCTOBER 13, 2021
The judge(judges) in New Hampshire have to be asked if they consider invisible pople in 2021 as being visible.Is this an acceptable premise in any discussion, secular or religious.
OCTOBER 10, 2021
Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire need to settle a secular issue
OCTOBER 11, 2021
Bishop Peter Libasci and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj.,want the Sisters to state that they can see or meet non Catholics in the present times, who are saved with the baptism of desire etc.The Sisters don’t know of any such case and so the Decree remains.
OCTOBER 11, 2021
National Catholic Reporter continues to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the False Premise like Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/national-catholic-reporter-continues-to.html
OCTOBER 4, 2021
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr.Taylor Marshall have found the Specific Error in Vatican Council II. It is the Fake Premise. They have used the Rational Premise. This was not known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and.html
AUGUST 29, 2021
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall say there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire but the German Synodal path is based upon there being literal cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) in the present times
Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall has said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2021). So LG 14 ( Case of the Catechumen) would be a hypothetical and speculative case only. But for Cardinal Marx this is not his interpretation of Vatican Council II upon which is based the German Synodal Way.For him LG 14 and also LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22, LG 16,LG 8 would refer to literal cases of non Catholics in the present times (1965-2021) saved without ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7), outside the Church. It is only in this way that he can avoid affirming Catholic Tradition (EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
If the Germans interpreted LG 14 like Bishop Athanasius Schneider there would be no theological bases for the German Synodal Breakaway.
In France, Bishop Roland Mitterand in Dijon, wrote his books on the Concordats and the theology of religious pluralism by interpreting LG 14 irrationally.The French Bishops’ Conference must be asked to clarify that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical, theoretical and invisible for us human beings.In principle, hypothetical cases of LG 14, LG 16 etc cannot be practical exceptions in 2021 to Tradition ( Catechism of Pope Pius X, Council of Trent etc).
Like the French, Cardinal Peter Erdo in Hungary and the Hungarian Bishops’ Conference, could also be confusing the “implicit baptism of desire” of St. Thomas Aquinas as being explicit in the present times.
In Poland, the National Catechetical Center is in schism with the past Magisterium, since with visible cases of the baptism of desire, a hermeneutic of rupture is created with the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q).They need to issue a statement on this issue.
Their Episcopal Conference, like those all over the world, interpret the baptism of desire with a fake and not rational premise . So there is a fake break with Catholic Tradition.
The Schneider-Marshall video is really asking the U.S bishops to be ethical and honest.They are saying that the cardinals and bishops in Britain are also dishonest, when they project the baptism of desire as an exception to EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
The bishops in Switzerland had also been asking the Society of St. Pius X to interpret the baptism of desire with the irrationality mentioned by Bishop Schneider, and then to accept the non traditional conclusion.This is not Catholic.
Pope Benedict did not grant canonical recognition to the SSPX and said it was a doctrinal issue.Bishop Charles Morerod in Switzerland would not allow the SSPX to use the churches there, and said it was a doctrinal issue. They had to continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and accept the non traditional conclusion, like the liberals.
Pope Benedict needs to be honest.He needs to apologize to the SSPX.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment