Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr Feeney
(I'm sure this subject has arisen on this forum
before, but before I got here...
sorry if this is repeating
anything discussed previously.)
I was never quite clear as to the situation
with Fr Leonard Feeney....I remember
that he was excommunicated
(or not?) for adhering to a STRICT
interpretation of extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (outside the Church
there is no salvation).
What is the ACTUAL situation
with this? Was he truly
excommunicated, or not?
And am I right to assume
he did not believe in the concept
of baptism of desire?
Thanks to anyone who can
inform me!
Lionel:
The magisterium at that time
and the Archbishop of Boston
were saying that the baptism
of desire referred to explicit
cases without the baptism of
water.This was irrational and
heretical. Fr.Leonard Feeney
did not accept this.He said
there is no known salvation
outside the Church.
The magisterium was being
supported by the Masons
and the Leftist media.
Mar 23, '08, 4:44 am
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 2,961
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
My understanding is that Fr.
Feeney was reconciled
to the Church shortly before
his death. He was,
indeed, excommunicated in
1953
for an INCORRECT (as
oppossed to strict)
interpretation of
"Outside the Church there
is no salvation"
Apparently one of the
splinter groups
of his followers is an
antisemite group who
deny the holocaust.
Lionel:
I do not think that Fr.
Leonard Feeney or the
St. Benedict Center were
Anti-Semitic.
However the Jewish Left
has been using the
Anti-Semitic threat to
control any one who
affirms the dogma
extra ecclesiam nulla
salus( Feeneyite). They
do not object
to EENS ( Cushingite).
| |
Join Date: April 7, 2007
Posts: 1,387
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
He wasn't excommuncated for
a heresy, or false teaching.
He was excommunicated
for failing to show up for
his trial. He refused
to show up for his trial
because they
would not tell him what
he was being tried for,
and therefore he wasn't
able to properly
prepare a defense.
He was reconciled to the
Church without
having to renounce, o
r even adjust, any
teachings.
He wasn't excommunicated
for holding to the strict
interpretation of "no salvation
outside the Church". In
fact, the Church
issued a letter saying
that he was
permitted to hold to
his strict position. If
you'd like, I'll locate
and post the letter.
Lionel:
He was affirming the dogma EENS
according to the Church Councils,
popes and saints.They did not
mention any explicit cases
of the baptism of desire.We
know that the baptism of
desire is not explicit so it
never was an exception to
the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Mar 23, '08, 7:23 am
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 622
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam
nulla salus and Fr Feeney
This looks like a pretty
good article on him
(it appears to orginate with in a
Traditionalist website):
I think his problematic teachings
- that got him into trouble with Rome
- were to do with his strict requirement
for water baptism. This goes against
Church teaching and tradition, which
recognizes the Baptism
of Desire.
__________________
Lionel:
He affirmed the dogma EENS according
to the 16th century missionaries.
The popes and saints were referring
to an invisible hypothetical baptism of
desire.The baptism of desirecan only be
hypotehtical and invisible for us human beings.
A hypothetical case cannot be an
exception to the strict interpretation
of the dogma EENS.The Letter of the
Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. The
magisterium made an objective
mistakes.
Mar 23, '08, 7:23 am
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 622
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr Feeney
This looks like a pretty good article on him
(it appears to orginate with in a
Traditionalist website):
I think his problematic teachings - that got
him into trouble with Rome - were to do
with his strict requirement for water
baptism. This goes against Church
teaching and tradition, which
recognizes the Baptism
of Desire.
__________________
Lionel:
He affirmed the dogma EENS
according to the 16th
century missionaries.
The popes and saints were
referring to an invisible
hypothetical baptism of desire.
The baptism of desire
can only be hypothetical and
invisible for us human beings.
A hypothetical case cannot be
an exception to the
strict interpretation of the
dogma EENS.The Letter
of the Holy Office 1949
made a mistake. The
magisterium made an
objective mistakes.
Banned
| |
Join Date: February 10, 2008
Posts: 201
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax
et Caritas
He wasn't excommuncated
for a heresy, or false teaching.
He was
excommunicated for failing
to show up for his trial. He
refused to
show up for his trial because
they would not tell him what
he was
being tried for, and therefore
he wasn't able to properly prepare
a defense.
He was reconciled to the
Church without having to
renounce, or
even adjust, any teachings.
He wasn't excommunicated
for holding to the strict interpretation
of "no salvation outside the Church".
In fact, the Church issued
a letter saying that he was
permitted to hold to his strict
position.
If you'd like, I'll locate and
post the letter.
|
It seems you better post it. There are
a lot of people who just don't
know what happened. The modernists
just can't believe that God
does not Change and that he has
certain requirements for those
who wish to adhere to His Church.
Lionel:
He was faced with a case of Magisterial
Heresy.
Mar 23, '08, 9:30 am
|
Junior Member
| |
Join Date: December 22, 2007
Posts: 353
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
and Fr Feeney
I think the problem was he said that
Catechumens that die before Baptism
in the Catholic Church automatically
go to Hell even if they're martyred,
which is wrong. I'm not sure if Baptism
of Desire is a required belief but
I'm pretty sure Baptism of Blood is.
His other teachings are fine though
not the mainstream view.
Lionel:
The case of the catechumen
was a hypothetical
case.So it could not be
relevant to the dogma
EENS unless it was assumed
that the catechumen
was actually a personally known
case to be an
exception to EENS(Feeneyite) .
This was the
Magisterial Mistake.
It has led to an unprecedented
Magisterial Heresy.
Mar 24, '08, 4:03 am
|
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 764
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax et
Caritas
He wasn't excommuncated
for a heresy, or false teaching.
He was
excommunicated for failing to
show up for his trial. He refused to
show up for his trial because they
would not tell him what he was
being tried for, and therefore he
wasn't able to properly prepare a
defense.
He was reconciled to the Church
without having to renounce, or
even adjust, any teachings.
He wasn't excommunicated for
holding to the strict interpretation
of "no salvation outside the Church".
In fact, the Church issued
a letter saying that he was
permitted to hold to his strict
position.
If you'd like, I'll locate and pos
t the letter.
|
I would actually like to see it if
you can find it. I don't doubt you,
I'm just interested. Thanks.
Lionel:
The magisterium made a factual error.
Mar 24, '08, 2:27 pm
|
Forum Elder
| |
Join Date: June 24, 2004
Posts: 16,340
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
I was living in New England at
the time and later in Massachusetts.
I remember that he was
excommunicated for refusal
to go to Rome
when ordered, and that he
was reunited with the Church
by Cardinal
Cushing shortly before his
death. I don't remember any of the
details beyond that.
He was an old friend of Cardinal
Cushing, and the Cardinal was very
supportive of his friends. I did hear
that his elevation to Cardinal was
delayed several years because of
his failure to take stronger action
in the matter, which force Rome to
get involved.
__________________ I have set before you life and death,
blessing and curse; therefore
choose life, that you and your
descendants may live,
Lionel:
Cardinal Cushing was in heresy
when he changed the dogma
EENS by assuming there
and to assume there were
known exceptions.This is
irrational.
Cushing and the Jesuits
also repeated this error
in Vatican Council II.
I do not think the
excommunication was
lifted by Cardinal Cushing.
Instead he used his
ecclesiatical power to
suppress the dogmatic
teaching and create a
new doctrine on salvation
in the Catholic Church.
Regular Member
| |
Join Date: November 9, 2004
Posts: 2,940
Religion: Catholic (typical hardcore papist)
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
Wasn't his reconciliation with
the Church done in part with him
affirming the Athanasian Creed?
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
Or is this just a rumor? God Bless Scylla
__________________ 1 Timothy 3:15
Lionel:
Yes he affirmed the Athanasius Creed
which says outside the Church
there is no salvation.It does not say
that there are exceptions
and the baptism of desire is one of
them.
|
Mar 24, '08, 3:02 pm
|
|
Junior Member
| |
Join Date: February 4, 2008
Posts: 429
Religion: True Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr Feeney
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolsDaughter
(I'm sure this subject has arisen on
this forum before, but
before I got here...sorry if this is
repeating anything
discussed previously.)
I was never quite clear as to the
situation with Fr Leonard
Feeney....I remember that he was
excommunicated (or not?)
for adhering to a STRICT interpretation
of extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (outside the Church there
is no salvation).
What is the ACTUAL situation with
this? Was he truly
excommunicated, or not? And am
I right to assume
he did not believe in the concept
of baptism of desire?
Thanks to anyone who can inform
me!
|
When I noticed that the poster called
YERUSALYIM stated that Fr Feeny had
a follower connected
with antisemitism,
I wondered at your motive for bringing
up this topic. If you
want to find info on Fr Feeny, I wondered
why you don't just
research him yourself? It shouldn't be
hard to find all the
info you want online.
Lionel:
Much of the information on Fr.
Leonard Feeney
available on line is controlled.
The sources are
also pro-Left.They have a
political bias.
|
Mar 24, '08, 3:28 pm
|
Banned
| |
Join Date: March 21, 2008
Posts: 189
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanannemarie
When I noticed that the poster called
YERUSALYIM stated
that Fr Feeny had a follower
connected with antisemitism,
I wondered at your motive for
bringing up this topic. If you
want to find info on Fr Feeny,
I wondered why you don't
just research him yourself? It
shouldn't be hard to find
all the info you want online.
|
For that matter, anyone with
questions about anything Catholic
shouldn't ask here, but research it.
I was hoping there might be some
adherents of Fr Feeney 's
here, and that they could give their
input.
Lionel:
An injustice was done to Fr.
Leonard Feeney.
The Jesuits are still teaching
heresy.
Mar 24, '08, 3:31 pm
|
Veteran Member
| |
Join Date: February 9, 2005
Posts: 9,342
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
This letter from the Holy Office
in 1949 dealt particularly with
Fr. Feeney's group. It's a good
read on this issue:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixe.html
__________________ "Let prayer delight thee more
than disputations, and the
charity which buildeth up more
than the knowledge which
puffeth up."--St. Robert
Bellarmine
Lionel:
The second part of the Letter
(1949) assumed hypothetical
cases are objectively known
in the present times.This is an
objective mistake in philosophy.
Upon this philosophy is
based the new theology, the
Cushingite theology.
Mar 25, '08, 11:47 am
|
Forum Elder
| |
Join Date: June 24, 2004
Posts: 16,340
Religion: Catholic
|
|
Re: Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus and Fr Feeney
Father Most has an interesting
article on the TRAGIC ERRORS
Lionel:
Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard
Feeney by Fr.William Most is
based on assuming
hypothetical cases are explicit
exceptions to the dogma
EENS. This is an objective
mistake.
Quote:
First, he was excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go
to Rome to explain his position.
Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII,
sent a letter to the Archbishop
of Boston, condemning Feeney's
error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English
text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what
is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- for
that is strictly Protestant. But then the letter said we must also
avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church. To
insist on our own private interpretation, especially when
the Church contradicts that, is pure Protestant attitude. |
He goes on to give an extensive
selection of Church quotations
on the
subject of salvation outside the
Church and concludes:
Quote:
Let us add one more thing.
In the parable of the talents,
the man who hid his talent told the master
he knew the master was a hard
man. The master replied that he would judge
him out of his own mouth, and condemned him. So when a Feenyite
comes up for judgment, we pray that God may not follow the pattern given
in the parable and say: You insisted I was a monster. Very good,
I will be a monster to you. Hell is your place. |
__________________ I have set before you life and death,
blessing and curse; therefore
choose life, that you and your
descendants may live,
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4007409004435288027#editor/target=post;postID=104394572969092294
-Lionel Andrades
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|