TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY

re: tomorrow a number of RCIA students and their teachers will be attending the Divine Liturgy at our parish so they can learn about the development of the Liturgy and see how The Church in the East has worshiped for the past 1600+ years.

They also send them to Protestant services of every stripe. So, you are nothing special. They go because they have been dumbed down to where they know nothing of the Faith. In the case of the bishops that promote this kind of thing, it is called indifferentism. It is a mortal sin to enter the house of heretics, worse for the clerics. In the case of the laity it is ignorance of the faith, in the case of the clerics it is a diabolical disorientation. They have lost the faith or their marbles.

Rat poison is 98% nutritious, it's the 2% that will kill you. In the same sense, the Orthodox are a most dangerous poison because they appear more nutritious than the Novus Ordo liturgy church of today, after the Vatican II devastation.

A Catholic must transcend this conundrum for both the Novus Ordo church and the Orthodox are the wrong places to be. If a bishop sends his flock to Protestant and Orthodox services, one will know that his bishop has lost the faith or his marbles.

The Canons of the Synod of Laodicea
[365 CE]
CANON XXXIII: No one shall join in prayers with heretics [Jews] or schismatics.
CANON XXXVII: It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.
CANON XXXIX: It is not lawful to feast together with the heathen [Jews], and to be partakers of their godlessness.

The Canons of the Council in Trullo
692 CE

CANON X (XI): If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.
CANON XLV: Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics [Jews], be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.
CANON XLVI: We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics [Jews], be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?
CANON LXII: If any of the clergy, through fear of men, whether Jew, heathen, or heretic, shall deny the name of Christ, let him be cast out. If he deny the name of a clergyman, let him be deposed. If he repent, let him be received as a layman.
CANON LXIV: If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
CANON LXX: If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. [Prohibits observance of the Feasts of the Lord.]
CANON LXXI: If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a synagogue of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be excommunicated.

You are fishing again. You are trying to learn without doing your work. Look at any catechism prior to Vatican II, ANY, and you will find the same teaching that I posted.

Therefore, it boils down to 2000 years versus one misunderstood quote from a fallible “theological commission” of PROGRESSIVISTS!!!

Notice that the commission did not say anything new. LOOK AT THE WORDS. Does it say that they go to heaven anywhere? Does it say that the prior teaching of 2000 years was in error? They didn't say it. And you know why? Because they can't change dogma. This is the proof that the Holy Ghost will not allow it. Everything that Vatican II has taught “as a change”, was done the same way.

They want you to think that they are saying that the infants go to heaven. But it nowhere says that they go to heaven. It is God's hand that holds them from dogmatically declaring error.

So, “infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God”, nothing new there. God's mercy is a paradise, with no knowledge of the lack of the beatific vision. Just the same as those in heaven will not miss their lost relatives, the infants will not know what they do not have.

Homilies of Leviticus 244 A.D. (200 years before St. Augustine. I could post many more like it, all before St. Augustine wrote ANYTHING):

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.

This will be my last posting on this thread. No one is reading this but you, and I've given you enough answers.

God Bless,

"They also send them to Protestant services of every stripe."

Why?

"So, you are nothing special."

Aside from being the chief among sinners?

"Rat poison is 98% nutritious, it's the 2% that will kill you. In the same sense, the Orthodox are a most dangerous poison...."

I'll be sure to pass this on today. I'll bet the teachers and the converts will get a kick out it.

"The Canons of the Synod of Laodicea [365 CE]
CANON XXXIII: No one shall join in prayers with heretics [Jews] or schismatics."

v, nice canon quoting. You do know the difference between local and ecumenical councils, I hope. I also trust you know the difference between dogmatic canons and disciplinary canons and that while the former cannot be abrogated (unless of course it's Rome doing the abrogating!)the latter can and do fall into disuse as times change and the dangers which gave rise to the canon no longer exist. The various canons against the Jews are a good example. The canons of the West and the East against praying with heretics and schismatics are certainly still viable within their locality and subject to hierarchial akrivia and economia, at least in the Orthodox Church, though since you folks have "open communion" with various particular churches, I have to say that it certainly seems that the canons don't apply in the Roman Church, at least as to churches you call schismatic...unless of course Rome doesn't consider them schismatic, which may explain the Pope participating in Orthodox liturgies and devotions and our EP doing the same at Rome, even if they do not share communion.

I notice you chose the canons against the Jews. Tell me something, why this embrace antisemitism which seems so prevalent and customary among extreme traditionalist groups in the Roman Church and of which Feeney's vicious rants are so emblematic?

re:Tell me something, why this embrace antisemitism which seems so prevalent and customary among extreme traditionalist groups in the Roman Church and of which Feeney's vicious rants are so emblematic?

Calling Catholics anti-semites has it's roots in the communist takeover of Eastern Europe after WWII. They were very successful at painting that lie on heroic anti-communist priests such as Cardinal Midzenty of Hungary (and Pius XII), and many others of less acclaim, including many Orthodox priests. I'm sure that you are ignorant of this, when you parrot the same lines. Be aware of this the next time that you are going to use the "anti-semite" smear on someone. Raise yourself above the media brainwashed sheeple, and think for yourself.

I remember "The Point" and I remember how roundly condemned it was. I don't need to fall prey to any media created lies about Feeney's antisemitism. I can read it right here: http://fatherfeeney.org/point/index.html Today the same antisemitism has infected the SSPX. Do you claim that neither Feeney nor, say, "Bishop" Williams were/are antisemites?

"They were very successful at painting that lie on heroic anti-communist priests such as Cardinal Midzenty of Hungary...."

Of course I know about Cardinal Jozef. The Prince-Archbishop was one of my heroes from my childhood. One of the Cardinal's dear friends is my law partner's father-in-law who was a prominent rabbi in Budapest in 1956. Through the efforts of the Prince-Archbishop, the rabbi escaped to the West.

"I'm sure that you are ignorant of this, when you parrot the same lines."

Obviously, like so many, you presume far too much young man.It's a bad habit which you should work to break.

I remember "The Point" and I remember how roundly condemned it was. I don't need to fall prey to any media created lies about Feeney's antisemitism. I can read it right here:

http://fatherfeeney.org/point/index.html

Today the same antisemitism has infected the SSPX. Do you claim that neither Feeney nor, say, "Bishop" Williams were/are antisemites?

"They were very successful at painting that lie on heroic anti-communist priests such as Cardinal Midzenty of Hungary...."

"I'm sure that you are ignorant of this, when you parrot the same lines."

Obviously, like so many, you presume far too much young man.It's a bad habit which you should work to break.

Traditionalist Catholics do not accept evolution.

Thank you for pointing this out. Also, The Church has NOT ruled on this topic at all. The only doctrine is that you MUST believe that God was the creative "force" (my own words). The Church basically only rules when there is a need to (as in taking 400 years for a definitive ruling on homousis) -- and seeing creeping theories of evolution, it means that we probably need a new ruling sometime in this century FOR creationism.

The vast majority of Catholics believe that God created the world as he said he did.

The exceptions will be east-coast snobs from ivy-league colleges, but then they believe the same as their Protestant, Jewish etc. colleagues, i.e. in themselves.

This is similar to the tone of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) who state that The fact is that the (Presbyterian) Church, while affirming with one voice the creation of all things visible and invisible by the triune God, has not come to a unity of position on the matter of the nature and length of the days, as she has with regard to such doctrines as the Trinity and the Person of Christ. This indicates that the Westminster divines were correct in their affirmation that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. . .” (WCF I, 7).
Ditto for some Baptists who hold to the old earth theory

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor William Dembski’s book, The End of Christianity (B&H Academic), argued that the universe is billions of years old—rather than thousands, as young-earth creations contend—and that God brought death, decay and natural disasters to earth long before Adam and Eve sinned

There is no definitive statement by Catholics or Presbyterians or BAptists.

The vast majority of Catholics live outside the US (US Catholic population = 66 million), they live in the Philippines, in India, in Hong Kong, in France, Poland, Belgium, TAnzania etc. and the majority believe that creation is as was written in Genesis.

To take the statements of a few and extrapolate to the many is incorrect.

Hilaire Belloc's review of Outline of History famously observed that Wells' book was a powerful and well-written volume, "up until the appearance of Man, that is, somewhere around page seven."

Hilaire Belloc, one of our most prominent 20th century Catholic writers criticized Wells' secular bias and his belief in evolution by means of natural selection, a theory that Belloc asserted had been completely discredited.

The only argument I can give against evolution is that it is only a theory. There is no foundational proof that evolution is so. That is, here is the original cell that turned into a fish that tuned into an amphibian that tuned into a reptile that turned into a mamal that turned into a man. In other words, there is no way that science can prove evolution.

One of the pre-requisites for rejecting evolution is the ability to question the modern world-view. This is the modern age. Why do we have to kill our own babies? Why is it that the modern mind seems incapable of understanding that its wrong. It is for the same reason many people think evolution is true. Intellectual and moral blindness.

Evolutionists often argue that creationism is unscientific since it invokes supernatural causes while science seeks naturalistic causes.

But is this true? Science is the study of the natural world. Naturally, it must ask whether something could have been naturally caused or not. However, if it can be conclusively proven that a particular thing could not conceivably have any natural cause whatsoever, would it not be ridiculous to insist that scientists should hold, on faith, that there must be some natural cause for it? Would this not be strange? Yet supporters of the theory of evolution sometimes seem to argue along these dubious lines.

In the late 1940s Leonard Feeney, S. J. began to teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. He was correct in saying that there were official teachings, even definitions, on that score. But his tragic error came when he adopted Protestant method, thinking that in that way he would be one of the only true Catholics! We spoke of his protestant method with good reason. 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.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.