D
DJim
Guest
No way.
Of course, all you have to do is tell me the names of the orders, and I’ll call their provincials and the diocesan bishops to establish the accuracy of your claim.
So, do let me know.
DJim
- Status
Of course, all you have to do is tell me the names of the orders, and I’ll call their provincials and the diocesan bishops to establish the accuracy of your claim.
So, do let me know.
DJim
M
mgrfin
Guest
Catechisms like CCC are authoratative, and would be at a level of “common teaching” of the Church. Although not ‘de fide’, it is generally enough since it reflects what the Church is teaching through the Councils and the Holy Father.
Limbo is an interesting example. It is very rational and logical to believe in Limbo. When the Creed said that “Christ descended into Hell”, we never conceived that he went to a the place of Satan and his angels since we would never believe that Abraham, Moses, Isaias were in such a place. They were not in heaven, but we waiting for Christ to announce that their Redemption had come.
I am not embarassed for having believed in in Limbo; it was reasonable to me.
Accepting Limbo has nothing to do with accepting the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation. The Church still holds that doctrine and continues to propound it, e.g., Dominus Jesus. I accept this Declaration, and it has nothing to do with Limbo.
B
bobzills
Guest
You appear to be totally and completely wrong on this. See the site for the St. Benedict Center
catholicism.org/home.html
and read their materials there. And while you are there be sure to read:
catholicism.org/miller-feeney.html
M
mgrfin
Guest
Ah, yes, Father Feeney.
Feeney was an heretical/schimatic priest excommunicated 1953, and I remember him well. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, but his remnants still hang out around the St. Benedict’s Center.
They adhere to strict interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam Salus Nulla” - (Outside the Church there is no salvation")
So, according to him, and them, unless you were fully intergrated into the Body of the Church, the Catholic Church, not just tangentially, you could not be saved.
I don’t believe, the Holy Office (then), and Benedict XVI holds to the strict interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam…).
mgrfin
B
bobzills
Guest
Right. The Vatican does not hold to the strict interpretation. However, the question I was addressing is whether or not there are people in good standing in the Church who do hold to the strict interpretation.
M
mgrfin
Guest
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I am not following you. If Feeneyism is a heresy, then folks holding to it would not be in good standing. Or am I hearing you wrong?
D
DJim
Guest
Actually, I more or less assumed you were speaking of the so-called “St. Benedict Center,” which is NOT a religious order and has absolutely NO official recognition within the Catholic Church and specifically within the diocese in which it is located.
Considering that its central tenet is a heresy, this is no wonder.
DJim
M
mgrfin
Guest
I believe that Father Feeney was excummunicated, and as such was a schimatic. I don’t think his position was called heresey.
He was asked to stop teaching it, did not and was then excommunicated. As I remember, when he returned the Church he did not have to ‘recant’. Strict interpretation of “Extra ecclesiam…” is not part of the Church’s teaching - something a bit more generous is taught.
D
DJim
Guest
The late great Fr. William Most was an expert on this case and its history. Here is what he says in “The Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney” (ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT)
“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.”
So, it is plain to see that the heresy involved here is private interpretation of Magisterium, which parallels the heresy of private interpretation of Scripture…
Furthermore, this heresy results in the doctrinal error (which in my view would seem to be heretical as well) of a too-rigid view of “no salvation outside the church.”
Heresy, btw, is the post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith…
I think it’s fair to characterize a belief that denies even the possibility of salvation to millions of souls as “heresy.”
DJim
PS: this is quite relevant to the thread topic to the extent that anyone who insists on a private interpretation of the Magisterium that conflicts with the Magisterium’s own interpretation of the text of the Council of Florence is committing the same error as Fr. Feeney…
PPS: The letter from the Vatican was sent August 8, 1949…“happy” anniversary…
“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.”
So, it is plain to see that the heresy involved here is private interpretation of Magisterium, which parallels the heresy of private interpretation of Scripture…
Furthermore, this heresy results in the doctrinal error (which in my view would seem to be heretical as well) of a too-rigid view of “no salvation outside the church.”
Heresy, btw, is the post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith…
I think it’s fair to characterize a belief that denies even the possibility of salvation to millions of souls as “heresy.”
DJim
PS: this is quite relevant to the thread topic to the extent that anyone who insists on a private interpretation of the Magisterium that conflicts with the Magisterium’s own interpretation of the text of the Council of Florence is committing the same error as Fr. Feeney…
PPS: The letter from the Vatican was sent August 8, 1949…“happy” anniversary…
B
bobzills
Guest
Check with the link I gave above on the Benedict Center. They have been reconciled with the Church and are in good standing with the Church. And they hold to the Feeneyite position. Check with them on this question.
B
bobzills
Guest
The people at the St. Benedict Center are in good standing in the Church.
M
mgrfin
Guest
I would have a problem with Eugenio Pacelli on part of this. Arguing that private interpretation of Scripture is a bad thing in itself - it is a bad thing when your private interpretation contradicts the teaching Magisterium of the Church, or a strict interpretation of certain scriptual passages already given.The late great Fr. William Most was an expert on this case and its history. Here is what he says in “The Tragic Errors of Leonard Feeney” (ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT)
“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.”
So, it is plain to see that the heresy involved here is private interpretation of Magisterium, which parallels the heresy of private interpretation of Scripture…
Furthermore, this heresy results in the doctrinal error (which in my view would seem to be heretical as well) of a too-rigid view of “no salvation outside the church.”
Heresy, btw, is the post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith…
I think it’s fair to characterize a belief that denies even the possibility of salvation to millions of souls as “heresy.”
DJim
PS: this is quite relevant to the thread topic to the extent that anyone who insists on a private interpretation of the Magisterium that conflicts with the Magisterium’s own interpretation of the text of the Council of Florence is committing the same error as Fr. Feeney…
PPS: The letter from the Vatican was sent August 8, 1949…“happy” anniversary…
Ah, 1949, and the Boys of Summer. All was right with the world: Brooklyn was in 1st place.
We read and interprete scripture all the time. We can interprete however we will so long as we do not put a different twist on to the detriment of doctrine we already define and accept. I will try to dig up Pius’ letter to see what he had to say.
D
DJim
Guest
They are NOT in “good standing” if they personally dis-believe a truth of the faith.
If you wish to say that they, unlike the unfortunate Fr. Feeney, have never been excommunicated, this much is presumably true.
If you wish also to say that the people at the Center are in “good standing” (meaning not under penalty) but the Center has no affiliation whatsoever with the Roman Catholic Church, that much might also be true.
But–attempting to leave us with the impression that their error is somehow “accepted” in the eyes of the Church–false, false, false…
DJim
D
DJim
Guest
Yes, and amen–I think you’ll find the original letter to correspond to what you say above. Private interpretation of Scripture that is not contrary to Magisterium is fine…
Private interpretation of Magisterium that IS contrary to Magisterium–uhhh, not fine…
DJim
B
bobzills
Guest
According to Father John McCormack, then Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, the St. Benedict Center underwent canonical regularization and did “in no manner abandon Father Feeney’s teachings.”
catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterII.jpg
catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterIII.jpg
According to the center’s homepage:
“Our right to continue our apostolate has been affirmed by those in authority in the Church, including our current Holy Father, while in his former capacity as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
D
DJim
Guest
None of this in any way alters what I said in my previous post–the links you provide to antiquated letters from former officials prove nothing different from what I’ve asserted.
But you are correct on one thing: EVERYONE–including the St. Benedict Center–has a right to exist apart from the Roman Catholic Church without having to change doctrinal belief.
Can’t argue with you on that…
DJim
N
napad
Guest
There are three religious orders that promote the Feenyite position the 2 that are approved are in Still River Massachusetts in the dioceses of Worchester.64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:r76AUjsgohgJ:www.deoestgloria.com/us.g.ma.html+franciscans+still+river&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The 3rd is in New Hampshire but it is not functioning as an official religious order but is like a pius union I think.
But the above two are approved one is a Benedictine Abby using the rule of St. Benedict and the other is women using the rule of St. Francis
PS scan down to the town of Still River to find them
N
napad
Guest
The main point to remember is that theirs is a less held view but it is allowed by the official Church so this position can be held without becoming a heritic.
Another thought is that Fr. Feeny’s excommunication is also in question. He was summed to Rome when he asked for what reason the response was by order of a cardinal in Rome.
Again he asked the reason which under canon law he had a right to know but no reason came forward, so he didn’t go and was excommunicated for disobedience not for his teaching.
This may seem like a detail to some but it is important since no ruling came down about his teaching from Rome and there are 2 religious communities approved by the Church.
To call him a heritic is not fair, since the cardinal in questiion was not following canon law his excommunication is questionable.
It was ,Cardinal Mederos of Boston, who made efforts in the early seventies to clear up the excommunication.
The condition for lifting the “excommunication” was for Feeny to recite an accepted Catholic creed.
He asked which one he needed to recite they( representatives of Rome) said any one he wanted. He recited the Creed of St. Athanasius, which begins and ends:
**Whosoever will 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 he shall perish everlastingly…
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. **
Doesnt sound like Feeny changed his position but it was widely proclaimed in the news and no one in the Church denied that he was not reconciled with the Church. So as I said earlier it is not as clear as some would have you think.
Another thought is that Fr. Feeny’s excommunication is also in question. He was summed to Rome when he asked for what reason the response was by order of a cardinal in Rome.
Again he asked the reason which under canon law he had a right to know but no reason came forward, so he didn’t go and was excommunicated for disobedience not for his teaching.
This may seem like a detail to some but it is important since no ruling came down about his teaching from Rome and there are 2 religious communities approved by the Church.
To call him a heritic is not fair, since the cardinal in questiion was not following canon law his excommunication is questionable.
It was ,Cardinal Mederos of Boston, who made efforts in the early seventies to clear up the excommunication.
The condition for lifting the “excommunication” was for Feeny to recite an accepted Catholic creed.
He asked which one he needed to recite they( representatives of Rome) said any one he wanted. He recited the Creed of St. Athanasius, which begins and ends:
**Whosoever will 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 he shall perish everlastingly…
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. **
Doesnt sound like Feeny changed his position but it was widely proclaimed in the news and no one in the Church denied that he was not reconciled with the Church. So as I said earlier it is not as clear as some would have you think.
D
DJim
Guest
Really–does the same thing apply to politicians who hold the “less-held” view that abortion should be legal???
Or to married couples who hold to the “less-held” view that contraception is okay?
Those groups are both “tolerated” as Catholic members without being penalized under law.
And that’s exactly what you’re claiming about the “Feeneyite” position–if it’s “tolerated” without a penalty, then it must be okay???
I think this is the part where I say “give me a break, please.”
The Feeneyite view is NOT “allowed” by the official Church any more than is the pro-abortion or pro-contraception view…
This erroneous view involves necessarily disobeying the living Magisterium of the Church. And you say this is “tolerated” by the official Church???
There is no question that he was excommunicated as a penalty for disobedience–over an error which you admit below that he never corrected…
He was summoned for his teaching (which he knew full well was the case) and excommunicated for disobedience. In my view, excommunication for disobedience is the worse offense…
Show me–show me a direct link to documentary evidence that communities adhering to the Feeneyite view have the approval of their local Church.
Question: Did Feeney promise obedience to his own bishop? Did his own bishop urge him to go to Rome when asked?
It’s quite clear–let’s hope he was reconciled to the visible Church and the penalty for his disobedience lifted.
However, if as you state, he never changed his “position” relative to the living Magisterium, then his error remained. And then we must further hope that the living God was merciful to him…the irony being that perhaps Feeney’s own salvation was achieved through invincible ignorance…
DJim
- Status