Scripturelink Encyclopedia

The Disobedient and ever controversial Feeney

3 Responses to “The Disobedient and ever controversial Feeney”

1. 1
   Scripturelink Encyclopedia » Blog Archive » extra ecclesiam nulla salus - “Outside the Church, no salvation” Says:
   

   [...] The Disobedient and ever controversial Feeney [...]

   November 25th, 2007 at 8:30 am
2. 2
   stlazareth Says:
   

   Before deciding that it seemed that the overall Catholic view was condemning the feenyist doctrine, I first looked at several sources

   EWTN (ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK)

   “TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY
   by Fr. William Most

   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.”
   http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

   as a source as to his view not being the catholic view, but contrary to it.
   “It is a defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
   Yet, as the Holy Office pointed out in condemning L. Feeney (DS 3866) we
   must understand this the way the Church means it, not by private
   interpretation. ”
   http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT
   “From the fact that the Church is God’s means of giving grace, is it is clear that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This truth has even been defined by the Church more than once, e.g., in the Council of Florence in 1442. However we must take care to understand this teaching the way the Church understands it. We just saw that the Church claims the exclusive authority to interpret both Scripture and Tradition. So one like Leonard Feeney who interprets the teaching on the necessity of the Church his own way is not acting like a Catholic theologian at all. The Holy Office, on August 8, 1949, declared that L. Feeney was guilty of this error. Because of his error, he rejected several teachings of the Magisterium, saying they clashed with this definition - but they clash only with his false interpretation, given in private judgment.

   Pius IX (Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863) taught: “God… in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” Vatican II (Lumen gentium # 16) taught the same: “They who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.” Pius XII had said (Mystici Corporis Christi) that one can “be related to the Church by a certain desire and wish of which he is not aware”, i.e., by the desire to do what God wills in general.

   Precisely how does this work out? We saw on our very first page that St. Paul insists (Romans 3:29) that God makes provision in some way for all. We saw that one of the earliest Fathers, St. Justin Martyr (Apology 1:46) said that some, like Socrates could even be Christians because they followed the divine Word. Now St. Justin also said that the Divine Word is in the hearts of all. Then we notice in St. Paul’s Romans 2:14-16 that “The gentiles who do not have the law [revealed religion] do by nature the things of the law; they show the work of the law written on their hearts.” And according to their response, they will or will not be saved.”
   http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura5.htm

   CATHOLIC ANSWERS
   “Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

   In the 1930s and early 1940s Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) was known to the public mainly as a writer of better-than-average poetry and of popular books such as “Fish on Friday.” From the late 1940s until his death he was known instead for his rigorist interpretation of the maxim “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (”no salvation outside the Church”). Adherents to his interpretation became known as “Feeneyites.”

   Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.”
   http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

   “This does not mean that all Catholics necessarily go to heaven and all non-Catholics necessarily go to hell; such an idea is an incorrect interpretation of the maxim extra ecclesiam nulla salus (”no salvation outside the Church”). A Catholic priest from Boston, Leonard Feeney, was censured in the 1940s for teaching that all non-Catholics were doomed.”
   http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9412fea2.asp

   “4. Beirich writes about the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, an offshoot of the group founded by the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. She mentions a talk given by Brother Anthony Mary, one of the members of the group. Each of the male brothers takes a double religious name, with the second one being “Mary” or a variant of it, such as “Marie.” Beirich doesn’t understand this and refers to Brother Anthony Mary as “Brother Mary,” as though “Mary” were his surname.”
   http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_070206.asp

   “That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

   In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that ” extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.”

   Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

   Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.”
   http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

   Catholic Encyclopedia- declared without moral or theological error, also allows for baptsim of desire

   “It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this is a stern and narrow doctrine. The reply to this objection is that the doctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is inseparable from love. It is the same sternness which we find in Christ’s words, when he said: “If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin” (John 8:24). The Church is animated with the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the same love for souls, the same desire for their salvation. Since, then, she knows that the way of salvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to fail in the duty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message is unwelcome, she must deliver it. ”
   http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

   and again from Catholic Answers, with Imprimatur

   “Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

   These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or ” baptism of desire” (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).”

   and

   “Augustine

   “We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

   “[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

   “I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (ibid., 4:21[28]).

   “The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

   “Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (ibid., 141:5). ”
   http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

   http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

   November 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
3. 3
   stlazareth Says:
   

   Debate is useful in gaining further truth, but no matter how much backing one assumes, it cannot make something true. Truth is independent of debate. Do not quote this as defense. I fully plan to justify the fact the Feeney was in error, and that the church is true, despite his faults.

   As the above shows, his view is rejected by the church, and he refused to retract it, secondly, his view of her teaching, is condemned in the sources I used as personal interpretation. I would assume that that we apply to scripture, a work of the church should be applied to her other works. The Papacy which dealt with Feeney also stated such.

   As for whether or not feeney is a heretic, it is up to God. He was not excommunicated for his doctrine, so his reentry proves nothing. It was disobediently, and rashly apposing the will of the church, despite every option given that got him excommunicated. His view is of no benefit, nor does it square either with Catholic doctrine, nor it’s spirit. Catholic is not defined by majority views, or I would also site that, saying that the majority of Catholics would agree as to the fact that God is merciful, and allows baptism of desire.

   As to Jesus, well, Baptism of desire is through Jesus’ work. Feeney deliberately ignored both the majority view at the time, and the demands of his pope. His view contradicts, even the Catholic Encyclopedia, published before he determined to air his radical view.

   The term Feenyite, I used based of Catholic answers- as to the name of those who follow his incorrect teaching.

   You are twisting the situation if you state that he ordered uniting to Christ, and nothing more. He misinterpreted doctrine and refused to change his view, and continued, abusing his position, and attacking others, whop God created, though his position. Note what Augistine says- it is because they do not love that the other sects are not Christian, not simply their doctrine. Those with baptism of desire love very much, should they obey conscience.

   Your interpretation is neither what the Church teaches, and nor is it what any notable grouping of Catholic believe. Christ still saves in Baptism of Desire, which is officially taught, and in Baptism of Martyrdom.

   The church is the body of Christ, but as it itself, with Christ as the head, has publicly and officially stated- it can save others without the visible sign of unity, because her extent extends beyond her visible reach.

   Just because I usually defend doctrines against protestants, does not mean that I am to be treated as though I am dumb. The Feenyites are tolerated, as the ultraliberals and conservatives are tolerated. As for the Feeneyists- this is purely the mercy of Spiritual Rome, and the church, which out of love and acceptance accepts the Feeneyites, but not their doctrine, which it condemns as incorrect.

   Protestants understand the scriptures how they choose. The Catholic obeys the church- Note- those who Paul says are disconnected from the head.

   As to the council of Trent, I think that it’s teaching was best understood by the church who herself declared it, who would understand exceptions. No quote from a source that is not of sound authority, or else is out of context is of any use to those following the truth.

   As to him saying that the church taught contrary to what she herself thought- is that not the very point of his argument, trying to act as though the statements of Vatican I were not what they were and (solidified is Vatican II) were not effective.

   Feeney was firstly controversial, and secondly only famous for poetry and books before he decided that the church needed to be told that baptism of desire was a false doctrine. We cannot discover contrary meanings to tradition. Such could disprove catholicism- should the pillar and foundation of the truth Infallibly define that which is false.

   Stating that this and that saint declared Feeney’s doctrine, is like the attempts of the “baptists” of some groupings to prove that historic baptists existed (note the groups are generally nothing like the baptists), or like some Protestants declaring Sola Scriptura, or that Belief alone saves, or their need for “personal Saviour” prayers and the “crises”. Faith must be interpreted as obedient faith, as with the context, the doctrine of the church must be followed as the church meant it, or at least not contradicting that. Either the church has en mass committed scandal on this doctrine, or it is correct. As for me, I do not value opinions, but truth.

   Pax Christi et Catholici,
   Marc Aupiais

   November 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Leave a Reply