Home › Forums › All Things Catholic › Website Says Feeneyism Is Heresy Instead Of Cushingism › Reply To: Website Says Feeneyism Is Heresy Instead Of Cushingism
Before the topic completely drifts, I ask you, yes or no, do dogs and cats go to heaven. Give me a Dogmatic reply.
Much like the SSPX, the position of many Feeneites is a rather slippery slope. Having taken a position which Catholics are free to accept, or reject, followers of Fr. Feeney’s have positioned themselves to be the Judge of the Magesterium and the Pope. By asserting that one or another is a heretic because they do not take the Feeneyite positon, or assent to Fr. Feeney as the final authority on the subject. The Church has always taught that it is through the means that Christ gave us, ie the Catholic Church that the merits of the Cross are applied. Primarily through the Sacraments, but also through sacramentals, and good works when preformed in union with Christ, and His Church which means in a state of grace, with the inention of obtaining those merits for our own souls or those of the dead. While we may pray for the welfare body or soul of another living person, merits of our works may only be applied to ourselves or the dead. Now the Church has long before Fr. Feeney and his decision that he knew who was going to be excluded from heaven, does fly in the face of any number of Magesterial teachings, and approved Catholic practices. If we deny these long held and approved practices, then we as many Feeneyites have to make ourselves the judges of the Popes, and Magesterium. The Church has approved of the prayers for the dead, not just Catholics who have died, but of all the dead, that God would have mercy on their souls. The Church has for centuries approved of the offering of Masses for the repose of the souls of non-Catholics. The only provision is that it not be a public Mass, ie that the intentions be kept by the priest and the person who has requested the Mass. The reason for it being a private Mass is to prevent scandal. The Scandal is not that we pray for the souls of those who died outside visible union with the Church, but that some would misinterpret the action as stating that all religions are equal, and that someone is saved by the practice of Non-Catholic religions. Either the Church has misled us in allowing this practice, and must be rejected as a false religion, or we must admit that there is a basis for the belief that God instituted the Church for the salvation of souls, and that while not all are able to enter into communion through no fault of their own, God will provide them the graces needed to spend all eternity with Him.
[quote:1mju4gq8]What would you say is the extreme position of extra ecclesiam nulla salus permitted of Catholics ?[/quote:1mju4gq8]
Your question about the strict and narrow interpretation of EENS, is a bit dishonest. While it is permitted to hold the position, one cannot until the Church has officially pronounced on the issue proclaim it dogmatic, to the exclusion of the rest of the Catholic teaching on what other provisions the Church allows to be believed. You see I don’t hold to the Feeneyite postion, I admit that it is possible because the Church has not (regardless of what the Feeneyites claim) made a final dogmatic pronouncement. In addition either explicit or implicit holding that the Feeneyite position is the de-facto dogmatic position, is by at least implication, and from some Feeneyites explicit that Pope St. Pius X, Venerable Pope Pius IX and others are herectical for explaining and expounding on the teachings of the Church related to this issue, but including the possiblity of non-catholics coming to salvation. By doing so you are ignoring entire statements of the Church which allow us to accept as pious opinion that God has provided for the salvation of the Pagan and the non-catholic under the provisions discussed earlier.
You also wish us to let you eat your cake and have it too. Discounting Fr. Most, and the majority of theologians, as well as Popes as not speaking for the Magesterium or with the Authority of the Magisterium, but demanding that we accept the Slaves, Fr. Feeney, Mrs. (sometimes Sr.) Catherine Goddard Clarke, or your website as the voice of the Magisterium because you say all others are heretics is quite a big role for you to take on.
As to Mr. Voris, and others who have public postings on the internet, there is a bit of a fine line here. First Mr. Voris who does present himself as have a Bachelors in Sacred Theology, which seems valid, and does many times present very good and newsworthy issues, is like those you dismiss as not being the voice of the Magisterium, is himself not either. I like much of what he presents, but I don’t give him nor am I required to give him the same obedience that I give to the legitimate authority of the Ordinary of a Diocese. If the bishop is a heretic, there are established protocols for investigating such claims, under Canon Law, which he skips over. How this is connected with Abp. Gomez escapes me though.
I can almost see why under the former Ordinary, Roger Cardinal Mahony the Slaves would not seek canonical status in LA, however under Abp Gomez, I see no reason for the Slaves to not present themselves for regularization. Except for Opus Dei, and the Anglican Ordinariate, there are no Latin Rite provisions for any order, society or other religous house to be erected without the approval of the local ordinary. They may remain canonically within his territory at his discretion. To do otherwise is contrary to the practice of the Church since the Council of Trent corrected such abuses.