Fascinating Article Against the Teachings of Fr. Feeney. Much of the Feeneyite Problem Stems from a Refusal to Grasp that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium BINDS the Catholic Mind and Soul.


  1. What teaching of the Church's magisterium (extraordinary or ordinary and universal) did Fr. Feeney reject? The so-called Feeneyites are nothing if they aren't loyal defenders of the magisterial teachings of the Church. Fr. Feeney in his book Bread of Life affirms the existence of BOD and he says that one who receives it is justified. So what doctrine is he denying?

    It is true that the people who do actually deny the existence of BOD hold Fr. Feeney to be a heroic defender of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (a doctrine which no Catholic would dare directly deny). But Fr. Feeney should not be considered the leader of an anti-BOD movement. If you want to scapegoat someone why don't you identify the Dimonds (Most Holy Family Monastery) as the leaders of the movement? They certainly have the most detailed defense of the anti-BOD position. I think traditionalists are afraid of them. Or if they aren't afraid, they should be. I've watched/listened to a number of their debates and their opponents are more often completely humiliated than not. And they use nothing but magisterial teaching to defend their position.

    The theologians do not have magisterial authority in themselves. And no amount of agreement amongst theologians can produce that authority. Magisterial authority is limited solely to the Pope and the bishops who are in communion with him. Not even the Doctors of the Church or the Fathers have magisterial authority. There is not a single Doctor or Father who hasn't made at least one theological error. Only the Pope has never made an error in his ex cathedra teachings.

    And even if we all agreed that BOD is a dogma (Ott says it is NOT), no pope has ever taught that non-Catholics can be saved by invincible ignorance. But that's precisely what pretty much every traditional Catholic bishop (with the possible exception of Bishop Webster) teaches. So there are many levels to this issue and blaming it on a failure to accept the UOM is ridiculous.

    1. @Clemens Maria,

      Fr. Feeny's ideas regarding baptism were so bizarre that not even his self-proclaimed intellectual successors follow them to the same degree that he did, notwithstanding his own actions:


      Secondly, the Dimonds' professed defense of their position using magisterial teaching is only matched by their misinterpretation of same: https://romeward.com/articles/239751175/a-letter-about-michael-dimond

      The Dimonds are certainly not to be feared, personally speaking. But the fact they present themselves to be Benedictines (when it's quite simply impossible for them to be so) only discredits them further, notwithstanding their boorish and uncharitable demeanor.


      A Simple Man

    2. Do you interpret the dictionary? Absurd. But not any more absurd than interpreting dogmas. We don't give our assent to the interpretation of the dogma. We give our assent to the dogma itself. It is a definition of doctrine. It can't get any more fundamental than that.

    3. "Do you interpret the dictionary? Absurd."

      There is such a thing as interpreting incorrectly. There are countless people who misinterpret definitions all the time in our day and age. (Example: those who misuse the words "man" and "woman" to try and include transgenders.)

      " We don't give our assent to the interpretation of the dogma. We give our assent to the dogma itself. It is a definition of doctrine. It can't get any more fundamental than that."

      Then this should be a simple question for you to answer: how has the Church taught and implemented the doctrine of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" through her history?

      For example, has she taught that being "inside" the Church is equivalent to being an explicit "member" of the Church?

  2. We don't interpret dogmas. We give our assent to them. Period. In fact, the modernists claimed that dogmas are interpretations and Pope St. Pius X condemned them for it. The only reason to interpret a dogma is to deny it. If you understand the terms, you understand the dogma. And if there are any distinctions to be made on the terms, the Magisterium will specify them. The whole point of defining a dogma is to clarify the Church's teaching. The doctrine being defined has always been in the deposit of the faith. So the Magisterium is simply clarifying the doctrine which was always there and binding us to it. And who is going to interpret it? The fallible theologians? The fallible theologians interpret the infallible Magisterium? No. If the dogma needs to be interpreted, the Magisterium has failed. That doesn't mean that the terms cannot be misunderstood. But I have yet to see anyone refute the Dimonds or any other "Feeneyite" based on a misunderstanding of a term. In fact, everyone understands EENS the same way. That's why modernists needed to interpret it.

    1. "The only reason to interpret a dogma is to deny it."

      Absurd. Whose interpretation of a dogma am I supposed to follow? The Dimonds', or that of the Church?

      "If you understand the terms, you understand the dogma."

      Which Feeney and the Dimonds have failed to do on a continuous basis (as you would have seen if you read what I referenced. If you think they were incorrect, how so?).

      "And if there are any distinctions to be made on the terms, the Magisterium will specify them."

      Which has been the case; it just so happens that it's not always through the explicit word of a Pope or an ecumenical council. Per Pope Pius IX in 1863 from "Tuas Libenter" (Denzinger 1683 - 1684): "While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.”

      To assert, as you do, that the "Magisterium has failed" if the common teaching of the Church's approved theologians regarding doctrine and dogma must be obeyed, is to profess ignorance of how the Church has taught the faithful throughout history.

      "But I have yet to see anyone refute the Dimonds or any other "Feeneyite" based on a misunderstanding of a term."

      Did you even read what I cited to you? Need I remind you of the rather infamous example of the Dimonds asserting that St. Alphonsus Liguori (the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, of all people!) **misinterpreted** the Council of Trent?

      But notwithstanding the consistent teaching of approved theologians pre-Vatican II, or even the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the very fact that the Church has feast days for saints who were not baptized (St. Zachary and St. Elizabeth, the parents of St. John the Baptist; St. Anne and St. Joachim, the parents of the Virgin Mary; St. Emerentiana, a catechumen and the foster-sister of St. Agnes; the Holy Innocents; and so on) should be proof enough that Fr. Feeney and the Dimonds have misinterpreted what EENS actually means.


      A Simple Man


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Much Money Was Leveraged to Continue to Cover-Up the Greatest Case of Identity Theft in Church History? The Million Dollar Question.