Does the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney condemn you?

Jan 05, 2025

Greetings, Br. Dimond
I have read one of your discussions on the baptism of desire, and I was wondering why you didn't broach the topic of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of Fr. Feynan's position on the baptism of desire. I have thought of three possibilities, and I would be grateful if you kindly comment.
1. Perhaps you were unaware of it? In that case, it stands to reason that it would be very helpful if you find the text of the condemnation and study it, and perhaps you might let me know what you think of it.
2. Perhaps you are of the opinion that it was not an official condemnation that is binding on faith? If that is the case, I would appreciate if you would explain why you think so.
3. Perhaps you are of the opinion that the condemnation applied to Fr. Feynan's position, but you are also of the opinion that your position is sufficiently different from Fr. Feynan's position, so that the condemnation wouldn't apply to your opinion. If that is the case, I would appreciate a demonstration of the differences and why you think they save your position from falling under the condemnation.
I hope that in the interest of finding and proclaiming the truth on matters of Catholic Faith, you will eventually (hopefully soon!) find the time to answer me.
Thank you very much. May God bless you,
P.B.

MHFM:

P., you are referring to Fr. Feeney, not Fr. Feynan. I actually just finished a new book that is 300 pages on this topic. It is now available for $8.00. It covers the issue in-depth, and all aspects of the Fr. Feeney case in-depth. You should get it and read it; it answers your questions in this regard. [update: book online here]

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Brother Peter, Yikes! 300 pages? I found it difficult to read the 4-page bulletin!
Just for now, in a two-liner, would you mind telling me if you consider the condemnation not to apply to your case because of differences between your position and Fr. Feeney’s? Or not to apply in the first place to Fr. Feeney or anyone else because it wouldn’t have been an infallible act of magisterium? I understand that if I want to know the reasons for your opinion that I would have to refer to your in-depth study or perhaps to future bulletins that might summarize it. Thanks for adding me to your email list. If you don’t mind, I will likely have more questions for you; hopefully, they won’t be so involved or require such a lengthy reply! Regards and may God bless you,
P.B.

MHFM: P., the parts of the book dealing with the Fr. Feeney case are only about 40 pages; you should purchase it and read it. The order form will be up on our site soon. The Magisterium did not condemn Fr. Feeney; a letter from two heretical Cardinals to one Bishop attempted to – a letter which wasn’t even published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. Fr. Feeney was preaching defined Catholic dogma; the Magisterium could never condemn him for that without contradicting itself.

Do you accept the defined dogma that all who die without the Catholic Faith are lost eternally?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

[P. B. did not respond to this question. I hope that it wasn’t because he does not believe in this dogma, but that may be the case. Perhaps he just wanted to use the little that he had heard about the Fr. Feeney case to justify his belief in salvation outside the Church. I hope not, but that is almost always the case with “traditionalists” who bring up the issue. We post this exchange without the man’s full name only to show people how people use their own perverted and inaccurate idea of what the Fr. Feeney case was about to justify their denial of this dogma. This man didn’t even know Fr. Feeney’s name, but was presumably using it to justify his belief which was at odds with Catholic dogma.]