Whatever you do, think not of yourself, but of God. —St. Vincent Ferrer

Main Menu

Monsignor Fenton

Started by Kephapaulos, July 23, 2017, 12:13:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Msgr. Fenton is the best theologian the U.S. has ever had. It's too bad some Feeneyites will accuse him of faulty theology because of the last thing he wrote in his journal. They fail to understand the confusion among many during the period right after the Council. Also, Msgr. Fenton may have been simply writing a note for later writing to point out something liberals and modernists would have said to describe their claim that Lumen Gentium improved Catholic ecclesiology.

The good God took Msgr. Fenton and his mentor Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange before more damage was done.


Quote from: Kephapaulos on July 23, 2017, 12:13:46 AMIt's too bad some Feeneyites will accuse him of faulty theology because of the last thing he wrote in his journal.
Which was?
There are several of Msgr. Fenton's articles here.

Also, I think I've mentioned to you before Msgr. Fenton's The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, whose ch. 8 is on the Holy Office's Suprema hæc sacra condemning Fr. Feeney's view.


I'm sorry. I was wrong. Msgr. Fenton does not mention Lumen Gentium, and it was the second to last thing he wrote in his diary, which was this:

Quote"I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it's either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. I must start with the basic notion of the Church, which is that of a people 'transferred' from the kingdom of darkness into the realm of light. The Council left out the background of the Church. It minimized or glossed over the fact that the Church faces opposition, not just from hostile individuals, but from the 'world.'" (Nov. 23, 1968)

I copied the text above from this webpage of Novus Ordo Watch:

It appears from the context that he intended to write a book that would teach correct ecclesiology while trying to reconcile with the teaching of the Council. It seems he was then deceived sadly, like many during the five years or so of confusion after the Council, that the Council taught in conformity with the Catholic faith. This could have been due to ambiguity of the Council documents.

I wonder though how he could have been fooled if he had warned 1962 about the Council possibly not being a success. Of course, from the above quote, he did point out after the Council that the Council failed to talk about opposition the Church faces from anti-Catholics and the world.