Is Feeneyism Catholic? - Society of St. Pius X

A NSWER TO OBJECTIONS 95
of desire.” Thus Fr. Feeney or his followers were led to teach confusing
things about the character of baptism.
1. “The character is itself a sanctifying grace”! 133 The sacramental
character is certainly a gift of God (grace, in its wide
meaning), and it is useful for our sanctification (sanctifying), but
the practice of the Church has been to reserve the combined appellation
of sanctifying grace to a reality different from the character,
and superior to it. To make a comparison, each divine Person
is holy, and each one is a spirit, but the combined appellation
“Holy Spirit–Spiritus Sanctus” has been reserved by the practice of
Our Lord and of the Church to signify the Third Person, not
without deep reasons. Let us follow and respect the practice of the
Church and avoid confusion. Thus in the context of sacramental
theology, the above affirmation of Fr. Feeney’s followers is utmost
confusion, in opposition to the common teaching of the Doctors
of the Church!
Bro. Robert Mary 134 in his response to the first edition acknowledges
the correctness of the above, but falls into further
confusion: “The character is a grace called gratia gratis data, an
abiding disposition, freely given, which assists a mature Catholic
in his efforts to regain or increase in holiness.” Now the term gratia
gratis data means the charismata, such as the gift of prophecy
or of miracles: the character is certainly not such! Indeed charismata
are not given to each and every Christian, but only according
to the choice of God to a few, mostly some chosen saints. The
charismata are not made for the personal sanctification of the one
who has it, but for the common edification of the Church. On
the contrary, the character of baptism is intended for everyone
(everyone ought to be baptized), and it is for his own personal
sanctification. I have never seen any theologian confusing character
and charisma!
2. The baptismal character is “the seal without which one is
lacking the essential incarnational anointment marking him as
heir of the heavenly kingdom.” 135 This is new theology, and not in
133 “Reply to Verbum,” Res Fidei, February 1987, p.22.
134 Op. cit., pp.192-103.