I would like to place the following report ‘ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE CALLED "TO PREACH" THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF "EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS" on a pdf.file. If someone can place this report on a pdf.file and make it available on the internet please go ahead. You have my permission.You may also publish or print it. No copyright permission is needed.-Lionel Andrades
______________________________________________________
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE CALLED "TO PREACH" THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF "EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS"
Ex cathedra dogma is Magisterial teaching and not been retracted. Liberal teaching 'except for those in invincible ignorance etc' is not official teaching but sustained by the media as referring to de facto known in the present time cases.Implicit salvation can only be accepted in principle, as concept. We do not know any case so it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
On a Catholic forum it has emerged that after all these years of misinformation Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St. Pius X called to preach the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which has only one interpretation.
Here is the ex cathedra dogma, advocated by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX founder but misinterpreted by the SSPX bishops, priests and lay persons.
The dogma does not refer to explicit or implicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Humanly we cannot know any such case if it exists. It is only known to God.
So in a sense the dogma is saying ‘there is no baptism of desire’ or ‘invincible ignorance’. which is explicit for us.
So it is this dogma which the SSPX founder called to proclaim when he said "preach" extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The infallible teaching says everyone on earth needs to be an explicit formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions. It does not rule out that known to God only, there could be people saved with the baptism desire, invincible ignorance etc. 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).For the Archbishop and us, this is a just a hypothetical probability and not an actuality that can ever be known.
God could provide the helps needed for these special cases.St Thomas Aquinas said God would tell the person what to do or send someone to baptize him.Hence the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney agree that a person can be saved with the baptism desire which must culminate with the baptism of water.
For centuries the interpretation of this dogma was the same, constant, in the Catholic Church and never was the theology, the mantra, used:'everybody needs to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc. This teaching was not part of the Catholic deposit of faith but was introduced by dissident Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston. This was of course before Vatican Council II.
This liberal thinking was somehow picked up by the followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and used to reinterpret his teachings with the liberal mantra.
This is heresy. 1) It is implying that we can know people in genuine invincible ignorance etc and they are exceptions to everybody needing to explicitly enter the Church.2) It is irrational. No SSPX priest knows a single case of explicit or implicit baptism of desire. How can he ever claim anyone is an exception? And if he does not know any exceptions in particular why mention it?
The SSPX needs to again reaffirm the ex cathedra dogma and make its text available for all its members to read.
This ex cathedra teaching states all Protestants (heretics) and Orthodox Christians (schismatics) are on the way to Hell, and not just only 'those who know' about the Catholic Church. It includes those 'who know' and all others too. It includes non Catholics born with Original Sin and who commit mortal sins in that state .We do not know any genuine case of those ‘who do not know’ since only God can judge them and it is unknown to us.
The ex cathedra dogma is in accord with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ‘all people’ need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,' the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood'. God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church. (CCC) 845
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was affirming the traditional rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It means 1) all who are saved are saved by Jesus and this church (CCC) and 2) 'all people' need to be explicit, formal members of this Church for salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Dominus Iesus 20, Ad Gentes 7 etc)
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216:“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press, 1997, p. 216]
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…” [Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213]
There are presently talks between the SSPX and the Congregation or the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. Both groups acknowledge that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a Magisterial teaching and the Church has not retracted this dogma.
It’s the secular media which refers to the ‘rigorist interpretation’ implying there are two or more interpretations of an infallible teaching.
Protestant sources over the years have alleged that the Church has retracted this dogma, developed or changed its meaning. Dominus Iesus, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis 2001etc shows there has been no change.
SSPX priests who understand the situation do not know a way out. They realize there can be no such thing as an explicit or implicit baptism of desire that we can know of. Yet they need to be faithful to the misinterpretation of the teachings of Archbishop Lefebvre on this subject.
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE HAD AFFIRMED THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Yesterday (25.09.2010) on a pro-SSPX forum Fisheaters Traditional Catholic Forum I asked an administrator, (who said Abp. Lefebvre did not agree with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus) where is the text, the proof for the claim. It could not be the following text often quoted by the Society of St. Pius X?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216:“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press, 1997, p. 216]
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…” [Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213]
On this forum Father.Cedraka of the SSPX is a contributor. Could he cite any text other then the above, I asked, which would suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the rigorist interpretation?
It is the SSPX priests who have interpreted the Archbishop using the same liberal mantra ‘everybody needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance etc... .’
This is heresy. 1) It is implying that we can know people in genuine invincible ignorance etc and they are exceptions to everybody needing to explicitly enter the Church.2) It is irrational. No SSPX priest knows a single case of explicit or implicit baptism of desire. How can he ever claim anyone is an exception? And if he does not know any exceptions in particular why mention it?
Yet SSPX priests criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and his present-day supporters because they believe that the Archbishop Lefebvre did the same. But it is really their interpretation of the Archbishop who was in accord with the Councils and saints of the past who affirmed the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. St.Maximillian Kolbe, St.Francis of Assisi, St.Anthony Mary Claret, St.Teresa of Avila...
The above two passages quoted are in accord with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are those who can be saved with the baptism of desire etc and they are known only to God. There is no explicit or implicit baptism of desire that we can know of. It is always a probability not an actual reality for us. So the dogma stands: everybody needs to explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church with no exception to avoid Hell.
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 217-218]
That they can be saved is only a possibility, it is not de facto. If it was de facto then it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to explicitly be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. There are no exceptions.
SSPX supporters using the assumed interpretation of the founder of the SSPX have been on a constant attack against those who claim there is no baptism of desire. The enemies of the Church could be happy that traditionalists are fighting over a strawman.
Father.Cedraka is on line (quoted on the website of Father. Paco of the SSPX) as saying that the ‘Feeneyites’ are in heresy....
When an SSPX priest agrees that there is no external-seeable baptism of desire (explicit) that anyone of us can know he is in agreement with the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney. He is saying the same thing. There is no baptism of desire (external or implicitly knowable)
When an SSPX priest realizes that the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance can only be a concept we accept in principle (as Abp. Lefebvre in the passage quoted above) then he is saying the same as the Saint Benedict Centre, (SBC) New Hampshire and the Sisters of St. Benedict Centre, Worcester,USA. The SBC has posted a definition of the baptism of desire on their website (Catholicism.org). So the SBC states there is a baptism of desire as a concept. So how can Fr.Cedraka and Fr.Scott and Fr.Laisney say they are in heresy?
On the issue of there being no explicit or implicit baptism of desire that we can know of the SSPX and the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney are in agreement.
On the issue of the ex cathedra dogma saying there are no exceptions to everyone needing to enter the Church with no exception Archbishop Lefebvre is in accord with Fr. Leonard Feeney.
SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X INTERPRETS HAEC SUPREMA ACCORDING TO ZIONISTS AND ARCHBISHOP CUSHING OF BOSTON
Fr. Leonard Feeney’s religious communities in the USA reject the Times, Newsweek and New York Times version of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Haec Suprema) supported Fr. Leonard Feeney who was in accord with the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesia nulla salus, which says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. There are no exceptions and also there is no mention of an explicit Baptism of Desire in the text of the dogma, defined by three different popes and Councils and affirmed by Dominus Iesus 20 and other Church Documents.
The first part of the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney refers to doctrine and the second part to discipline. Yet the two are mixed by the media and Catholics.
The first half the Letter affirms the ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching .The text of that dogma, that infallible teaching supports Fr. Feeney. It indicates everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. (See the text of the dogma at the end of this report).Neither does it say there is an ‘explicit’ Baptism of desire or that it is an exception.
So how can Fr. Leonard Feeney be in heresy?
The second half of the Letter accuses Fr. Feeney of being disobedient. Time has shown that it was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who gave us a new doctrine. It said: everybody needs to enter the church except for those with the Baptism of Desire, in invincible ignorance etc. This is heresy. He and the Jesuits were saying that everyone does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there was such a thing as an explicit baptism of desire etc.
He never issued a clarification when the Boston newspapers reported that the Church had changed its centuries-old teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Even after he received the Letter he did not lift the excommunication on Fr. Feeney. He also had an important role in Vatican Council II and Lumen Gentium 16 reflects his and the Jesuits influence. He prohibited Catholics in his diocese from receiving the Sacraments at the St. Benedict Center all because of doctrine!? He did not object when the Jesuits removed Fr. Feeney from their religious community for being faithful to the centuries old dogma of the popes and saints. The memoirs of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy mention that it was his brother Robert who asked Cardinal Cushing to suppress Fr. Leonard Feeney. Ted Kennedy was present when the important phone call was made.
St. Maximillian Kolbe says that if your Superior teaches heresy you are not obliged to obey. Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict centre rightly disobeyed.
In 1949 the Vatican (Holy Office) and Catholics believed that a cardinal was faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. In 2010 we know it is not necessarily true.
However, the Lumen Gentium 16 text is neutral and it can be interpreted in harmony with the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the efforts of the dissenters in Boston have failed.
Secondly, the cardinal’s explicit Baptism of Desire is explicit for God only. We do not know if there ever was an explicit Baptism of desire in our lifetime.
Finally, assuming Fr. Feeney was in heresy, as the secular media allege, how can the ordinary Magisterium of a pope, or, a cardinal’s (Ottaviani) statement supersede and contradict an ex cathedra dogma, in this case, thrice defined ?
So the Catholic Church’s teaching remains unchanged: Everyone needs Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and if there is someone in genuine invincible ignorance etc it will be known only to God.
The Letter’s portion on discipline/disobedience must not be confused with the earlier section on doctrine/dogma. It was included in the Denzinger Enchiridion based on a report in the magazine Ecclesiastical Review. It was not included in the Acta Apostolica Sedis and neither did it have the signature of the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation.
Since the 1950’s the Jewish Left media have a uniform policy on this issue.
Propaganda
Propaganda 1.They claim Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated because of his literal interpretation of the dogma .The media have created a phrase ‘rigorist interpretation’, as if there could be two interpretations of an ex cathedra dogma defined three times.
Propaganda 2. They claim Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16 etc) refers to explicit Baptism of Desire and invincible ignorance and that Fr. Leonard Feeney denies an explicit Baptism of Desire and so do his religious communities in the USA. They are in heresy is the consistent propaganda of the Jewish Left dominated media.
The Society of St. Pius X website and a book by Fr. Laisney sold by the SSPX Press and advertised on the internet, have also swallowed the above mentioned Zionist interpretation of the dogma, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and claims of Fr. Leonard Feeney being in heresy.
Here is the text of the ex cathedra dogma. It indicates that Propaganda 1 is just propaganda.
The dogma above carries the same message as Dominus Iesus 20.1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.
2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.
3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org
20. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82 -Dominus Iesus 20
Propaganda 2 refers to explicit Baptism of Desire. The Baptism of Desire is only explicit for God. For us it is only a concept. We do not know any de facto case of the Baptism of Desire. So how can we say anyone needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance when we do not know a single explicit or implicit case of the Baptism of desire or invincible ignorance? Neither do we know who God will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgment. So rationally Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no explicit Baptism of Desire.The ex cathedra teaching says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.The founder of the Society of St. Pius X was correct when he said that souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islamism, Buddhism etc) however this is only a possibility, de jure ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).Otherwise, we know everyone with no exception needs to explictly enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, ex cathedra extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church n.836, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).This is the Catholic Deposit of Faith. The dogma indicates that billions of non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless before they die they convert into the Catholic Church. The ex cathedra teaching is not referring to only those millions of informed non Catholics in modern cities like Rome
So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict the dogma. LG 16 refers to implicit, not external, baptism of desire known only to God.This is commonsense and not theology.
On the website of the Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community (Catholicism.org) is a definition of the Baptism of desire which they accept in principle. So how can they be accused of rejecting the Baptism of desire which is never external? It is unknown to any of us.
The Society of St. Pius X needs to admit their error and issue a clarification on the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The SSPX praised Pope Pius X and Cardinal Ottaviani. So they must not assume that Cardinal Ottaviani issued a Letter, which contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).
The SSPX is critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community’s rejection of the Letter. If the Letter is interpreted in accord with the dogma and Vatican Council II, the St. Benedict Center would not be critical but welcome the correct interpretation. The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since it affirms the dogma. The text of the dogma supports Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This is also the belief of the community of men and women in the USA who affirm Vatican Council II and the ex cathedra dogma and some of them have been granted canonical status in the diocese of Worcester,USA by the Catholic Church
SSPX IS FR. LAISNEY IN MORTAL SIN , EXCOMMUNICATED?
Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX) published in 2001 is sold by the Society of St.Pius X. The SSPX like the pope considers those saved with the baptism of desire, in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) as being explicit to us; and knowable to us. This is irrational.
Fr.Laisney suggests that the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney are in heresy since they do not accept the baptism of desire.
Here is the definition of the Baptism of desire from the website Catholicism.org. Baptism of Desire is not denied as a concept by this community of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
5. Regarding baptism of desire:
No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.
Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation
So who is really in heresy? Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?
Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956) - Desire, Justification, and Salvation at the Council of Trent, by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. May 02nd, 2005
So the St.Benedict Centre quoted above can accept the baptism of desire, in principle as a concept, and also hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It means there can be people saved with the baptism of desire and it would be known only to God and we know that everyone with no exception needs to de facto enter the Catholic Church to be saved.
Fr.Laisney is putting forward a theory that persons saved with the baptism of desire etc are known to us. This contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They suggest there are known exceptions to everyone needing to become a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
The SSPX needs to clarify.
1. Can there be persons saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance who are known to us in the present times ?
2. If there are no known cases then does it mean to suggest that there are such known cases would be a denial of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined ?
3. Is Fr.Laisney an excathedra dogma ? Is he in mortal sin?
5. According to Canon Law does he need to go for Confession and make public amends before he offers Holy Mass?
SEDEVACANTISTS, SSPX, SUPPORTERS OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY HAVE A MOMENT OF INSIGHT THEN GO BACK TO THEIR OLD POSITION
Traditionalists not aware of traditional approach
For centuries there was no controversy in the Catholic Church on the issue of the baptism of desire. They assumed it was known only to God. Even for the Council of Trent the Baptism of desire did not conflict with Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Sedevacantists (not MHFM) today recognize this is true in e-mail correspondence with me. However soon they deny it is possible and revert to their old position, either pro or anti baptism of desire. There can only be two options for them.
Yet for centuries in the Catholic Church it was known that a non Catholic could be saved with the baptism of desire and this could be accepted only in principle since we did not personally know any case. We could not meet on earth a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So it did not conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no exceptions. Over the centuries they knew that the baptism of desire was no exception to the dogma. This was the simple traditional understanding in the Church.
A traditionalist today can have any opinion on Justification, Sanctifying Grace, implicit salvation etc it doesn’t change the reality that all those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.
So whatever religious view or theory one holds, correct or incorrect, it does not change the reality that those saved with the baptism of desire are known only to God.
If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and God sends a preacher to him it is known only to God.
If someone in the forest is saved in invincible ignorance or he has a genuine baptism of desire and God sends someone to baptize him with water, it is known only to God.
This issue was clear for Pope Pius XII when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was sent to the Archbishop of Boston agreeing with Fr. Leonard Feeney on dogma/doctrine and criticizing him for discipline/disobedience.
The ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching Pope Pius XII referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office indicated all non Catholics in Boston need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. All, since, de facto, in reality we do not know any case of the baptism of desire.
The Letter of the Holy Office mentioned the possibility of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire ‘in certain circumstances’ .So in principle Pope Pius XII was accepting the possibility of the baptism of desire. It is something which can be accepted in principle, de jure, but which never can be known de facto. This was known traditionally.
De facto every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. De jure there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire. This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
In e-mail correspondence with sedevacantists, members or supporters of the Society of St. Pius X and supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney I notice they first agree that there is no baptism of desire that we could possibly know. Then soon they go back to their old position inferring there is a baptism of desire that we can know of in the present times, so it contradicts the dogma.
To believe that there is no de facto baptism of desire known to us they fear could be a new theory or theology, something non traditional.
So they go back to assuming that the baptism of desire is real and known to us in the present times, in particular cases. They infer that we can know these cases in actual life. They imply that it must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino, which indicates that everyone must be an explicit formal member of the Church for salvation. Since this would conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction they reject the baptism of desire.
Since they do not make the defacto-dejure distinction they reject the baptism of desire completely.
Yet for centuries, before 1940, there was no known de facto baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.
The Church Councils which gave us the dogma outside the church no salvation obviously knew about the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. The Councils did not consider them exceptions to the dogma since reason tells us that we do not know any explicit case. This has been tradition in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years and it is supported by Vatican Council II.
Non traditional traditionalists criticize Vatican Council II implying it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They infer that we know in the present times cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16), a good conscience, imperfect communion with the Church etc.
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions non Catholics implicitly saved through Jesus and the Church (n.836) it is assumed that we know such cases in the present times.
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are only repeating what was known in Tradition i.e. those saved implicitly (good conscience etc) are known only to God. So it does not contradict the thrice defined dogma.
SSPX members repeat on internet forums that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said non Catholics could be saved. They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney. They criticize the dogma Cantate Domino.
Sedevantists also maintain as a norm that the baptism of desire is defacto knowable to us and so they reject it since it could contradict Cantate Domino.
Supporters of Fr. Leonard Feeney criticize Vatican Council II assuming its reference to invincible ignorance, good conscience etc are a reference to de facto cases knowable on earth. This would contradict Cantate Domino.
All are assuming implicit cases are really explicit for us.
Once they assume that implicit cases are known to us personally they imply
1. The baptism of desire does not exist since it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. The pro and anti baptism of desire controversy begins.
3. They assume Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are contrary to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
4. They create a new, non traditional doctrine and assume it is part of the Deposit of the Faith.
5. To support their view they quote Church Councils, popes and saints not mentioning if the reference is to de facto or de jure baptism of desire.
6. They cannot cite any Council, pope or saint who refers to baptism of desire cases known in the present times.
7. They will cite references to the baptism of desire and assume it is de facto and not de jure i.e. accepted only in principle, as a concept.
The SSPX ‘s position is full of confusion since they also believe all Jews need to convert in the present times.
A Fr. Cedraka is on line who considers it a mortal sin to affirm the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since it does not take into account persons in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. When asked for explanations he does not respond and the traditionalist forum, Fisheaters, of which he is a member will not discuss this subject.Since they also assume that we know who in particular is saved in invincible ignorance etc and so to affirm the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy!
SSPX BISHOPS, PRIESTS REJECT EX CATHEDRA DOGMA OFFICIALY, OFFER MASS: NO CONTRADICTION FROM BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY
It’s all their on their website. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has all these years been siding with those whom they call ‘liberals’. May be it was unintentional. Since the lies continue on the secular media. However an analysis of just the first paragraph, to begin with, shows you how deep the heresy is. It is however something that can be corrected once they are aware of it.Otherwise, informed, it would be a grave sin for them to offer the Tridentine Mass in that condition.
Reports of this problem are all over the internet (blogs, forums) so it’s time for the SSPX to issue a clarification or contradiction on this doctrinal issue; the issue is the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This issue many Catholics believe is the cause of errors spreading in the church.
We must remember that the Orthodox Christians still teach the literal version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Muslims teach exclusive salvation. So do the Orthodox Jews. They have not changed their teaching out of fear or ignorance.
Much of the material on the SSPX website has been posted in the 1960’s, a time of great confusion in the Church. The material is factually incorrect. It needs to be scrapped or updated.
There also cannot be an agreement between the SSPX and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)), Vatican without this issue being settled. Mons. Ignacio Barreiro and Fr. Joseph Kramer FSSP cannot affirm the faith on this issue in Rome and yet they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass with the permission of the Rome Vicariate. This will be the condition of the SSPX priests and bishops unless they clarify this issue with the CDF and make it public.
The fundamental point being made here is that an ex cathedra dogma is
1) infallible and cannot be discarded or have its meaning changed.
2) The ex cathedra dogma cannot be superseded with interpretations of the ordinary magisterium.
I. The ex cathedra dogma says clearly everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions. The SSPX website claims there are.
II. There is no Church Document which states that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The website claims he was.
III. The ex cathedra dogma does not say that those with the Baptism of Desire do not have to convert. Neither does it say that only those who know about the Church need to enter, to avoid Hell. This is an error on the SSPX website.
A clarification needs to say:
1. Everybody with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church explicitly (with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water) to go to Heaven.
2. Those who are in invincible ignorance or with the Baptism of Desire are known only to God and we do not know of any particular case. The Baptism of Desire is always implicit. There can be no de facto, objective Baptism of Desire.
The following is from the website of the SSPX.
FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism.
Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecumenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation.
(Lionel : This is SSPX heresy. The website is saying that the Baptism of Desire is explicit.)
We believe in principle that there is implicit baptism of desire. So how can implicit baptism of desire contradict the infallible teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member(explicit) of the Church? )
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
(Lionel: There is no Church Document which says that he was condemned for heresy. This is the propaganda of the Jewish Left media, Wikipedia etc.He was excommunicated for disobedience.He did not go to Rome to defend himself. He was also disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who never affirmed the dogma or corrected the newspaper errors. )
It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII,
True.
and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc.
(The dogma says one has to be an explicit,visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This has been the teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The dogma does not say that one can be saved with the Baptism of Desire.)
Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life (first published in l952), to see that his doctrine contradicts the Church’s teaching. Let St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian the Church has ever known, be the witness for the prosecution. His Summa Theologica [ST] is the reference book that all seminarians (Fr. Feeney not excepted) had to study according to the directives of St. Pius X and the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
(Fr.Leonard Feeney was also familiar with the teachings of St.Thomas Aquinas and was not a critic.t.Thomas Aquinas taught that everyone needs to be a de facto member of the Catholic Church for salvation and there were no exceptions.
Everyone had implicit faith and was saved they would be known only to God. So implicit faith did not contradict the dogma and the teaching that everyone needed to be a visible member for salvation).
Original Sin, Sacramental Character, and Grace
It seems that the fundamental error of Fr. Feeney is that, according to him, original sin is wiped away ONLY by the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism:
(With reference to the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus original sin is wiped away only with the Baptism of water given to those with Catholic Faith. One has to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church, according to the infallible teaching, to be saved.)
Let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. (Bread of Life, ch.V, p.98)
Fr. Feeney does not deny that sanctifying grace can be obtained by an act of perfect charity, but he says it is not enough to be saved; according to him, just as nobody can become a priest without receiving the character of Holy Orders, so nobody can be saved without receiving the character of Baptism.
(This is what the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus teaches)
Thus, since Baptism of desire and martyrdom do not imprint this character on the soul, they cannot save anyone! The flaw of his reasoning appears when we ask what happens to the souls in the state of grace who die without Baptism. He is at a loss to try to explain it; these souls are not saved, but he is obliged to say that they are not lost either!
Where do these souls go...? I do not know. (Bread of Life, ch.VII, p.137)
( We do not know since this is a reference to implicit salvation which is known only to God.)
Now, the teaching of the Church is that original sin is blotted out by sanctifying grace, which is the only necessary title to be admitted to see God. To understand that, let us ask the help of St. Thomas. He explains: The sacramental character is "a certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the divine worship," a consecration by which the soul is marked so that it may receive the sacraments (baptismal character), or bestow them on others (priestly character), "a certain participation in Christ’s priesthood" (ST, IIIa, Q. 63).
Sanctifying grace is "a participation in the divine nature" (cf. II Pet. 1:4) whereby man is united to God and "adopted as His son to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Rom. 8:17: ‘if sons, heirs also’" (ST, Ia IIae, Q. 110, 111, 114). Thus, with these words of the Angelic Doctor, we can understand why the Council of Trent declares that original sin is washed away, not by the character, but by the grace of Baptism:
If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in Baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted... let him be anathema!
( Fr.Leonard Feeney says the same)
Indeed, it is grace, not the sacramental character, which is the remedy against sin:
Man is sanctified by each of the sacraments, since sanctity means immunity from sin, which is the effect of grace. But in a special way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow on man a certain consecration, thus deputing him to the divine worship. (ST, IIIa, Q. 63)
Here is the crux of the matter, for, although no sacramental character can be conferred without a sacrament, sanctifying grace can be given outside the sacraments:
(For salvation everyone with no exception on earth needs the Sacraments explicitly.If someone is saved implicitly it is known only to God.We do not know a single case of someone in particular being saved without the Sacraments.)
The divine power is not confined to the sacraments. Hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of Christ publicly without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism. (ST, IIIa, Q. 72).
And thus we arrive at the question of Baptism of desire...
"Three Baptisms"?
In his book (ch.VII), Fr. Feeney suggests that Cardinal Gibbons invented the "heresy" of the three kinds of Baptism taught by the Baltimore Catechism. But, long before the "opportunist" Cardinal, St. Thomas spoke of these three kinds of Baptism, explaining:
Baptism of water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost as first cause. Now, although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it.... Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, insofar as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him (i.e., martyrdom). Hence it is written: These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the Blood of the Lamb. (Apoc. 7:14)
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of water, but also without Baptism of blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins. Wherefore this is also called Baptism of repentance....Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism" (ST, IIIa, Q. 66). And St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine (who died in 430) himself relying on the teaching of St. Cyprian (who died in 258).
(There can be three forms of Baptism but for salvation everyone needs explicitly to be baptized with only form, the Baptism of Water. We can accept the other forms in principle (de jure) only.They cannot be administered)
However, Fr. Feeney tries to make us believe that the Fathers of the Church are on his side, and for this purpose he is obliged to interpret the sermon of St. Ambrose (died 397) quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Baptism of desire (cf. Bread of Life, ch.VII, p.123). But Fr. Feeney’s interpretation does not stand the reading of the complete text: But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... But if people are absolved in their own blood, then this man’s piety and desire absolved him. (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).
Clearly, according to St. Ambrose, the desire of Baptism, like martyrdom, replaces Baptism of water. It is also the teaching of the last of the Fathers, St. Bernard (died 1153), who recalls that with God the intention counts as the act when the act is excluded by necessity (cf. De Baptismo, II, 7). Finally, let us mention the case of the Jew who, at the point of death, baptized himself since he lived among Jews and could not get anyone to do it. Pope Innocent III (died 1216) says that this Baptism is not valid and that he should be baptized by another.
(If one is saved with the Baptism of desire it is implicit and unknown to us.To suggest that the Baptism of desire is explicit is irrational.Here the SSPX could be suggesting that implicit of Baptism of Desire is a substitute for explicit Baptism of water.This would be a contradiction of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.)
If however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to the heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament although not because of the sacrament of Faith.
Objections
Against this doctrine of the three kinds of Baptism, Fr. Feeney brings up the words of St. Paul: "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (Eph. 4:5). But this objection has already been answered by St. Thomas:
The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of water, which derives its efficacy both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
In other words, Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are called "Baptisms" only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of the sacrament of Baptism, namely the grace that remits sins.
Fr. Feeney raised another objection, this time from the words of our Blessed Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5). Likewise, St. Thomas had not waited for Fr. Feeney to answer:
As it is written: "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart" (I Kings 16:7). Now, a man who desires to be "born again of water and of the Holy Ghost" by Baptism is regenerated in heart though not in body.... The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation insofar as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire, "which, with God, counts for the deed" (St. Augustine). (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)
Any Kind of Desire?
Fr. Feeney thunders against "the heretical theology that turned Baptism of water into any dry desire one might have in the general direction of heaven" (cf. Bread of Life, ch. VII, p.117). But we do not claim that "any dry desire" is sufficient, not even a firm resolution to be baptized. St. Thomas explains:
More precisely, in the letter condemning the teaching of Fr. Feeney, the Holy Office declares:man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68)
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him!" (Heb. 11:6). (August 8, 1949, to the Archbishop of Boston)
(True a person can be saved with an implicit Baptism of desire, we know this subjectively,intellectually,in principle, de jure, as a concept, as an opinion . Also as an opinion we do not know if anyone in particular has received the Baptism of Desire. So everyone needs explicit,de facto, able to be administered, visable, tangible and familiar Baptism of water for salvation. This is the infallible teaching too.)
(Secondly no where in the Letter is it said that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for discipline according to the Letter.So the word 'condemned' on the website needs to be clarified by the SSPX).
He that loves Me shall be loved of My Father and I will love him... and We will come to him and will make Our abode with him (Jn. 14:21-23), Many sins are forgiven her (Mary Magdalen) because she has loved much. (Lk. 7:47)
These last words of our Lord to the repentant sinner are echoed by the teaching of the Council of Trent: contrition perfected by charity reconciles man to God.3
Now, Fr. Feeney rightly points out that it is not at all easy to make a perfect act of charity and to remain in the state of grace without the help of the sacraments:
How a man knows he has made a perfect act of love of God, I do not know!... Without the sacraments, we cannot determine for certain what is the value of our private acts. It is by way of discouraging this sanctificational self-sufficiency, that the inspired writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes was led to say: "man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred" (Eccl. 9:1).... Actually, no one who has not been baptized can stay in the state of Christian justification very long, because he does not have the sacramental helps to keep justification alive.... If we who are Catholics have a hard enough job to keep in the state of sanctifying grace, with all the prayers and sacramental helps we have, good God!, how is anyone without them going to stay in the state of a perfect act of love of God? (cf. Bread of Life, ch. VII, p.125,121).
But, by saying that it is practically impossible, Fr. Feeney goes too far and wrongs God’s power (which is not limited to His sacraments), God’s mercy (which desires the salvation of all men, [I Tim. 2:4]), and God’s justice (no one is condemned if not guilty through his own fault).
(God’s power is not limited to the Sacraments true.However everyone on earth without exception needs the Baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation and we do not know any exception; any person who needs the Baptism of Desire and has received it.)
Conclusion
Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
(True, in principle we accept it. Conceptually there can be such a person. In reality everyone needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to avoid Hell(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II, CCC etc)
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!" With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,
(We agree that implicit desire can saved a person, we agree in principle, conceptually only. We know that in reality only the Baptism of Water and Catholic Faith is the de facto explicit and ordinary means of salvation. This is taught by the ex cathedra teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus.)
and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).
(Neither does Fr.Leonard Feeney or the Society of St.Pius X state that a person can be saved in any religion)
FR.PETER SCOTT DENIES DOGMA
Fr.Peter Scott a Superior of the Society of St.Pius X refers to ‘the possibility of the baptism of desire’and claims that Fr.Leonard Feeney and his community denied it according to a report on the SSPX website.
Yet St.Benedict Center, USA, Fr.Leonard Feeney's community accept it in principle (dejure).Here it is from their website.
Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:
In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia , by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956)
So they (SBC) do not deny the Baptism of Desire in principle or as a possibility as Fr.Peter Scott claims.
The baptism of desire etc is accepted in principle, as a concept. De facto there is no earthly way that anyone of us can know of any case.
Fr.Peter Scott's article is available on the website of the SSPX.The Society of St.Pius X still denies that one has to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and that there are no exceptions.
The baptism of desire etc is accepted in principle, as a concept. De facto there is no earthly way that anyone of us can know of any case.
Fr.Peter Scott's article is available on the website of the SSPX.The Society of St.Pius X still denies that one has to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation and that there are no exceptions.
The website article Fr.Feeney and Catholic Doctrine indicates the SSPX is in heresy. The website is saying that the Baptism of Desire is explicit.
In principle there is the baptism of desire which is implicit for us. So how can implicit baptism of desire contradict the infallible teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member(explicit) of the Church?
Fr.Scott considers the baptism of desire as explicit and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the position of the SSPX over the years.
So the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. That they can be saved is only a possibility, it is not de facto.If it was de facto then it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to explicitly be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. There are no exceptions.
FR. FRANCOIS LAISNEY
There is a book Is Feeneyism Catholic written by Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX and sold by the Society of St.Pius X publishers Angelus Press. It is advertised on the internet.
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was in closed-door negotiations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican to ascertain Catholic doctrine. Yet the SSPX itself could be in heresy according to its website and reports by SSPX priests including Fr.Laisney.
The Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX) bishops are praised for saying everyone (vaguely) needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation but the SSPX still uses the mantra ‘ except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’. So questions remain.
1.I s the SSPX saying that the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus states that everyone explicitly, de facto needs to be a member of the Catholic Church- but those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire are explicit, de facto cases and so do not need to enter the church for salvation?
2. Is the SSPX saying that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to implicit or explicit salvation?
3. Is there an explicit baptism of desire in the present times ?
4. When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the Fr. Peter C.Phan case said entry into the Church is necessary for salvation ‘except for those in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire’ is it considered heresy for the SSPX?
5. In the Boston Case Archbishop Richard Cushing and the Jesuits considered the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as explicit, knowable, and judgable and an exception to the infallible teaching. Should not the Boston Case be reviewed?
Would the SSPX agree if I said that everyone needs to be an explicit member (with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith) of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire, will be known only to God?
There have been appeals to the Vatican to reopen the Boston Case. Since, Fr. Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire. He was correct there is no explicit baptism of desire. The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by the popes, Councils and saints said the same.
De jure in principle there is a Baptism of Desire understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the present Saint Benedict Center. It includes the desire for the Baptism of water. However this is accepted in principle. It is understood as implicit, a grace of God and only known to God.
De facto there is no baptism of desire that we can know of.So the Richard Cushing doctrine (explicit baptism of desire) is not part of the Catholic deposit of faith.
The secular media claim that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called. He was also disobedient to the Archbishop who never affirmed the dogma in public nor corrected the secular newspapers which stated that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If the SSPX does not interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to de jure, implicit salvation, then it is the Kung Deception. If they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to something defacto-personally-knowable then it is heresy.
If they do not see the Baptism of Desire as implicit then they would contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The dogma refers to explicit entry into the Catholic Church, through the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, which is explicit and objectively verifiable.
It would be rational to say everybody(all non Catholics) with no exception need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire known only to God and He only will judge them.
The Baptism of Desire is always implicit. It is hypothetical, subjective and de jure.So how can the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everybody needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to be saved? And if it did not contradict the dogma it would mean every Jew, Muslim or Buddhist is on the way to Hell.The infallible teaching says everyone explicitly needs the baptism of water to avoid Hell. It says everyone needs Catholic Faith, which is objective, it has to be learnt and one’s knowledge can be tested explicitly.
So the mantra is a deception when it suggests the baptism of water and invincible ignorance are explicit and can be judged in specific persons. It is not an exception to the dogma.
One cannot say that everyone needs explicit faith for salvation, with no exceptions, according to the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and at the same time say, that people can be saved explicitly through the baptism of desire.
However one can say that everyone needs explicit faith according to the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and at the same time say that people can be saved implicitly, in principle, as a theory, a concept, through the baptism of desire.
So Fr. Leonard Feeney said what popes, Councils and saints over the centuries repeated that everybody needs to explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
The dogma above does not say that only those who know can be saved or those who are in invincible ignorance do not have to enter the Church.
So the Letter of the Holy Office was endorsing the infallible teaching as it is and so was Fr.Leonard Feeney.
It is said that Fr. Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire and so was a heretic. He was saying that there is no baptism of desire that one can know of explicitly. Explicit baptism of desire is the Richard Cushing heresy. It is contrary to the principle of non contradiction.
If the SSPC does not clarify its position on this issue then they are using the errors of those whom they call 'liberals'. It was Fr.Hans Kung who interpreted Lumen Gentium 16 as referring not to explicit but implicit salvation. This teaching is available in his books that can be read in the libraries of Catholic universities and seminaries in Rome.He used this false premise to say that LG 16, Vatican Council II also contradicted the dogma of the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.This is the Kung Deception that needs to be exposed.
The Kung Deception has its basis in the 1940's when the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at that time gave us the Cushing Doctrine. It indicates that the Baptism of Desire is explicit(like the baptism of water) and so contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Cushing Doctrine suggests that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong in saying everyone needed to enter the Catholic Church for salvationa and there were no exceptions like the Baptism of Desire(explicit).
HOW IS THE SSPX IN HERESY? : FORUM ASKS.
How the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in heresy is is a question asked of me on an SSPX website forum and the issue is NOT the Novus Ordo Mass nor that the SSPX priests and bishops have not got canonical status in the Catholic Church and offer Mass.
The issue is:
1. Rejecting in writing and public (SSPX website) an ex cathedra dogma
2. Libel and calumny against a Catholic priest, which also a grave sin is according the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
3. Coperating with dissidents and heretics in misinforming Catholics
The report Fr.Feeney and Catholic Doctrine on the Society of St. Pius X seminary website has the approval of the SSPX bishops.
I. The ex cathedra dogma says clearly everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions. The SSPX website claims there are.
II. There is no Church Document which states that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The website claims he was.
III. The ex cathedra dogma does not say that those with the Baptism of Desire do not have to convert. Neither does it say that only those who know about the Church need to enter, to avoid Hell. This is SSPX heresy.
The dogma says one has to be an explicit, visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. This has been the teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney and this is being criticized by the SSPX. This is blatant heresy.
To reject an ex cathedra dogma or to change its meaning is ‘grave matter’. The SSPX has been informed and they are continuing with the sin in public. This is manifest public mortal sin. There 400 priests offer the Tridentine Rite Mass in this serious condition.
Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the above dogma so how could he be in heresy? This is slander and a scandal which is also grave matter for a mortal sin.
It is the secular which has been repeatedly been saying that no more does one have to become a visible member of the Catholic Church. The SPPX repeats the error of those whom they call ‘liberals’.
The secular media and the SSPX say Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for saying that everyone with no exception needs to be a member of the Catholic Church. The dogma says that and so how could he be excommunicated for heresy. One has to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church, according to the infallible teaching above, to be saved from Hell.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX and Bishop Richard Williamson have been saying all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation but the SSPX has also been using the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire’. So they are vague on this subject. It is 'yes' and 'but', its Yes and No.
The dogma above shows that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not in heresy. Instead it is Archbishop Richard Cushing who has given the SSPX a new doctrine. He was tacitly saying implicit baptism of desire was as explicit as the baptism of water. This is heretical since it contradicts the infallible teaching.
It is said that Fr. Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire and so was a heretic. He was saying that there is no baptism of desire that one can know of explicitly. Explicit baptism of desire is the Richard Cushing heresy. It is contrary to the principle of non contradiction.
There is no de facto Baptism of Desire on earth presently that the SSPX know of.The SSPX cannot say that there were five cases of the Baptism of Desire last month in Rome. The Baptism of Desire is only a general concept which we accept in principle. So how can the SSPX heretically suggest that it contradicts the infallible teaching that everyone needs to explicitly (with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water) be a member of the Church to avoid Hell.
The misinformation is being promoted publicly by the SSPX for scores of years. There is no correction.
St. Alphonsus Ligouri states that if you know a priest or bishop who is in mortal sin do not go to receive the Sacraments from him unless it was an emergency and you had no other choice i.e. if you needed to fulfil your Sunday obligation and there was no other church where you could go for Mass (Teologia Moralis Bk.3, 47). St. Alphonsus, Father of Moral Theology says it would be a sin against religion and charity to go to him for the Sacraments. Since if you know that the priest is in mortal sin you need to tell him about it and avoid going to him for the Sacraments. Otherwise your message would be, ‘all is well’, and even though you know that he is oriented to Hell. This is not charity.
On this issue it is possible that an SSPX priest could be misinformed by the secular media about the Leonard Feeney Boston Case and so could be innocently ignorant.
However it is clear that the SSPX is
1. Rejecting in writing and public (SSPX website) an ex cathedra dogma with 2. Libel and calumny against a Catholic priest, which also is a grave sin according the Catechism of the Catholic Church and 3.Cooperating with dissidents and heretics in misinforming Catholics.
Lionel Andrades
Catholic layman
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/
YouTube: http://it.youtube.com/LionelAndrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment