Fr.Leonard Feeney like Catholic priests in Rome say there is no baptism of desire that we can know of and that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
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.
The Society of St.Pius X claims that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is heresy.It is a rejection of an ex cathedra dogma.In principle as a possibility a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire and this would be known only to God. So it does not contradict the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
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] (Emphasis added)
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]
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.
SSPX supporters using their 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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 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 ?
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 ?
4.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
-Lionel Andrades
‘…until the Second Vatican Council, the Church studiously avoided using the word “faith” when referring to other religions. She used the term “heresy” and not “faith”. This is more exact, because a heresy is a faith in error, it is a false faith, a faith that is no longer supernatural. Therefore it is no longer a virtue infused by God, it has been broken,Towards Assisi III (22nd October 2011) : Bishop Fellay’s conference at the Courier de Rome Congress, Paris, January 9th 2011 (excerpts)-DICI
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment