Often on the internet priests and lay members of the Society of St. Pius X state that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said a non Catholic can be saved (1). Then they assume that this is an exception to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney. It is assumed that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong in saying everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church with no exceptions.It is also assumed that he was excommunicated for heresy.
Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX are among some of the SSPX priests who have repeated this misinformation. How can those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
This is the question brought to everyone’s attention by Daphne McLeod, Chairman, Pro Pontefice et Ecclesia, U.K.
Fr. Peter Scott has been expecting a reply from Bishop Boland (2). He wrote to Bishop Raymond Boland, the bishop of Kansas City in 2001 about Dominus Iesus in relation to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Bishop Boland cited magisterial documents which all affirmed the dogma as interpreted by the Church Councils, popes, saints, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus, Pope Pius XII’s Letter of the Holy Office and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Now Fr.Scott has been informed of this issue .These blog posts have been sent to him via the SSPX and also through a blog on which he answers questions. A clarification is needed from him and the SSPX.
The SSPX has been asked to clarify its doctrinal position on: can those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma?
He is asked to announce in public the doctrinal position of the SSPX with regard to this issue: are those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
The SSPX clarification could provide a reason for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican also to publically remove confusion on this simple issue before the SSPX is granted an Ordinate.
-Lionel Andrades
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
1.
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]
2
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011
KANSAS CITY DIOCESE AFFIRMS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH FATHERS,POPES, SAINTS AND FR.LEONARD FEENEY
SSPX ASSUMES ABP.LEFEBVRE REFERRED TO DE FACTO KNOWABLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE: CONFUSION STILL WIDESPREAD IN THEIR SEMINARIES
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE CALLED "TO PREACH" THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF "EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS"
Posts
10 comments:
I doubt very much that Fr. Peter Scott has said that those who are in invincible ignorance and are nonetheless saved is an exception to the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I think you should be more concerned about what Vatican II teaches that God can use other religions as means of salvation, which is obviously a blasphemy.
If you say that invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is a rejection of the dogmatic teaching that there are no exceptions.
I am concerned that it is being ignored that Vatican Council II indicates that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Instead it is often implied that other religions are means of salvation and even the ordinary means of salvation.
"If you say that invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is a rejection of the dogmatic teaching that there are no exceptions."
I never said that. Invincible ignorance or baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. It is included in the dogma.
Vatican II is at least ambiguous when it teaches that the Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation.
"If you say that invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is a rejection of the dogmatic teaching that there are no exceptions."
I never said that. Invincible ignorance or baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. It is included in the dogma.
Lionel: So we agree that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma ?
Vatican II is at least ambiguous when it teaches that the Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation.
Lionel: Vatican Council II is clear in the text that all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (LG 14, AG 7).
It is a repitition of the dogma.
Could you cite some text from Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma ?
"So we agree that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma?"
Yes. We agree. However, you have publicly accused Fr. Scott of saying that invincible ignorance and baptism of desire ARE exceptions to the dogma. Please prove it.
"Vatican Council II is clear in the text that all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water."
Good. However, if Vatican II teaches that these are the ordinary means of salvation, then this is ambiguous because one can claim that another religion and baptism of water is sufficient for salvation as extraordinary means.
"Could you cite some text from Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma?"
"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (other supposed Christian religions) as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
(Unitatis Redintegratio, Paragraph 3)
Lionel: "So we agree that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma?"
Br.Anthony: Yes. We agree.
Br.Anthony : However, you have publicly accused Fr. Scott of saying that invincible ignorance and baptism of desire ARE exceptions to the dogma. Please prove it.
Lionel: There was a statement on the internet a few years back quoting Fr.Peter Scott. I placed a video clip on Youtube citing the text saying it was heresy. Then on Traditonal Catholic forums I also mentioned it. Either Fr.Peter Scott or someone else in the SSPX responsible for that webpage have pulled it down.
However the same message is still on the SSPX website quoting Fr.Francois Laisney.
They are saying that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.
i think a clarification from Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Laisney is still due.
"Vatican Council II is clear in the text that all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water."
Br.Anthony : Good. However, if Vatican II teaches that these are the ordinary means of salvation, then this is ambiguous because one can claim that another religion and baptism of water is sufficient for salvation as extraordinary means.
Lionel: ‘One can claim that another religion and the baptism of water is sufficient for salvation as extra ordinary means.’
This is a personal view. Since the dogma, Vatican Council II (LG 14;AG 7), Dominus Iesus 20 etc tell us that the baptism of water and Catholic Faith is the ordinary means of salvation.
If there is any case of a non Catholic saved through the ‘extraordinary means’ it would be known to God only. It would not contradict the traditional teaching of the Church.
"Could you cite some text from Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma?"
Br.Anthony: "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (other supposed Christian religions) as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
(Unitatis Redintegratio, Paragraph 3)
Lionel: So how does it contradict the dogma?
1) Please point me to the webpage and your clip.
2) I am not clear on your second point in regards to the extraordinary means, but let us leave it at that for now.
3) Is it not obvious how the statment in UR contradicts the dogma??? It states that God positively uses the false religions to save souls of those inside these religions. The implication is that God has had to conform His Will to ours by going outside His Church to save souls. The dogma, thus, is reduced to a meaningless formula. This is a blasphemy and heresy.
1) Please point me to the webpage and your clip.
The SSPX has removed that web page and I have removed my video clip.
However the webpage with Fr.Francois Laisney saying the same thing is still there on the internet.
2) I am not clear on your second point in regards to the extraordinary means, but let us leave it at that for now.
Lionel :The ordinary means of salvation according to Vatican Council II is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
The extraordinary means includes those saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) etc.
LG 16 etc cannot be the ordinary means of salvation for then it would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It would contradict LG 14, AG 7. It would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3) Is it not obvious how the statment in UR contradicts the dogma???
Lionel: No. Not for me.
Bro.Anthony : It states that God positively uses the false religions to save souls of those inside these religions.
Lionel: Yes this is a possibility. It is not the ordinary means of salvation.
Bro.Anthony : The implication..
Lionel: Implication ? So we agree that you are now implying.
You are now going to imply.
Fine.
Bro.Anthony : is that God has had to conform His Will to ours by going outside His Church to save souls.
Lionel: You imply this. The actual text does not say this.
We agree however that God can go outside his Church. We accept this as a possibility. We accept this in principle (de jure).
We do not know any specific case in the present times. There is no defacto (in reality) case known. Since we will not meet this non Catholic saved in this way it does not contradict the dogma.It means there is no exception (to the dogma) on earth that we know of. It means every non Catholic I meet needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
CCC 846 says all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.
CCC 846 also says all need to enter the Church as through a door. Ad Gentes 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
So if someone outside the visible Church is saved it is only 'in certain cirsumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949). It is not the ordinary way. The ordinary way to go to Heaven and avoid Hell is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Bro.Anthony: The dogma, thus, is reduced to a meaningless formula.
Lionel: The dogma says the ordinary way is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water i.e every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
You do not know any exception on earth.
The teaching comes to us from Jesus (John 3:5,Mk 16;16 etc).It was taught by the Apostles and the Church Fathers.
Bro.Anthony :This is a blasphemy and heresy.
Lionel: The dogma is in agreement with Vatican Council II and other magisterial texts.
It has been defined three times. So to reject it is heresy.
It is rejected when the claim is made that every one does not have to enter the Church for salvation since we IMPLY there are those saved with the baptism of desire etc and these exceptional cases are explicitly known to us in the present times.
Lionel,
You are contradicting yourself. In one breath you say that there is no salvation outside the Church and in the very next breath you say that God can use false religions to save souls outside the Church.
I think you have an improper understanding of the meaning of the dogma. Please send me your e-mail address and I will send you articles from the eminent American theologian Monsignor Clifford Fenton who wrote much on this subject.
You can reach me at:
tlarosa@rogers.com
Bro.Anthony:You are contradicting yourself.
Lionel: I would be contradicting myself if I said every one on earth needs to de facto enter the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions however there can be defacto cases of non Catholics known to us who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
This would obviously be a contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction. In other words how can I say every one with no exception needs to enter the Church but some people whom I know do not have to enter the Church?
Instead I am saying the dogma says every one de facto needs to convert into the Church for salvation and there can be hypothetical cases; possible cases known only to God who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
This would not be a contradiction of the Principle of Non Contradiction. De facto every one needs to enter the Church and de jure, in principle we accept the possibility in ‘certain circumstances’ of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Though we do not know of a single particular case in the present times.
Bro.Augustine :In one breath you say that there is no salvation outside the Church and in the very next breath you say that God can use false religions to save souls outside the Church.
Lionel :There is no salvation outside the Church and every one needs to enter the Church through Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and if there is someone in the present times saved in their religion it would be known only to God.
The non Catholic saved in his religion would not be saved by his religion but would be saved through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.
Bro.Anthony :
I think you have an improper understanding of the meaning of the dogma. Please send me your e-mail address and I will send you articles from the eminent American theologian Monsignor Clifford Fenton who wrote much on this subject.
You can reach me at:tlarosa@rogers.com
Lionel: I have read Mons. Fenton and I appreciate his firm, solid teaching on this subject.
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Post a Comment