A reader of this blog has read the Three Errors of Fr.Feeney article on the SSPX website. He does not see evidence of Fr. Francois Laisney of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) making exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here is the link of Fr.Feeney and Catholic Doctrine from the SSPX website.http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
Fr. Francois Laisney says :
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Nowhere does the Letter state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was 'condemned' or that he was excommunicated for heresy. This is the propaganda of the liberal secular media.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that every non Catholic in Boston and the rest of the world needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. The dogma does not mention exceptions and it is an infallible teaching.Fr.Francois Laisney implies that there are exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was in errors.
Fr.Laisney is contradicting the dogma, the Church Councils, the Church Fathers, the saints, the popes and ‘the saintly Pope Pius XII’. They all held the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma. The Letter of the Holy Office referred to the dogma so Pope Pius XII held the same interpretation of the dogma as Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Fr. Francois Laisney is also contradicting Vatican Council II which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.(LG 14, AG 7).
He would be implying that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma. Since for him, invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma.
For invincible ignorance to be an exception to the dogma it would have to be explicit i.e these cases would have to be be visible and known. So it means that LG 16 refers to explicitly known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance.
The text of LG 16 however does not make this claim.Those saved in invincible ignorance are always implicit for us and so are not an exception to the dogma.There are no exceptions to the dogma in Vatican Council II or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The dogma says that every one needs to convert into the Church. They convert into the Church we know through the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith. So every one on earth needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and there are no known exceptions. The ordinary way of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. The ordinary means of salvation is not invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
To say that everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation would be an error for Fr.Francois Laisney.
ERROR I: Misrepresentation of the Dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation"
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
Also there are factual errors. On the website of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community on Manchester, USA is a definition of the baptism of desire. So they have not rejected implicit baptism of desire as he claims. They definitely do not accept an explicitly known baptism of desire. In this sense there is no baptism of desire (which contradicts the dogma).
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/frleonard-feeneys-communities-have.html#links
It is heresy on the part of Fr. Francois Laisney to say that the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has exceptions..-Lionel AndradesSo Fr. Francois Laisney is also causing confusion on ecumenism. He would be implying that the Christians who participated at the inter faith meeting in Assisi last month could possibly be saved with the baptism of desire. This is a rejection of the dogma and Vatican Council II.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/society-of-stpius-x-causing-confusion.html
The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/society-of-stpius-x-causing-confusion.html
The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.
Posts
6 comments:
Lionel,
Can you please just direct me to the exact quotation where Fr. Laisney says that baptism of desire and/or invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma?
Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX's denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
I have been asked where exactly does Fr.Francois Laisney say that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Here is my answer.
Fr. Francois Laisney writes:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
He is implying here that there is salvation in the present times for someone without the baptism of water.
Note: I use the words ‘in the present time’. It refers to the present reality, the de facto situation i.e when I meet a non Catholic on the street or telephone him.
De facto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation this is the teaching of the dogma. So he denies the dogma here.
His denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
Implicitly, and known only to God we know that for salvation there could be possible theoretical exceptions to every one needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, before they die.
In principle, de jure we accept that a non Catholic can be saved in the way God chooses and this would be an exception. Theoretically there can be ‘exceptions’ de facto there are no exceptions to the dogma. So those who are saved de jure are not exceptions to the dogma.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/frfrancois-laisney-of-society-of-stpius.html#links
CONTINUED
Fr. Francois Laisney says :
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Nowhere does the Letter state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was 'condemned' or that he was excommunicated for heresy. This is the propaganda of the liberal secular media.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that every non Catholic in Boston and the rest of the world needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. The dogma does not mention exceptions and it is an infallible teaching.Fr.Francois Laisney implies that there are exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel,
Honestly, I have a hard time following your argument. And I am well versed in the dogma compared to other Catholics. In my humble opinion, you should put together a treatise starting from the basics and defining terms and then proceed to make your argument about the meaning of the dogma.
I did not read in any of Msgr. Clifford Fenton's book or articles what you are trying to explicate. Perhaps you can point me to that as well.
The issue is the explicitly known ‘exceptions’. Both you and Fr. Laisney assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible, real and so they are exceptions to the dogma.
When I asked you if Vatican Council II any where mentioned an exception to the dogma you cited an example where you IMPLIED it was a teaching of Vatican Council II. It was not there in the text.
Similarly Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Laisney affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and at the same time IMPLY there are exceptions (de facto) of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Then they assume Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong for saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.
He knew that there was no implicit or ‘explicitly known’ baptism of desire which could contradict the dogma.
Similarly no where does Mons. Fenton allege that the baptism of desire etc is explicitly known and so contradicts the dogma.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
FR.FRANCOIS LAISNEY AND FR.PETER SCOTT OF THE SSPX IMPLY THAT THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 REFERS TO VISIBLE AND KNOWN BAPTISM OF DESIRE: NO MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENT MAKES THIS CLAIM
Fr. Francois Laisney and Fr. Peter Scott imply that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to visible and known baptism of desire since only when it is known and visible can it contradict the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
SSPX priests imply those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are explicitly known. Then they assume it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII only refers to those saved with the baptism of desire. One has to assume that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text does not say that it contradicts the dogma.
So when Fr. Francois Laisney and Fr. Peter Scott of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma they have to imply that the baptism of desire is visible and known and so would be an exception to the dogma.
Similarly when someone says Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma it must be assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible and known to us and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text of Vatican Council does not say that it contradicts the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment