FR.LEONARD FEENEY'S COMMUNITIES HAVE PROVIDED A DEFINITION OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE SO IN PRINCIPLE THEY ACCEPT A BAPTISM OF DESIRE

SSPX priests continue liberal propaganda.

The Society of St. Pius X priests Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney say they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus however they reject it when they say there are exceptions (baptism of desire etc). To reject a defined dogma with exceptions is heresy.

Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community has provided a definition of the baptism of desire so in principle they accept a baptism of desire. This has been pointed out to the SSPX’s Holy Cross Seminary Australia in June 27, 2010

The SSPX priests charge that the baptism of desire is denied and so they continue their liberal propaganda on the SSPX website.

Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney will offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. While on the internet they say that Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities reject the baptism of desire. Here is the definition of the baptism of desire on the website of the St. Benedict Center(Catholicism.org). So they have not rejected the baptism of desire.

So they accept implicit baptism of desire which is known only to God.

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 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) 

They affirm the dogma and also do not consider baptism of desire an exception while the SSPX priests affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and consider the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as exceptions to the dogma.

To say there are known exceptions to the dogmatic teaching is heresy.

The definition they have provided of the baptism of desire shows they have not denied it. They believe that a person can in an exceptional circumstance receive the baptism of desire,with the right conditions,and this will be followed with the baptism of water. They would agree that these cases are implicit and known only to God and so they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So how can they be considered exceptions by the SSPX?

Why do the SSPX priests say that the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney have rejected the baptism of desire when on their website they provide a definition of implicit baptism of desire?

The community of Fr. Leonard Feeney affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirms an implicit baptism of desire which is not an exception to the dogma. This is not heresy.

When members of Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities say ‘there is no baptism of desire’ they know there is no baptism of desire which can be an exception to the dogma .Since the baptism of desire is always implicit. It would have to be explicit to be an exception to the dogma.

Since the SSPX priests imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma they must assume that it is explicit and known to us. Those Catholics who attend Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney’s Mass in Australia could ask the two priests for a public clarification.

Fr. Peter Scott writes:

Many erudite works (I recommend Father Rulleau’s book, Baptism of Desire and Father Laisney’s new book, Is Feeneyism Catholic? published by Angelus Press, which will be available by the end of May) list texts from the Fathers and theologians, who are unanimous in their teaching about the possibility of baptism of blood and desire.

 http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/may_01_district_superiors_letter.htm

Fr. Peter Scott continues:

The Feeneyite error is consequently a very grave one, for in denying the very possibility of baptism of blood and baptism of desire…

Fr. Peter Scott then refers to ‘Father Feeney’s condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949, and excommunication in 1952.’ The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 nowhere mentions that he was condemned. He was excommunicated for disobedience. Most important the Letter of the Holy Office referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma supports Fr. Leonard Feeney. It indicates all non Catholics need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc). It does not mention any exceptions.It does not refer to the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.

1.The SSPX website says the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney reject the baptism of desire when in reality they provide a definition of the baptism of desire.

2.The SSPX implies that the baptisms of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma. This is heresy. It is also irrational. There cannot be an explicitly known baptism of desire.

3.The SSPX indicate that the Church Fathers mention the baptism of desire etc and this is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no such text. One has to imply and assume wrongly that the Church Fathers considered it an exception.The Church Fathers have never said that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. SSPX assumes it is.

The Church Fathers in principle, de jure accepted the possibility of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in certain circumstances. However this was not the ordinary means of salvation for them. It  was the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De facto,in reality, since we cannot know any such cases they are not an exception to everyone on earth with no exception needing to enter the Church. We cannot phone or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorane. So the Church Fathers were not referring to de facto cases of non Catholics being saved with the baptism of desire.

4.The SSPX says Fr. Leonard Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office when the Holy Office nowhere uses the word ‘condemned’.

5,The SSPX implies that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy when Pope Pius XII supported him when the Holy Office referred to the dogma.

Those who offer the Tridentine Rite need to publicly issue a clarification regarding these five points.

-Lionel Andrades

Photo of SSPX seminarians.