The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise it is an impediment for saying the Latin Mass. It is the actual rejection of a dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’. SSPX must recognize that it is an impediment for offering Holy Mass according to Canon Law.
Similar to the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), former SSPX members, are rejecting the dogma and Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. For the FSSP all in the present time need to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
I do not know if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican will consider the SSPX and FSSP error an impediment to offering Mass since the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Susanna in Rome reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They claim Vatican Council II has changed this teaching and they provide a theology of religions on their website. They offer Mass in English, ordain their priests and the Vatican gives them canonical status.There are no demands made on them by the Vatican as is the case for the SSPX.
Fr. Peter Scott writes on the SSPX website that unlike the modernists they believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Yes- as compared to the Paulist Fathers in Rome. However there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass who say they respect the dogma however those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Sounds familiar?
Fr. Peter Scott criticizes the modernist ecclesiology in a letter to Bishop Raymond Boland, of the diocese of Kansas City, USA. Yet the SSPX is using the same ecclesiology as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass. If the SSPX priests assume that the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then they also imply that the baptism of desire is visible for us and is as explicit as the baptism of water.I do not like to write all this since in many ways I admire the SSPX but it is unfortunate that they are using the same ecclesiology as in the Novus Ordo Mass.
Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX assume in written reports on their website, and in a book by Fr. Laisney, that the baptism of desire is visible and explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX needs to issue a clarification on this subject-Lionel Andrades
Photo from the website of the Society of St.Pius X, District of Australia.
Posts
2 comments:
1) Those who die with Baptism of Desire are "within" the Church. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the dogma.
2) The SSPX does not teach that we know explicitly those who have Baptism of Desire. Someone who has been sanctified without water baptism is still obliged to receive the sacrament of baptism and will do so if they love God and want to do His Will.
3) The SSPX does not teach that those who die with Baptism of Desire are exceptions to the dogma.
4) You say that the SSPX "imply" that Baptism of Desire is visible. That is incorrect. You accused me earlier of implying what Vatican II teaches and yet you are doing the same thing. You are reading too much into this. I have been attending SSPX Masses for the last six years and never have I heard any priest or even faithful say that Baptism of Desire is visible or that it is an exception to the dogma.
5)The Angelus Press, which is owned by the American District of the SSPX, published a book by Monsignor Clifford Fenton called "The Catholic Church and Salvation", which clearly shows the true position regarding this dogma and the SSPX's adherence to it.
6) Given all of the above, please stop spreading these falsehoods about the SSPX and publicly apologize.
1) Those who die with Baptism of Desire are "within" the Church. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the dogma.
Lionel: Those who die with the baptism of desire can be saved and they are known to God only.We do not know any particular case so it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither does it contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney when he taught that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church to avoid Hell. This was also the teaching of the popes, Church Councils and saints.
The contradiction emerges when we assume those who die with the baptism of desire in the present times do not have to enter the Church. If we make this assumption then it means that we are also assuming that these cases are visible and known to us in the present time and hence they contradict the dogma.Implicit cases do not contradict the dogma.
2) The SSPX does not teach that we know explicitly those who have Baptism of Desire.
Their website indicates those who die with the baptism of desire are an exception to the dogma, i.e they do not have to enter the Church.This would mean that we know these explicit cases.
If the baptism of desire was implicit for them it would not contradict the dogma.
Bro.Anthony: Someone who has been sanctified without water baptism is still obliged to receive the sacrament of baptism and will do so if they love God and want to do His Will.
Lionel: True.
The issue is do we know any case of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire if we do not then it would not contradict the dogma.
3) The SSPX does not teach that those who die with Baptism of Desire are exceptions to the dogma.
I have cited examples from their website.
Would they agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities that every one with no exception needs to be a member of the Catholic Church, i.e with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, for salvation?
Would they agree with Fr.Leonard Feeney that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
4) You say that the SSPX "imply" that Baptism of Desire is visible.
Lionel: If you say it is an exception to the dogma then you imply that it is visible.
Bro.Anthony: That is incorrect. You accused me earlier of implying what Vatican II teaches and yet you are doing the same thing.
Lionel: There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma.You suggested there was such a text.
When I asked you for an example you cited a text and said the IMPLICATION was….I called your attention to this. That you were going to imply. The text does not say what you were going to assume it does.
Bro.Anthony : You are reading too much into this. I have been attending SSPX Masses for the last six years and never have I heard any priest or even faithful say that Baptism of Desire is visible or that it is an exception to the dogma.
Lionel: Their website makes this charge with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
5)The Angelus Press, which is owned by the American District of the SSPX, published a book by Monsignor Clifford Fenton called "The Catholic Church and Salvation", which clearly shows the true position regarding this dogma and the SSPX's adherence to it.
Lionel: The SSPX adheres to the dogma but with exceptions. They criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney for saying there are exceptions.
6) Given all of the above, please stop spreading these falsehoods about the SSPX and publicly apologize.
Lionel: Could you ask the SSPX to clarify their position with reference to the statements of their website regarding Fr. Leonard Feeney ?
Post a Comment