Archbishop DiNoia has “tried to argue that all the SSPX has to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition- Fr.Francois Laisney,SSPX

Archbishop DiNoia has “tried to argue (…) that all they [the SSPX] have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition”; writes Fr.Francois Laisney in The Remnant.(1)

Yes, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could announce that they accept the interpretation of Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

Has  Fr.Francois Laisney reconciled himself with the teachings of Fr.Leonard Feeney whom he has been criticizing.He has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney  for rejecting the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? (2)

This issue is at the centre of why the SSPX has been unable to interpret Vatican Council II according to the dogma and the Syllabus.

Is Fr.Francois Laisney is finally saying that every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and that we do not know any case in the present times saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance?. Then it means that Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8 etc) does not contradict the dogma. The Council is Traditional, 'there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition'.

Over the years Fr.Francois  Laisney has been assuming that the baptism of desire etc is not just accepted in principle but that it is a known exception, it is known explicitly for it to be an exception to the dogma. So he has been criticizing the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Also Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX on a web page has made the same error as Fr.Laisney. He has assumed there are known exceptions to the dogma. So they have been unable to interpret Vatican Council II according to Tradition and considered the Council as modernist when the fault lay with the SSPX interpretation.

Fr.Laisney writes:

It will be Archbishop DiNoia’s job to ... precisely showing that we have never been outside the Catholic Church, we have never been “a sect”, we have never broken off from the Church, we have never not been “in full communion”. 

The SSPX has interpreted Vatican Council II according to the liberals and the left and this is a break from Tradition. Their use of the liberal interpretation of the Council with the visible dead premise; being able to see cases saved with the baptism of desire etc who are exceptions to the dogma, is a clear break with tradition.

They have had the choice of accepting Vatican Council II according to Tradition but have used the false analyses of extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr. Francois Laisney and others, who have  assumed that the baptism of desire etc is relevant to the dogma. They accepted the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits.

The SSPX can correct that error now. They can announce that they accept Vatican Council II in accord with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Then the onus is on Ecclesia Dei.The Vatican cannot claim that the SSPX is in heresy.

The apologist John Martigioni has said, 'Zero cases of something are not exceptions'. The SSPX could acknowledge this.Fr.Francois Laisney must acknowledge this too.

-Lionel Andrades

1

On Archbishop DiNoia, Vatican II, and the SSPX

Father François Laisney, SSPX POSTED: 10/8/12
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1015-laisney-di-noia.htm

2.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Now Archbishop DiNoia continues – no longer rightly – and says “the Church has always affirmed [the possibility of salvation of non-Christians], and it has never denied it.” This is not only false, but even explicitly opposed to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Pius IX explicitly says it is a Dogma, and it has been taught as such – unanimously – from the very beginning. What he may be confused about is that the Church – in the proper explanation of that dogma – teaches Baptism of Blood and Baptism of desire [read my little book about it published by the Angelus Press], but the Church does not teach that those souls who are saved by these “baptisms” are saved “outside the Church” – on the contrary!

The Church explicitly affirms that these souls are part of the Church; this is often expressed as being part of the “soul” of the Church (See St Pius X’s catechism). It was bad theologians from the 1930s that started to say that these were saved “outside” the Church, completely forgetting that the Church teaches the necessity of the Catholic Faith and charity in order to have Baptism of Blood or Baptism of desire. Sorry, your Excellency, it is not possible to be a Saint without the Catholic Faith; it is not possible to be formally Lutheran or Anglican and be a Saint. “He that does not believe shall be condemned”, said Our Lord Himself, and He certainly would not settle for a false faith. It is therefore the true Faith that He requires. So if someone who looks to be a Lutheran outside is saved, it is because he is a Catholic inside; it is in spite of the Lutheran church, not by it that he is saved.