Monday, November 5, 2012

Father Leonard Feeney 's community celebrates the Year of the Faith:model for SSPX


They have been granted full canonical status. They accept the 'rigorist' interpretaton' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with Vatican Council II.

Father Leonard Feeney's community in the Catholic diocese of Worcester,USA , in full communion with the Church, must be studied by the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).They affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as does the SSPX in their last Chapter statement (July 19,2012).

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are traditionalists who it was assumed affirmed Vatican Council II (without the false premise) and with the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

(Update:08.11.2012. It is not clear if they recognize  the false premise of being able to see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc.So even though they affirm the dogma as did Fr.Leonard Feeney they could assume that the exceptions are known and explicit and so contradict the dogma. So for them the baptism of desire would contradict the dogma.

The SSPX priests(Fr.Laisney,Fr.Pfieffer of SSPX-SO) also affirm the literal interpetation of the dogma and known baptism of desire etc. This is irrational and a contradiction.

For the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the SSPX the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the word could refer to explcit, known cases in 2012)

Implicit desire is not a known exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

(Update: It is not sure if it is known to them even though they say there are no exceptions. They do not qualify if the exceptions are known exceptions or only accepted in principle.

Like the sedevantists Most Holy Family Monastery,USA the baptism of desire could be considered as known to us in the present times and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the error of Cardinal Richard Cushing).

Men and women religious , they offer the Latin Mass like the SSPX, and know that Vatican Council II ( LG 16,LG 8, AG 11,NA etc) do not contradict the dogma or the Church's traditional teaching on other religions.

(Update: No clarification has been issued so their position is unclear since I wrote this post.The exceptions are visible to them (they have not denied it).  LG 16 would contradict AG 7 and also the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation. They would be in the same error as Fr.Laisney of the SSPX).

They hold the same position on other religions as does the SSPX. Yet they are in the Church will full canonical status.

All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and this does not contradict the dogmatic teaching, which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) for me, agrees with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Jesus is the only Saviour in only the Catholic Church.

Vatican Council II is a traditional Council affirming the dogma and the Syllabus of Errors.So Vatican Council II is not an issue for me as it is for the SSPX .

Without the visible dead saved premise Vatican Council II agrees with Tradition.

If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said ( and it does not say so clearly) that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, then it made an objective mistake. Since it is a fact that we cannot see the dead on earth.So they cannot be considered explicit exceptions to the dogma and Father Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation.

The passage in the latter part of the Letter could be critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for disobedience, to the Archbishop, and not for heresy.

The earlier part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentions 'the dogma'. The text of the dogma does not cite any exceptions,known or unknown.Since implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to anything.

The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing did not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, he assumed, that there were known exceptions to the dogma.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may not have known that the baptism of desire is not an exception to  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since then the SSPX assumes that the Council (with the false premise) can only be modernist.-Lionel Andrades