Thursday, November 15, 2012

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.

CATHOLIC DIGNITY

FANTASY THEOLOGY : PILTDOWN MAN THEOLOGY AT THE CDF

Theology Fiction or Fantasy theology was the description on Rorate Caeili of the conference on Teilhard di Chardin at the Gregorian University,Rome in which cardinals, bishops and priests participated approvingly.It was called fantasy theology since there was finally no scientific proof for Teilhard's theology. The Piltdown Man, the 'scientific finding' which proved at that time, the link between the ape and man in evolution, was found to be a fake. Even until today, we do not know if the ape devolved from man in a deviant species.There is no proof yet.


However this has not stopped the Catholic magisterium today from approving a theology based on fantasy; the absence of a recognised proof or common reason. This is Piltdown theology the same as that coming officially from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Secretary of the CDF Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J in two of the International Theological Commission papers says the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney for his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and his denial of the baptism of desire etc. Since there can be cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire and these cases are known to him , the dogma is refuted.Piltdown once again.

He does not know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire but he assumes that it is a defacto, real exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Based on this error he has created fantasy theology like the 'theology of religions' and the 'ecclesiology of communion'.Welcome to fiction-land in the Vatican!
 
Recently Archbishop Gerhard Muller , Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus in an interview with the National Catholic Register, said there were exceptions.His theology noted the 'exceptions' of those saved in invincible ignorance. The Prefect of the CDF is saying that there are actual, known cases on earth saved with invincible ignorance. This is fantasy. We do not know any such case. Based on this fiction he alleges that there are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation and so every one on earth does not have to convert into the Catholic Church.Shades of Teilhard!

Then Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , Vice President, Ecclesia Dei, CDF when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus  in the interview with the National Catholic Register, said there were exceptions. Those who are saved with grace are exceptions to the dogma for him. He knows cases on earth, in some new finding, who are saved with grace and so who did not have to convert into the Catholic Church as the dogma taught. This is Piltdown theology. Fake theology with no substantial basis. The stuff of fantasy.

So the CDF assumes that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. This is assumed based on their fantasy theology.-Lionel Andrades