From the official website of the SSPX
The three errors of the
Feeneyites
Fr. Francois Laisney
Originally printed in the September 1998 issue of The
Angelus magazine, this article is a follow-up to Fr. Joseph Pfieffer’s article in The Angelus of March 1998. It seems that some of the followers of Fr. Feeney took objection to his convincing dissertation proving the Catholic teaching concerning "baptism of desire." In fairness, the purpose of this article by Fr. Laisney is to clarify the three principle errors of the followers of Fr. Feeney which explain why they refuse the common teaching of Catholic theologians concerning "baptism of desire."
Lionel: According to Fr. Francois Laisney
subjectivism is a known exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The 'baptism of desire' is a practical exception to EENS. There are known exceptions to the general rule on salvation. A similar error is being made in Amoris Laetitia.  |
Error I:
Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside
the Church There Is No Salvation"
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev.
Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma,"Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
Lionel:
In practical terms all need the
baptism of water for salvation. This was the dogmatic teachings for centuries.I cannot meet 'an exception' on the streets of Rome.
_____________________________________
St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to
use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches,
with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water."
Lionel: O.K! But it is subjective!
It cannot be a practical exception to EENS.
This is similar to the subjectivism
used in Amoris Laetitia. 
Fr.Matthias Gaudron SSPX,
Germany says what is subjective cannot be known.There are no known exceptions to traditional moral theology.For Francis Laisney, the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma EENS, since it refers to objective cases.So for Fr. Laisney there are known exceptions to traditional salvation theology.
___________________________
In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches
that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
Lionel:
O.K but the baptism of desire
is still hypothetical, theoretical, accepted in principle only, invisible for us and not practically known.So how is it related to EENS ? Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the U.S apologist John Martignoni, who has a program on EWTN.
___________________________________
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church
there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"?
Lionel:
He means the Church has
always assumed that the baptism of desire refers to known cases, practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.This is false.Since the Church Councils which defined EENS do not mention a baptism of desire.An explicit baptism of desire was brought into the Church with the Baltimore Catechism (1891).
___________________________________
Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new
meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
Lionel:
They were saying there
is no known baptism of desire.The same thing was said by Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits who were saying there is known salvation outside the Church.
_________________________:_______
This traditional interpretation of this dogma,
including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists).
Lionel:
FALSE!
They referred to 'the desire
thereof'(Council of Trent) but did not consider it explicit and known like the baptism of water.
St. Thomas Aquinas for example,
does not say that these cases are personally known, or can be personally known.
No one in the past could have
known someone saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire.This was not physically possible.
The SSPX is confusing what
is invisible as being visible, what can only be implicit as being explicit.  This is the reasoning of Cardinal Schonborn with reference to N.301 etc in Amoris Laetitia.
_____________________________________
St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs
to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church
there is no salvation,"was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value
against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.
Lionel:
Fr.Laisney is still mixing up
what is invisible as being visible and is reading the saints with this irrationality. He is saying there are known exceptions to EENS.
_______________________________________
Error II:
The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional
The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of
desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.
Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire,
by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.
Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine
of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."
Lionel:
O.K there is the baptism of
water, desire and blood.Why should the baptism of desire and blood exclude the baptism of water ? Why should it also be a visible baptism instead of an invisible baptism ? Since the baptism of desire and blood, for Fr.Laisney contradicts the Feeneyite understanding of the dogma, it implies these cases are visible and known for him and so they are exceptions to EENS.How can they be visible can known?!
For me they are not exceptions
to EENS so I imply that they are not visible and personally known.
______________________________________________________
We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet
defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precisionwithin the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth...
Lionel: For me the baptism of
desire is also invisible and so I can affirm it as a hypothetical case. So I can accept hypothetical baptism of desire alongwith the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. It is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
This is not possible for Fr.
Laisney since the baptism of desire is explicit . If he is asked if the baptism of desire is de fide because it is explicit or implicit, visible or invisible, hypothetical or defacto known, he will not answer.How can he simply say that this teaching is de fide without clarifying the distinction? -Lionel Andrades
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment