|The three errors of the Feeneyites|
Fr. Francois Laisney
Someone in Germany who calls himself Sanctus Bonifatius has posted on Gloria TV the article The three errors of the Feeneyites by Fr.Francois Laisney.1 He assumes invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS). So when I mention this as a comment Sanctus Bonifatus removes the comment.Why? He simply keeps removing comments and any discussion on this. Traditionalists cannot acknowledge that the SSPX made a factual and objective error? They cannot be wrong on doctrine?
I have mentioned in recent posts on my blog that Ralph Martin and Robert Fastiggi, professors of theology, at the Sacred Heary Major Seminary, Detroit agree that invisible people saved in invincible ignorance cannot be visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. This is common sense.This is how adults generally reason out.
Similarly John Martignoni, the American apologist, says zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So Fr. Francois Laisney made an objective mistake on the SSPX website!
Fr.Joseph Pfieffer, who has broken away from the main SSPX group, also mixed up invisible and visible cases, like Fr. Laisney.I have sent him numerous e-mails pointing out his mistake but he does not respond.He cannot say that this is what the pope teaches and so we have to follow.He rejects the teachings of the pope on Vatican Council II, which he too, interprets with invisible baptism of desire being visible.
Even the' Feeneyites' ,traditionalists at the St. Benedict Centers, make the same mistake as the SSPX on Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16 is an explicit exception to Feeneyite EENS for them.
On the SSPX website they have presented theology based on hypothetical cases not being hypothetical.Their philosophy is hypothetical cases are objective. They have mixed up possibilities as being objective and concrete cases saved outside the Church.Pope who do not exist in our reality are assumed to exist.
If in a box of oranges there is an apple , the apple is an exception not only because it is different but also because it is there in the box.If it was not there in the box it would not be an exception.There are no cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, for example in 2017. So how can they be relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS? It is time for the SSPX to correct their website error.-Lionel Andrades