All these books of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre confuse what is invisible as being visible.

 

All these books of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre confuse what is invisible as being visible. It is the same with the books written by Pope Benedict on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology etc.

The error is based upon the heresy of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston related to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It says that it is not necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. 

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

So it contradicts the Fourth Lateran Council II (1215)  which says everyone needs to be a membe of the Catholic Church for salvation. No exceptions are mentioned. 

But this 1949 Letter which Archbishop Lefebvre accepted suggests that there are visible and known non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and in invincible ignorance(I.I).So these theoretical cases are projected as being visible and known. They are inferred to be exceptions for the 12the century dogma on EENS.

So the defide teaching of the Church is contradicted and that too by mixing up what is invisible as being visible. With an irrationality a dogma is rejected and this is accepted by Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre.

 There cases are not exceptions for us human beings. Theoretical cases cannot be objective exceptions for the Council in 1215 and the dogma EENS at the time of Pope Honorius III and St. Dominic Guzman.

When Lumen Gentium 14 ( BOD) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( I.I) are seen as only hypothetical cases then Vatican Council II no more contradicts 12 the century EENS. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

This was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Paul VI and the cardinals today who have written books on Vatican Council II, like Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Semeraro, Archbishop Bruno Forte etc.

The books used at the pontifical universities on ecclesiology, Vatican Council II etc are now obsolete. New books have to be written in which Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally and supporting Tradition.

The book, ‘Is Feeneyism Catholic?’ by Fr. Francois Laisney, an SSPX priest, and published by the Angelus Press of the SSPX, is based upon the confusion in the 1949 LOHO. 

The SSPX needs to pull back that book and also update their website on ‘Feeneyism’.

Also the entries on ‘Feeneyism’, ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’, ‘Vatican Council II’, ‘Fr. Leonard Feeney’ etc. on Wikipedia need to be updated.

The CDF not only made a mistake in the 1949 LOHO but also in its communication with Brother Andre Marie micm. Archbishops Augustine di Noia and Archbishop Giacomo Morandi’s letters can be read on the website of the Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA. They confused CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) as being exceptions for Feneeyite EENS.I have mentioned this over the last few years and there is no comment or correction from anyone in the SSPX . - Lionel Andrades

APRIL 4, 2023

There is no comment or denial from the SSPX Albano Lazio headquarters, over the last eight years or more. This is a political issue. Albano is interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally to please the Jewish Left. This has been the policy of Bishop Bernard Fellay

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/04/there-is-no-comment-or-denial-from-sspx.html