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.
We will pray that, to enable him to successfully fulfil his mission as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, His Excellency will correct his doctrine on that most important point of Faith.-Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX
Fr.Francois Laisney:
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.
Lionel:
Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX believe that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Here we have Archbishop Di Noia also saying that the Church has always affirmed the possibility of salvation of non Catholics.In other words these possibilities are visible exceptions. So why is Fr.Laisney complaining ? They are both saying the same thing.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
Pope Pius IX explicitly says it is a Dogma, and it has been taught as such – unanimously – from the very beginning.
Lionel:
The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. It does not mention the baptism of desire etc.So why does Fr.Francois Laisney and Archbishop Lefebvre assume that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This contradicts the dogma.It also contradicts the General Chapter Statement of the SSPX (2012) which says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
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],
Lionel:
Which is a heretical book criticized so often.
The Church no where teaches that the baptism of desire and blood are explicit for us and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This has been wrongly inferred by Fr.Francois Laisney and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
but the Church does not teach that those souls who are saved by these “baptisms” are saved “outside the Church” – on the contrary!
Lionel:
If they are saved outside or inside the Church you would not know. These cases are hypothetical for us and known only to God.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
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).
Lionel:
Yes if they are saved. However the Church does not state(except in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949) that these cases are personally known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Fr.Francois has written a book 'Is Feeneyism Catholic? (Angelus Press,SSPX).The book is pure Cushingism. The irrationality runs through the book.It contradicts the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
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.
Lionel:
It was bad theologians like Fr.Francois Laisney who taught there was salvation outside the Church and so has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and supported the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
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.
Lionel:
Archbishop Di Noia cannot judge who will be saved without Catholic Faith (AG 7).He does not know of any case outside the Church who is saved this year or the last year. So all still need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.
Fr.Francois Laisney:
We will pray that, to enable him to successfully fulfil his mission as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, His Excellency will correct his doctrine on that most important point of Faith.-Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX
Lionel:
It is false doctrine to assume that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions. They are not.
Fr.Francois Laisney and the Remant Editor use Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II similar to Archbishop Augustine di Noia.Cushingism makes the Council irrational, non traditional and heretical.
-Lionel Andrades
On Archbishop DiNoia, Vatican II, and the SSPX
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1015-laisney-di-noia.html 
Posts
