Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says:
"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
Lionel: These cases are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So why mention these 'exceptions'? Is he implying that a person who follows his conscience and is saved (LG 16) is known to us and so is an exception to the dogma?
2
SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216
“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.
It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”
Lionel: So what if they are saved in their religion ? We do not personally know who they are. Is he implying that we do know these cases and so they are exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
Now on the U.S website of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) there is an article by Fr.Francois Laisney in which he criticizes the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, and he also implies, that these cases saved are known to us and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX bishops have also made the same error and so they imply that seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church, invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc mentioned in Vatican Council II are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's traditional teaching on other religions.
So the fault is not with the Council but with the false premise used by the SSPX religious and this influences their theology.
-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________
According to Archbishop Gerhard Muller Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a heretic for interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS A MODERNIST FOR INTERPRETING VATICAN CONCIL II WITH THE EXPLICIT,VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know the reason why Vatican Council II was modernist. It was there before him but he could not see it.
NO SSPX RESPONSE TO TWO QUESTIONS ON RORATE CAELI
CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE
BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA SO IF FR.LEONAED FEENEY SAID ‘THIS OR THAT’, AS THEY SAY, IT IS IRRELEVANT
Vatican Council II agrees with Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
CONFERENCE NEEDED
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
Is the Catholic Church ecclesiocentric SSPX? It cannot be ecclesiocentric if those saved with the baptism of desire are explicitly known and not just accepted in principle.
POPE BENEDICT AND BISHOP GERHARD MULLER WORKED CLOSELY AT THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
ITC documents 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized ' need to be retracted or corrected: Richard Cushing flaw runs through
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Bishop Charles Morerod O.P Oath of Fidelity: to dissent
Profession of Faith allows for dissent on ecclesiology and baptism
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment