Wednesday, February 19, 2014

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, MICHAEL DAVIS MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE: TRADITIONALISTS ARE STILL REELING

Major change in understanding of Vatican Council II.
 
There is a grand silence in the traditionalists camp. The liberals too are hoping this is a bad dream- something which will pass away.
 
It's something Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked. He simply thought that those saved with the baptism of desire were relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.He overlooked the obvious.
 
Generations of Catholics over some 70 years have made the same mistake.Even the great apologists overlooked it.
Here is the great Archbishop Lefebvre not noticing the obvious. It's a red mark for a Philosophy student.
 
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe... 
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1)

 So what if they are saved in their religion? Is this relevant to the dogma on salvation. Is this an exception ?

 
Yes it is for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests!
 
They have assumed that implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us and so is an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation. It is a fact of life that we cannot see any baptism of desire case in 2014. Objectively we cannot see the dead.
 
This error was then extended to Vatican Council II. The same error was also made by the liberals.It is based on this error that Cardinal Kaspar says that Vatican Council II is ambigous.
 
The same error was made by Michael Treharne Davies (13 March 1936 – 25 September 2004). He was a British teacher, and traditionalist Catholic writer of many books about the Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council. From 1992 to 2004 he was the President of the international Traditionalist Catholic organisation Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce and was responsible for the unification of Una Voce America.
 
Davies was a Baptist who converted to Catholicism while still a student in the 1950s.Initially he was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council. He later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and declined to retract that support after Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II,which some said "sanitised" Lefebvre. (2)
 
Michael Davis assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
 
He held the same position as the SSPX i.e invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
 
He came to this conclusion  through his interpretation of Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston ?
 
He never ever supported the traditional position of Fr.Leonard Feeney who  said all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known, explicit exceptions in the present times?
 
He never ever said that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and never explicit?
 
For him the baptism of desire, as it is for  the SSPX priests, was always explicit?
 
Since he assumed that what is invisible is visible, like the SSPX bishops, he assumed that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit for us and so a break with the dogma on exclusive salvation and Tradition in general?

The error is there on the SSPX website.(3) Remember we can accept implicit baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire. So we are still affirming the baptism of desire as a possibility.We are not denying the baptism of desire.The SSPX website is affirming explicit for us baptism of desire and assuming that these cases are visible exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney. Invisible baptism of desire can be affirmed along with the need for all to be visible members of the Catholic Church. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).There is no contradiction once the distinction is made between what is visible and invisible for us.
-Lionel Andrades
  
2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Davies_(Catholic_writer)


3.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/may_01_district_superiors_letter.htm
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

No comments: