Friday, June 27, 2014

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre the founder of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  first assumed  that a person could be saved in another religion 1  and this was an explicit exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the first mistake.He never criticized Pope Pius XII for assuming that the baptism of desire was visible and then inferring that it contradicted  Fr.Leonard Feeney's ' rigorist interpretation'.So there was an exception to the dogma for him. He  never complained.
He did complain however when Nostra Aetate 2 mentioned  being saved with ' a ray of the Truth'.Again he mistook ' a ray of the Truth' as being an explicit exception  to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition. This was his second mistake.
Basically, the mistake was to infer that all salvation in Heaven was visible to us on earth , known in personal cases and that these persons saved and visible were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Did he know that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 itself has made a factual mistake? Probably not. Since he criticized Vatican Council II ( with the visible -dead saved inference)  and was wrong to reject the traditional Vatican Council II ( without the inference). Perhaps he did not notice it and neither did the magisterium.
The Holy Office wrote off  a defined dogma  and the Archbishop accepted it !!
How can the baptism of desire, a hypothetical  case be a known exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
The Archbishop unfortunately  did not realize this.For him the magisterium could not make a mistake.However the magisteium did make a mistake for him with Vatican Council II.He was correct the magisterium was wrong but so was he.The magisterium and Archbishop Lefebvre were interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.
We now have found the link as to what makes the Council traditional or non traditional.
Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that an irrational premise  was used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 The irrationality had come ( and was accepted) from the Boston Case in the 1940's where it as the Archbishop of Boston who really was in heresy.He suggested  there were known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions.
The same error was made by Archbishop Lefebvre. His  first error was
 to assume that implicit desire and being saved with the baptism of
desire were explicit for us, visible in the flesh, objectively seen.His
second mistake  was to assume that NA 2, UR 3, LG 16, LG 8, AG11 etc refer to visible to us cases.
How can salvation in Heaven be visible, in general to human beings? Also where is the Church document before 1949  which makes this claim?
Catholic priests in Rome know there is no such claim made by magisterial documents before 1949. They are aware of what I am saying here. Yet they do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.They also do not want to endorse Vatican Council II in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.

On pro-SSPX(CathInfo., Archbishop Lefebvre forum etc2 forums they do not want to discuss this issue.Neither do the SSPX priests want to say that Archbishop Lefebvre  made a mistake  and so did the Holy Office in 1949.
Lay Catholics associated with the SSPX will meet next week at the Roman Forum Conference in Italy. They will ignore the two mistakes.They will continue to interpret Vatican Council II  with the false inference.In this way they do not affirm the truth and neither extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They are politically correct traditionalists.They have the same position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the liberals.
Pope Francis wants the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate  to accept Vatican Council II( with the inference). Since he does not know that  Vatican Council II( without the inference) is traditional.
He should be able to grant the SSPX canonical status unilaterally.It is he and the Vatican Curia who must first accept Vatican Council II ( without the inference).He is making the same mistake as Archbishop  Marcel Lefebvre and the traditionalists.
-Lionel Andrades


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. ("Against the Heresies",p.216) (emphasis added)

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake:SSPX, Vatican in same leaky boat


Leonard Feeney SJ did not invent the heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. It was alredy known to be a heresy propagated long before Feeney began to profess this heresy.


The denial of BOD was aleady known to be a heresy well before Fr. Feeney fell for this old heresy. In my reply to a Feeneyite along with its links to informative articles, you will find all you need in order to understand that BOD & BOB are defined doctrines of the universal & ordinary magisterium that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

Dear Feeneyite,

I have examined your entire exposition attempting to critique my position on Baptism of Desire. It is riddled with fallacious assumptions; such as your false attribution to me of an error on the point of necessity of precept vs. necessity of means. Another gross error you make is to equate the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which pertains to the universal magisterium of the Church, with mere opinions that the Church has tolerated but never has taught or approved.

Before the doctrine of BOD would have been explicitly and universally set forth by the ordinary magisterium, it would have been permissible to hold a contrary opinion; but that is now and for many centuries no longer the case. BOD as well as BOB (explicitly professed in the Roman Martyrology) have been definitively set forth by the universal & ordinary magisterium, and are therefore infallible and must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It has become universally defined by the magisterium in no small part, first; because it had been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval Doctors, secondly; because the application of the dogma of Trent to this point by St. Alphonsus has been formally approved by Gregory XVI and by Pius IX, and has been explicitly taught by Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X in their ordinary magisterium. Furthermore, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribed as a universal statute that deceased Catechumens are to be given a Catholic burial and "are to be counted among the bapitzed" (can. 1239). St. Pius X teaches that those who have been sanctified by baptism of desire are in the Church not as incorporated members, but in so far as they belong to "the soul of the Church". The basis for this teaching of St. Pius X is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine who succinctly explains in what manner such catechumens are to be considered to belong to the soul of the Church. This distinction was already taught by St. Augustine.

Leonard Feeney SJ was not the originator of this heresy. The eminent late Nineteenth Century early 20th Century theologian, Francisco Marin-Sola OP, mentions that there have already been some heretics teaching this doctrine: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water."

The precise quotations from magisterial sources are presented in the two articles indicated below which more than sufficiently demonstrate beyond all shadow of doubt that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are infallible definitions of the Church which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, under penalty of heresy and eternal damnation.

Fr. Paul Kramer

No comments: