Archbishop Lefebvre's book Against the Heresies is heretical?

 

The SSPX's Angelus Press is publishing another book with a factual error. Against the Heresies contains statements by Archbishop Lefebvre which indicate he assumed that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Unaware of the Cushingite mistake, he then interpreted Nostra Aetate 2 as referring to explicit cases, which are an exception to all needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

The Angelus Press has also published Is Feenyism Catholic by Francois Laisney with the same error. It is inferred that the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Why is it relevant? As usual they were following the lead given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.He thought that these cases were visible in the flesh.So they had to be exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Fr.Francois Laisney cites Tradition in which the baptism of desire is mentioned.Yet none of the sources he quotes states that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Fr.Laisney who infers that these cases are explicit in the present times.

Recently in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Suprior General of the Society of St. Pius X assumed that Nostra Aetate etc were exceptions to the traditional teaching.He was following the error of Archbishop Lefebvre on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

 

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)1

Lionel:

Sure they can be saved (hypothetically,in theory) and these cases would not be known to us (defacto, in real life). Is the founder of the SSPX implying that these cases are relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Yes he is. He is assuming that they are defacto and objective and not hypothetical and invisible for us. Other quotations indicate the same.

He was confused over the Boston Case too.He did not know that it was Cardinal Cushing who was in heresy for assuming there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

Archbishop Marcel Lefevbvre did not know the exact cause of the irrationality and heresy of Vatican Council II (Cushingism version).He did not know that the Council was non traditional because of the irrational inference he made in the interpretation.

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 (2)

Lionel:

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.

They have over the years denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by assuming that there were explicit exceptions.

The SSPX (District USA/Canada) which is publishing this book will not comment on this error even though they have been informed so many times over a few years.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake. It was a factual error which led to a doctrinal and theological error.It is the same error as the liberals includng those of of the Vatican Curia with whom the SSPX held doctrinal talks.They were  unaware of this factual error ( being able to see the dead-saved ) in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.- Lionel Andrades

1.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-book-against-heresies-4179

2
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/

SSPX defers announcement

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/sspx-defers-announcement.html

Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-bernard-tisseur-de-mallerais.html#links

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/archbishop-lefebvre-michael-davis-made.html#links

SSPX PRIESTS CONTRADICT THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Fr.Francois%20Laisney