Wednesday, June 11, 2014

If the 'magisterium' of 1949 inferred Catholics could see the dead it was an objective error


Catholic Truth, Scotland.
A Warning Folks…
Please note that Lionel Andrades has a bee in his bonnet about the SSPX and baptism of desire. He is supporting Feeneyism, despite its condemnation by the Holy Office in 1949.
Lionel :
Feeneyism's condemnation by the Holy Office ?
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, this is condemned? The thrice defined dogma says all need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell, is this condemned too ?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation cites Ad Gentes 7. This is condemned too.Dominus Iesus 20 of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also stand condemned with the same message ?
And is the Holy Office saying there are visible exceptions to Feeneyism and these exceptions are known to all of us in 2014? This irrationality is not condemned?
When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre infers that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, because the Holy Office says so, then this has to be accepted even though no Church document or pope earlier,has made this claim ?. Archbishop Lefebvre could see the deceased who were exceptions to this de fide teaching of the Church Councils and expressed by saints ?.
So we have to accept that those saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2,Vatican Council II) are visible to us in 2014, since Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Holy Office infer that we can see these cases in real life?
Catholic Truth, Scotland.
He does not understand either the teaching of the Church about baptism of desire nor the meaning of the Catholic Dogma “Outside of the Church, there is no salvation”. He is no theologian to say the least. So I would not pay any attention to his flights of fancy.
Here are a few links about the errors of Feeneyism on the SSPX US District Website that you may find interesting:
Lionel:
In the above link Fr.Francois Laisney cites the saints who mention the baptism of desire.He then gos on to assume that the baptism of desire is visible in the flesh for us.Once he infers that they are visible physically he infers that they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the Church no salvation. None of the saints whom he has quoted has stated that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.None of them have said  that we can see these people now in Heaven as also being on earth.


Fr.Francois Laisney says: with comments
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc.,...
(True and where do they state that the baptism of desire is visible to us in daily life ?. The baptism of water is visible.It can also be repeated.Where do these saints state that the baptism of desire is an exception to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And where in the text of the thrice defined dogma, is there mention of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance ? No where.)
and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
Lionel:
The Catholic communities, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary accept the baptism of desire. However for them it leads to justification and it must be followed by the baptism of water.So this should be clarified by the SSPX website.
I(Lionel) accept the baptism of desire as being implicit for us and explicit only for God.It is invisible for me, and also for all SSPX members.So it is not relevant to the teaching which says all need to be visible members of the Church. All need to convert into the Church in 2014 and we do not know of a single exception; we do not know of a  single case of the baptism of desire.
So I accept the baptism of desire as being implicit for us. I reject an explict for us baptism of desire.
Fr.Francois Laisney assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit for us ( and so an exception to the dogma), this is irrational and heretical.
 
Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney... to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation.
 Lionel:
The issue is : is the baptism of desire an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Can we see any such exception, do we know of any one who will be saved or is saved this year without 'faith and baptism'? This is important for me.The SSPX and the communities or Fr.Leonard Feeney have to deal with this issue. Since even if the baptism of desire results in justification only or justification and salvation, it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.So the debate above is meaningless.
However, it is entirely unacceptable for a Catholic to willingly and knowingly deny the Church’s explicit teaching on the question of baptism of blood and desire. For it is not because these questions are not formally defined that they are optional extras that a person can take or leave.
Lionel:
I make the distinction between explicit for us baptism of desire and implicit for us baptism of desire.I do not deny the baptism of desire (implicit) while I reject an explicit visible for us baptism of desire.This is not theology. I am referring to a physical phenomenon.I am reasoning intellectually, philosophically and not as theology.Once you decide intellectually if the baptism of desire case can be seen on earth with the naked eye, then you build your theology, traditional or heretical.
Fr.Peter Scott, the former District Superior of the SSPX(USA) here assumes that the baptism of desire is physically explicit for us. So for him the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is irrational. How can we see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire.How can it be visible to us on earth? This is the eror of Archbiship Lefebvre.
There are three baptisms ( or more) in principle, hypothetically, but in reality, defacto there can only be one baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire cannot be administered or seen.
 
 
Lionel:
Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer in this link,  also like Fr.Francois Laisney, assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us , it is objective, it is not hypothetical.
If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also assumed all this, then he made a factual mistake. Objectively, we cannot see the dead.He assumed the dead were visible on earth.
No Church document prior to 1949 makes this fantastic claim and then builds an irrational theology upon it.
 
If the 'magisterium' of 1949 infered that we Catholics can see the dead then this was an objective error. The dead man walking theory is not rational.
Also when Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops continued to make this mistake they were not corrected by any of the popes or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The 'magisterium' made a mistake here.
I respect the Magisterium and follow it, however this would be an objective error independent of theology or doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: