The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus and says there are no exceptions. The SSPX priests Fr.Francois Laisney and others say there are exceptions and that this is the teaching of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The SSPX is maintaining two positions which are a contradiction.
The General Chapter Statement says there are no exceptions while Archbishop Lefebvre considers the baptism of desire an exception.
Bishop Bernard Fellay considers Nostra Aetate an exception.
They are implying that the Letter of the Holy Office infers that we can see the dead in Heaven who are are visible on earth and they are exceptions. They all infer that the Letter of the Holy Office was teaching irrationality. It was also heresy. It rejected the defined dogma on exclusive salvation.
Catholic Truth,Scotland
Lionel is in error.
Lionel:
Lionel is not denying the baptism of desire. Just like you and the SSPX bishops and priests, he affirms the baptism of desire.
He only clarifies that the baptism of desire which you and the SSPX priests and the liberals refer to, is not visible for us. It is visible only to God. We can only accept it as being hypothetical. There is no other choice.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist in our reality.It must be explicit. None of the readers here can name a person saved with the baptism of desire this year or last year.
Lionel:
Lionel is not denying the baptism of desire. Just like you and the SSPX bishops and priests, he affirms the baptism of desire.
He only clarifies that the baptism of desire which you and the SSPX priests and the liberals refer to, is not visible for us. It is visible only to God. We can only accept it as being hypothetical. There is no other choice.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist in our reality.It must be explicit. None of the readers here can name a person saved with the baptism of desire this year or last year.
Lionel:You are not on my mailing list.I sent you the few posts recently since they were related to the SSPX in Great Britain and Archbishop Lefebvre. You had no specific comment.I was waiting for you or a priest of the SSPX in Great Britain ( whom you could consult) to show me where I was wrong.No one has done so.
Catholic Truth,Scotland
Our policy is not to moderate posts unless there is a breach of our in-house rules, so I am releasing this with a warning that he is in theological error.
Lionel:
No one in the SSPX (USA or Europe) has showed me where is my theological mistake. I have been writing on this same subject for long.
Lionel:
No one in the SSPX (USA or Europe) has showed me where is my theological mistake. I have been writing on this same subject for long.
Catholic Truth,Scotland
He is not a theologian – that is obvious – and he does not understand the teaching of the Church on baptism of desire.
Lionel:
The SSPX position on the baptism of desire is the same as the liberal theologians and dissenters who are otherwise criticized on this blog.
Lionel:
The SSPX position on the baptism of desire is the same as the liberal theologians and dissenters who are otherwise criticized on this blog.
Catholic Truth,Scotland
Unless you feel that you can correct him further – I just don’t have the time – then I suggest you ignore his comments. Given his error,
Lionel:
'Given his error'- what is it precisely?. Tell it to me and I will correct.
I am saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the position of the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.It is also the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, traditionalists, who affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Lionel:
'Given his error'- what is it precisely?. Tell it to me and I will correct.
I am saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the position of the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.It is also the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, traditionalists, who affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Fr.Francis Laisney, Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer (SSPX -Resistance) say there are exceptions and the General Chapter Statement says there are no exceptions.I too say there are no exceptions.
Is the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 regarding Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Could you ask an SSPX priest in Scotland to respond here?...-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment