Sunday, November 2, 2014

Modernism in the SSPX

  • Berto Slomovicci October 31, 2014 

    A Catholic Thinker,
    if there is no modernism in the SSPX, why are they purposefully using an incorrect translation of the Council of Trent on Baptism?
    Why do they show such a ferocious hate for “Feeneyism” as if it was such a peril to the Faith in our times?
    Can you care to show us exactly where has “the Church” taught universally that muslim, jews, atheists,satanists, voodoists, hindus, AND NOT CATECHUMENS ONLY, not only theoretically *could* but *are* saved “probably very rarely” with B.O.D.?
    • Lionel 

      Berto.
      Thank you!!
      if there is no modernism in the SSPX, why are they purposefully using an incorrect translation of the Council of Trent on Baptism?

      Lionel: Yes! Why?
      Why do they show such a ferocious hate for “Feeneyism” as if it was such a peril to the Faith in our times?
      Lionel:
      Agreed!
      Can you care to show us exactly where has “the Church” taught universally that muslim, jews, atheists,satanists, voodoists, hindus, AND NOT CATECHUMENS ONLY, not only theoretically *could* but *are* saved
      “probably very rarely” with B.O.D

      Lionel:
      Agreed!
  • Berto Slomovicci October 31, 2014 10:58 pm
    Reply

    So according to Lefebvre and you, a let’s say moslem, poof! one day has “implicit baptism of desire” and is saved, while keeping on being a muslim as if it was nothing. IN their religion but not BY it.
    And that has always been taught by the Church.. so effectively outside of
    the Catholic CHurch indeed there is Salvation! Extra Ecclesia Aliqua Salus!
    • Lionel 

      Berto:
      So according to Lefebvre and you, a let’s say moslem, poof! one day has “implicit baptism of desire” and is saved, while keeping on being a muslim as if it was nothing. IN their religion but not BY it.
      And that has always been taught by the Church.. so effectively outside of
      the Catholic CHurch indeed there is Salvation! Extra Ecclesia Aliqua Salus!

      Lionel:
      Yes! This is not an exception to the dogma. It has nothing to do with the dogma.

      Berto Slomovicci October 31, 2014 11:55
      *Ecclesiam.
      Also a word to clarify what I think Lionel means with his (insistent, true) campaign for SSPX to recognize etc. etc.
      He believes that B.O.D., while a possibility contemplated in numerous Church doctors et alia throughtout the years, should NOT be regarded as a real, tangible, present day certain phenomenon, as that would be irrational.

      Lionel:
      Correct!

      For all intents and purposes, we should consider it an hypothetical event which may have or may have not happened in the past for catechumens, and even more remotely for non-christians altogether.
      Lionel:
      Yes!

      Considering we have a whole DOGMA against it (indirectly or directly is debatable) and NO infallible pronounciation on the matter, I think his position is at the very least prudent and reasonable.
      Lionel:
      The dogmatic teaching stands and is not contradicted by Vatican Council II since there are all hypothetical cases mentioned and hypothtical, theoretical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma or Ad Gentes 7 in 2014.

      My personal opinion is different, but I can see the wisdom in his reasoning.
  • *Ecclesiam.
    Also a word to clarify what I think Lionel means with his (insistent, true) campaign for SSPX to recognize etc. etc.
    He believes that B.O.D., while a possibility contemplated in numerous Church doctors et alia throughtout the years, should NOT be regarded as a real, tangible, present day certain phenomenon, as that would be irrational.
    For all intents and purposes, we should consider it an hypothetical event which may have or may have not happened in the past for catechumens, and even more remotely for non-christians altogether.

    Considering we have a whole DOGMA against it (indirectly or directly is debatable) and NO infallible pronounciation on the matter, I think his position is at the very least prudent and reasonable.
    My personal opinion is different, but I can see the wisdom in his reasoning.
  • Lionel:
    There is no modernism in the SSPX. Rather, you have adopted what has to be called [at least a pseudo] Feeneyist position.

    Lionel:
    I have asked before for a definition of Feeneyism. What does Feeneyism mean for you?
    Since if you refer to Feeneyism you are referring to theology. So explain your theology.
    Most of the theology on this subject is non traditional and modernism. Please show us how do you agree or disagree with it.
    For example if you check extra ecclesiam nulla salus/Fr.Leonard Feeney on the Internet there will be a reference to exceptions to the ‘rigorist’ interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Lumen Gentium 16 would be considered an exception.
    This is false theology. Since it assumes that people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible and known on earth to be exceptions to the dogma.
    This is Cushingism. It is the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
    So are you inferring that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to Feeneyism?

    Similarly the SSPX USA website has a section on Feeneyism in which they repreat the same irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office.
    So you may be choosing their position without thinking it through.
    __________________________________________

    If you were to research this subject in-depth you would learn that the Church has taught that baptism of desire, even implicit, can be salvific, since Apostolic times, and that this position has been clarified over the millennia numerous times.
    Lionel:
    Even if it is salvific, do you agree that we do not know any such case in 2014 for it to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?
    This would mean every Hindu, Jew, Muslim and Protestant would need ‘faith and baptism’(Ad Gentes 7) for salvation and we would not know of any exception, since we cannot know them.

    —–
    The SSPX has never taught that any soul is saved by his false religion, but, perhaps – and probably rarely – *in spite of* it.

    Lionel:
    True but Archbishop Marcel Lefebre has mentioned this in the context of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    So why metion it? Did he think these cases were known and visible to be exceptions to the dogma? They were exceptions to Feeneyism?
    —–
    You are either hung up on semantics or hold to the Feeneyist error.

    Lionel:
    What is the Feeneyist error? He could not see the dead on earth who were saved with the baptism of desire and who are in Heaven without the baptism of water? Who are these cases? Can there be such a case in 2014 ?
    _________________________

    Honestly it is difficult for me to determine which it is. (I suggest the former due to your repeated emphasis on Archbishop Lefebvre’s statement about souls being saved “in” a false religion, but it should be apparent that that does not imply “by” or “because of” such false religion.)
    Lionel:
    The issue is not if they are saved in their religion. The issue is are they exceptions to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation in the present times? Do they contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
  • -Lionel Andrades
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/tightrope/#comment-26776

No comments: