Saturday, December 6, 2014

SSPX priests are criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney for not assuming that the baptism of desire etc are known to us in the present times

  1. Dear Lionel,

    Please don’t expect us to speak on behalf of other posters.
    If we understand you correctly, you accept the Church’s dogmatic teaching-that there is no salvation outside the Church, just as we do.
    Lionel:
    ‘Just as we do’ ?
    For you the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases. So they are not defacto exceptions in 2014 for all needing the baptism of water and Catholic faith for salvation ?
    So in these two links the SSPX was incorrect to assume that there were known exceptions to the dogma ?
    ________________________________________

    The Church’s teaching on Baptism of desire, therefore, cannot contradict this dogma, which it doesn’t.

    Lionel:
    So invisible for us baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma?
    While visible for us baptism of desire would contradict the dogma?
    _________________________________________

    So, if anyone has been saved by BOD, (and as far as we know their identity/ies have not been revealed to man), then since the original sin, there could have been zero, one, or billions saved that way–and we have no way of knowing the number.

    Lionel:
    So the baptism of desire ( followed by the baptism of water is a possibility if God wants it) is not an exception to the dogma ?
    ___
    Therefore, for the Pope or anyone else to assume large numbers or even entire religious sects have already been saved or will be saved by BOD, seems presumptuous and recklessly foolish to us, especially when applied to the urgency of preaching the Gospel in order to help bring about conversion before death. Since we cannot read minds, hearts or souls, the success of that preaching is as close as we can come to gauging the success or failure of our ability to carry out Our Lord’s mandate to go teach, and Baptize the nations. That urgency should therefore remain as it always was in the past, or if anything, be increased now, because the time allotted by God for the world as we know it, grows shorter, not longer, according to Sacred Scripture.
    Lionel:
    So every one in 2014 needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation ( to go to Heaven and avoid Hell) and there is no exception ?
    _______________________________________

    And since the new ecumenism seems to seek only fraternal cooperation, rather than necessary conversion, it seems positively diabolical to us.

    Lionel:
    _______________________________________

    If that lack of concern is based on presumed BOD, then we can readily understand your high degree of concern that this matter be clarified and any misunderstandings be rectified, in order to reinstate the sense of urgency needed- to proselytize as the missionaries did for centuries–and end this “silence” from the Church.

    Lionel:
    So we proclaim the Gospel since all non Catholics are on the way to Hell in 2014 ?
    __________________________________

    But we have no idea why you are HERE asking US to explain to you or account for, the positions of other posters, who may easily have far greater knowledge about the issues involved than we do, and/or other information at their disposal which causes them to question your statements and withhold their full agreement.

    Lionel: Since we have to proclaim the Gospel knowing that all in 2014 are on the way to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’ and there are no known exceptions.
    ___
    The controversy you’ve raised concerning the SSPX and the “letter of 1949, is one example of an area with which we are not at all familiar.
    Lionel:
    You are now familiar that the baptism of desire is an acceptable doctrine but it is not known and visible in personal cases.
    You are also familiar that the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case.
    We agree that a hypothetical case cannot be a known exception to the dogma in 2014.
    This is all commonsense. It is common knowledge.
    So we cannot create a theology and call it Feeneyism or what ever and say:-
    1.The baptism of desire is an acceptable doctrine but it is known and visible in personal cases.
    2.The baptism of desire is not a hypothetical case but it is defacto, objectively known and visible to us in personal cases.
    3. A hypothetical case can be a known exception to the dogma in 2014.

    This would all be contrary to reason and we cannot create a theology based on this irrationality?

    __________________________________________

    We know semantics are very important, but don’t know what the writers or readers of that letter took the word “exception” to mean or to what they applied it.

    Lionel:
    In the two links I have cited from the SSPX (USA) website the SSPX priests are criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney, another traditionalist priest, for not assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved with the baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance – are known to us in the present times ( not hypothetical).
    They also criticizeg him for not assuming that visible for us baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
    Neither are they criticizing the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 for this irrationality.
    __________________________________________

    If, on the one hand, by using the word “exception” they only meant that BOD is an “unusual” way of being saved, i.e. not the ordinary, visible way, then that means something entirely different than the idea that the way it is accomplished by God, is an “exception” to the Dogma of no salvation outside the Church, i.e. that they are in fact, NOT saved THROUGH His Church, but by some imaginary Divine intervention outside of it. (That itself seems silly to us-maybe due to more of our theological ignorance?) Sorry, don’t think we can help here.
    Lionel:

    The dogma says all need to enter the Church. For an adult one can only enter the Church with ‘faith and baptism’.So how can there be an exception ?
    How can there be an ‘extra ordinary way’?
    How can someone go to Heaven without the baptism of water ?
    This is a de fide teaching of the Church.
    ____________________________________

    Anyway the bottom line is that we agree that there are no defacto, visible to us, exceptions to the dogma ?
  2. Since all Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals etc need Catholic Faith for salvation (AG 7, Cantate Dominion, Council of Florence etc) and we do no know of a single exception in 2014?

nd since the new ecumenism seems to seek only fraternal cooperation, rather than necessary conversion, it seems positively diabolical to us.

Lionel:Since all Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals etc need Catholic Faith for salvation (AG 7, Cantate Dominion, Council of Florence etc) and we do no know of a single exception in 2014?
_______________________________________

If that lack of concern is based on presumed BOD, then we can readily understand your high degree of concern that this matter be clarified and any misunderstandings be rectified, in order to reinstate the sense of urgency needed- to proselytize as the missionaries did for centuries–and end this “silence” from the Church.

Lionel:
So we proclaim the Gospel since all non Catholics are on the way to Hell in 2014 ?
__________________________________

But we have no idea why you are HERE asking US to explain to you or account for, the positions of other posters, who may easily have far greater knowledge about the issues involved than we do, and/or other information at their disposal which causes them to question your statements and withhold their full agreement.

Lionel: Since we have to proclaim the Gospel knowing that all in 2014 are on the way to Hell without ‘faith and baptism’ and there are no known exceptions.
___
The controversy you’ve raised concerning the SSPX and the “letter of 1949, is one example of an area with which we are not at all familiar.
Lionel:
You are now familiar that the baptism of desire is an acceptable doctrine but it is not known and visible in personal cases.
You are also familiar that the baptism of desire is a hypothetical case.
We agree that a hypothetical case cannot be a known exception to the dogma in 2014.
This is all commonsense. It is common knowledge.
So we cannot create a theology and call it Feeneyism or what ever and say:-
1.The baptism of desire is an acceptable doctrine but it is known and visible in personal cases.
2.The baptism of desire is not a hypothetical case but it is defacto, objectively known and visible to us in personal cases.
3. A hypothetical case can be a known exception to the dogma in 2014.

This would all be contrary to reason and we cannot create a theology based on this irrationality?

__________________________________________

We know semantics are very important, but don’t know what the writers or readers of that letter took the word “exception” to mean or to what they applied it.

Lionel:
In the two links I have cited from the SSPX (USA) website the SSPX priests are criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney, another traditionalist priest, for not assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved with the baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance – are known to us in the present times ( not hypothetical).
They also criticizeg him for not assuming that visible for us baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
Neither are they criticizing the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 for this irrationality.
__________________________________________

If, on the one hand, by using the word “exception” they only meant that BOD is an “unusual” way of being saved, i.e. not the ordinary, visible way, then that means something entirely different than the idea that the way it is accomplished by God, is an “exception” to the Dogma of no salvation outside the Church, i.e. that they are in fact, NOT saved THROUGH His Church, but by some imaginary Divine intervention outside of it. (That itself seems silly to us-maybe due to more of our theological ignorance?) Sorry, don’t think we can help here.
Lionel:

The dogma says all need to enter the Church. For an adult one can only enter the Church with ‘faith and baptism’.So how can there be an exception ?
How can there be an ‘extra ordinary way’?
How can someone go to Heaven without the baptism of water ?
This is a de fide teaching of the Church.
____________________________________

Anyway the bottom line is that we agree that there are no defacto, visible to us, exceptions to the dogma ? -Lionel Andrades

SSPX and supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney did not know all these years that the baptism of desire and blood had nothing to do with the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/sspx-and-supporters-of-frleonard-feeney.html

 http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/dialogue/#comments
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)