Sunday, April 6, 2014

Pressure on SSPX priests to say Dismas is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is pressure being brought on the priests of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in Italy  to say Dismas, the Good Thief, was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?.
 
The SSPX leadership  are in a doctrinal crisis  and are clutching onto any available straw to stay afloat.They do not want to admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the  SSPX bishops made an objective error - and Vatican Council II is really traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, when the false premise is not being used.
 
 Since they do not want to say that there are no exceptions to Feeneyism, the SSPX priests are emphasizing  the case of Dismas, who went to Heaven allegedly without the baptism of water.
 
The SSPX priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to  know there are no Dismas' in 2014 who are visible to us in real life.So 'Dismas in 2014'  cannot be an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
The SSPX do not want to  affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney  whom they have criticized in books and on the Internet.
 
On the official website of the SSPX, there is a section 'Feeneyism'  in which the SSPX priests  assume cases of the baptism of desire are visible to us for them to be exceptions and relevant to the dogma on salvation.
 
They do not make the distinction between implicit baptism of desire and explicit baptism of desire.It is always explicit for them.
 
Recently the District Superior of the SSPX, Italy on Italian television indicated that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions.He implied that LG 16 (invincible ignorance)  etc was  not implicit but explicit  for us, to be an exception  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions.
 
Catholics, non SSPX members, who have affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus have often come under strong criticism from the political Left. The SSPX avoids being threatened under the Anti-Semitism and other leftist laws.
 
They are not affirming  the dogma according to Feeneyism and are interpreting Vatican Council II in accord with the politically accepted version. Even the Left interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past and they use the false premise in the interpretation.So these deceased-saved become exceptions to Feeneyism.
 
The SSPX have removed material from websites  to avoid the Anti Semitism charge.They are now suggesting that there are known Dismas' in 2014 who are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Without Dismas in 2014 Vatican Council II would be traditional and they would have to admit that they were in error all these years. -Lionel Andrades

Pope Pius XII and all the popes have opposed Feeneyism or ignored it without saying there are no explicit exceptions

From the time of Pope Pius XII all the popes have opposed Feeneyism or ignored it.They have never mentioned that being saved with the baptism of desire can be implicit only for us.It can never be explicit for us. So it was never an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They never mentioned the use of the false premise.
 
An Example of the False Premise and the Conclusion.

Seeds of the Word (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II)

False Premise: We can see non Catholics who have received salvation in 2014 with 'seeds of the Word'.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II contradicts  extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Vatican Council II contradicts itself. AG 7 - 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation contradicts AG 11- being saved with 'seeds of the Word'.
 
Without the False Premise.
 Being saved with seeds of the Word is a possibility.
A possibility is not a known reality in a specific case in the present times, for us. A possibility is not an exception.
Seeds of the Word is not an exception.
Since it is not  visible and known in a specific case in 2014 it  is not relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

COLUMN A or COLUMN B
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e being saved with the seeds of the Word (AG 11), invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) can be interpreted with COLUMN A or COLUMN B
 
COLUMN A
Implicit or us.
hypothetical for us.
invisible.
dejure (in principle).
subjective.
  
COLUMN B
explicit for us.
known in reality.
visible in the flesh.
defacto (in fact).
objective.
 
If COLUMN B is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition.There are known exceptions. The  dead-saved are visible. This is an irrational and common interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 
 If COLUMN A is chosen in the interpretation then Vatican Council II  does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.The Catholic Church's teaching on other religions and Christians communities and churches is the same before and after Vatican Council II.
 
IN REAL LIFE
We cannot say any one specifically whom we meet is 'an exception' .While Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So every non Catholic whom we meet needs faith and baptism and we do not know a single exception, who will be saved without faith and baptism.
 
When we meet a non Catholic we know he is oriented to Hell unless he converts into the Church with faith and baptism.
 
We do not know who is saved in invincible ignorance or who knows about Jesus and the Church  and did not enter and so is damned (Lumen Gentium 14). This is known only to God.The Church says all need faith and baptism (AG 7).
 
 Those Catholics who say there are 'exceptions' imply, in the Nicene Creed , " I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, water, blood and desire', instead of, 'I believe in one (known) baptism  for the forgiveness of sin (water)."All this irrationality emerges with 'explicit exceptions'.
 
Pope John XXIII initiated a traditional Vatican Council II when there are no 'explicit exceptions' used in the interpretation.
Pope Paul VI concluded  Vatican Council II which is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney when there are no 'explicit exceptions' used in the interpretation.
Without 'explicit exceptions' Pope John Paul II 's Vatican Council II is in agreement with Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Ecclesia di Eucarestia, Ecclesia in Asia etc. It does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors or the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

CCC1257
 Those who have received salvation 'without the Sacraments' (CCC 1257-God is not limited to the Sacraments) could have died and have returned to life after death to be baptized with water, as was the experience of St. Francis Xavier. They were not sent to Hell.
Also a non Catholic in invincible ignorance could have  had a preacher sent to him by God, to be taught the faith and to be baptized with water.This was taught by St.Thomas Aquinas.
So all who are in Heaven are there with  Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.The ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism. It is not being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc.
 
However either way, with the baptism of water or 'without the Sacrament', these cases are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.They are known only to God.
 
CCC 1257 does not contradict itself  when it says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.
 
CCC 1257 also does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since these cases are not explict.

Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions to Feeneyism.Feeneyism is an affirmation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,whose text does not mention any exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades