Monday, June 9, 2014

Tradition Under Fire: Franciscans of the Immaculate vs. the Vatican

They are criticizing Vatican Council II  , with the false inference and are not aware that there is a Vatican Council II without the irrational inference.
Similarly the Franciscans of the Immaculate do not realize that there can be a Vatican Council II which is not ambiguous when the false premise is not used.They can affirm Vatican Council II without inferring that Nostra Aetate 2 is an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation.
The speakers are not aware that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Then he concluded that Nostra Aetate 2 was an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Both the speakers above, like the SSPX bishops, have assumed all these years that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Once they realize this fundamental error, they change the  entire scene on Vatican Council II. They can still admit that Vatican  Council II with the false premise used by Fr.Fidenzio Volpi must  be rejected.However they can  show the Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate , that Vatican Council II without the inference can be in accord with Catholic Tradition and  the teachings of the Church.The teachings of the Catholic Church  are the same before and after Vatican Council II.
The media must realize that the Vatican Curia, is interpreting Vatican Council II with the inference of there being dead people who are living on earth and that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is irrational and unreal. Yet this is the basis for the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the two traditionalists above and Catholics in general. Once the traditionalists understand this they can correct the error among Catholics at large.
The Vatican Curia may not want to accept Vatican Council II without the false premise but at least they cannot penalize any Catholic or Catholic community by saying 'You must accept Vatican Council(with the false inference)'.This is what Fr.Volpi is doing with the Franciscans of the Immaculate and Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara don't have a clue.We can accept Vatican Council II without  the common false inference.There is a choice.
The Vatican Council II which Matt and Ferrara are criticizing is the irrational one.
The Holy Spirit cannot expect  any of us to accept an irrational inference. Yet an irrational inference has been used by  Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX , the two speakers above along with cardinals and bishops.The progressivists and traditionalists in the Church are making the same error.Remove the premise and Vatican Council II is traditional.
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican II, Pope Francis and the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate

June 7, 2014
SSPX (GB) uses irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II so avoids saying Jews, Muslims, Protestants need to convert
Heresy and irrationality on the SSPX Great Britain website ?
-Lionel Andrades

If I asked you if you could see the deceased in your locality, who are now buried in the local graveyard would you have to give me a lengthy answer?

Anonymous said...
Did it come as a surprise that Cardinal Pell did not have time to meet with you or respond to your email? Both of these questions likely require a lengthy and nuanced answer.
The answer is just YES or No.

If I asked you if you could see the deceased in your locality, who are now buried in the local graveyard would you have to give me a lengthy answer?


Lady at SSPX chapel does not know how to handle this

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre assumed the baptism of desire was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He is implying that the dead are exceptions.
Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer on the SSPX website assumes that the popès have said that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible in the flesh.Otherwise how can the baptism of desire be an exception.
Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX is critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for not assuming that the baptism of desire is visible to the naked eye and so an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
In response to an e-mail of mine a lady who attends the Tridentine Rite Mass at an SSPX chapel in Scotland wrote 'Our priests say regularly at our SSPX chapel that EVERYONE needs to convert.'
True, often.
However they also say that there are EXCEPTIONS:
So every one needs to convert is what is said but what is believed is that there are exceptions.
They say outside the Church there is no salvation and THEY ALSO SAY persons can be saved in the present times with the baptism of desire which is an exception.
Here is Archbishop Lefebvre saying it.
The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum...
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area...
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: (Lionel: Three ways of receiving it defacto, in real life. No there is only one way, the baptism of water. It is visible and repeatable.The baptism of desire cannot be given to any one) the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire. (Yes - hypothetically. No - de facto. Yes- in theory.No - in real life.We can only administer and know the baptism of water.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. We cannot see any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire etc. So it is not relevant or an exception to "Outside the Church there is no salvation".)
Baptism of desire can be explicit.Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”( Lionel: Yes if he has the desire but cannot receive the Sacrament he can be saved.However we cannot say that this case or any other such case is an exception to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7,Vatican Council II ) in 2014 to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.)
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.'
Here is the confusion again.

Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ("Against the Heresies",p.216) (emphasis added)
What has the baptism of desire to do with the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation ?
The following is from the SSPX website.
Where does any pope cited here by the SSPX state that implicit desire( baptism of desire) is visible to us, seen in the flesh ?
Not one of them! So how can the SSPX priest assume that the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma on salvation?
The three baptisms
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer Originally featured in the March 1998 issue of The Angelus magazine.
The teaching of the popes
What do the popes teach of this baptism of desire? Do they uphold, as the followers of Fr. Feeney, that baptism of desire and blood are contrary to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Innocent III, the first pope to define the dogma of Salvation only in the Church, also taught that desire for baptism supplies for the effects of baptism, in the case that water baptism cannot be received - due to impossibility, not neglect or contempt (cf. Augustine, On Baptism, Bk. IV, Ch. 22). Hence in his decree about a Jew who, in danger of death, attempted to baptize himself, since those around his death bed refused to baptize him, he decrees:  
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.," the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another ... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Dz. 413, emphasis added).
Pope Innocent II taught the same with regard to a priest, when after his death it was found that he had not been baptized. He writes:
Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Innocent II, Letter Apostolicam Sedem, Dz. 388, emphasis added).

The three errors of the Feeneyites
Fr. Francois Laisney
 Here is Fr.Francois Laisney on the SSPX website with the same factual error. There is no pope or saint who has said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us.So the text of the three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, does not mention the baptism of desire. Obviously, since it is not relevant. It was Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who made it seem relevant and penalised Fr.Leonard Feeney for holding on to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.