No one is able to defend Bishop Fellay among the traditionalist bloggers since he made a doctrinal error based on an objective mistake. He mistook hypothetical cases as being objectively known in the present times. Then he concluded that these invisible cases were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He actually assumed references to invisible cases,in Vatican Council II, were explicit. He mixed up what is subjective as being objective.
Bishop Bernard Fellay's conclusion was heretical.
The mistake is there also on the SSPX website when it is assumed that the baptism of desire refers to an objective case.1.The SSPX may say that the fault was there with the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is magisterial. True.But Bishop Fellay is using this irrational reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II. If he does not assume hypothetical cases are explicit, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
The SSPX website says 'The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma,"Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."' 2 Yes without the baptism of water there is no salvation is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and no one in the past or present could know of someone saved without the baptism of water.For Bishop Fellay there are known exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. So he is critical of the Council.
Here is the SSPX website with the error.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."2
I repeat it:
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water."
Lionel:
O.K. Hypothetically. Speculatively.But this is not a concrete case. It is not a personally known case.The SSPX website mentions it since for Fr.Laisney it is an objective case.He has made the same error as Bishop Fellay.
__________________________
In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
Lionel:
Again this is all speculation.It does not refer to someone known who will die as such or who has died and is in Heaven under these conditions.
Yet the SSPX website mentions this with reference to EENs. In other words it is an objective case, a concrete exception.
__________________________
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). 2
Lionel:
None of the saints mentioned above have said that the baptism of desire refers to an explicit case or that it is an exception to EENS. The SSPX assumes the saints are referring not to implicit- for- us- baptism of desire but explicit- for- us- baptism of desire.For the SSPX the saints are referring to visible- for- us baptism of desire instead of invisible- for- us baptism of desire.Then the SSPX bishops and priests change the meaning of the dogma EENS. This is heresy. They also change the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed.
The SSPX website concludes:
Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
This is heresy in the Holy Office letter. It says that 'it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member' since it is assumed there are known exceptions of the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.There is no such case. For us human beings there is no known salvation outside the Church. There cannot be any known salvation outside the Church.That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...3
So it is no surprise that the charge of doctrinal heresy is made against Bishop Fellay and the SSPX and no one can defend him since it is obvious to all, that hypothetical cases cannot be objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. The magisterium and the SSPX made a mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
1
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
2
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
3.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment