Thursday, May 12, 2016

Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX website make the same error as Amoris Laetitia

From the official website of the SSPX

The three errors of the


Fr. Francois Laisney
Originally printed in the September 1998 issue of The 
Angelus magazine, this article is a follow-up to Fr. Joseph 
Pfieffer’s article in The Angelus of March 1998. It seems 
that some of the followers of Fr. Feeney took objection to 
his convincing dissertation proving the Catholic teaching 
concerning "baptism of desire." In fairness, the purpose
 of this article by Fr. Laisney is to clarify the three 
principle errors of the followers of Fr. Feeney which
 explain why they refuse the common teaching of Catholic
 theologians concerning "baptism of desire."

Lionel: According to Fr. Francois Laisney 
subjectivism is a known exception to
 the Feeneyite version of the dogma 
extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
 The 'baptism of desire' is a 
practical exception to EENS.
 There are known exceptions
 to the general rule on salvation.
A similar error is being made in
 Amoris Laetitia.
Image result for Photos of amoris Laetitia press conference

Error I:

Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside 
the Church There Is No Salvation"

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."
In practical terms all need the
 baptism of water for salvation.
This was the dogmatic teachings
 for centuries.I cannot meet 'an 
exception' on the streets of Rome.

St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to
 use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla
 salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). 
In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. 
Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior
 to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says,
 is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the 
Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also 
cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason
 for this is that it would imprint the character of 
baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e.,
 justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
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! But it is subjective!
 It cannot be a practical exception
 to EENS.
This is similar to the subjectivism
 used in Amoris Laetitia.
Fr.Matthias Gaudron SSPX, 
Germany says what is subjective
 cannot be known.There are 
no known exceptions to traditional
 moral theology.For Francis Laisney,
 the baptism of desire is relevant
 to the dogma EENS, since it refers
 to objective cases.So for Fr.
Laisney there are known 
exceptions to traditional 
salvation theology.

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."
O.K but the baptism of desire
 is still hypothetical,  theoretical,
 accepted in principle only,
 invisible for us and not practically
 known.So how is it related to EENS ?
Related image
Zero cases of something cannot 
be exceptions to the dogma extra
 ecclesiam nulla salus says 
the U.S apologist John Martignoni,
 who has a program on EWTN.

Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church
 there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the
 same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque
 sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has 
taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three
He means the Church has 
always assumed that the baptism
 of desire refers to known cases,
 practical exceptions to the
 dogma EENS.This is false.Since the
 Church Councils which defined 
EENS do not mention a baptism
 of desire.An explicit baptism 
of desire was brought into the 
Church with the Baltimore 
Catechism (1891).

 Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new
 meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
They were saying there 
is no known baptism of 
desire.The same thing
 was said by Fr.Leonard 
Feeney. It was Cardinal
 Cushing and the Jesuits
 who were saying there 
is known salvation outside
 the Church.

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).
They referred to 'the desire
 thereof'(Council of Trent)
but did not consider it 
explicit and known like the
 baptism of water.
St. Thomas Aquinas for example,
 does not say that these cases
 are personally known, or can be
 personally known.
No one in the past could have
 known someone saved without
 the baptism of water and with 
the baptism of desire.This was 
not physically possible.
The SSPX is confusing what 
is invisible as being visible, 
what can only be implicit 
as being explicit.
Image result for Photos of amoris Laetitia press conference

This is  the reasoning of Cardinal 
Schonborn with reference to 
N.301 etc in Amoris Laetitia.

 St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs
 to the Catholic Faith - Ed.that there are some men 
saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church 
there is no salvation,"was approved by the Council
 of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present
 made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism
 of desire, saying that for children one ought not to
 wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for
 them there was "no other remedy."[5] This
 expression is taken directly from St. Thomas
 (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers
 explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2).
 Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused
 the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing
 to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value 
against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent,
 let us refute two more of their major errors.

Fr.Laisney is still mixing up
 what is invisible as being
 visible and is reading the
 saints with this irrationality.
 He is saying there are known
 exceptions to EENS.

Error II:

The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional

The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of 
desire as a question to be freely discussed within the 
Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be
 settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school
 of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope 
later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is
 to claim that only that which has already been defined 
belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is 
opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must 
believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith,
 that being what has already been defined and that
 which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the 
Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, 
by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write:
 "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was
 and is the common teaching of theologians since 
the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this 
was not only the "common teaching of theologians,"
 but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church,
 and saints! In addition, it is found even before this
 millennium in the very early years of the Church 
without a single dissenting voice.
Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine
 of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic
 Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St.
 Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."

O.K there is the baptism of 
water, desire and blood.Why 
should the baptism of desire
 and blood exclude the baptism
 of water ? Why should it also be
 a visible baptism instead of an
 invisible baptism ? Since the 
baptism of desire and blood,
 for Fr.Laisney contradicts 
 the Feeneyite understanding 
of the dogma, it implies these 
cases are visible and known
 for him and so they are exceptions
 to EENS.How can they be visible
 can known?!
For me they are not exceptions
 to EENS so I imply that they 
are not visible and personally
We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet 
defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance
 or may be allowed to discuss some precisionwithin the 
doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance,
 we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic 
Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not
 allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject 
the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the 

Lionel: For me the baptism of 
desire is also invisible and 
so I can affirm it as a hypothetical
 case. So I can accept hypothetical
 baptism of desire alongwith the
 Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
It is not contrary to the Principle 
of Non Contradiction.
This is not possible for Fr.
Laisney since the baptism of
 desire is explicit .
If he is asked if the baptism of desire 
is de fide because it is
 explicit or implicit, visible or 
invisible, hypothetical or  defacto 
known, he will not answer.How can
 he simply say that this
 teaching is de fide without 
clarifying the distinction?
-Lionel Andrades

Christopher Ferrara could also point out this error in Vatican Council II and ask the two popes to affirm the traditional interpretation of EENS

AL’s reduction of the moral law to a “general rule” is the rhetorical device by which “exceptions” to the rule are introduced in “certain cases” involving what AL euphemistically describes as an “irregular union” or “irregular situations” (78, 298, 301, 305 & note 351)—meaning, of course, those who “are divorced and remarried, or simply living together (297)” in a state of continuing public adultery or simple fornication.
At the same time it reduces the moral law to a “set of rules” to which there can be practical exceptions—as with any mere rule...- Christopher Ferrara

The same thing was done with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire were pracitcal exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were mentioned in Vatican Council II.
This is a mistake.
There are no practical exceptions to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) when it states  all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are not a 'practical exception' to all needing to be a card carrying member of the Church; all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
So Christopher Ferrara could also point out this error in Vatican Council II and not only in AL, and ask the two popes to affirm the traditional interpretation of EENS according to the Church Councils, the 16th century missionaries and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
-Lionel Andrades

Chris Ferrara note how Amoris Laetitia has references from Vatican Council II in which subjectiveness is confused as being objective, what is implicit is considered explicit.An irrational premise is used to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion

Chris Ferrara note how Amoris Laetitia has references from Vatican Council II in which subjectiveness is confused as being objective, what is implicit is considered explicit.An irrational premise is used to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion

Yet there is no question that AL was written ambiguously, but with relentless consistency, precisely to create the impression of “exceptions” to absolute moral precepts which the document tendentiously describes throughout its text as merely “general rules (2, 300, 304)”, a “general principle,” “rules (3, 35, 288)”, “a set of rules” (49, 201, 305)”, “a rule (300, 301, 304)”, “the rule (301 & note 348)”, “a general rule (301)” and “a general law or rule (301).”- Christopher Ferrara.
Image result for Photo of Chris ferrara
Similarly Ferrara must note that
Amoris Laetitia (AL) uses references from Vatican Council II in which subjectiveness is confused as being objective, what is implicit is considered explicit, invisible cases are interpreted as being objective.An irrational premise is used to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

So much of Vatican Council II is based on a false premise i.e unknown cases of the baptism of desire and blood are (1) personally known and (2) they exclude the baptism of water.This irrational theme runs throughout Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc).

Related image
The philosophy of subjectivism, to which Fr. Matthias Gaudron, SSPX (Germany) referred to with reference to AL is also there is Vatican Council II I mentioned in a previous blog post.It is assumed that the baptism of desire, for example, is subjectively known and so contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS(AG 7, LG 14), so all do not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.

The mistake which was there in the Letter (1949) is also there in Vatican Council II and the Catechism (1992).

So why does Chris Ferrara not complain when AL  references Vatican Council II which has an objective mistake?

We do not know any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) .Period. So why should we accept this premise? If we assume UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case then we are not using the premise and then UR 3 will not be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. However, since they they have included UR 3 in Vatican Council II it indicates they made a mistake. It was an objective error. They assumed there is known salvation outside the Church even though no one could have known of any one saved outside the Church. Then they asssumed that these explicit cases, which really are implicit for us, were exceptions to the traditional dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Implicitly UR 3 is saying there is known salvation outside the Church otherwise it should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.Smilarly we cannot know any case of someone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8). Vatican Council II implies there are known cases as such.Objectively we know this is not possible.So why was 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8), 'invincible ignorance' (LG 16), 'a ray of that Truth'(NA 2) mentioned in Vatican Council II?
AL references Vatican Council II and the Catechism, which has mistakes.AL itself has made a mistake in N.301 when it suggests that we can know subjective cases or factors which would indicate that a person living in manifest mortal sin is not in mortal sin.Christopher Ferrara has noticed this.
N.301 suggests that there are subjective cases which can be judged as objectively contradicting , the traditional teaching on mortal sin.There are exceptions to the general rule.
So in morals and faith ( salvation) the new theology is saying that there are known exceptions to the general rule; known subjective conditions, which contradict the traditional teaching on mortal sin and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Chris Ferrara has noted this error in AL now he needs to observe the same error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).

There is a factual mistake in Vatican Council II. It's an objective mistake in LG 14.
They made the original objective error in the Letter (1949) based on an irrational premise.Then they inserted the line in LG 14 which says only those who 'know' need to enter the Church.

In Boston and Rome in 1949 they reasoned that there is salvation outside the Church. This was the premise. For there to be salvation outside the Church it would have meant someone in the past or present, should have seen someone saved without the baptism of water in the Church.They went ahead and assumed there was someone.Even though this was physically impossible.The popes accepted it.

After assuming there were physically visible cases of salvation outside the Church,they postulated that not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church.Then they went ahead and said that only those who are not in invincible ignorance of the Gospel ; only those who know about Jesus and the Church would be damned if they did not enter the Church. Not every one but only those who know.So with the irrational premise they did aware with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, which says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

They placed this new doctrine based on the non- real reasoning, in Vatican Council II. The principle was hypothetical cases are explicit for us human beings and there are hypothetical-explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. They came to this conclusion by using the false premise, of knowing salvation outside the Church, or seeing people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.-Lionel Andrades