Archbishop Lefebvre's book Against the Heresies is heretical?

 

The SSPX's Angelus Press is publishing another book with a factual error. Against the Heresies contains statements by Archbishop Lefebvre which indicate he assumed that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Unaware of the Cushingite mistake, he then interpreted Nostra Aetate 2 as referring to explicit cases, which are an exception to all needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

The Angelus Press has also published Is Feenyism Catholic by Francois Laisney with the same error. It is inferred that the baptism of desire is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Why is it relevant? As usual they were following the lead given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.He thought that these cases were visible in the flesh.So they had to be exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Fr.Francois Laisney cites Tradition in which the baptism of desire is mentioned.Yet none of the sources he quotes states that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Fr.Laisney who infers that these cases are explicit in the present times.

Recently in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Suprior General of the Society of St. Pius X assumed that Nostra Aetate etc were exceptions to the traditional teaching.He was following the error of Archbishop Lefebvre on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

 

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. ("Against the Heresies",p.216)1

Lionel:

Sure they can be saved (hypothetically,in theory) and these cases would not be known to us (defacto, in real life). Is the founder of the SSPX implying that these cases are relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Yes he is. He is assuming that they are defacto and objective and not hypothetical and invisible for us. Other quotations indicate the same.

He was confused over the Boston Case too.He did not know that it was Cardinal Cushing who was in heresy for assuming there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

Archbishop Marcel Lefevbvre did not know the exact cause of the irrationality and heresy of Vatican Council II (Cushingism version).He did not know that the Council was non traditional because of the irrational inference he made in the interpretation.

We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. 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 which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe...
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.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (2)

Lionel:

So what if 'they are saved in their religion'? Is this relevant to the dogma on salvation. Is this an exception ?

Yes it is for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests!

They have assumed that implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us and so is an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation. It is a fact of life that we cannot see any baptism of desire case in 2014. Objectively we cannot see the dead.

They have over the years denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by assuming that there were explicit exceptions.

The SSPX (District USA/Canada) which is publishing this book will not comment on this error even though they have been informed so many times over a few years.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake. It was a factual error which led to a doctrinal and theological error.It is the same error as the liberals includng those of of the Vatican Curia with whom the SSPX held doctrinal talks.They were  unaware of this factual error ( being able to see the dead-saved ) in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.- Lionel Andrades

1.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-book-against-heresies-4179

2
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/

SSPX defers announcement

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/sspx-defers-announcement.html

Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-bernard-tisseur-de-mallerais.html#links

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, MICHAEL DAVIS MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE: TRADITIONALISTS ARE STILL REELING

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/archbishop-lefebvre-michael-davis-made.html#links

SSPX PRIESTS CONTRADICT THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Fr.Francois%20Laisney

Response to Chris Ferrara on the Creative Minority Report

Chris Ferrara•14 days ago

But of course traditionalists ARE schismatics---from the Church of the "new orientation of Vatican II." This Church does not really exist, but rather consists of an ensemble of rootless novelties first introduced in the sixties and seventies. As long as the fanatics of Vatican II are alive, however, the persecution will continue. Truly one of the most bizarre epochs in Church history, rivaling if not surpassing the Arian crisis in magnitude. As Saint Basil said then: "Only one offense is vigorously punished--an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions." Sound familiar?

LionelAndrades Chris Ferrara•in 8 minutes

• Traditionalists are not schismatics. I affirm Vatican Council II and also the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Since I do not use an irrational inference in the interpretation.I have explained this often on my blog Eucharist and Mission.
  The new orientation of Vatican Council II comes with the use of a false premise in the interpretation.This is the premise also used by traditionalists.
  The Church does exist.The magisterial texts of the Church are traditional.With the inference emerge the errors and heresies.
  The 'fanatics of Vatican Council II' are using the false premise in the interpretation of the Council. So the Council is non traditional. They want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to also accept this irrational version of Vatican Council II to be able to once again offer the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM).
  The traditionalists, including Chris Ferrara and other members of the Roman Forum do not want to affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Here is the problem. They assume that the baptism of desire refers to visible to us cases in 2014. This is the false premise. We cannot see the dead. So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney,in the first place.
  So being saved with ' a ray of the Truth' and 'seeds of the Word' are not exceptions to Tradition unless you assume that these cases are explicit, seen in the flesh.
  The traditionalists do not want to afirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation and so now ,for example at the Roman Forum meeting in Italy, June 20, at which Chris Ferrara will be present, they will not affirm Vatican Council ( without the irrational premise).
  Unfortunately this problem existed with friends of the Franciscans of the Immaculatem, like Bruno Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei. So there is no one to tell the Franciscans of the Immaculate to go ahead and affirm Vatican Council II ( without the inference) and this will be in accord with Tradition.They can then ask Fr.Fidenzio Volpi to do the same.
  At least the Commissar cannot then claim that the FFI are rejecting Vatican Council II and so they cannot be allowed to offer the TLM.
• http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/05/in-heart-of-every-traditionalist-lies_22.html

Conversation with an ecumenist -2

Ecumenist:

Thx Lionel, for the good demeanor and thorough responses.
It seems in summary that the root issues all deal with language.
Those who are saved by baptism -- presupposes that the love of God is there -- not the reverse.

Lionel:

The love of God is a constant.It is there for all people. There are no exceptions.Jesus died for all.However to receive salvation all need to believe in Jesus and follow the teachings of the Catholic Church on morals and faith.

Jesus suffers for souls whom He has loved and died for, but who choose to be lost to Hell.
Then there are those who are going to Hell with Original Sin and other sins on their soul since they did not choose to be baptised with water and to live the Gospel.This was a rejection of God's love.

Ecumenist:

It's not a technique. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to have that love with God, not the reverse. Baptism is a love booster, not a replacement for it. True for all sacraments. Love with God is the non-negotiable. 

Lionel:

There will be many people on the Day of Judgement, Scripture tells us who will say 'Lord,Lord I loved you and did this in your name ...'and Jesus will say 'depart from me, I do not know you'. Since their  love was based on their own personal will and not by following the grace of God.It was love without the will of God.

God wills all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845).

Ecumenist:
Hence, the true Catholic church is the ones where that love is happening both within Roman Catholicism and outside it, though Roman Catholicism is the tree root (and not always the tree branches).

Lionel:
Those who are within the Roman Catholic Church with faith and baptism and who love all , and die without mortal sin on their soul are on the way to Heaven.Those Catholics who do not do this and die with mortal sin un- repentent and un-Confessed will go to Hell even if at some time in their life they have loved, done charity or worked miracles.
This is the teaching of the Catholic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of the saints inspired by the Holy Spirit.This is Sacred Tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

Ecumenist:

That has been reiterated by the church more than the other view, which puts church membership over the Christ;

 

 Lionel:
The need to be a member of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Christ.We cannot separate Christ from his only Church. When St.Paul exhorted the disciples and new converts to be faithful to the doctrines of the Church, it was not just any Church or community. Those doctrines are still part of the Catholic Church. He was baptizing within a community and a church.

Ecumenist:

the letter of the church over the Holy Spirit of the Church.

Lionel:
I am following the Catholic Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit over centuries.

Ecumenist:
Popes and encyclicals and modern Catholic leaders like Kreeft have reiterated this over and over.

Lionel:
I am repeating what Peter Kreeft has written in some of his books on the Catholic Church being the only way to God.

Ecumenist:
The only way to defend another view is to mis-read the documents, over-interpret them, instead of connecting to the Spirit that inspires church teaching. It's not the other way around.

Lionel:

One safe way to read the documents is to interpret them according to Sacred Tradition. I am not saying anything new.

Ecumenist:
Further proof for reflection/prayer: those who believe in the hyper-trad view
Lionel:
Hyper-trad view ? I am affirming the teachings of the Church as it has come to us from the Church Fathers, whom Peter Kreeft has praised.

Ecumenist:

don't have the character of love, but of division;

Lionel:
Those who reject the teachings of 2000 years are bringing in new doctrine. In this week's Readings at Mass, St.Paul pleads with the new converts not to follow new doctrine. This would be the work of the evil one.This would be division for him.

Ecumenist:
clearly don't have the Spirit of unity, but of provincialism;

Lionel:
provincialism? Is this a word from some New Revelation. A new revelation opposed to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. 

Ecumenist:
and certainly by statistics do not report the miracles anywhere near as much as otherwise.

Lionel:
The majority of people could be rejecting true doctrine and choosing what is convenient and pleasing.Scripture mentions that in the last days they will be doing just this.
You are impressed by miracles. How do you know which are true or will last.

Ecumenist:
Whenever I've prayed with hyper-trads, I've often found nice people who are trying to sincerely defend what they believe (no salv outside of Roman C), but there is unbeknownst almost always a form of the demonic attached -- usually triggered by a parental wound -- where the person feel like a Japanese loyal solider after WWII who didn't know they were still fighting a war that is not there.

Lionel:
you would call Jesus and his teachings hyper-trad. Another New Revelation ?
-Lionel Andrades

Conversation with an ecumenist http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/conversation-with-ecumenist.html#links

Norm in the Catholic Church to assume baptism of desire can be seen physically and is an exception to extra ecclesiam nullas salus

It is the NORM in the Catholic Church to assume that the baptism of desire is explicit for us i.e it can be seen physically and so is an exception to extra ecclesiam nullas salus.

 

  

Fr. Francois Laisney, Fr. Peter Scott like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J is saying that the Catholic Church is no more Exclusivist ecclesiocentric: SSPX priests and liberals agree that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-fr-peter-scott-like.html#links

 

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html#links

 

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA: WHY DOES THE CHURCH EXPECT PRIESTS, NUNS AND DEACONS TO ASSUME THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/catholic-diocese-of-san-bernardino.html

 

WHY DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CALIFORNIA EXPECT FR.LEONARD FEENEY’S COMMUNITY TO ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-does-catholic-church-in-californnia.html

 

IF YOU SAY THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT VISIBLE THEN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE DOES NOT CONDEMN FR.LEONARD FEENEY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/12/if-you-say-that-baptism-of-desire-is.html#links

 

CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES SAYS THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE VISIBLE TO US
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/catholic-bishops-conference-of-england.html#links

 

Then  Prof. Gavin D'Costa, on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales infers that 'a ray of the Truth' and 'seeds of the Word' are VISIBLE for us.This is the NORM in the Catholic Church in England.

 

Fr.Leonard Feeney, Wikipedia and Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/frleonard-feeney-wikipedia-and-vatican.html#links

WIKIPEDIA'S ENTRY ON SALVATION MISREPRESENTS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/12/wikipedias-entry-on-salvation.html#links

SECULAR CATECHESIS FOR CATHOLICS : NO ONE OBJECTS IN THE MEDIA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/08/secular-catechesis-for-catholics-no-one.html#links

WIKIPEDIA SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II CONTRADICTS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN DO NOT PROTEST
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/wikipedia-says-vatican-council-ii.html#links

Catholic traditionalists do not challenge the errors on Wikipedia since they assume Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/catholic-traditionalists-do-not.html#links



Fr.Leonard Feeney goes undefended
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/frleonard-feeney-goes-undefended.html

REMEMBER THAT THE REPORT BY FR.WILLIAM MOST ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH: IT CONTAINS ERRORS AND HERESY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/remember-that-report-by-frwilliam-most.html#links


Southwark Emeritus Bishop cites Archbishop Lefebvre on Nostra Aetate : like the University of Bristol they use an irrationality
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/southwark-emeritus-bishop-cites.html#links

 

-Lionel Andrades

It's a Total Sham