Sunday, September 26, 2010

Lionel's E-News for the week Sept 19-25, 2010 : DR.BRIAN KOPP DENIES AN EX CATHEDRA DOGMA AND IN MORTAL SIN RECEIVES THE EUCHARIST AT A TRIDENTINE RITE MASS

Lionel's E-News for the week Sept 19-25, 2010


THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

DR.BRIAN KOPP DENIES AN EX CATHEDRA DOGMA AND IN MORTAL SIN RECEIVES THE EUCHARIST AT A TRIDENTINE RITE MASS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/09/drbrian-kopp-denies-ex-cathedra-dogma.html

ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH-CATHOLIC MISSION OFFICE TO THE JEWS AND GENTILES IN ROME

…but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’-Mark 16:16

Lionel Andrades, Catholic layman

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/

YouTube: http://it.youtube.com/LionelAndrades

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE HAD AFFIRMED THE RIGORIST INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Yesterday (25.09.2010) on a pro-SSPX forum Fisheaters Traditional Catholic Forum I asked an administrator, (who said Abp. Lefebvre did not agree with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus) where is the text, the proof for the claim. It could not be the following text often quoted by the Society of St. Pius X?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216:

“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. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press, 1997, p. 216]
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…” [Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213]

The founder of the Society of St. Pius X was correct when he said that souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islamism, Buddhism etc) however this is only a possibility, de jure ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).Otherwise, we know everyone with no exception needs to explictly enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, ex cathedra extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church n.836, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).This is the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

On this forum Father.Cedraka of the SSPX is a contributor. Could he cite any text other then the above, I asked, which would suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the rigorist interpretation?

It is the SSPX priests who have interpreted the Archbishop using the same liberal mantra ‘everybody needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance etc... .’

This is heresy. 1) It is implying that we can know people in genuine invincible ignorance etc and they are exceptions to everybody needing to explicitly enter the Church.2) It is irrational. No SSPX priest knows a single case of explicit or implicit baptism of desire. How can he ever claim anyone is an exception? And if he does not know any exceptions in particular why mention it?

Yet  SSPX priests criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and his present-day supporters because they believe that the Archbishop Lefebvre did the same. But it is really their interpretation of the Archbishop who was in accord with the Councils and saints of the past who affirmed the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. St.Maximillian Kolbe, St.Francis of Assisi, St.Anthony Mary Claret, St.Teresa of Avila...

The above two passages quoted are in accord with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are those who can be saved with the baptism of desire etc and they are known only to God. There is no explicit or implicit baptism of desire that we can know of. It is always a probability not an actual reality for us. So the dogma stands: everybody needs to explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church with no exception to avoid Hell.
Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 217-218]

That they can be saved is only a possibility, it is not de facto. If it was de facto then it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to explicitly be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. There are no exceptions.

SSPX supporters using the assumed interpretation of the founder of the SSPX have been on a constant attack against those who claim there is no baptism of desire. The enemies of the Church could be happy that traditionalists are fighting over a strawman.

Father.Cedraka is on line (quoted on the website of Father. Paco of the SSPX) as saying that the ‘Feeneyites’ are in heresy....

When an SSPX priest agrees that there is no external-seeable baptism of desire (explicit) that anyone of us can know he is in agreement with the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney. He is saying the same thing. There is no baptism of desire (external or implicitly knowable)

When an SSPX priest realizes that the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance can only be a concept we accept in principle (as Abp. Lefebvre in the passage quoted above) then he is saying the same as the Saint Benedict Centre, (SBC) New Hampshire and the Sisters of St. Benedict Centre, Worcester,USA. The SBC has posted a definition of the baptism of desire on their website (Catholicism.org). So the SBC states there is a baptism of desire as a concept. So how can Fr.Cedraka and Fr.Scott and Fr.Laisney say they are in heresy?

On the issue of there being no explicit or implicit baptism of desire that we can know of the SSPX and the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney are in agreement.

On the issue of the ex cathedra dogma saying there are no exceptions to everyone needing to enter the Church with no exception Archbishop Lefebvre is in accord with Fr. Leonard Feeney.
_______________________________________________________________________________

CAPTION OF PHOTO: In April 1967, three years before founding the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre (left) briefly met Padre Pio to ask his blessing on a forthcoming general chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers.[3]