SSPX IN HERESY CALLS ATTENTION TO HERESY AT ASSISI

The following quotation is from the website of the SSPX.

FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism.

Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecumenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation.

Fr.Leonard Feeney like Catholic priests in Rome say there is no baptism of desire that we can know of and that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

The Society of St.Pius X claims that the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is heresy.It is a rejection of an ex cathedra dogma.In principle as a possibility a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire and this would be known only to God. So it does not contradict the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

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] (Emphasis added)

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 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.

SSPX supporters using their  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.

The Society of St. Pius X website and a book by Fr. Laisney sold by the SSPX Press and advertised on the internet, have also swallowed the above mentioned Zionist interpretation of the dogma, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and claims of Fr. Leonard Feeney being in heresy.

The Society of St. Pius X needs to admit their error and issue a clarification on the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The SSPX praised Pope Pius X and Cardinal Ottaviani. So they must not assume that Cardinal Ottaviani issued a Letter, which contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).

Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX) published in 2001 is sold by the Society of St.Pius X. The SSPX like the pope considers those saved with the baptism of desire, in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) as being explicit to us; and knowable to us. This is irrational.

Fr.Laisney is putting forward a theory that persons saved with the baptism of desire etc are known to us. This contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They suggest there are known exceptions to everyone needing to become a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

The SSPX needs to clarify.

1. Can there be persons saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance who are known to us in the present times ?

2. If there are no known cases then does it mean to suggest that there are such known cases would be a denial of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, thrice defined ?

3. Is Fr.Laisney an excathedra dogma ?

4.Is he in mortal sin?

5. According to Canon Law does he need to go for Confession and make public amends before he offers Holy Mass?

For centuries there was no controversy in the Catholic Church on the issue of the baptism of desire. They assumed it was known only to God. Even for the Council of Trent the Baptism of desire did not conflict with Cantate Domino on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yet for centuries in the Catholic Church it was known that a non Catholic could be saved with the baptism of desire and this could be accepted only in principle since we did not personally know any case. We could not meet on earth a person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. So it did not conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no exceptions. Over the centuries they knew that the baptism of desire was no exception to the dogma. This was the simple traditional understanding in the Church.

‘…until the Second Vatican Council, the Church studiously avoided using the word “faith” when referring to other religions. She used the term “heresy” and not “faith”. This is more exact, because a heresy is a faith in error, it is a false faith, a faith that is no longer supernatural. Therefore it is no longer a virtue infused by God, it has been broken,Towards Assisi III (22nd October 2011) : Bishop Fellay’s conference at the Courier de Rome Congress, Paris, January 9th 2011 (excerpts)-DICI

-Lionel Andrades

CATHOLIC PRIESTS CORRECT POPE BENEDICT'S MISTAKE : WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A NON CATHOLIC SAVED IMPLICITLY BY JESUS AND THE CHURCH SO IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT CANTATE DOMINO,COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

Catholic priests have said that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved implicitly by Jesus and the Church. Neither do we know any case of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

Catholic priests have said, it is reported on this blog, that the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence is de fide and is not contradicted by Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So when the pope says that we do not have to pray for the conversion of the Jews in the present times what text is he using to base this statement?

The Bible tells us Jews need to convert into the Church Jesus founded and if they do not they will be condemned to Hell (John 3:5, Mark 16:16, John 6 (the necessity of the Eucharist etc).

Magisterial documents during the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II has the same message (CCC 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20, Ecclesia di Eucrestia (outside the church no salvation ecclesiology etc).

Church Councils and popes have in the Extraordinary and Ordinary Mode affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says Jews need to convert in the present times.

Pope Benedict XVI in Light to the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald also repeats that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

Pope Benedict XVI says that he has revised the ancient liturgy (on Good Friday) so that it does not say that Jews need to convert in the present times but that they will convert in a future time (eschatological time).

So he is saying that he has revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews which now says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

I modified it in such a way that… one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews…but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united.-Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius) p.107

Pope Benedict XVI states above that he revised the Good Friday Prayer ‘in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all.’ (This of course does not say that all Jews are on the path to Hell unless they convert as the Church has taught for centuries. This was the one way of salvation) The pope says ‘that there do not exist two ways of salvation’( The pope indicates there is only one way of salvation and Jews are saved in general through this one way; Christ and the Church, and so they do not have to convert. Catholic priests have pointed out that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved by Jesus and the Church. There is no case of implicit salvation which is explicit for us. The dogma says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church. So the pope’s one way of salvation is a strawman) The pope continues ‘and that therefore Christ is also the saviour of the Jews, and not only of the pagans ‘(Christ is the Saviour of the Jews and pagans and they are saved, even if they do not enter the Catholic Church? Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus n.20 says Jesus has died for all but to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says that the Church is like a door in which all need to enter, Ad Gentes 7 says all need baptism for salvation).

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II and Dominus Iesus 20 say there is only one way of salvation and everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to be saved.

The pope’s 'one way of salvation' includes those saved in invincible ignorance etc (Lumen Gentium 16). The book actually contradicts Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II, which does not claim that we know personally, people saved in invincible ignorance. So it is wrongly assumed that LG 16 contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 16 refers to implicit salvation and not to explicit cases known to us. We can affirm LG 16 and also Cantate Domino, Council of Florence. Rationality tells us that we do not know a single case in the present times of a person saved in invincible ignorance. So how can it contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus? So the pope’s ‘no two ways of salvation’ is not rational or Catholic

A front page article (April 10, 2008) in the L’Osservatore Romano was written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar .It was presented to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State. It was approved by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

The article said that Vatican Council II indicated that non Catholics can be saved. So Cardinal Kaspar concluded that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, Vatican also never issued a clarification when on Sept 22,2009 Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Italy quoted Cardinal Bertone saying that the Revised Good Friday Prayer was not for the conversion of the Jews and Jews do not have to convert.

Angelo Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa and President of the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference (CEI) stated that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State had clearly expressed the sentiments of the Holy Father to the Rabbinate of Israel after the Revised Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was announced. This was reported in Avvenire the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference. (23.09.2009).

The report further said that after the CEI communiqué emphasized that there was no intention to actively convert Jews the Rabbinical Assembly decided to normalize relations which were broken in 2007. It was also noted that the prayer referred to the conversion of the Jews in the eschatological time (end of time) in the future and not now.

There was to be no conversion of the Jews in the present times, the report indicated and that this had the approval of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

The Revised Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for the conversion of present day Jews. The Avvenire report was available on the internet (' Gironata ebraico-cristiana riprende la celebrazione commune Bagnasco ai rabbinic Laras e Di Segni : diamo nuovo slancio al dialogo di Lorenzo Rosoli p. 8, Chiesa).

1. Pope Benedict approved the article written on the front page of the L’Osservatore Romano by Cardinal Kaspar and sent to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. The message was Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Also it was alleged that this was taught in Vatican Council II.

2. Pope Benedict approved the meeting of Cardinal Bagnasco with the two Rabbis when Bagnasco issued a directive of the Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Bagnasco claimed that it had the support of the Pope.

3. The pope approved Cardinal Bertone’s claim to the Chief Rabbinate through a Letter, public, that we Catholics had a belief in Jesus. (That was about all). And that the Chief Rabbinate had read the article by Cardinal Kaspar which said Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

This new teaching was been given to us after protests were made by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Jewish Left. Dialogue with the Vatican was suspended. The issue was the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews.

Pope Benedict XVI is my pope and I pray for him. I would not dare to make any comments on his personality or character. I try to restrict myself to theology and doctrine.

The Catholic priests are clear that we do not know any case of implicit salvation on earth  and so it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone on earth needs to be a Catholic explicitly  with no exception.

Judaism



I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one’s way of being and respective mission[. . .]

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done. - Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times”, Ignatius Press, 2010. (From the website La Chiesa)(Emphasis added)

------------------------------------------------

According to the Jewish JTA


Italian Jewish leaders drop Church boycott
September 23, 2009

ROME (JTA) -- Italian Jewish leaders will drop their boycott of the Catholic Church's annual celebration of Judaism.

Italian rabbis pulled out of this year's Jan. 17 "Day of Judaism" over the Vatican's reintroduction last year of a Good Friday Latin prayer that appeared to call for the conversion of Jews. The decision to drop the boycott comes after they received assurances that the Church does not actively try to convert Jews.

The Italian Bishops Conference said in a statement that the agreement to resume participation came at a meeting that Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the president of the Italian Bishops Council, held Tuesday with Rome Chief Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni and Rabbi Giuseppe Laras, the president of the Italian Rabbinical Assembly.

"There was a common belief that the resumption of this celebration will help mutual understanding and render collaboration for the growth of love towards God and neighbors more fruitful," the statement said.

At the meeting, the statement said, Bagnasco offered Rosh Hashanah greetings and also underscored "in the most absolute way" that the Church has not changed its policy toward the Jews.

"The Conference of Italian Bishops reiterated that it is not the intention of the Catholic Church to work actively for the conversion of the Jews," the statement said.

Bagnasco also expressed concern about continuing incidents of anti-Semitism that he said must be countered.