General House of the Society of Saint Pius X: Bishop Fellay will be received by Cardinal Levada on September 14, 2011
Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, invited Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, and his two assistants, Father Niklaus Pfluger and Father Alain-Marc Nély, to meet him in the Palace of the Holy Office on September 14, 2011. In his letter of invitation, Cardinal Levada noted that the purpose of this meeting is first to make an assessment of the theological discussions conducted by the experts of the Congregation for the Faith and of the Society of Saint Pius X over the past two academic years, and then to consider the future prospects.
As Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recalled on the occasion of the recent priestly ordinations in Ecône [June 29; 2011], “We are Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. If Rome is the head and the heart of the Catholic Church, we know that (…) the crisis will necessarily be resolved in Rome and by Rome. Consequently, the little good we will do in Rome is much greater than the great deal of good that we will do elsewhere.” With this deep conviction Bishop Fellay will go [to Rome] at the invitation of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
(Source : SSPX/MG – DICI : 08/30/11)
Communique from the Vatican on Sept. 14, 2011:
ReplyDeletehttp://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2011/09/communique-concerning-society-of-st.html
Press release from SSPX on Oct. 7th:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-release-from-the-general-house-of-the-priestly-society-of-st-pius-x/
Monday, November 14, 2011
ReplyDeleteIS THE SSPX MASS VALID? YES, BUT THE PRIEST COULD BE IN MORTAL SIN FOR REJECTING A DEFINED DOGMA WITH HIS ‘EXCEPTIONS’
There are conditions for offering the Tridentine Rite Mass. Are they being met by the SSPX ?
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) priests offer the Tridentine Rite Mass and consider the baptism of desire and those saved in invincible ignorance as exceptions to the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are in the same position as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in different languages.
However the SSPX claims on its website that they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They also imply that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so it is an exception to the dogmatic teaching. This is a denial, a rejection of the dogma.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-sspx-mass-valid-yes-but-priest-could.html
continued
ReplyDeleteThe baptism of desire is always implicit. It would have to be explicitly known to conflict with the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. Yet this is implied in the articles by Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr.Peter Scott. Since these cases are hidden they are really not exceptions. There are no defacto exceptions. If we consider them as exceptions it would mean we can meet non Catholics on the street saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. You could say to such a person whom you meet, “ Hi John, I’m glad you were saved with the baptism of desire you arose from the dead and returned to live with us once again. I heard the same thing happened with your sister Francesca”.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholics-are-fighting-it-out-on.html#links
Invincible Ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the dogma but explicitly known invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions.So one has to imply that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicitly known. We have to assume that we can meet someone on the street saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Only because it is ‘explicitly known’ is it an exception to the dogma.If it was implicit it would not be an exception. The SSPX website says Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong since those saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there were no exceptions to the dogmatic teaching. The dogma does not mention exceptions. Neither does Vatican Council II refer to explicit, visible cases of those saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. It refers to implicit cases known to God only.
There are conditions for offering the Tridentine Rite Mass. Are they being met by the SSPX ?
-Lionel Andrades
> IS THE SSPX MASS VALID? YES,
ReplyDeletesw: Yes, we concur, it is.
> BUT THE PRIEST COULD BE IN MORTAL
> SIN FOR REJECTING A DEFINED DOGMA
> WITH HIS ‘EXCEPTIONS’
sw: Exceptions, as related to the validity of the Traditional Latin Mass? Or are you on an extremist position of the EENS agenda?
> There are conditions for offering
> the Tridentine Rite Mass. Are
> they being met by the SSPX ?
sw: Which conditions are you referring to?
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
sw: Exceptions, as related to the validity of the Traditional Latin Mass? Or are you on an extremist position of the EENS agenda?
ReplyDeleteThe Traditional Latin Mass is valid but it would be a sin to reject an ex cathedra dogma, defined three times.
There can be no two interpretations of a de fide teaching. There has been one interpretation of the dogma for centuries.
sw: Which conditions are you referring to?
The conditions for a priest to be free from public mortal sin. To reject a defined dogma knowingly is a grave sin. The SSPX has been informed about this issue.
CANDIDATES WITH A RELIGIOUS VOCATION IN ENGLAND HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE TO THEM
ReplyDeleteThe Vocation Director of Southwark, England Fr. Stephen Langley has said that candidates with a religious vocation to the diocese would have to accept the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus ‘but the doctrine should not be interpreted in the narrow Feenyite sense’.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/vocation-director-in-southwarkengland.html
Young Catholics in England would have to say that everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be exceptions like those saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is assumed to be visible and so is an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.
If the baptism of desire was implicit for candidates it would not contradict the dogma, it would not be an exception. Since it is allegedly explicitly known, it is an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. Candidates with a vocation would be accepted who presumably could 'spot' these rare exceptional cases.
The Vocation Director at Southwark also has implied that the Catholic Church has condemned the ‘narrow Feenyite sense’. However there is no ‘condemnation’ mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma like the popes, Church Councils and saints indicate that all non Catholics in Boston,USA, Southwark and the rest of England need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell. This was exactly the teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney who was not excommunicated for heresy but for disobedience. The excommunication was lifted by the Church without him having to recant.http://www.scribd.com/doc/25059967/Peter-Vere-Canon-Lawyer-on-the-status-of-those-who-hold-Fr-Leonard-Feeney-s-Doctrinal-Position
So candidates with a religious vocation in England would have to accept that Fr. Leonard Feeney was ‘condemned’ for holding the same view as the popes, including Pope Pius XII, who referred to 'the dogma', the saints and the dogma itself.A postulant with the Mother Teresa’s Sisters here in Rome calls all this ‘a mystery’.
There are Catholic religious communities in the USA , in the diocese of Worcester, Manchester, who teach that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy. Pope Pius XII supported him on doctrine..The baptism of desire is implicit and so is not visible to us.These religious communities are recognized by the Catholic Church and they welcome young people with a vocation.
Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/candidates-with-religious-vocation-in.html
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteI think you're worrying about something way above our paygrade. The judgment on the efficacy of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions to "No salvation outside the Church" is up to Our Lord Jesus Christ. There has been a lot written about this at Vatican II.
Lumen Gentium 16 says:
"For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in #10 says: "For such people [those who do not
formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church."
LG #14 says: "they are fully incorporated" who accept all its
organization. . . . ."
cont...
cont...
ReplyDeleteLG #8: "This Church, in this world
as a constituted and ordered society, subsists in the Catholic Church. . . even though outside its confines many elements of sanctification and truth are found which, as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel to Catholic unity."
Pope Gregory XVI (DS 2730. Cf. Pius IX, DS 2915 and Leo XIII,
DS 3250) condemned "an evil opinion that souls can attain eternal salvation by just any profession of faith, if their morals follow the right norm."
Even though people may not have formally joined the Church they may be saved, as LG 16 and RM 10 say: they are not saved by such a
faith. It is in spite of it.
We cannot judge whether or not someone IS part of the Church. They may be, through grace, chosen by God to be where they are and have the faith they have. They may be as LG 16 and RM 10 say part of the Church in spite of their outer protestations or ignorance. We are not the judge of that--God is.
I think you're worrying about something...
ReplyDeleteLionel: Yes we agree the judgement is up to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We do not know any such case and so it does not contradict Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Cathmom:Lumen Gentium 16 says:
"For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
Lionel: Yes we agree that they can achieve salvation. LG 16 does not contradict the dogma or Vatican Council II. Since those who are saved in invincible ignorance are known only to God.
Cathmon: John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in #10 says: "For such people [those who do not formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church."
Lionel: Yes we agree that they can be saved.
Cathmom:
LG #14 says: "they are fully incorporated" who accept all its
organization.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. . . . ."
Lionel: Yes we agree that they can be saved.
However this is not the ordinary means of salvation. The 'ordinary means' (Redemptoris Missio 55) is the Catholic Church. So Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation.(LG 14)
Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14
CONTINUED
continued
ReplyDeleteCathmom: LG #8: "This Church, in this world as a constituted and ordered society, subsists in the Catholic Church. . . even though outside its confines many elements of sanctification and truth are found which, as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel to Catholic unity."
Lionel:True, the Church subsists in the Catholic Church and only in this Church is there salvation. There may be elements of sanctification, ‘good and holy’, things in non Catholic religions but salvation is there in only the Catholic Church. Those who are saved are saved through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.
Cathmom:Pope Gregory XVI (DS 2730. Cf. Pius IX, DS 2915 and Leo XIII,
DS 3250) condemned "an evil opinion that souls can attain eternal salvation by just any profession of faith, if their morals follow the right norm."
Lionel: All faiths are not equal. Everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.(Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
Cathmom: Even though people may not have formally joined the Church they may be saved, as LG 16 and RM 10 say: they are not saved by such a
faith. It is in spite of it.
We cannot judge whether or not someone IS part of the Church. They may be, through grace, chosen by God to be where they are and have the faith they have. They may be as LG 16 and RM 10 say part of the Church in spite of their outer protestations or ignorance. We are not the judge of that--God is.
Lionel: True, as mentioned above they can be saved.
So we agree that there is the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc.
These cases are known only to God and so they do not contradict LG 14,AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which indicates all people with no exception need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation;to avoid Hell.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
ReplyDeleteCATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES SAYS THOSE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE VISIBLE TO US
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated it is suggested for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus thrice-defined.
The Bishops Conference of England and Wales has placed the book Muslims Ask, Christian answer in the section Resources, on its website. (Dialogue With Other Religions/Committee for Relations with other Other Religions). This book by the Jesuit Christian Troll interprets Vatican Council II (LG 16) as referring to cases of invincible ignorance being explicit and known to us. LG 16 contradicts the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
It means every one needs to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but there could be exceptions like those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16). Cases of those saved in invincible ignorance it is assumed are visible to us and so they are an exception to the dogma.The dogma indicates everyone needs to be an explicit, visible member of the church to go to Heaven.
So in inter religious dialogue it is assumed by the CBCEW that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times.Those who have not had the Gsopel preached to them through no fault of their own and are saved are known to us in the present time ?!
In another report on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales titled Catholics and Other Faiths the error is repeated. Archbishop Emeritus Kevin McDonald of Southwark who is the Chair of the Committe for Relations with Other Religions states that the ‘seeds of the Word’ are present in other religions(1).Theoretically, as a possibility this is acceptable. However the bishop is implying that we know of particular cases so every non Catholic with no exception does not have to enter the Church for salvation.He is implying that this is an exception to the dogma.This is the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).
This is the teaching of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales in inter faith dialogue, for candidates with religious vocations and at the Catholic seminaries in Rome like the English and Beda College.
This new visible baptism of desire doctrine contradicts magisterial documents.It is also irrational. (a) No one knows of a particular case of someone being saved with the baptism of desire and (b) Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for repeating the same teaching of the popes, Councils, saints and the thrice-defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholic-bishops-conference-of-england.html
I thought I had answered your comment but here I go again.
ReplyDeleteLumen Gentium 16 is not an exception to the dogma or Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7). There is no case of someone saved in invincible ignorance that we know of in the present times. If you assume that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to outside the church there is no salvation then it would be mean that these are explicit cases.
Only if they are visible, explicit cases on earth, would they contradict the dogma which says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation .(Cantate Domino,Council of Flornce). Only if these cases are visible and known would they contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II, which contradicts the dogma. The Catholic Church’s teaching before and after Vatican Council II has not changed on the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
Theoretically we accpt that a person can be saved in invincible ignoranc etc. We do not imply that this contradicts the dogma. There is also no magiterial text with this claim.
Monday, November 28, 2011
ReplyDeleteUSCCB, CCBEW, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, CUF IMPLY POPE PIUS XII SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
This is false. The letter refers to the dogma and indicates that de facto everyone needs to enter the Church and it also mentions that de jure a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire. The Letter was critical of the Archbishop of Boston who indicated that those saved with the baptism of desire are defacto cases, known and visible. The Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on doctrine.
For the baptism of desire to be an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation it would have to be visible and known. Implicit unknown to us baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma which indicates every one must me a visible member of the Church.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteThe Letter mentions 'the dogma', 'the infallible statement' and affirms the baptism of desire. It does not imply that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma since the baptism of desire is always implicit .God accepts an implicit desire he can also save someone in implicit invincible ignorance. So implicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance cannot be an exception to the dogma. The dogma refers to all people needing to defacto enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
There are those who are members of the Church as taught by the dogma and there are those who are united to the Church only by desire. They are defacto members who have Catholic Faith and have received the baptism of water. Those who have received the baptism of desire are de jure in principle united to the Church only by desire. These cases are known only to God.
The Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was addressed to the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing directly and not to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
It was because the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits, who implied wrongly, that these cases could be exceptions to the dogma and to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
It was the Archbishop who believed like the Jesuits at Boston College that every one with no exception does not have to enter the Church for salvation. The Archbishop believed that there could be non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Implying, of course, that these cases are visible, explicit and known to us and so are an exception to the dogma.
CONTINUED
continued
ReplyDeleteThe Letter affirms ‘the dogma’ as did Fr. Leonard Feeney. The dogma does not mention any exceptions and neither does Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Letter seems to refer to the issue of the baptism of desire being implied as an exception to the dogma. It is only in reference to the error of the Archbishop and the Jesuits at Boston College.
The Letter like Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents uses the defacto- dejure analysis. The Archbishop and the Jesuits used the clumsy defacto- defacto analysis and contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction. How could they imply that everyone de facto needs to enter the Church for salvation but some people do not de facto need to enter the Church ?!
To imply that the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has visible exceptions is heresy. It is a rejectiion of the dogma as it was interpreted for centuries. It is creating a new doctrine.
This error of the visible baptism of desire being a defacto exception to the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney is being maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the Fr. Peter Phan Notification. They have used the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’. The error is also held on the websites by the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (CCBEW) ,Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith and so many other Catholics. They assume innocently that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. They wrongly imply that this was taught by Pope Pius XII.
-Lionel Andrades
DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-cardinal-who-issued-letter-of-holy.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/usccb-ccbew-catholic-answers-cuf-imply.html