1
2LETTER FROM FATHER BOUCHACOURT TO PRIESTS DISTRICT TO INFORM ABOUT THE MEETING OF ALBANO. Letter in which the Superior of the district of South America, the Bouchacourt abbot, makes a detailed analysis …More
LETTER FROM FATHER BOUCHACOURT TO PRIESTS DISTRICT TO INFORM ABOUT THE MEETING OF ALBANO.
Letter in which the Superior of the district of South America, the Bouchacourt abbot, makes a detailed analysis from what occurred to Albano.
This letter from Father Christian BOUCHACOURT contains proof of the letter from Bp. Fellay to Bp. Williamson
Letter in which the Superior of the district of South America, the Bouchacourt abbot, makes a detailed analysis from what occurred to Albano.
This letter from Father Christian BOUCHACOURT contains proof of the letter from Bp. Fellay to Bp. Williamson
Lionel Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
From Rorate Caeli comments on Who is a Traditionalist?
Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
it is important to note …More
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
From Rorate Caeli comments on Who is a Traditionalist?
Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.
Ecclesia Militans
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.
Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.
On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):
Lionel:
In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.
Lionel:
They all were in agrement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Ecclesia Militans
Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...
Lionel:
They seem unaware too that the baptism of desire etc are not defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Ecclesia Militans
The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonrd Feeney said that there is only one baptism, the baptism of water . This is the only explicit baptism. For salvation all people need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the above mentioned theologians, doctors etc.This is the teaching of the following:
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.
Ecclesia Militans
It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).
Lionel:
No magisterial document states that the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us or an exception to the dogma.
Ecclesia Militans
you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide,...
Lionel:
Yes it is de fide and accepted in principle. It cannot be known explicitly and so it does not contradict the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Ecclesia Militans
and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".
Lionel:
The baptism of blood is not an exception to the dogma.
Ecclesia Militans
In short and precise quote:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“
Lionel:
Correct and we do not know any case of a non Catholic on earth who is saved in invincible ignorance or is going to be saved.
Ecclesia Militans
e Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM
www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9singul.htm
Lionel:
No where does Pope Pius IX say that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma or that they are explicit. On has to make this wrong assumption.The popes do not make this assumption.
20 January, 2012 23:34
-Lionel Andrades
rorate-caeli.blogspot.it/…/who-is-traditio…
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
From Rorate Caeli comments on Who is a Traditionalist?
Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.
Ecclesia Militans
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.
Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.
On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):
Lionel:
In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.
Lionel:
They all were in agrement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Ecclesia Militans
Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...
Lionel:
They seem unaware too that the baptism of desire etc are not defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Ecclesia Militans
The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonrd Feeney said that there is only one baptism, the baptism of water . This is the only explicit baptism. For salvation all people need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the above mentioned theologians, doctors etc.This is the teaching of the following:
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.
Ecclesia Militans
It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).
Lionel:
No magisterial document states that the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us or an exception to the dogma.
Ecclesia Militans
you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide,...
Lionel:
Yes it is de fide and accepted in principle. It cannot be known explicitly and so it does not contradict the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Ecclesia Militans
and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".
Lionel:
The baptism of blood is not an exception to the dogma.
Ecclesia Militans
In short and precise quote:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“
Lionel:
Correct and we do not know any case of a non Catholic on earth who is saved in invincible ignorance or is going to be saved.
Ecclesia Militans
e Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM
www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9singul.htm
Lionel:
No where does Pope Pius IX say that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma or that they are explicit. On has to make this wrong assumption.The popes do not make this assumption.
20 January, 2012 23:34
-Lionel Andrades
rorate-caeli.blogspot.it/…/who-is-traditio…
Lionel Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Thursday, November 17, 2011
SSPX IMPLY BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE, THEN THEY ASSUME IT’S AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION: OFFER LATIN MASS WITH NOVUS ORDO ECCLESIOLOGY
The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise …More
Thursday, November 17, 2011
SSPX IMPLY BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE, THEN THEY ASSUME IT’S AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION: OFFER LATIN MASS WITH NOVUS ORDO ECCLESIOLOGY
The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise it is an impediment for saying the Latin Mass. It is the actual rejection of a dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’. SSPX must recognize that it is an impediment for offering Holy Mass according to Canon Law.
Similar to the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), former SSPX members, are rejecting the dogma and Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. For the FSSP all in the present time need to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
I do not know if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican will consider the SSPX and FSSP error an impediment to offering Mass since the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Susanna in Rome reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They claim Vatican Council II has changed this teaching and they provide a theology of religions on their website. They offer Mass in English, ordain their priests and the Vatican gives them canonical status.There are no demands made on them by the Vatican as is the case for the SSPX.
Fr. Peter Scott writes on the SSPX website that unlike the modernists they believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Yes- as compared to the Paulist Fathers in Rome. However there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass who say they respect the dogma however those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Sounds familiar?
Fr. Peter Scott criticizes the modernist ecclesiology in a letter to Bishop Raymond Boland, of the diocese of Kansas City, USA. Yet the SSPX is using the same ecclesiology as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass. If the SSPX priests assume that the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then they also imply that the baptism of desire is visible for us and is as explicit as the baptism of water.I do not like to write all this since in many ways I admire the SSPX but it is unfortunate that they are using the same ecclesiology as in the Novus Ordo Mass.
Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX assume in written reports on their website, and in a book by Fr. Laisney, that the baptism of desire is visible and explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX needs to issue a clarification on this subject-Lionel Andrades
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/sspx-imply-bapt…
SSPX IMPLY BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS VISIBLE, THEN THEY ASSUME IT’S AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION: OFFER LATIN MASS WITH NOVUS ORDO ECCLESIOLOGY
The Society of St. Pius X needs to announce that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma and that everyone with no exception needs to convert into the Church for salvation.Otherwise it is an impediment for saying the Latin Mass. It is the actual rejection of a dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statement’. SSPX must recognize that it is an impediment for offering Holy Mass according to Canon Law.
Similar to the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), former SSPX members, are rejecting the dogma and Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. For the FSSP all in the present time need to enter the Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
I do not know if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican will consider the SSPX and FSSP error an impediment to offering Mass since the Paulist Fathers at the Church of Santa Susanna in Rome reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They claim Vatican Council II has changed this teaching and they provide a theology of religions on their website. They offer Mass in English, ordain their priests and the Vatican gives them canonical status.There are no demands made on them by the Vatican as is the case for the SSPX.
Fr. Peter Scott writes on the SSPX website that unlike the modernists they believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Yes- as compared to the Paulist Fathers in Rome. However there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass who say they respect the dogma however those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Sounds familiar?
Fr. Peter Scott criticizes the modernist ecclesiology in a letter to Bishop Raymond Boland, of the diocese of Kansas City, USA. Yet the SSPX is using the same ecclesiology as the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass. If the SSPX priests assume that the baptism of desire contradicts the dogma then they also imply that the baptism of desire is visible for us and is as explicit as the baptism of water.I do not like to write all this since in many ways I admire the SSPX but it is unfortunate that they are using the same ecclesiology as in the Novus Ordo Mass.
Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX assume in written reports on their website, and in a book by Fr. Laisney, that the baptism of desire is visible and explicit and so is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX needs to issue a clarification on this subject-Lionel Andrades
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/sspx-imply-bapt…