Pope Benedict reconciling the Church and the World. Bishop Williamson comment: ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of …More
Pope Benedict reconciling the Church and the World.
Bishop Williamson comment:
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I
The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of four numbers which would show how "disoriented" is Pope Benedict XVI's "way of believing". They present in fact a summary of the precious tract on his thinking written a few years ago by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. The Bishop's tract, The Faith Imperilled by Reason, he calls "unpretentious", but it does lay bare the Pope's fundamental problem - how to believe in the Catholic Faith in such a way as not to exclude the values of the modern world. The tract shows that such a way of believing is necessarily disoriented, even if the Pope does still in some way believe.
It divides into four parts. After an important Introduction to Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", Bishop Tissier looks briefly at the philosophical and theological roots…More
Bishop Williamson comment:
ELEISON COMMENTS CCVIII (July 9, 2011) : BENEDICT'S THINKING I
The "Eleison Comments" of June 18 promised a series of four numbers which would show how "disoriented" is Pope Benedict XVI's "way of believing". They present in fact a summary of the precious tract on his thinking written a few years ago by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X. The Bishop's tract, The Faith Imperilled by Reason, he calls "unpretentious", but it does lay bare the Pope's fundamental problem - how to believe in the Catholic Faith in such a way as not to exclude the values of the modern world. The tract shows that such a way of believing is necessarily disoriented, even if the Pope does still in some way believe.
It divides into four parts. After an important Introduction to Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Continuity", Bishop Tissier looks briefly at the philosophical and theological roots…More
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…
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX's denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
I have been asked by a reader of this blog where exactly does Fr.Francois Laisney say that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Here is my answer.
Fr. Francois Laisney writes:
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."www.sspx.org/…/three_errors_of…
He is implying here that there is salvation in the present times for someone without the baptism of water.
Note: I use the words ‘in the present time’. It refers to the present reality, the de facto situation i.e when I meet a non Catholic on the street or telephone him.
De facto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation this is the teaching of the dogma. So he denies the dogma here.
His denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
Implicitly, and known only to God we know that for salvation there could be possible theoretical exceptions to every one needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, before they die.
In principle, de jure we accept that a non Catholic can be saved in the way God chooses and this would be an exception. Theoretically there can be ‘exceptions’ de facto there are no exceptions to the dogma. So those who are saved de jure are not exceptions to the dogma.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frfrancois-lais…
Fr. Francois Laisney says :
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Nowhere does the Letter state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was 'condemned' or that he was excommunicated for heresy. This is the propaganda of the liberal secular media.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that every non Catholic in Boston and the rest of the world needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. The dogma does not mention exceptions and it is an infallible teaching.Fr.Francois Laisney implies that there are exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.
-Lionel Andrades
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…
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX's denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
I have been asked by a reader of this blog where exactly does Fr.Francois Laisney say that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Here is my answer.
Fr. Francois Laisney writes:
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."
The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."www.sspx.org/…/three_errors_of…
He is implying here that there is salvation in the present times for someone without the baptism of water.
Note: I use the words ‘in the present time’. It refers to the present reality, the de facto situation i.e when I meet a non Catholic on the street or telephone him.
De facto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation this is the teaching of the dogma. So he denies the dogma here.
His denial is probably not willful but due to confusion between defacto-dejure salvation, implicit and explicit salvation.
Implicitly, and known only to God we know that for salvation there could be possible theoretical exceptions to every one needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, before they die.
In principle, de jure we accept that a non Catholic can be saved in the way God chooses and this would be an exception. Theoretically there can be ‘exceptions’ de facto there are no exceptions to the dogma. So those who are saved de jure are not exceptions to the dogma.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frfrancois-lais…
Fr. Francois Laisney says :
His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Nowhere does the Letter state that Fr.Leonard Feeney was 'condemned' or that he was excommunicated for heresy. This is the propaganda of the liberal secular media.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that every non Catholic in Boston and the rest of the world needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence etc).So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying every one needs to be a visible member of the Church and there are no exceptions. The dogma does not mention exceptions and it is an infallible teaching.Fr.Francois Laisney implies that there are exceptions to the dogma and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.
-Lionel Andrades