Author Topic: Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY  (Read 3643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LionelAndrades

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
« on: June 26, 2010, 04:52:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE MISUNDERSTOOD BY SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
     

    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 enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ((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

    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216:


    Quote
    “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]


    Quote
    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]
    He says perhaps since this is an area of speculation. The gift of the Baptism of Desire is exceptional and known only to God. It cannot be explicitly given as the Baptism of water.


    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.

    There is a book Is Feeneyism Catholic written by Fr.Fancois Laisney SSPX and sold by the Society of St.Pius X publishers Angelus Press. It is advertised on the internet.

    The Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX) religious leaders are praised for saying everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation but the SSPX still uses the mantra ‘ except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’. So does Fr.Laisney.

    1.Is the SSPX saying that the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus states that everyone explicitly, de facto needs to be a member of the Catholic Church-but those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire are explicit, de facto cases and so do not need to enter the church for salvation?

    2. Is the SSPX saying that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to implicit or explicit salvation?

    3. Is there an explicit baptism of desire?

    4. When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the Fr. Peter C.Phan case said entry into the Church is necessary for salvation ‘except for those in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire’ is it considered heresy for the SSPX?

    5. In the Boston Case Archbishop Richard Cushing and the Jesuits considered the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as explicit, knowable, and judgable and an exception to the infallible teaching. Should not the Boston Case be reviewed?

    Would the SSPX agree if I said that everyone needs to be an explicit member (with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith) of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire, will be known only to God?

    There have been appeals to the Vatican to reopen the Boston Case. Since, Fr. Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire. He was correct there is no explicit baptism of desire. The ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by the popes, Councils and saints said the same.

    De jure in principle there is a Baptism of Desire understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the present Saint Benedict Center. It includes the desire for the Baptism of water. However this is accepted in principle. It is understood as implicit, a grace of God and only known to God.

    De facto there is no baptism of desire that we can know of.So the Richard Cushing doctrine (explicit baptism of desire) is not part of the Catholic deposit of faith.

    The secular media claim that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for disobedience. He did not go to Rome when called. He was also disobedient to the Archbishop who never affirmed the dogma in public nor corrected the secular newspapers which stated that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is presently in closed-door negotiations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican to ascertain Catholic doctrine. Yet the SSPX itself could be in heresy according to its website and reports by SSPX priests including Fr.Laisney.

    If the SSPX does not interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to de jure, implicit salvation, then it is the Kung Deception. If they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to something defacto-personally-knowable then it is heresy.If they do not see the Baptism of Desire as implicit then they would contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    The dogma refers to explicit entry into the Catholic Church, through the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, which is explicit and objectively verifiable.

    The SSPX has been saying correctly that everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation but have also been using the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’.
    It would be rational to say everybody(all non Catholics) with no exception need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire known only to God and He only will judge them.

    Here is the ex cathedra dogma.

    Quote
    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex Cathedra

    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.). Ex Cathedra

    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex Cathedra
    – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS: http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/ )


    The SSPX needs to clarify its position in public. I have written to them but I get no reply.

    The Baptism of Desire is always implicit. It is hypothetical, subjective and de jure.So how can the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everybody needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to be saved? And if it did not contradict the dogma it would mean every Jew, Muslim or Buddhist is on the way to Hell.The infallible teaching says everyone explicitly needs the baptism of water to avoid Hell. It says everyone needs Catholic Faith, which is objective, it has to be learnt and one’s knowledge can be tested explicitly.

    So the mantra is a deception when it suggests the baptism of water and invincible ignorance are explicit and can be judged in specific persons.

    One cannot say that everyone needs explicit faith for salvation, with no exceptions, according to the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and at the same time say, that people can be saved explicitly through the baptism of desire.

    However one can say that everyone needs explicit faith according to the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and at the same time say that people can be saved implicitly, in principle, as a theory, a concept, through the baptism of desire.

    So Fr. Leonard Feeney said what  popes, Councils and saints over the centuries repeated that everybody needs to explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved.
    The dogma above does not say that only those who know can be saved or those who are in invincible ignorance do not have to enter the Church.

    So the Letter of the Holy Office was endorsing the infallible teaching as it is and so was Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    It is said that Fr. Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire and so was a heretic. He was saying that there is no baptism of desire that one can know of explicitly. Explicit baptism of desire is the Richard Cushing heresy. It is contrary to the principle of non contradiction.
    ___________________________________________________


    1. What does the Magisterium teach?
    The Magisterium teaches that everyone with no exception needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell (Ex cathedra extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church n.836, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).

    2.Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II contradicts the above teaching (1)?

    No, since LG 16 refers to those saved implicitly and not explicitly. Those with the baptism of desire, genuine invincible ignorance and a good conscience are known to God only. They are always implicit and subjective cases.There are no de facto cases of baptism of desire that we know of.

    3.The Holy Spirit is also present in non-Catholic religions?

    Yes, in only the good and holy things. There are also ‘errors, deficiencies and superstition’(Dominus Iesus) in these religions where the Holy Spirit cannot be present.Whatever good is found in these religions are a preparation for the Gospel, the members of these religions are oriented towards the Catholic Church and are all called to be members(Notification,Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith relative to Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J , 2001)

    4.Does everyone have to become a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation?
    The dogma says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.Pope Pius XII called it the 'infallible' teaching.

    Quote
    Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
    However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.- (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). Emphasis added.


    Here it is again:

    Quote
    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.
    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.
    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/


    5.Only those who know and do not enter will go to Hell?They will definitely go to Hell according to Ad Gentes7,Vatican Council II. However all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they explicitly convert into the Catholic Church.If there are any among them any who are in invincible ignorance etc it will known only to God.
    ___________________________________________________

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #1 on: June 26, 2010, 05:27:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are not making any sense, Lionel.

    Quote
    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.


    The Catholic Church does not speculate about possibilities that cannot happen.  Nor does any rational human being, because a possibility, by its very nature, can happen i.e. is possible.  

    You also cannot speculate about something that goes against dogma.  You cannot speculate that the Old Covenant maintains its effectiveness, or that Christ the Son is of a different and lesser substance than God the Father.  Nor can you say that Jews are saved by the Old Covenant in theory but not in fact.  That wouldn't make it any less heretical; just more nonsensical.

    Your mistake is that the Church has never said you had to be a visible member to be saved.  That is your Feeneyite interpretation of what it says.  Hence, speculations about implicit faith do not contradict dogma.  

    You will be happy to know, though, that it is certainly no dogma to believe in salvation by implicit faith.  That letter of the Holy Office is not enough.  The Pope of the restored Church will have to clear this up.  But considering that baptism of desire was never made a dogma in any unmistakably clear way, it seems absurd to me that Archbishop Cushing, who was a major Modernist, could just leap over that and make the far more controversial idea of implicit faith a dogma.

    You are right that we don't know if it salvation by implicit faith or baptism of desire happens.  But you can't say that it goes against "the dogma" if someone says these things DO happen.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21126
    • Reputation: +11674/-5990
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #2 on: June 26, 2010, 01:24:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stuff like this drives me nuts.  We know that absolutely everyone -- without exceptions -- must become Catholic in order to be saved.  People can be saved in other religions.

    Either they're Catholic or they're not Catholic.  Either there are exceptions or there aren't.

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You want to accept the Church's definitions on EENS which use language like "absolutely no one at all" and yet accept implicit BoD (which you call explicit) as well.

    At least be logically consistent and say that people who are saved are Catholic implicitly.  No Protestant has ever been saved.  Only Catholics are saved.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #3 on: June 26, 2010, 01:36:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lionel, I'm afraid you are mistaken on some things. If you would get out your Bible you would see that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I'm sure you mean well, but some of the things you posted don't make much sense.

    God Bless.

    Offline LionelAndrades

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #4 on: June 27, 2010, 07:49:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Rauol,

    Quote
    You are not making any sense, Lionel.


    Quote
    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.

    The Catholic Church does not speculate about possibilities that cannot happen.  Nor does any rational human being, because a possibility, by its very nature, can happen i.e. is possible.  


    Exactly.However it is a possibility.It is conceptual only. It is not a fact, not de facto. We do not even know if there has been a Baptism of Desire on earth or if there is one now.It is speculative.Intellectual.

    You also cannot speculate about something that goes against dogma.  You cannot speculate that the Old Covenant maintains its effectiveness, or that Christ the Son is of a different and lesser substance than God the Father.  Nor can you say that Jews are saved by the Old Covenant in theory but not in fact.  That wouldn't make it any less heretical; just more nonsensical.

    The dogma says everyone needs to be a member of the Catholic Church. There are no exceptions.For centuries the popes, Councils and saints taught that every one needs to be a explicit member of the Church to avoid Hell.


    Quote
    Your mistake is that the Church has never said you had to be a visible member to be saved.


    Here is the ex cathedra dogma.

    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex Cathedra

    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.). Ex Cathedra

    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex Cathedra


    – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS: http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/ )

    Please comment on the green emphasis.

    _________________________________________________
     
    Quote
    That is your Feeneyite interpretation of what it says.

    Fr.Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma above correctly, he said nothing new.
    The dogma above does not say that those with the baptism of desire do not have to convert and enter the Catholic Church.
    The dogma does not say that those who do not know about the Catholic Church do not have to enter.

    __________________________________________________


     
    Quote
    Hence, speculations about implicit faith do not contradict dogma.  


    Implicit faith in itself, per se is a contradiction of the dogma expecially in the Cushing Doctrine. The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jesuits accused Fr.Leonard Feeney of being in heresy.Since the Cushing Doctrine says there is the Baptism of Desire which is explicit and can save a non Catholic. So everyone does not have to de facto enter the Church as Fr.Leonard Feeney said.
    There is no explicit baptism of desire.
    ___________________________________________________

    You will be happy to know, though, that it is certainly no dogma to believe in salvation by implicit faith.  That letter of the Holy Office is not enough.  The Pope of the restored Church will have to clear this up.  But considering that baptism of desire was never made a dogma in any unmistakably clear way, it seems absurd to me that Archbishop Cushing, who was a major Modernist, could just leap over that and make the far more controversial idea of implicit faith a dogma.

    It would seem as if he faked it and everyone fell for it. Then an American Jesuit help insert it in Vatican Council II(LG 16).

    Quote

    You are right that we don't know if it salvation by implicit faith or baptism of desire happens.


    We agree.
     
    Quote
    But you can't say that it goes against "the dogma" if someone says these things DO happen
    .
    If they do happen only God knows. In principle(de jure) we accept the possibility.

    So does Fr.Leonard Feeney and the present SBC accept the possibility as  a concept. As an opinion.
    [/size]

    In Christ
    Lionel


    Offline LionelAndrades

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #5 on: June 27, 2010, 07:56:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus,


    Quote
    Stuff like this drives me nuts. We know that absolutely everyone -- without exceptions -- must become Catholic in order to be saved. People can be saved in other religions.


    Everyone needs to explicitly be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved and there are no exceptions. Every non Catholic needs to convert and there are no exceptions.

    If someone is saved in another religion then it is known only to God. We do not even know if anyone is saved in another religion.


    Quote
    Either they're Catholic or they're not Catholic. Either there are exceptions or there aren't.

    Everyone who is in Heaven is a Catholic.
     

    Quote
    You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to accept the Church's definitions on EENS which use language like "absolutely no one at all" and yet accept implicit BoD (which you call explicit) as well.


    BOD(Baptism of desire) can never ever be explicit. We can only administer the Baptism of water. We cannot give anyone the Baptism of Desire.

    Quote
    At least be logically consistent and say that people who are saved are Catholic implicitly. No Protestant has ever been saved. Only Catholics are saved.

    Only Catholics are saved.

    In Christ
    Lionel[/size]

    Offline LionelAndrades

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #6 on: June 27, 2010, 08:09:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Spiritus Sanctos,

    Please be specific.
    The following is from the SSPX website.
    Quote
    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.


    This is SSPX heresy. The website is saying that the Baptism of Desire is explicit.
    We believe in principle that there is implicit baptism of desire. So how can implicit baptism of desire contradict the infallible teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member(explicit) of the Church?



    Quote
    His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.


    There is no Church Document which says that he was condemned for heresy. This is the propaganda of the Jewish Left media, Wikipedia etc.
    He was excommunicated for disobedience.He did not go to
    Rome to defend himself. He was also disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing who never affirmed the dogma or corrected the newspaper errors.

     
    Quote
    It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII,


    True.

     
    Quote
    and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc.
    In this thread on this Forum the actual dogma is available.Read it for yourself and decide.

    Quote
    Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life (first published in l952), to see that his doctrine contradicts the Church’s teaching. Let St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian the Church has ever known, be the witness for the prosecution. His Summa Theologica [ST] is the reference book that all seminarians (Fr. Feeney not excepted) had to study according to the directives of St. Pius X and the 1917 Code of Canon Law....


    Fr.Leonard Feeney was also familiar with St.Thomas Aquinas and was not a critic.


    In Christ
    Lionel

     
     [/size]

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #7 on: June 27, 2010, 04:59:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I fail to see where the SSPX is in heresy.


    Offline Cecelia

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 38
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #8 on: June 27, 2010, 05:25:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow Lionel,

    Thanks for your very precise dealing with the controversy over BOD/BOB.

    I agree with what you have written and it makes sense.  :applause:

     I do not see what your objectors are on about.  I dont think they read the dogma properly or understand what the Church teaches regarding infallibility.

    All doctrines fit together like a hand-in-glove.   BOD (explicit) stands alone.  I think they do not understand the doctrine of Predestination properly.  Perhaps if they studied this, they would understand EENS better.

    If EENS had not been misrepresented then the Great Apostasy we are living through, heralded by Vatican II, would not have taken place.  This may well be the reason it had not been clarified by the Magisterium prior to this.

    SSPX need to serioulsy look at what they are saying.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #9 on: June 27, 2010, 07:33:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cecilia said:
    Quote

    Thanks for your very precise dealing with the controversy over BOD/BOB.

    I agree with what you have written and it makes sense. :applause:


     :shocked:

    Apparently I need a new set of antennae!
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #10 on: June 27, 2010, 07:38:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus, a question for you.  I tried writing this in another thread but then it mysteriously disappeared, and I think I know why.

    The question is -- how do you reconcile your denial of salvation by implicit faith and baptism of desire with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office?  Letter though it may be, you can't fob this one off on Cushing.  It still comes from the Holy Office with the explicit approval of Pius XII.  I'm not going to let you run away from this one:

    Quote
    "LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
    Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
    Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

    This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.

    The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

    Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

    Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor

    Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.


    If Pius XII really was Pope, then, don't you owe religious assent to baptism of desire and salvation by implicit faith?  The CMRI is being consistent because they treat implicit faith as a dogma; and I was being consistent because I suspected Pius XII of having lost the office ( although now I am inclined to accept implicit faith ).  Even CM, mock him as people might, is being more consistent by scraping out the last century and a half of the papacy.  

    But you and the Feeneyites who accept Pius XII are being undeniably inconsistent, unless you have an explanation.  You talk about how this will all be cleared up in the future but if Pius XII was Pope, it's cleared up now.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21126
    • Reputation: +11674/-5990
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #11 on: June 27, 2010, 08:05:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Cecilia said:
    Quote

    Thanks for your very precise dealing with the controversy over BOD/BOB.

    I agree with what you have written and it makes sense. :applause:


     :shocked:

    Apparently I need a new set of antennae!


    Ditto that, Raoul.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21126
    • Reputation: +11674/-5990
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #12 on: June 27, 2010, 08:10:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You'd have to give me more than Cushing as a source for the assertion that Pius XII fully approved this document.

    During the time of P12, the curia was already thoroughly infiltrated by the evildoers who would bring us Vatican II.

    1) I don't buy that P12 authorized this document.
    2) Even if he had done so, it's not an infallible document.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #13 on: June 27, 2010, 09:30:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    You'd have to give me more than Cushing as a source for the assertion that Pius XII fully approved this document.

    During the time of P12, the curia was already thoroughly infiltrated by the evildoers who would bring us Vatican II.

    1) I don't buy that P12 authorized this document.
    2) Even if he had done so, it's not an infallible document.


    1.- Actually, the full infiltration did not take place until after John XXIII was elected, but it did start during the reign of Pius XII.

    2.- Pius XII was the last Pope to be considered "infallible" so if he approved the document then it would be infallible.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 21126
    • Reputation: +11674/-5990
    • Gender: Male
    Abp MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND SSPX PRIESTS IN HERESY
    « Reply #14 on: June 28, 2010, 04:43:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    You'd have to give me more than Cushing as a source for the assertion that Pius XII fully approved this document.

    During the time of P12, the curia was already thoroughly infiltrated by the evildoers who would bring us Vatican II.

    1) I don't buy that P12 authorized this document.
    2) Even if he had done so, it's not an infallible document.


    1.- Actually, the full infiltration did not take place until after John XXIII was elected, but it did start during the reign of Pius XII.

    2.- Pius XII was the last Pope to be considered "infallible" so if he approved the document then it would be infallible.


    I disagree on both counts.

    1) There was already massive infiltration by the time of Pius XII; and it was probably well underway during Pius IX.

    2) decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible.  Just because a pope is legitimate (i.e. "infallible") doesn't mean that everything that issues from the Vatican during his pontificate is infallible.  Pius XII would have single-handedly quadrupled the size of the Enchiridion Symbolorum.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16