Author Topic: is the following statement from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre heretical ? (Read 2639 times)

Conspiracy_Factist · « **on:** May 29, 2013, 06:22:37 PM »

Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 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.”

I would have to conclude yes based on the following

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[i

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 29, 2013, 06:25:11 PM »

:geezer:

Charlemagne · « **Reply #2 on:** May 29, 2013, 06:31:41 PM »

This should be good!

Sigismund · « **Reply #3 on:** May 29, 2013, 08:44:18 PM »

No, the Archbishop was not heretical.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** May 29, 2013, 08:51:36 PM »

Though expressed positively, each of these positions are errors and they are all anathematized.

Syllabus of Errors
Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:12:19 AM »

Why down thumb Pope Pius IX I wonder?

Is it that Pope Pius IX demonstrates that +ABL, if nothing else, was wrong in the OP's quote or is +ABL not allowed to make an error?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2013, 04:24:56 PM »

I'm not fond of any suggestions that Archbishop Lefebvre was a "heretic".

Anyone who suggests such is mistaken.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2013, 04:32:20 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 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.”

I would have to conclude yes based on the following

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[i

There's nothing incorrect here, from what is posted.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2013, 04:56:09 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 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.”

I would have to conclude yes based on the following

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[i

A manifest heretic is one who is aware of the heresy and still maintains it. The Archbishop was not referring to one such person.

Quote from: Stubborn

Though expressed positively, each of these positions are errors and they are all anathematized.

Syllabus of Errors
Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

The Archbishop said nothing about people having the freedom to embrace and profess other religions.

He said nothing about people being saved THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE of false religions. DESPITE the observance would more accurately represent his statement.

He said nothing about there being good hope that salvation could be attained by these people. He merely said that it was possible. NOT HOPEFUL

And do I really need to even comment on number 18?

Alcuin · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:18:04 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

I'm not fond of any suggestions that Archbishop Lefebvre was a "heretic".

Anyone who suggests such is mistaken.

What did he mean then?

bowler · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:54:07 PM »

Quote from: Ryan

Quote from: gooch
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 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.”

I would have to conclude yes based on the following

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[i

A manifest heretic is one who is aware of the heresy and still maintains it. The Archbishop was not referring to one such person.

Quote from: Stubborn

Though expressed positively, each of these positions are errors and they are all anathematized.

Syllabus of Errors
Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

The Archbishop said nothing about people having the freedom to embrace and profess other religions.

He said nothing about people being saved THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE of false religions. DESPITE the observance would more accurately represent his statement.

He said nothing about there being good hope that salvation could be attained by these people. He merely said that it was possible. NOT HOPEFUL

And do I really need to even comment on number 18?

He is clearly teaching the theory of implicit faith, they have always taught this in the seminaries of the SSPX. That is the achilles heel of the SSPX. If they can twist the clear language in the dogmas of EENS, the sacrament of baptism, and what constitute a member of the Church, then no dogma is safe, and they have to accept all of Vatican II, which is not as clear as these dogmas which they twist.

Is it a heresy? Yes, in the part that he says "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion". Obviously, he just said that outside of the Church there is salvation. He did not mean to say it that way, I'm sure, but nevertheless, there it is. All defenders of implicit faith are more discrete about it. The theory of implicit faith has not officially been declared heretical, not yet. It'll be a long time before ANYTHING is declared heretical. When you see Vatican II corrected or cast into the fire, then we will see the light at the end of the tunnel, and this issue of implicit faith will be decided.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2013, 10:53:35 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ryan
Quote from: gooch
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 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.”

I would have to conclude yes based on the following

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[i

A manifest heretic is one who is aware of the heresy and still maintains it. The Archbishop was not referring to one such person.

Quote from: Stubborn

Though expressed positively, each of these positions are errors and they are all anathematized.

Syllabus of Errors
Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

The Archbishop said nothing about people having the freedom to embrace and profess other religions.

He said nothing about people being saved THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE of false religions. DESPITE the observance would more accurately represent his statement.

He said nothing about there being good hope that salvation could be attained by these people. He merely said that it was possible. NOT HOPEFUL

And do I really need to even comment on number 18?

He is clearly teaching the theory of implicit faith, they have always taught this in the seminaries of the SSPX. That is the achilles heel of the SSPX. If they can twist the clear language in the dogmas of EENS, the sacrament of baptism, and what constitute a member of the Church, then no dogma is safe, and they have to accept all of Vatican II, which is not as clear as these dogmas which they twist.

Is it a heresy? Yes, in the part that he says "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion". Obviously, he just said that outside of the Church there is salvation. He did not mean to say it that way, I'm sure, but nevertheless, there it is. All defenders of implicit faith are more discrete about it. The theory of implicit faith has not officially been declared heretical, not yet. It'll be a long time before ANYTHING is declared heretical. When you see Vatican II corrected or cast into the fire, then we will see the light at the end of the tunnel, and this issue of implicit faith will be decided.

Not sure how you cn be sure he didn't mean it that way but nevertheless is it nottrue most sspx priests believe it's possible people in false religions can be saved? I just find it hard to believe how any catholic can say that after reading what the popes have said

Sigismund · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2013, 11:47:46 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ryan
Quote from: gooch
Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 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.”

I would have to conclude yes based on the following

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[i

A manifest heretic is one who is aware of the heresy and still maintains it. The Archbishop was not referring to one such person.

Quote from: Stubborn

Though expressed positively, each of these positions are errors and they are all anathematized.

Syllabus of Errors
Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1864

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.

The Archbishop said nothing about people having the freedom to embrace and profess other religions.

He said nothing about people being saved THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE of false religions. DESPITE the observance would more accurately represent his statement.

He said nothing about there being good hope that salvation could be attained by these people. He merely said that it was possible. NOT HOPEFUL

And do I really need to even comment on number 18?

He is clearly teaching the theory of implicit faith, they have always taught this in the seminaries of the SSPX. That is the achilles heel of the SSPX. If they can twist the clear language in the dogmas of EENS, the sacrament of baptism, and what constitute a member of the Church, then no dogma is safe, and they have to accept all of Vatican II, which is not as clear as these dogmas which they twist.

Is it a heresy? Yes, in the part that he says "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion". Obviously, he just said that outside of the Church there is salvation. He did not mean to say it that way, I'm sure, but nevertheless, there it is. All defenders of implicit faith are more discrete about it. The theory of implicit faith has not officially been declared heretical, not yet. It'll be a long time before ANYTHING is declared heretical. When you see Vatican II corrected or cast into the fire, then we will see the light at the end of the tunnel, and this issue of implicit faith will be decided.

It would be heresy to say that souls can be saved by other religions. They can be saved in other religions through implicit baptism but they are really Catholics then. The Archbishop knew that.

Nishant · « **Reply #13 on:** June 01, 2013, 04:30:26 AM »

Here are some of the very best of the Church's theologians and Doctors on the question,

Quote from: Francisco Suarez, De Fide Theologica, 1621

It is better, then, to respond with the distinction between necessity in re and in voto; thus, no one can be saved who does not enter this church of Christ either in reality or at least in wish and desire. That is how Bellarmine responds. Now it is obvious that no one is actually in this church without being baptized, and yet he can be saved, because just as the desire of baptism can suffice, so also the desire of entering the church. Now we are saying the same thing with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for baptism…”

Quote from: Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Tome 2, Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2, pp. 104-106:

“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.

So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.

Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…

Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…

Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.

After presenting the above, this is the brilliant conclusion of sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi, similar to the argument made on this thread against Archbishop Lefebvre.

Quote from: Richard Ibranyi

Alphonsus de Liguori was a salvation heretic for presenting a heretical and apostate opinion as allowable, probable, and hence acceptable.

If you have the boldness and the foolishness to make the same accusations against the canonized Saints and Doctors, go ahead. But if not, recognize that it is you Feeneyites who are in error. Hold what the Doctors, Saints and theologians do, the distinction between in re and in voto and that between necessity of means and precept and you will do well.

If that opinion is held, there is no scope for indifferentism or anything else you fear, for all Catholic theologians unanimously teach that faith in Christ and indeed, belonging to the Church as a Catholic is strictly necessary in practice, whether by precept or by means is only a theoretical distinction.

Modern liberalism and indifferentism, which has no connection with the opinion of the Doctors and which it is blasphemous to impute to or blame them for, comes because heteredox writers today deny that faith in Christ and being Catholic is necessary even by necessity of precept.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** June 01, 2013, 06:47:52 AM »

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

Quote from: Sigismund

They can be saved in other religions through implicit baptism but they are really Catholics then. The Archbishop knew that.

How is this not stating that there is good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ while observing any religion whatever?

Explicitly they were validly baptized in a prot church when they were 14 years old, they chose to remain a prot their whole life, of their own free will chose to live outside the Church and practice a different religion, yet they can be saved any way?

It does not even make a shred of sense for anyone to explicitly reject and remain outside of that which they desire implicitly - does Lex orandi lex credendi mean what it says or not?

What +ABL said in the OP quotes is undeniably wrong - if he meant something other than what he wrote, then the message did not get through - but he is no heretic! He is not infallible either for crying out loud.

He never went around preaching BOD or implicit membership in the Church, salvation of infidels by desire or any other of the condemned errors, NO teachings of liberalism, humanism and ecuмenism - he is not known for that! He is known for fighting against it - explicitly!

He is known for living for, and preaching the absolute necessity of the True Faith and the True Mass - and because things were so bad, he did what needed to be done for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls - even at the expense of being excommunicated from the very same Church he was fighting to preserve - that's the stuff of which saints are made of, not heretics. If the rest of the world had 1/100 of his courage, there'd be no crisis!

There are way too many other outstanding quotes from the good Archbishop that could be posted, no need to be posting remarks made from him that take away from that which he most ardently lived - and persevered till his death for.