Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Go down

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Lionel A on Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:45 am

February 8, 2013
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE IN AGREEMENT WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY -SSPX PRIOR

Yesterday evening in Rome I met the Prior of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) community at Albano, Italy. I mentioned that I had a question about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Archbishop Lefebvre said that a Hindu could be saved in Tibet in his religion.This person saved ' in certain circumstances', and not the general rule, could be saved by Jesus Christ and his Mystical Body the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.He agreed that this was a possibility, known only to God.I then reminded him that when we last met he had said that physically we are unable to see someone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We cannot see the dead, he repeated, they are not visible to us on earth.

So when Archbishop Lefebvre said a non Catholic could be saved in another religion in invincible ignorance etc, he was not contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor Tradition in general.Since every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation, according to the dogma, and there are no known exceptions, in Tibet or elsewhere in the present times.

I was glad with this answer and I thanked him and was ready to leave. It was clear for me that he was saying that Archbishop Lefebvre did not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney.

It was at that moment a lady talking to others nearby, said aloud something in their conversation, something about the "archbishop of Boston".When I overheard this I called Fr.Aldo Rossi's attention to that remark. I asked him if he knew about Fr.Leonard Feeney in the Archdiocese of Boston.

explained that since Fr.Leonard Feeney held the traditional interpretation of the dogma Cantate Domino,Council of Florence 1441 he did not contradict Archbishop Lefebvre who said a non Catholic could be saved in his religion.

Fr.Aldo Rossi agreed that it was not a contradiction of Fr.Leonard Feeney's position.Every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions.Since the dead saved in another religion are not physically visible to us humans so they could not be exceptions.Invisible cases are not exceptions.

It may be mentioned that there are traditionalists who are do not realize that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be accepted as possibilities, hypothetical cases. They are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Neither are these cases, known only to God, exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible statement"(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

Since these traditionalists and sedevacantists assume that these cases are visible to us, they are critical of anyone who says a non Catholic, 'in certain circumstances' can be saved in another religion. For them this would be a contradiction to Cantate Domino,the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
It was at that moment a lady talking to others nearby, said aloud something in their conversation, something about the "archbishop of Boston".When I overheard this I called Fr.Aldo Rossi's attention to that remark. I asked him if he knew about Fr.Leonard Feeney in the Archdiocese of Boston.

I explained that since Fr.Leonard Feeney held the traditional interpretation of the dogma Cantate Domino,Council of Florence 1441 he did not contradict Archbishop Lefebvre who said a non Catholic could be saved in his religion.

Fr.Aldo Rossi agreed that it was not a contradiction of Fr.Leonard Feeney's position.Every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions.Since the dead saved in another religion are not physically visible to us humans so they could not be exceptions.Invisible cases are not exceptions.

It may be mentioned that there are traditionalists who are do not realize that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance can only be accepted as possibilities, hypothetical cases. They are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.Neither are these cases, known only to God, exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible statement"(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

Since these traditionalists and sedevacantists assume that these cases are visible to us, they are critical of anyone who says a non Catholic, 'in certain circumstances' can be saved in another religion. For them this would be a contradiction to Cantate Domino,the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
-L.A

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

They are not relevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Post by Lionel A on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:49 am

So if all those who are in Heaven are not visible to us then would you agree that those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are not relevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:10 pm

It does not matter if those in Heaven are "visible" or not; fact is that the Catholic Church has canonized some individuals, which means that those folks are, per the Magisterium, in Paradise. They are 100% there, even if they are "invisible."

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

I am speaking about physically seeing person. This is the stuff of physics and not theology.

Post by Lionel A on Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:27 am

I am speaking about physically seeing person. This is the stuff of physics and not theology.

They are invisible means that they are not personally seen by us in the flesh. If they cannot be seen, if we cannot shake their hands, then it cannot be said that these are known exceptions to all needing to be visible members of the Church.




Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:18 am

I agree with you, Lionel. However, as the late Carl Sagan (an "agnostic atheist") used to say (a quote he borrowed), "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." We cannot, of course, "see" the character of sacramental Baptism on a person's soul; however, if we witness their baptism (and, especially, that of someone who is an infant), then we can know that the individual received the character of sacramental Baptism, and we hope, the graces of Baptism (always the case for infant, of course) also. It is those individuals who comprise the visible Catholic Church, if their Baptisms were in accordance with Roman Catholic canon law, and, of course, if they have not been excommunicated.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

You understand that the discussion in this specific case is in physics and not theology.

Post by Lionel A on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:30 am

I agree with you,

You understand that the discussion in this specific case is in physics and not theology.

If I cannot physically see a person I cannot use the premise of being able to physically see him and then build a whole theology on it.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:35 am

You can't see angels; does that mean that such do not exist?

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

So the issue is still of physics: we cannot physically see angels.

Post by Lionel A on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:48 am

You can't see angels; does that mean that such do not exist?.

People are implying that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are physically known and so are exceptions. They do make this claim with angels.

We cannot see those saved with the baptism of desire, just as we cannot see angels, and we know that angels exist and I know, in faith,that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.

So the issue is still of physics: we cannot physically see angels.

To use the premise of physically being able to see those saved with the baptism of desire, would imply that we can see the dead who are now in Heaven or that we can see ghosts or angels, with the naked eye.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:50 am

Lionel,

We've been through this a "billion" times; if people are saved who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, who, exactly, are these individuals? If "there are people who are claiming to see the dead", then these folks should certainly be able to provide some names or other examples, shouldn't they?

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Would you say that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney

Post by Lionel A on Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:54 am

So would you say that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney when he says that there could be a Hindu in Tibet saved in his religion?

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:40 am

Archbishop Lefebvre never said that.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Consider a Hindu in Tibet

Post by Lionel A on Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:43 am

Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:57 am

Nothing about sacramental Baptism, eh? In any case, the Archbishop was entitled to his opinions, even if they were wrong. I doubt that he was disputing the fact that all must end their lives "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

All who are saved must end their life in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church does not contradict the teaching that all need to be formal,visible members

Post by Lionel A on Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:05 am

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So even if there was a case in Tibet it would be unknown to us and so irrelevant to the dogma.
So Archbishop Lefebvre does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney unless you assume that the baptism of desire is visible to us physically and so is an exception.
All who are saved must end their life in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church does not contradict the teaching that all need to be formal,visible members of the church in the present times for salvation.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:37 am

Yeah, and we're going "round robin" again. As for Archbishop Lefebvre, he did not regard as heretical the idea that everyone in Paradise, without any exceptions whatsoever, will have the character of sacramental Baptism:

http://catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html


Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Bishop Richardson and others assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. So they imply that these cases are viisble to us.

Post by Lionel A on Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:13 pm

I have read that article before.
Bishop Richardson and others assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. So they imply that these cases are visble for us.
Archbishop Lefebvre only mentioned that there could be a Hindu in Tibet who is saved in his religion. He did not say that this was an exception to the dogma.

Bro.Thomas Augustine MICM at Still River, assumes that Vatican Council II is a contradiction to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would imply that those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are visible for us.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:23 pm

Your claim is false, Lionel. You need to (re)read the following:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/the_center_review_toc.html

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Archbishop Lefebvre mentions the Hindu in Tibet, he is not contradicting Fr.Leonard Feeney

Post by Lionel A on Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:27 am

So if invincible ignorance is invisible for you and not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as you have mentioned in another post, then when Archbishop Lefebvre mentions the Hindu in Tibet, he is not contradicting Fr.Leonard Feeney on the de fide part of the dogma ?.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

That article was written by Fr.Peter Fehlner ?

Post by Lionel A on Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:29 am

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/the_center_review_toc.html
That article was written by Fr.Peter Fehlner ?

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The St.Benedict Center, Still River and NH do not state that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma

Post by Lionel A on Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:30 am

The St.Benedict Center, Still River and NH do not state that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:04 am

Lionel,

That is not true:

"So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is. Whatever truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a "preparation for the Gospel," and Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church 'to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men (emphasis mine), and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk.16:16), ...painstakingly fosters her missionary work.'"(5)

This "understanding" was accepted by both Bishop Harrington and the Sisters, and on his next ad liminal visit to Rome the Bishop presented it to the Congregation. It was accepted, and the status of the Sisters was "regularized."

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

This is an error overlooked by the SSPX and the SBC.

Post by Lionel A on Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:31 am

The St.Benedict Center, Still River and NH do not state that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Neither does the Bishop of Worcester or Manchester state that Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Instead they hold the opposite position.
For them Vatican Council II mentions known exceptions to the dogma. In other words these 'exceptions' are physically visible to us for them to be exceptions.

Never has any one from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have ever stated that these cases would have to be visible to be exceptions.When this common error is cleared it will be seen that there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is an error overlooked by the SSPX and the SBC.

Also on traditionalist forums there is a misunderstanding of Vatican Council II being contrary to Tradition all because there are known exceptions and so visible cases of the dead on earth.

Lionel A

Posts : 253
Join date : 2013-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Admin on Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:26 am

For the umteeth time, ask them to name who these people are.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 220
Join date : 2013-02-12

View user profile http://eens.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum