Monday, June 13, 2016

No one to defend Bishop Bernard Fellay : Heresy

No one is able to defend Bishop Fellay among the traditionalist bloggers since he made a doctrinal error based on an objective mistake. He mistook hypothetical cases as being objectively known in the present times. Then he concluded that these invisible cases were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He actually assumed references to invisible cases,in Vatican Council II, were explicit. He mixed up what is subjective as being objective.
Bishop Bernard Fellay's conclusion was heretical.
The mistake is there also on the SSPX website when it is assumed that the baptism of desire refers to an objective case.1.The SSPX may say that the fault was there with the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is magisterial. True.But Bishop Fellay is using this irrational reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II. If he does not assume hypothetical cases are explicit, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
The SSPX website says '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."' 2 Yes without the baptism of water there is no salvation is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and no one in the past or present could know of someone saved without the baptism of water.For Bishop Fellay there are known exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. So he is critical of the Council.
Here is the SSPX website with the error.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."2

I repeat it:
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water."
Lionel: 
O.K. Hypothetically. Speculatively.But this is not a concrete case. It is not a personally known case.The SSPX website mentions it since for Fr.Laisney it is an objective case.He has made the same error as Bishop Fellay.
__________________________

In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
Lionel:
Again this is all speculation.It does not refer to someone known who will die as such or who has died and is in Heaven under these conditions.
Yet the SSPX website mentions this with reference to EENs. In other words it is an objective case, a concrete exception.
__________________________

This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). 2
Lionel:
None of the saints mentioned above have said that the baptism of desire refers to an explicit case or that it is an exception to EENS. The SSPX assumes the saints are referring not to implicit- for- us- baptism of desire but explicit- for- us- baptism of desire.For the SSPX the saints are referring to visible- for- us baptism of desire instead of invisible- for- us baptism of desire.Then the SSPX bishops and priests change the meaning of the dogma EENS. This is heresy. They also change the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed.
The SSPX website concludes:

Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...3
This is heresy in the Holy Office letter. It says that 'it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member' since it is assumed there are known exceptions of  the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.There is no such case. For us human beings there is no known salvation outside the Church. There cannot be any known salvation outside the Church.
So it is no surprise that the charge of doctrinal heresy is made against Bishop Fellay and the SSPX and no one can defend him since it is obvious to all, that hypothetical cases cannot be objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. The magisterium and the SSPX made a mistake.
-Lionel Andrades 

1
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

2

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

3.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm








The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with NO exceptions.

Is Bishop Fellay in heresy? In the comments section of some blogs people are ready to say that Cardinal Muller or Archbishop Fernandes are in heresy - but, what about Bishop Fellay? It is unthinkable or un-sayable for them.
Christopher Ferrara has commented on an article in the Remnant Newspaper by Kelly Michaels titled On Using the "H" Word ( it all depends on what this 'this' is).1
       francescosantamarta
Kelly Michaels lists some of the things Pope Francis has said which would qualify for the H (heresy) category.But what about Bishop Fellay?

The link from my blog has probably been removed by the Remnant editor since doctrinal criticism of Bishop Fellay would not be tolerated.But Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with exceptions.The Catechism also mentions exceptions(846,1257). The exceptions are there based on hypothetical cases being objective in 2016.This is heretical.Yet this is their reasoning when they say there are exceptions in salvation theology, relative to EENS.Mentioning this in the Catechism was a mistake.It was a mistake made by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn.They assumed there were exceptions, in other words, explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc.
If Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt were directly asked : 'Are hypothetical cases objective in 2016, are there objective cases of the baptism of desire for example?'.They would answer 'NO'.
Yet like Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, they assume there are exceptions to EENS and  Vatican Council II.They infer hypothetical cases are  exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.To be an exception something has to be visible or known in the present times.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.
This is the mistake they all make.Since, they have all, like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn, accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It made an objective error. It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Letter is magisterial, but irrational and heretical.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia (Adjunct) Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bishop Bernard Fellay,Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) have clearly interpreted Vatican Council II with exceptions.This is an innovation.The result has to be heretical.
It is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium which also accepted the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) - but as referring to implicit cases, and not explicit, known people.
Instead today BOD, BOB and being saved in I.I are considered objective cases, so they become exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This is the difference between pre-Council of Trent and post Council of Trent times.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit. They refer to invisible cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
So the contemporary magisterium is in heresy for rejecting the dogma EENS with explicit exceptions and rejecting Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions as compared to my interpretation without any explicit exception.
The contemporary magisterium is in heresy for intepretating the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846, 1257) as referring to explicit exceptions to EENS.For me when CCC 846, says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, it  refers to invisible cases. Similarly when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it again refers to theoretical, hypothetical cases.It is not a personally known case for us human beings.So for me, unlike for Muller, Di Noia and Fellay, there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS or to the Nicene Creed's teaching on 'I believe in one baptism(known) for the forgiveness of sin'.
So the doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012.It affirmed EENS with NO exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2579-on-using-the-h-word-it-all-depends-on-what-this-this-is