Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP) offers Traditional Latin Mass in Canada with false theology: heresy ?

Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being in accord with the dogma.When this is brought to his attention he says this is a lie and that he accepts the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II 'in its totality'.When asked again if this means he affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus he does not answer.

On Jan 23,2013 he listed the passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which he believed contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and e-mailed it to me. On Jan 24,2013 I told him that we do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire etc so those passages from the Catechism do not contradict the dogma on salvation. He still would not affirm the dogma.

I continued sending him posts from my blog.

On Jan 25 he wrote :

It would seem that you have forgotten that lying, detraction, and calumny are sinful. Pity!

That same day I emailed him mentioning:

For the record you have not denied:

1.That you reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with known exceptions of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

2. That you consider Vatican Council II a break with the past because of known exceptions.

3.You hold the same error as the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing.

4.You interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church assuming the dead who are saved, are visible.

On Jan 25 he responded:

I accept the Catechism and Vatican II in their totality – do YOU?

On Jan 26 I responded.

It is meaningless for you to say that you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you assume that the references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases are visible to us in 2013.So you assume that the Catechism refers to explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catechism does not state that these cases are explicit and known to us and neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is an irrational premise of yours. You are assuming that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.

So you are still denying an ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you cannot pretend that there are texts in the Catechism which contradict a teaching which is obligatory for all bishops to affirm.

Also since you use the irrational premise of the dead man walking ,saved in invincible ignorance etc and who is visible to you only, for you ,Vatican Council II also must be a break with the dogma on salvation and the past Magisterial texts.

So in your Profession of Faith ,when you say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' (Nicene Creed) you mean there are three known baptisms,water, desire and blood- and not just one known baptism, that of water.

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Muller, recently said that it was heretical when progressives interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past.

I repeat it is also a heresy to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

On Jan 26 I sent him this blog post.

Saturday, January 26, 2013
BISHOP HENRY UNABLE TO RESPOND TO HERESY CHARGES
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/bishop-henry-unable-to-respond-to.html#links

He responded with one word:

Nonsense!

On Jan 26 I asked:

Are you saying that you affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Are you saying that you interpret invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire mentioned in the Catechism as contradicting the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Are you saying that just like Archbishop Richard Cushing you assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us, they are visible to us, to be exceptions?

Does invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctification (LG etc in Vatican Council II also contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

He has not responded to further messages and blog posts sent to him.

Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma while he uses the false premise of being able to see the dead on earth saved.These invisible cases are supposed to be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.

The bishop of Calgary announced recently that the Traditional Latin Mass is available in the diocese at St.Anthony's parish,Calgary.The priests there are from the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter(FSSP).

1.Are these FSSP priests also using the false theology of Bishop Frederick Henry contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

2.Do they also reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra?

3.Is it not a public sin to offer Mass after these public denials (of at least the bishop)?

4.Is all this permitted by Canon Law?
-Lionel Andrades


St. Anthony’s Parish
5340 - 4th Street SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2V 0Z5
Tel: (403) 252-1137

FSSP Calgary House:(403) 255-2727

For Vocations Information:
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary
Rector: Very Rev. Josef Bisig, FSSP
e-mail: seminary@fsspolgs.org
Tel.: 402-797-7700 / 7705 - Fax


In Canada, contact:
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (Canada) Inc.
Vanier, ON K1L 8E3
e-mail: fsspcanada@cyberus.ca
Tel.: 613-567-0287 / 565-9514 Fax

Lionel,

Please stop bothering these people!! You are wasting their (and your) time. The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the decrees of the Council of Florence:

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession." On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit. (Lumen Gentium, 51)

which means that the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the following:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Whether a person is "Catholic" or not, he/she must end his/her life in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," regardless of whether he/she is "invincibly ignorant" or not!

Lionel,

I have to agree with Jehanne, you are really a pest to these people and you don't realize that your arguments are false. Such accusations as these are simply spurious and only bring discredit to your person:

Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being in accord with the dogma.

This is rubbish, for what you really mean is that "Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being in accord with the dogma" as you falsely interpret it.

Lionel wrote:

It is meaningless for you to say that you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you assume that the references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cases are visible to us in 2013. So you assume that the Catechism refers to explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Again, total nonsense when you are the one who assumes that the Church accepts the dogma of Fr. Feeney as her own, which is simply false.

You should cease and desist from these public displays of temeritous arrogance until you can realize the error of your major premise. You are way out of line, Lionel, and look rather foolish.

You do not think with the mind of the Church, and as such, you have been led astray.

Jehanne,

I have not yet contacted the FSSP Canada to be a pest.May be you can contact them and place their statement here. May be you could ask them these four questions.

1.Are these FSSP priests also using the false theology of Bishop Frederick Henry contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

2.Do they also reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra?

3.Is it not a public sin to offer Mass after these public denials (of at least the bishop)?

4.Is all this permitted by Canon Law?

I have e-mailed the link to this forum but have not phoned them.

Michael,
You are still saying the same thìing as me, but only in reverse,as Colomba cautioned me.So I will not go into details.

Lionel Andrades wrote:Michael,
You are still saying the same thìing as me, but only in reverse,as Colomba cautioned me.So I will not go into details.

Lionel,
Mike believes that baptism of desire is part of the dogma and therefore not a contradiction. I of course disagree with him. The dogma mentioned no exceptions and the dogma is a clear definition of an article of faith.

You, Lionel, hold that the dogma is not contradicted if its exceptions are known only to God. This could never be the case because if these exceptions are known to God alone then they are exceptions to the dogma par excellence. All who believed that there were no exceptions would be in error and out of sync with reality; in this case, the Ultimate Reality. If baptism of desire exists, even if only known to God, it contradicts the dogma, for what does it matter if we see the exceptions or not. If they exist they are real. If they are real to God then they are real in the most real way. If they exist and are known only to God then they are truly exceptions to the dogma. Why we believe they do not exist is based on the words of Christ and a dogmatic statements of the Church, which is the same as Christ haven spoken again.

Columba
You, Lionel, hold that the dogma is not contradicted if its exceptions are known only to God.


Lionel:
Yes. This statement is made in response to the commonly held view that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma and so every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

Columba:
This could never be the case because if these exceptions are known to God alone then they are exceptions to the dogma par excellence.

Lionel:
I have mentioned that personally I believe all who are in Heaven are Catholics and the ordinary and only way to get to Heaven as the Church tells us is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

Columba:
All who believed that there were no exceptions would be in error and out of sync with reality; in this case, the Ultimate Reality.

Lionel:
There are no exceptions.

Columba:
If baptism of desire exists, even if only known to God, it contradicts the dogma, for what does it matter if we see the exceptions or not.

Lionel:
If the baptism of desire exists it is irrelevant to the teaching all need to be a viisble member of the Church.
You use the word 'if' meaning there is no known case now.If something is not known it cannot be an exception.

Columba:
If they exist they are real.

Lionel:
If something physically exists then it is real. It is an exception.
If something does not physically exist, if it is not even known in the present time in principle, how can it be a defacto exception ?

Columba:
If they are real to God then they are real in the most real way.

Lionel:
Only to God.Not to us.

Columba:
If they exist and are known only to God then they are truly exceptions to the dogma.

Lionel:
They would be known to him and so no one on earth could say that every one does not have to be a visible member for salvation. For us, every one needs to be a visible member for salvation and there are no known exceptions.

Columba:
Why we believe they do not exist is based on the words of Christ and a dogmatic statements of the Church, which is the same as Christ haven spoken again.

Lionel:
Yes every one needs to be a visible member of the Church.This teaching comes form Jesus and is mentioned in the Bible.

Lionel Andrades wrote:Jehanne,

I have not yet contacted the FSSP Canada to be a pest.May be you can contact them and place their statement here. May be you could ask them these four questions.

1.Are these FSSP priests also using the false theology of Bishop Frederick Henry contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

2.Do they also reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra?

3.Is it not a public sin to offer Mass after these public denials (of at least the bishop)?

4.Is all this permitted by Canon Law?

I have e-mailed the link to this forum but have not phoned them.

The 1949 Holy Office Letter which was cited at Vatican II and in the CCC taught us something very important:

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.

Well, which "infallible statement"? No doubt this one:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence)

Note the text in red; basically, "salutary repentance", that is, we cannot judge a soul at the moment of death. So, there's one avenue, a big avenue, for those who end their lives outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. How often does such repentance occur? Here's the answer:

I don't know and you don't, either!

Columba wrote:

Lionel wrote:
You, Lionel, hold that the dogma is not contradicted if its exceptions are known only to God.

Yes. This statement is made in response to the commonly held view that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma and so every one does not have to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

And this goes right to the heart of the heterodoxy of columba and Lionel, neither of whom recognize (or, in the case of Lionel, applies it correctly), the distinction the Doctors/theologians and the Church make between the fulfillment of a law de jure, and its fulfillment de facto; just as neither of them recognize (at all, or correctly) the distinction between being joined to the Church in re, and being joined in voto.

Lionel simply misappropriates and misapplies these critical legal distinctions, while columba pretends they do not exist, and thus on their own private authority they overturn the Magisterium of the Church:

Columba accuses Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV of overturning “another canon on a matter of faith or morals”; just as he accuses all of the Doctors, theologians and saints, as well as the Church, of teaching the heresy of the baptisms of blood and desire.

Lionel accuses the FSSP and others of seeing “dead men walking” when they recognize with St. Robert Bellarmine and the Church that "catechumens" who, "even though not in church in re (in reality), are in the church in voto (by desire), and in that way they can be saved".

How can either of these people be taken seriously?

columba wrote:

Lionel, Mike believes that baptism of desire is part of the dogma and therefore not a contradiction. I of course disagree with him. The dogma mentioned no exceptions and the dogma is a clear definition of an article of faith.

The dogma says there is no salvation outside the Church. The dogma does NOT say there is no salvation outside of visible external membership, except to the extent, as the Church teaches, that someone knowingly has left her, or refuses to be joined to her.

That is what the Church teaches and has always taught, and that is what I hold. That you accuse the Church (and all of her Doctors and a universal moral consensus of theologians) of teaching the so-called heretical doctrines of the baptisms of blood and desire is your problem, not mine.

MRyan wrote:
The dogma says there is no salvation outside the Church. The dogma does NOT say there is no salvation outside of visible external membership, except to the extent, as the Church teaches, that someone knowingly has left her, or refuses to be joined to her.

No Mike. The Church does say that there is no salvation outside of visible external membership because the Church herself has defined what she is; that is; a visible body made up of visible members all of whom have entered through Baptism as through a gate; a unity of sacraments which are necessary for salvation, though not all are necessary for each. To define the Church as wider than this, you may as well define the Ark as the whole sea and in fact you do define the Ark as the whole sea because neither do you apply baptism of desire in the same way as the Doctors, you extend it to include all who neither know of it or desire it, which of course is the logical progression of all false doctrines.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
The dogma says there is no salvation outside the Church. The dogma does NOT say there is no salvation outside of visible external membership, except to the extent, as the Church teaches, that someone knowingly has left her, or refuses to be joined to her.

No Mike. The Church does say that there is no salvation outside of visible external membership because the Church herself has defined what she is; that is; a visible body made up of visible members all of whom have entered through Baptism as through a gate; a unity of sacraments which are necessary for salvation, though not all are necessary for each.

Having defined who she is and what constitutes formal membership does NOT mean that no one can be joined to her de facto in desire. This is your Protestant penchant for determining for yourself how the Church understands her own dogmas, which simply means that you take the words as you understand them, and not as the Church understands them, and not as she presents them to the Faithful with that same understanding as she once defined them.

columba wrote:To define the Church as wider than this, you may as well define the Ark as the whole sea and in fact you do define the Ark as the whole sea because neither do you apply baptism of desire in the same way as the Doctors, you extend it to include all who neither know of it or desire it, which of course is the logical progression of all false doctrines.

This is nonsense, for the Church did not "define" herself "as wider than this", she defined that the Holy Ghost is not confined to her visible structure when poring forth the life-giving graces of the Church, wherever and to whomsoever He wills.

Is that really so hard for you to understand? Yes, I suppose it is, since you deny it.

Columba said "the Church herself has defined what she is; that is; a visible body."
Does that visible bodty have a visible head Columba?

simple Faith wrote:Columba said "the Church herself has defined what she is; that is; a visible body."
Does that visible bodty have a visible head Columba?

SF.
We are prohibited in our use of language here so I'll just say, go pick your nose.

Michael:
This is rubbish, for what you really mean is that "Bishop Frederick Henry will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being in accord with the dogma" as you falsely interpret it.

Lionel:
He will not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus period. There are three definitions of the dogma and the traditional teaching is clear.

He had sent me passages from the Catechism and assumed that they were exceptions to the dogma.

Just like you he assumes that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the thrice defined dogma or that they even are relevant to the dogma.

When you interpret the Catechism and Vatican Council II of course you will assume that these cases are physically visible to you and so they are 'exceptions'. So every one does not have to become a visible member of the Church, for you , since you can see the deceased saved. This is 'visible salvation' for you the bishop and many others.