SSPX and 'Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus'

[DL82]

Outside the Church, No Salvation. As I understand it, those of the SSPX schism, as with the followers of Fr Feeney, also in schism, hold this teaching in a much narrower, more literal, more institutional way than the post-Vatican II Church. i.e. unless you are inside the visible Catholic Church, there is no salvation.

How do these extremists then reconcile the fact that they are, themselves, outside the Catholic Church? Or do they believe that the rest of the Church is in fact on the outside, and they alone are saved?

There just seems to be a lot of irony about that situation.

 

[saint_rafael]

That is not true. The SSPX do not hold the position that Fr. Feeney and his followers do. The SSPX has always defended traditional teaching against the feeneyites.

Fr. Feeney and his folowers believe that unless one is baptized with water, that person is damned.

The SSPX has always defended the Church teaching of Baptism of Desire. That a person who desires to be part of the Church does not need lietral water to be saved if he meets the requirements under the Baptism of Desire in his heart.

Again the Vatican through Cardinal Hoyos continues to say that the SSPX are not in formal schism.

 

[roguejim]

When were the associates of Fr. Feeney declared to be in schism? Or, are you merely slandering?

The links below should clear up any confusion concerning their status, as well as the validity of their doctrinal position concerning BOD.

catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterII.jpg

catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterIII.jpg

catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetter.jpg

 

[thistle]

When were the associates of Fr. Feeney declared to be in schism? Or, are you merely slandering?

The links below should clear up any confusion concerning their status, as well as the validity of their doctrinal position concerning BOD.

catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterII.jpg

catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterIII.jpg

catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetter.jpg

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.

 

[roguejim]

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.

Okay, the first paragraph shows Fr.Feeney losing his priestly faculties, albeit, temporarily. Nothing about schism there. The second paragraph speaks for itself. However, I still don’t see any authoritative statement or document from the Magisterium declaring them to be in “schism”. Can you provide one?

 

[thistle]

Okay, the first paragraph shows Fr.Feeney losing his priestly faculties, albeit, temporarily. Nothing about schism there. The second paragraph speaks for itself. However, I still don’t see any authoritative statement or document from the Magisterium declaring them to be in “schism”. Can you provide one?

I never mentioned schism. I quoted the document to show that “associates” or “supporters” are in effect excommunicated.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

Outside the Church, No Salvation. As I understand it, those of the SSPX schism, as with the followers of Fr Feeney, also in schism, hold this teaching in a much narrower, more literal, more institutional way than the post-Vatican II Church. i.e. unless you are inside the visible Catholic Church, there is no salvation.

How do these extremists then reconcile the fact that they are, themselves, outside the Catholic Church? Or do they believe that the rest of the Church is in fact on the outside, and they alone are saved?

There just seems to be a lot of irony about that situation.

This is incorrect. SSPX does not hold to the heretic view of Fr. Feeney. Also, it is debatable even if SSPX is in schism; I do not believe that they are. Please do some additional research. I personally recommend the book “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies.

sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

 

[roguejim]

This is incorrect. SSPX does not hold to the heretic view of Fr. Feeney. Also, it is debatable even if SSPX is in schism; I do not believe that they are. Please do some additional research. I personally recommend the book “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies.

sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Hey Matt,

When was Fr. Feeney formally accused of heresy by the Church? He wasn’t, was he? I guess that makes you either ill-informed, or a liar. Which is it, Matt?

 

[thistle]

Hey Matt,

When was Fr. Feeney formally accused of heresy by the Church? He wasn’t, was he? I guess that makes you either ill-informed, or a liar. Which is it, Matt?

Don’t you have any comment to post #6 or are you still burying your head in the sand?

 

[paramedicgirl]

The important thing about Father Feeney that no one seems to acknowledge is that he was reconciled to the Church before his death. I heard Father Corapi tell us that last year in Seattle.

 

[paramedicgirl]

This is incorrect. SSPX does not hold to the heretic view of Fr. Feeney. Also, it is debatable even if SSPX is in schism; I do not believe that they are. Please do some additional research. I personally recommend the book “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies.

sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Father Z posted an article on his blog where Cardinal Hoyos says the SSPX are NOT in formal schism.

 

[ProVobis]

“There are positive signs, there is an uninterrupted dialogue. A few days ago I wrote a new letter to Msgr Fellay, superior of the Fraternity, as a response to an earlier one of his. In addition to meetings and correspondence, we also hear each other on the telephone. I regard as viable the reconciliation with the fraternity Fraternity of Saint Pius X because, as we have often said at “Ecclesia Dei”, this is not a real schism but an anomalous situation which arose after the “schismatic action” of Msgr Lefebvre in conferring the episcopate without papal mandate, even against the express will of the Pope. In my heart I have great confidence that the Holy Father will be able to mend the fabric of the Church with the arrival of these brothers to full communion. Some differences will still remain, as we always had in the history of the Church”.
…
After the Motu proprio have some of the Fraternity St. Pius X come back to communion with the Church of Rome?

"Yes, and others have the will to do so. But I have the hope that the whole group comes, I would not want them to divide themselves. However, if an individual comes and says he wants to enter now into unity with the Pope, one must accept him.

thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/05/cardinal-castrilln-tradition-without.html

So much for breaking up the SSPX.

 

[roguejim]

Don’t you have any comment to post #6 or are you still burying your head in the sand?

Not much to say, really. The OP noted they are in schism. He is wrong, and has offered nothing to prove his claim. You said they are excommunicated, which is simply wrong, not to mention, irrelevant. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, but was reconciled. Do you read books? Educate yourself. and you won’t sound so stupid.

 

[thistle]

Not much to say, really. The OP noted they are in schism. He is wrong, and has offered nothing to prove his claim. You said they are excommunicated, which is simply wrong, not to mention, irrelevant. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated, but was reconciled. ** Do you read books? Educate yourself. and you won’t sound so stupid**.

Well I’m happy I’m not an Fr Feeney supporter. I hope you are not the norm with uncharitable and unChristian remarks (You are calling me stupid and another poster a liar!!).

By the way the document I quoted said they were not only forbidden to receive Communion but were also forbidden the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Not being allowed Confession is one of the results of excommunication.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

Please self-edit all posts for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. Thank you.

 

[terillmorris]

Father Z posted an article on his blog where Cardinal Hoyos says the SSPX are NOT in formal schism.

It doesnt matter what Cardinal Hoyos saYs. The Pope (John Paul II) says that Lefebvre’s act was a schismatic act, and that anyone who formally cooperates with the Schism is also excommunicated. —CASE CLOSED. !!! ONLY POPE BNENEDICT XVI CAN OVERTURN THAT. SORRY!!!

I wish you people would stop defending that disobiedent Archbishop. I cant think of a worse example than Archbishop Lefebvre. He blatantly disobeyed the Pope even though he was told not to, and was told he would be allowed to consecrate his bishops. What a disgrace he was. The arrogance. Yet some defend him. I have challenged any Lefebvrist to actually talk to me on the phone about this—none have----catholictruth1@yahoo.com

 

[HOLYHEARTS]

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone… JESUS CHRIST

 

[terillmorris]

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone… JESUS CHRIST

I state facts. I dont cast stones. The facts: The Pope said Lefebvre was wrong and he is excommunicated. The Pope further said that anyone who formally adheres to Lefebvre’s organization is also excommunicated. FACTS!!!

 

[piouswoman]

I state facts. I dont cast stones. The facts: The Pope said Lefebvre was wrong and he is excommunicated. The Pope further said that anyone who formally adheres to Lefebvre’s organization is also excommunicated. FACTS!!!

You do not state facts, you state a falsehood. Before adamantly making accusations it would do you good to read and research the history of the SSPX and the entire situation. The days of blindly following whatever comes out of your bishops mouth are gone, and those who adhere to that"schismatic" idea are guilty of papalotry, as it is the* duty* of a Catholic to refuse to follow* error*.

 

[ProVobis]

It doesnt matter what Cardinal Hoyos saYs.

I wasn’t aware Cardinal Hoyos praised the Archbishop. You make it sound as if he did.

But now that you mention it, the Archbishop died three years after his excommunication. Maybe he was right about his health and his fear of dying without having anyone ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass. Canon Law, which the Pope himself approved, gave the Archbishop a good defense. I don’t think the Pope had a medical degree to evaluate the Archbishop’s degree of fear or his physical condition and thus not accept that defense.