An Open Letter to Confused Catholics
His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it.
Lionel: Yes -but the Archbishop accepted hypothetical cases as being exceptions to the Catholic dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS).
For him the baptism of desire(BOD) for example is explicit, visible with the naked eye in personally known cases. Otherwise how could BOD be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. The Archbishop did not object to the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston(1949).Instead he affirmed that text.
So theologically there is salvation outside the Church for him and the Church is no more indispensable.
You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Lionel: It has been dropped since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are considered relevant to the dogma EENS. So it is inferred that there are known cases of BOD and I.I in the present times.
This is an innovation in Catholic salvation theology. A dogma cannot be eliminated and that too with an irrational premise i.e being able to see people in Heaven.These people 'visible in Heaven' are also supposed to be seen without the baptism of water.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area.
Lionel: It was changed in his life time.The change was expressed in Vatican Council II. LG 14 ( catechumen saved with the desire for the baptism of water) and LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. They are unknown cases in our reality.The Archbishop did not notice this error.
It cannot be said that the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to include LG 14 and LG 16 in the text of Vatican Council II. This is an objective, human error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved?
Lionel: Here we go again!
No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is.
There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Lionel: O.K .No problem here.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
Lionel: Baptism of desire is explicit! No further comment here!
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
Lionel: O.K but they are known only to God. They are hypothetical cases for us. So this should not be linked to the Catholic dogma EENs. Since the baptism of desire can never ever be explicit for us. I can never tell someone ,'No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it.
Lionel: And whoever they are they are unknown to us. This is the important point that the Archbishop does not notice.They are always theoretical cases.I can speculate and hope that a person will be saved in another religion, but I cannot precisely name any person.There cannot be any specific case.I cannot say that any person will be saved with the baptism of desire etc and without the baptism of water.
There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost.
Lionel: May be the Archbishop recognises here that the concept of receiving the baptism of desire is an error!
The baptism of desire cannot be given to any one. It is a grace of God.It cannot be physically seen like the baptism of water.It does not exist in our reality.
This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.
Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis? Why did Our Lord say to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations?”
It is amazing that nowadays certain people want to let everyone find his own way to God according to the beliefs prevailing in his own “cultural milieu.” A bishop once told a priest who wanted to convert the little Muslims, “No, teach them to be good Muslims; that will be much better than making Catholics of them.”
Lionel: Since Vatican Council II suggests there is salvation outside the Church. LG 14 and LG 16 refer to known salvation.
So why convert when there is known salvation outside the Church, this bishop too ,may have been asking?
For the last 50- plus years this has been the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
I am assured and know for certain that before the Council the Taizé community wanted to abjure their errors and become Catholics. The authorities said to them, “No, wait. After the Council you will be the bridge between Catholics and Protestants.” Those who gave this reply took on a great responsibility before God, because grace comes often only at a given moment; it may perhaps not come again. At the present time the brethren of Taizé are still outside the Church, sowing confusion in the minds of the young people who visit them.
Lionel: They are told that there is salvation outside the Church and the Church corrected the 'error' of Fr. Leonard Feeney. So there is no need to convert into the Church.
Recently Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this when he said that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said that there was a development with Vatican Council II. He meant LG 14 and LG 16 referred to explicit cases and so this was why LG 16 and LG 14 etc were mentioned in Vatican Council II relative to the dogma EENS i.e all need faith and baptism for salvation(LG 14, AG 7).
I have spoken of the conversions which have abruptly fallen in countries like the United States--where they used to amount to 170,000 a year--and Great Britain and Holland. The missionary spirit has faded away because of the wrong definition of the Church and because of the conciliar declaration on religious liberty of which I must now speak.
Lionel: The 'wrong definition of church' the new ecclesiology has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 error which was approved by Archibshop Lefebvre, the traditionalists of his time and the SSPX bishops and priests.