Saturday, July 22, 2017

Bishop Schneider will not say that Pope Francis has made an objective mistake and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction

Rorate Caeili and Bishop Schneider are issuing fake news on Vatican Council II to protect their interests and remain politically correct with the present magisterium and the political Left.They are not interested in proclaiming the truths of the faith and informing Catholics about it.They support the Jewish Left here.
They continue to interpret Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingite theology and are afraid to affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite). Their reasoning is irrational. For them invisible for us baptism of desire would be a visible exception to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.With this premise they create a non traditional conclusion and attribute it to Vatican Council II. Pope Benedict and Pope Francis do the same.
They violate the Principle of Non Contradiction in their interpretation of Vatican Council II and so are unable to say that the two popes are doing the same.
It is like  Ralph Martin and Robert Fastiggi , professors of theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agreeing  that there are no visible for us cases of baptism of desire (BOD) and  invincible ignorance (I.I) in 2017. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.Since there are no visible for cases of LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11, AG 14, GS 22 there is nothing in the Council text to contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the past ecclesiology. However they will not directly say that the two living popes have made an objective mistake. They will not say that the two popes, the present magisterium of the Catholic Church, have violated the Principle of Non Contradiction as have the traditionalists and sedevacantists.
Ralph Martin and Bishop Schneider  do not deny 1) that the baptism of desire is not physically visible in 2017 and that 2) invisible baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma EENS
Ralph Martin and Bishop Schneider do not deny that Pope Francis has made the same two philosophical errors in his interpretation of Vatican Council II. He has violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.
In other words the pope made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Ralph Martin himself has been teaching this error to his students and so has the rest of the faculty.They are  promoting this error just like Rorate Caeili and the SSPX bishops and priests.
Ralph Martin does not deny that when he wrote his books on Evangelisation and 'Will Many Be Saved'(Amazon) 
he made the above two errors.Every rational adult agrees I.I is not an exception to EENS and yet this was the reasoning at Vatican Council II.This is a major philosophical error. It runs through Vatican Council II like a theme(LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2,AG 7, AG 11, GS 22 etc).This is not the teaching of the Holy Spirit.Bishop Schneider does not talk about this.He acts as if these facts do not exist.
This is part of the diabolical disorientation within the Catholic Church that Sr.Lucia spoke about?
According Warren Goddard 'Diabolical disorientation is due to the one turning point in the Church's life which has been entirely detrimental to the faith. Lumen Gentium Chapter 2 Section 16: Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72. 
Footnote 19 gives source authority to the 1949 Holy Office Pelagian heresy letter to Archbishop Cushing and is the theological foundation for modern ecumenism and ecumenism is the theological foundation for the Novus Ordo and justifies the overthrow of nearly all traditional Catholic teaching resulting in our Church being, for the most part, Neo-Protestant.'
Bishop Schneider does not see the objective error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 being repeated in Vatican Council II(C) and nor does he want to interpret Vatican Council(F) without the error. He will not say that Pope Francis has made an objective mistake and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades

When will Bishop Athanasius Schneider say all non Catholics in his diocese are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus(Feeneyite)?

L'immagine può contenere: 1 persona, spazio al chiuso

When will Bishop Athanasius Schneider say all non Catholics in his diocese are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Feeneyite)?
Possibly never.
Speaking the truth with traditional doctrines and theology, with reference to Vatican Council II, would not be 'charity' for him?
He never responded to the points I raised in May 2017 with reference to his Polish interview.I predicted that he will not comment on Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and in a few months there will be another report/interview of his on Rorate Caeili, based on Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).
Rorate Caeili and Chris Ferrara do the same. They will not affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) since it is controversial and they need to protect themself and their interests.
1.Bishop Athanasius Schneider (Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt,Rorate Caeili and others) could announce that Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all need faith and baptism for salvation. So the majority of people in Astana, Kazakhstan without 'faith and baptism' are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council ( Feeneyite).
2.Bishop Athanasius Schneider could announce that LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, AG 7, AG 11,GS 22, NA 2, UR 3 etc refer to hypothetical cases and are not people known in the present times saved outside the Church.They are not concrete cases in 2017 saved outside the Church with the baptism of water.So they are not exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus(Feeneyite).So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 All need faith and baptism for salvation.So the majority of the population in Kazakhstan are on the way to Hell without 'faith and baptism'.LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, AG 7, AG11, GS 22, NA 2, UR 3 are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) or Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14-all need faith and baptism for salvation).-Lionel Andrades


JULY 22, 2017


Bishop Athansius Schneider is bankrupt theologically and so his doctrines are a rupture with Tradition.Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is controversial for him

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/bishop-athansius-schneider-is-bankrupt.html

 JULY 19, 2017


When will Rorate Caeili learn?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/when-will-rorate-caeili-learn.html

JULY 20, 2017

Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/frnicholas-gruner-and-john-vennari-did_20.html



Bishop Athansius Schneider is bankrupt theologically and so his doctrines are a rupture with Tradition.Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is controversial for him

L'immagine può contenere: 1 persona, spazio al chiuso
Bishop Athansius Schneider is bankrupt theologically and so his doctrines are a rupture with Tradition.He interprets all magisterial documents with the New Theology. It is the same with the liberal bishops.
He is aware of interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise.Since LG 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) his inference, whether he knows it or not,is that LG 16 refers to concrete people, known people in the present times,saved outside the Church.This is irrational. How can LG 16 be a reference to someone visible in 2017? Who among us can see someone saved without the baptism of water and in invincible ignorance(I.I) ? No one.Yet upon this irrationality is built the New Theology of Pope Benedict and Bishop Athansius Schneider.
So he keeps repeating the same old interpretation of Vatican Council II and does not respond to the points I have made on my blog.Nor does he respond to the e-mails I have sent him.
Soon he will be invited to England by Cushingite traditionalists there and he will repeat the same nonsense theology and interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.
He will present with charity, mildness and kindness a false theology with new doctrines.
He will not affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise.Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is 'too hot'. It will bring a backlash and this would not charity for him. Charity means repeating the false theology since it is magisterial and is being accepted also by the SSPX bishops.
So general, vague statements are being on Vatian Council II by him, without affirming the issues of Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).He will not support Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) on ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, inter religious dialogue, non separation of Church and State, proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation,the rejection of the new ecumenism, the support of the old ecclesiology etc.
Probably he will go to the other life, like Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari, avoiding this issue and remaining politically correct , with Cushingite theology.-Lionel Andrades

July 21, 2017

Bishop Athanasius Schneider still incoherent and confused : has repeated last report without addressing previous critical points

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/bishop-athanasius-schneider-still.html

Friday, July 21, 2017

Bishop Athanasius Schneider still incoherent and confused : has repeated last report without addressing previous critical points


Bishop Athanasius Schneider is  still incoherent and confused.It is as if he has copy and pasted his last report on Rorate Caeili without addressing any of the points I have raised in my blog last May 2017 and before.Probably he does not understand what I am saying. Since his premise is invisible baptism of desire is visible and mine is -it is invisible. Upon this irrationality is constructed his New Theology, Cushingite theology, which is the key he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.So both of us would read the same passages and our conclusions would be different.For example Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would be a visible example of salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water for him.For me it would be a theoretical case and irrelevant to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus,upon which the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church rested.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicts himself in the interview he recently gave to a Polish Catholic daily mainstream paper  I wrote in May.He does the same today on Rorate Caeili, which is still avoiding interpretating Vatican Council II with Feeneyite theology.
Like the SSPX bishops Schnieder does not state the obvious, which is, invisible-for-us- baptism of desire is not visible for us. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known to the 16th century missionaries 1 If the baptism of desire was invisible for him, which is common sense, then the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.He would be looking at the Council with a different perspective. He has not addressed this point.Possibly, he too will go to the next world like Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari without doing any thing about it.
For him LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No denial from him here. Since they are exceptions he infers that they are objective cases in our reality. Only objective cases can be exceptions.To be an exception, the baptism of desire, for example,has to be a visible, concrete case.For me they are not objective cases. So our interpretation of Vatican Council II would be different, worlds apart.
 He writes today on Rorate Caeili:
 Vatican II was a legitimate assembly presided by the Popes and we must maintain towards this council a respectful attitude.2
 But which Vatican Council II is he referring to ? This is another point he always ignores.Is it Vatican Council II Feeneyite, with invisible for us baptism of desire just being invisible or, is it Vatican Council II, Cushingite, with invisible for us baptism of desire being visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Probably he will never answer this. Since if he affirms Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite) and the Syllabus of Errors the Vatican will penalize him and the Jewish Left will demand an ounce of his blood.In his diocese he would be saying all Muslims are on the way to Hell unless they formally enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'.
So he does not touch this point, like Rorate Caeili, and prudently goes on repeating what he has been repeating for years with his Cushingite reasoning and analysis of Vatican Council II.

In his may 2017 report ,when he says 'there is no other religion which saves man, except the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church is the unique Church of God, because the Church is the living Christ Himself. Jesus Christ is really corporally risen from the dead', he could mean all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. This is the liberal theology of Pope Benedict.This is the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology.So he is part of the problem.Even today he does not dare break free of the New Theology based on invisible people allegedly being visible exceptions to exclusivist salvation in the Catholic Church.
He writes today:
Vatican II must be seen and received as it is and as it was really: a primarily pastoral council. This council had not the intention to propose new doctrines or to propose them in a definitive form. In its statements the council confirmed largely the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church.
When he assumes hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS obviously new conclusions and new doctrines will come forth.

Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character.
He is sincere but lost in the woods here.Since he does not make the Cushingite-Feeneyite, visible-invisible, concrete-theoretical, distinction.He is not aware of the objective error in the Latter of the Holy Office 1949 which has influenced Vatican Council II and changed Catholic theology.
 A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.
Agreed.Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) does not have the hermeneutic of continuity. It is really heretical.
There must be created in the Church a serene climate of a doctrinal discussion regarding those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous or which have caused erroneous interpretations. In such a doctrinal discussion there is nothing scandalous, but on the contrary, it will be a contribution in order to maintain and explain in a more sure and integral manner the deposit of the immutable faith of the Church.
They had a serene doctrinal discussion before. Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j for the Vatican and Fr. Jean Marie Gleize for the SSPX were both interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingite irrationality.The conclusion was a rupture with Tradition which was acceptable for Ladaria and unacceptable for Gleize.Both groups accepted the New Theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

We can see a positive indication in the fact that on August 2, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a preface to the volume regarding Vatican II in the edition of his Opera omnia. In this preface, Benedict XVI expresses his reservations regarding specific content in the documents Gaudium et spes and Nostra aetate. From the tenor of these words of Benedict XVI one can see that concrete defects in certain sections of the documents are not improvable by the “hermeneutics of the continuity.”
When Pope Benedict says this he is only supporting his New Theology which is based on a false premise.Since he assumes there are explicit and known cases of people saved outside the Church in GS 22 and NA 2, Vatican Council II does not have a continuity with Tradition. So he is still supporting the liberal and Masonic interpretation of the Council and Bishop Schneider is clueless.
If Pope Benedict wanted he could have said that GS 22 and NA 2 refer to hypothetical cases. They cannot be personally known people in 2017. So they do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.They are not a rupture with Tradition.
He did not say it and Schneider has fallen for the ruse.
Bishop Schneider also picked up the bait in March 2016 when Pope Benedict did not say that Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) was not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries of the 16th century. Instead Pope Benedict affirmed the liberal and pro-Masonic position when he said that Vatican Council II was 'a development' of the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium of the 16th century.So EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century he said blatantly and clearly. He was referring to Vatican Council II, Cushingite and he is correct.Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS and he made this magisterial,as Prefect of the CDF.
But the ambiguity went over Bishop Schneider and he did not issue a critical statement.Pope Benedict was saying formally that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition and it was acceptable for him.There was no continuity.Bishop Schneider was completely at sea.
-Lionel Andrades

1

 MAY 8, 2017


Bishop Athanasius Schneider incoherent and confused http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/05/bishop-athanasius-schneider-incoherent.html


2

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/guest-op-ed-bishop-schneider.html

[Punishment In Hell] Adulterers In Hell video

[Punishment In Hell] Adulterers In Hell



There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.This is why the Devil hates Catholics.- Gloria Polo


There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.This is why the Devil hates Catholics.There is no way to enter Heaven but the body and blood of Christ- Gloria Polo(36:00)


Powerful Testimony Near Death Experience of Dr Gloria Polo.