Bishop Schneider is not aware of the exact cause of the hermeneutic of continuity and rupture. He is not familiar with that one precise factor which is the cause of the rupture
Bishop Athanasius Schneider's Letter:
Dear Michael Voris, here are some clarifications about the issue of the SSPX:
1. I have not said that there are no reasons which would hinder a canonical recognition of the SSPX, but I said more cautiously "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons".
The SSPX will have to accept an irrational theology and ecclesiology just like he does. They will have to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
They are not to say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. I have not said that the current canonical situation of the SSPX is OK. The contrary, because of the their uncanonical status it is necessary that they receive the recognition from the Holy See.
What about the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ? They can receive canonical status without affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II ?
3. I said that the SSPX should be received as they are, meanwhile. My thought is this: for pedagogical and pastoral reasons they should be meanwhile accepted as they are, in order to correct by time those things which have to be corrected in the SSPX.
The Vatican is using a new ecclesiology based on an irrational premise. The SSPX must give up the old ecclesiology ?
Bishop Schneider offers Holy Mass assuming LG 16 etc are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.This is the basis of the new ecclesiology, the theology.He has accepted.Over time the SSPX will also must correct itself?
4. I never said, that I support the positions of the SSPX about Vatican II. Lionel: Ambiguity. I only said, that there is on both sides, i.e. the Holy See and the SPPX an over-evaluation and overestimation of Vatican II, yet on opposing points of views. Lionel: Vagueness.
He is not aware of the exact cause of the hermeneutic of continuity and rupture. He is not familiar with that one precise factor, that missing link, which is the cause of the hermeneutic of rupture.
The question is the right measure, i.e. we must have an estimation and a good evaluation of Vatican II, but not in an exaggerated manner.
He is not aware how avoiding a premise and inference can turn Vatican Council II into a traditional document with an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.
We have not to make Vatican II a Council isolated from all the previous Councils or a kind of super-Council...
Vatican Council II affirms previoius councils including the Council of Trent and the three Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 for example)
7. One has to have enough intellectual honesty and objectivity as to admit that the SSPX makes some theological criticism of some not strictly dogmatic affirmations in the texts of Vatican II and of some postconciliar documents, which have to be taken seriously...
Theologically they are using the same premise which is the basis of the liberal new theology. They are not aware of it and neither is Bishop Athanasius Schneider.