Monday, April 25, 2016

Bishop Athanasius Schneider misses the bus again

Pastorally we cannot say that a particular person living in mortal sin will not go to Hell if he dies immediately. We humans cannot know.
Pastorally we cannot say that a particular non Catholic will not go to Hell if he dies immediately. There is no way of knowing exceptions to mortal sin or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Similarly pastorally how can we say that a marriage should be annulled , since it was not a marriage in the first place?
How can we pastorally give a dispensation in an inter faith marriage as if we know of a case of salvation outside the Church and so the couple are not living in mortal sin?
A priest in the Confessional can grant absolution to a person in mortal sin but pastorally he cannot say that a person living in mortal sin has Sanctifying Grace.This would only be known to God.
This is the point that Bishop Athanasius Schneider seems to miss in his interpretation of Vatican Council II and in his comment on Amoris Leitizia(AL).1
AL is based on their being known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.
For Bishop Schneider there are known exceptions to the traditional theology on morals and faith( salvation). He has accepted the new theology. The result is a new ecclesiology.His interpretation of Vatican Council II is based on known exceptions ( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc.) to the dogma EENS.
With the new ecclesiology he interprets Vatican Council II and finds it wanting.
Bishop Schneider accepts 'known exceptions', 'subjectivism as objectivism' and 'situation ethics' as theories. He also believes they can be recognized and implemented in real life.
So Vatican Council II's Lumen Gentium 16 would not only be hypothetical for him but also practically known in personal cases.
AL(301) would not refer to theoretical moral possibilities but actual cases in which a judgment and exception can be made. This would be normal.
What if the popes realize that humanly speaking, practically, we cannot judge any exception to the traditional moral and salvation theology? Could he stop them?. Theoretically there may be numerous 'permutations and possibilities'. But in reality we cannot judge any body as being saved as such.
I can present an extraordinary case of moral situation ethics for example, but in reality I cannot meet anyone saved as such.
The liberals and Masons know this. So they mix up what is unknown as being known. Then they create exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and morals. Over time, the exceptions become the norm in the Catholic Church.
 Annulments and dispensations have been mass produced to attack the family. AL too mixes up what is unknown as being known to create more sacrilege.
Unknown cases in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc. ) are presented as known and so the Council becomes a break with the dogma EENS. Then it is assumed there is salvation outside the Church. Since there is salvation outside the Church non Catholics are allowed to marry Catholics and it is not considered being in adultery. The non Catholic spouse is assumed to be saved outside the Church. This is another attack on the family but this is the reasoning that Bishop Schneider also uses to interpret Vatican Council II and Church documents.
It is the norm for him as in the rest of the Church, to mix up what is unknown as being known.
Why doesn't Bishop Schneider clearly say that there are no known exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II? Subjective cases cannot be objective. We cannot know of anyone for example saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) or 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8).So UR 3 and LG 8 are irrelevant to traditional Catholic exclusivist ecclesiology. Why does he still  interpret Vatican Council II like the Neo Catechumenale Way? Or vice versa.
Why does he not say that we can never know when a Catholic sacramental marriage was invalid at the outset?
Related imageDavid Domet ( blog Vox Cantoris) received an annulment since it was easy to get one.
Related imageLouie Verrecchio ( blog Aka Catholic) received a dispensation since it was easy to get one.
They criticize the Novus Ordo Mass but value their 'Church' annulment and dispensation. So they believe they are not living in adultery. Domet went and married again in 'the Church '.They both can now receive the Eucharist.
Why does Bishop Schneider not say that bishops and priests can never really know when a person living in concubinage can receive the Eucharist as an exception?
How can the priest know when a divorced and remarried has Sanctifying Grace even though they are in mortal sin.? Why do ecclesiastics assume all this is possible? How does the bishop or a priest have the right to grant an annulment or dispensation, break a family and permit new marriages and possibilities for receiving the Eucharist without it being considered sacrilegious?. Why was it granted so easily, for example, to David Domet and Louie Verrecchio ?2
How does an ecclesiastic have the right to regularize an irregular (mortal sin) relationship by breaking a marriage? How can they break marriages or validate adulterous and heretical ones based on a rejection of the faith ( EENS) and moral( mortal sin/sacrilege) teachings of the Catholic Church? -Lionel Andrades
How easily annulments and dispensations are given and now Amoris Laetitia offers another Church-approved means to strike at the family


Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX bishops and priests confuses what is invisible as being visible.Card. Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past

Related image

Bishop Schneider uses the common Gnostic interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II

Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio

Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious

No comments: