Steve Skojec talks about the many Catholics who do not know the Faith and....but neither does he know the Faith at least not enough to respond to the last blog post.1
He does depend upon traditional Catholic sources and this is good. However we are at a point in history when not only the magisterium but also the SSPX has made a doctrinal error. The SSPX is so doctrinally sure of itself that perhaps they would not even be willing to consider that they made an error. Any way neither can Steve Skojec or any priest of the SSPX comment when I wrote that the SSPX has developed Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Just like the liberals, progresivists and Masons they have developed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed. This is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
Why cannot Steve contradict me?
What if he said, "Lionel you are wrong since the SSPX accepts the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus"? I would respond,"They Only say that they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed"
They really mean that the dogma EENS has known exceptions with the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
They also believe that the Nicene Creed has known exceptions to "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. For Steve and the faculty at the Steubenville University, where he studied theology, it is "I believe in three or more known baptisms. They are the baptism of desire and blood, seeds of the Word...all without the baptism of water."
So this is a variation on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed.
Then we come to Vatican.Here the heresy is clear and obvious.
Since for me there are no known exceptons to the dogma EENS, there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood without the baptism of water.There is no hypothetical case in Vatican Council II (LG 8, UR 3, NA 2,LG 16 etc) which can be an exception to the Feneyite interpretation of EENS. EENS is traditional for me. It has an ecclesiology which is traditional. Religious, liberty, ecumenism and liturgical change ( with the new ecclesiology) is no more an issue.Since Vatican Council II now affirms Feneeyism ( for me), there are no exceptions to the traditional teachings on other religions and Christian communities. So there is no separation between Church and State and we affirm the Social Kingship of Christ the King since there is no salvation outside the Church and every one needs to be a Catholic to avoid Hell.
But this is not the case with Steve Skojec.For him there are exceptions to the tradtional teaching on EENS and the Nicene Creed.So his interpretatiom of Vatican Council II, like the SSPX, sedevacantists and liberals is different from mine.
It is the difference between light and darkness. These are two distinct interpretations of Vatican Council II. It is the difference between Pope Benedict's heremeneutic of continuity and rupture.
So why does Steve not see this ?
Why does he not write about it since he knows the Faith unlike many Catholics whom he refers to in the podcast?
Why does he not criticize and correct me?
Why does he not agree with me?
Too bad. The answer is not there in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott or the statements of the popes on salvation.It cannot be reasoned out with Denzinger. The magisterium is politically oriented and so will be of no help for him.
So what is Steve to do?
I don't know. I have written so much on this subject and he still does not understand.
I have written so much on this point and Chris Ferrara and John Vennari cannot agree or criticize me as good Catholics.So they will be of no help for him.
The sedevantist Dimond Brothers have no answer. Since there is no answer in the traditional writings to explain or criticize what I have written.Yet they know that what I am saying is rational and my premises are traditional.
And they know that I am saying that their premises are irrational and conclusions are non traditional.
Does it mean that they wll have to reinterpret Vatican Council II ? Yes! And are they willling to do this ? No !
SSPX is in doctrinal error like the contemporary magisterium Steve Skojec