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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment