Bishop Athansius Schneider sends non committal letter of endorsement for Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum
The Collegium Sanctorum Angelerorum has received a polite letter of endorsement from Bishop Athanasius Schneider as was requested by the college president Deacon Edward Schaefer.Nothing important is said theologically or doctrinally,traditionally. Schneider and Schaefer interpret Vatican Council II using an irrational premise.Then they reject the non traditional conclusion.Since it is a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church associated with the Traditional Latin Mass and which they do not affirm in public.
Bishop Schneider could not tell the President of the CSA that he hopes the college will affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyite theology. Since he himself does not do it.
He could not say that he hoped the faculty and students will affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, like the missionaries of the 16th century when they offered the Traditional Latin Mass. He himself does not do it and neither does Deacon Edward Schaefer.
As a Deacon,Edward Schaefer has had his religious formation as a liberal.At the SSPX institutions and those of the pontifical universities in Rome the teaching is liberal and Masonic in the sense that they use an irrational premise to create a hermeneutic of rupture with the past. This is now politically correct with the Left and it is being enforced strictly by the Vatican. So this is what Deacon Edward Schaefer and his Board of Directors will offer at the Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum(CSA). There is no denial from Deacon Schaefer.
I mentioned in a previous blog post that when Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, Rorate Caeili correspondents and other traditionalists criticize Vatican Council II they are doing something pleasing to the liberals and Masons. Even the liberals and the magisterium state that Vatican Council II is break with Tradition.
None of them want to affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)
But if Chris Ferrara says that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with Tradition and the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite), try and imagine the big reaction from the Left.So he does not affirm the faith.
So it would be easy for Edward Schaefer, like it is for the FSSP priests, to interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with Cushingism and then they will be accepted by the diocese, the Vatican and they will receive an accreditation.
But then it would be false to project CSA as a traditionalist college only because they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. Since the ecclesiology of the Latin Mass at CSA would not be that of the Mass in the 16th century.
With the new ecclesiology, based on Cushingism, they also accept the new ecumenism and reject the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century magisterium.It seems Deacon Edward Schaefer will compromise. After all if the traditionalists and sedevacantists can compromise then why not CSA.
He has not clarified the CSA's position on Vatican Council II. Will it be Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is traditional and not a rupture with the past ecclesiology? Yes he could announce that since CSA is a traditionalist college they will affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and so not reject the Council.But then before the college opens there will be restrictions placed, similar to those on the Fischer More College(FMC). Bishop Olson at Fort Worth stopped the Latin Mass at FMC and there was some controversy on Vatican Council II.
The Vatican would want the CSA, like the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, to also accept Vatican Council II( Cushingite) and no one will mind if they call themself a traditionalist college.
John Lamont, Thomas PinkandJoseph Shawcould go ahead and teach philosophy and theology and even call themselves traditionalists if they wanted, as long as they keep interpreting magisterial documents with Cushingism. No one will object.
OrBishop Robert MorlinoandFr.John Zuhlsdorfcould offer Mass facing the East and no one at the Vatican would really object, as long as their ecclesiology is not Feeneyite on Vatican Council II and EENS.So when Fr. Zuhlsdorf comments on Islam, he does not say that all Muslims are on the way to Hell in 2017 according to Vatican Council II ( AG 7) and the dogma EENS, since he does not believe this.He is a Cushingite.Invisible cases of people saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to EENS.He has compromised.He keeps his incardination and his blog.Then he asks why are churches being closed with this example being given to the laity by the religious.
Deacon Edward Schaefer who wants to build a traditionalist college in the USA based on the new ecclesiology and non traditional Cushingite theology is also unable to say that all Catholic students at the college should proclaim that all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics, with no exceptions in 2017, are oriented to the fires of Hell and this is a magisterial teaching according to Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14).
Instead this is to be another liberal Catholic college with a traditionalist veneer like the Scholasticum in Italy.
They will interpret the Patristic teachings and St. Thomas Aquinas by assuming there are known exceptions to traditional salvation theology.
So the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the pre-Council of Trent seminaries will be replaced with a vague Christology, it will be Jesus without the necessity of formal membership in the Catholic Church, for salvation.
In the mid 13th century Feeneyism and not Cushingism was the theology; the only magisterial theology.There was no explicit for us baptism of desire, there were no objectively known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water.This came into the Church with the approval of Cardinal Gibbons in the Baltimore Catechism and Cardinal Richard Cushing in the Fr. Leonard Feeney, Boston Case.
In my correspondence with Deacon Edward Schaefer over quite some time he has never affirmed the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which was the basis of the old ecclesiology.
It is similar to the Scholasticum.No one on their Administration or Faculty has the ability to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 13th and 14th century Catholic Church.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2016Deacon Edward Schaefer's Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum will be another liberal Catholic college with a traditionalist veneer http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/deacon-edward-schaefers-collegium.html
JULY 22, 2017Rorate Caeili and Bishop Schneider do not write that Pope Francis made a factual mistake, an objective error in his interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/rorate-caeili-and-bishop-schneider-do.html
JULY 22, 2017When 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)?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/when-will-bishop-athanasius-schneider.html
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
Feeneyism:It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation was superfluous.It was a mistake to mention it in Lumen Gentium 16 which Julie has quoted in her blog post on Outside the Church there is no salvation. Cushingism:It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.Austin Invereigh like most Catholkics today intepret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So Lumen Gentium 16 being physically visible and personally known would be an exception to the dogma EENS, it would be a rupture with Tradition.1
Similarly Julie an Peter and Michael Dimond can interpret other magisterial documents with Feeneyism and at the same time be aware of how every one uses Cushingism instead.
Baptism of Desire(Feeneyite):It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.It is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Baptism of Desire(Cushingite):It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case it is relevant to the dogma EENS. Invincible Ignorance( Feeneyite):This refers tothe hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was ignorant of Jesus and the Catholic Church.Since it is a hypothetical and theoretical case it is not and never was an exception to Feneeyite EENS.
Invincible Ignorance(Cushingite):This refers tothe explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance of the Gospel, he did not know about Jesus and the Church.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational. Any one who says invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite EENS infers that these cases are objective for them to be exceptions. Council of Florence:One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite. Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used Cushingism. So they re-interpreted Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance was considered visible by them), the Catechism of the Council of Trent etc. Vatican Council II (Cushingite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refernot to hypothetical butknown cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS. Vatican Council II(Feeneyite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer tohypothetical cases, which are unknown personallyin the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell). Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It wasCushingite. Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite).It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.It does not infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit and objective cases for them to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite).It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It wrongly assumes hypothetical casesare objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter. Baltimore Catechism:It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with this confusion.It can be interpreted with CushingismorFeeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X:It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with wrongly with Cushingismor correctly with Feeneyism. Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ;It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is aCushingiteinterpretation. Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite):It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It isFeeneyite. New Theology:It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis isCushingism. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite):.It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times. Catechism of the Catholic Church( Cushingite):CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction.It suggests that since God is not limited to the Sacraments that we know such cases in real life. So it is mentioned.At the same time CCC 1257 states that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. So it seems Cushingite when it suggests all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water but some do not since there are known exceptions( God is not limited to the Sacraments).
Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite). Catechism of the Catholic Church( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with Feeneyism since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, known people who are saved outside the Church since God is not limited to the Sacraments. When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
However CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church since Cardinal Ratzinger assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance referred to known and objective cases and so they were relevant to EENS Feeneyite. This was Cushingism.It was also an error.
Council of Trent:The reference to the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen is a reference to a theoretical and hypothetical case.
Council of Trent:The reference to the desire for the baptism of water by a catehumen is a reference to an objectively and personally known case. This is false reasoning.
So I accept all the magisterial documents of the Church and I interpret them with Feeneyism. Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Deacon Edward Schaefer can do the same. All Catholics must do the same.
Presently the two popes and all the cardinals accept all the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church but interpret them with irrational Cushingism.This is the Arian-like heresy of today