Fatima : the dogma of the faith has been lost among the traditionalists
De Mattei: The Second Vatican Council and the Message of Fatima
Roberto de Mattei
August 2, 2017
Rorate Caeli, Corrispondenza Romana and other Catholic news-outlets, carried a valuable intervention by Monsignor Athanasius Schneider on the “Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council and its relationship with the current crisis in the Church”.
Bishop Schneider still is unable to discuss if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism with different conclusions.
JULY 22, 2017
Bishop Schneider will not say that Pope Francis has made an objective mistake and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction
According to the auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Vatican II was a pastoral Council and its texts should be read and judged in the light of the perennial teaching of the Church.
Lionel:Archbishop Augustine di Noia has said that Lumen Gentium is referred to as the Dogmatic Constitution.
For Pope Benedict XVI Vatican Council II has developed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so EENS is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century(Avvenire,2016).So according to the popes Vatican Council II has changed dogma and created new doctrine.
Of course, they are referring to Vatican Council II ( Cushingism). They are correct Vatican Council II (Cushingism) has done all this.
None of the traditionalists seem aware of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which does not contradict Traditon(EENS or the Syllabus of Errors).
So Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Roberto dei Mattei and Rorate Caeili should stop being so defensive by calling the Council 'pastoral only'.When they affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) it will be the German bishops who will want to call Vatican Council II 'just pastoral'.Vatican Council II will be unacceptable for them. The traditionalists should make a little time to study what is Feeneyism and Cushingism. See the right hand side tags on the blog Eucharist and Mission.
In fact “From an objective point of view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements of Vatican II.”
Lionel:Since Bishop Athanasius Schneider does not make the Feeneyite-Cushngite distinction there is confusion here.
Monsignor Schneider’s article was followed on July 31st by a balanced comment from Don Angel Citati of the FSSPX(http://www.sanpiox.it/attualita/1991-suaviter-in-modo-fortiter-in-re), according to which the German Bishop’s position recalls very closely what was repeated constantly by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre: “To say that we evaluate theCouncil’s documents “in the light of Tradition”, means, evidently, three indissoluble things: that we accept those that are in keeping with Tradition; that we interpret those that are ambiguous according to Tradition; that we reject those that are contrary to Tradition” ( (Mons. M. Lefebvre, Vi trasmetto quello che ho ricevuto. Tradizione perenne e futuro della Chiesa, [I transmit what I have received. Perennial Tradition and the future of the Church] by Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro, Sugarco Edizioni, Milano 2010, p. 91). Having been published on the official site of the Italian District, Don Citati’s article helps us understand what might be the base of an agreement to regularize the canonical situation of the Fraternity of Pius X.
Lionel: Cushingism, the New Theology is the ploy of the magisterium. The SSPX is already interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and so is Schneider and De Mattei.So they have all rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyite version, by assuming that invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma EENS. This is welcomed by the Left.
The SSPX also offers the Traditional Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology based on Cushingism.
So why cannot they reach an agreement with the Left? It is becuase the Left accepts the conclusion of Cushingite theology and the SSPX rejects it. The SSPX and the two popès interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology based on the irrational premise, however the SSPX rejects the non traditional and heretical conclusion which is a rupture with the past, while the two popes welcome it.
It must be added that, on the theological level, all of the distinctions can and have to be made to interpret the texts of Vatican II, which was a legitimate Council:
Lionel: Mattei here is at the same place where Schneider usually is - at sea.This passage above says nothing and probably reflects his personal confusion on this issue.Mattei wrote his book on Vatican Council II unaware of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).Not a clue!
the twenty-first in the Catholic Church. Its documents from time to time may be defined pastoral or dogmatic, provisional or definitive, in keeping or not in keeping with Tradition.
Lionel: This is the ambigous way Bishop Schneider writes and talks- really saying nothing.
Monsignor Brunero Gheradini, in his recent works offers us an example of how a theological judgment may be articulated, if it wants to be precise (Il Concilio Vaticano II un discorso da fare, Casa Mariana, Frigento 2009 e Id., Un Concilio mancato, Lindau, Torino 2011). Each text, for a theologian, has a different quality and a different degree of authority and cogency. Hence the debate is open.
Lionel:Another ambigous passage which says nothing. Gherardini was a Cushingite. He interpreted LG 16 as if it was a visible case of someone saved outside the Church without the baptism of water. So it the Council became a break with Tradition.
Since this year is the centenary of the Apparitions of Fatima, let us consider this point only...
Lionel:At Fatima Our Lady said that the dogma of the faith will be lost.John Salza believes Our Lady was referring to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We can see it lost on Roberto de Mattei since he does not want to be called a Feeneyite.To be a Feeneyite is to have a Catholic identity. It means affirming a rational and traditional theology which supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.
We can see it lost on Bishop Athanasius Schneider.Since even after being informed he will not interpret Vatican Council II and EENS, with Feeneyism.
The sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn interprets VC 2 with Cushingism and so remains politically correct.
John Salza himself will not answer in public simple questions like, "Can you see people in Heaven who are there with the baptism of desire?" or "Can you see them on earth?", "Does LG 16 refer to visible or invisible people in 2017 ?"
The dogma of the faith has been lost.
Even the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney interpret VC 2 assuming invisible people are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.