Peter Kwasniewski and Whispers of Restoration do not know how to handle it : they violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and are in a swamp

The apologists at the website Whispers of Restoration have not responded to so many posts on this blog and are now thinking of having a paid-employee. They will produce more of the same stuff as the Catholics who interpret magisterial documents with an irrational premise and inference and do not deny it.

KWASNIEWSKI MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR

For Peter Kwasniewski a professor of philosophy and theology,  whose articles are recommended by the young menbers at Whispers of Restoration, all that is important are the rubrics, vestments and rituals of the Latin Mass even if the theology and doctrines are heretical.This is also the understanding of the volunters at Whispers of Restoration(WR).

They have given us  a list of old Catechisms which is appreciated but they interpret these catechisms with the false premise and inference to create a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), an ecumenism of return etc.

INTERPRET POPES CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER
So they actually interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation) as a rupture with EENS.They wrongly assume that the  baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are objective exceptions to EENS and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

So the Catechism of Pope Pius X would be a rupture with the Syllabus fo Errors and also EENS as it was interpreted by the Magisterium in the Middle Ages.

In other words the traditionalists at the time of Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X were contradicting themselves for Whispers of Restoration and Peter Kwasniewski.

NEW THEOLOGY OF THE TRADITIONALISTS

This is also the New Theology of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, Chris Ferrara, Roberto dei Mattei, Joseph Shaw, John Lamont, Thomas Pink,Fr.Brian Harrison, the St.Benedict Centers, Rorate Caeli correspondents and the SSPX bishops and priests.It is the same for cardinals Kasper and Koch, Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Guido Pozzo.

It is with the false premise and inference that Peter Kwasniewski interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past  and then rejects the Council.


AQUINAS CONTRADICTS HIMSELF FOR WR AND KWASNIEWSKI

Kwasniewski referred to as a Thomistic scholar, on the website 1Peter5, would interpret St. Thomas Aquinas like the liberals. Aquinas affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. However when he mentions the case of the man in the jungle living in ignorance or the catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it, he is referring to an allegedly known person saved outside the Church for Kwasniewski and the traditionalists. So what was hypothetical for Aquinas is a concrete exception to EENS for Kwasniewski.

This is also the false reasoning of the liberals and the faculty at the Franciscan University of Steubenville where Peter Kwasneiwski taught.He writes regularly for New Liturgical Movement, OnePeterFive, LifeSiteNews, and Rorate Caeli.1

OFFERS THE LATIN MASS WITH THE NEW ECCLESIOLOGY

He offers  Mass  in Latin while affirming the New ecclesiology based on BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is schism with the past popes who did not see BOD, BOB and I.I as being known people saved outside the Catholic Church.It was the liberal theologians who made this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) and then repeated it at Vatican Council II.

POLITICALLY CORRECT ON EENS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II

So Kwasneiwski is politically correct with the Left,like other traditionalists, and will not interpret EENS like Fr.Leonard Feeney for whom BOD, BOB and I.I literally did not exist.

He is also politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II. Since he interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 as being exceptinos to EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. He had no criticism  when Cardinal Luiz Ladaria interpreted Lument Gentium 8 as an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology(Placquet Deo Press Conference). He also had no comment when Pope Benedict interpreted Vatican Council as a rupture with EENS(Avvenire,March 2016)





NO RESTORATION WITH HERESY AND CONFUSION

So it is no surprise that the young volunters at Whispers of Restoration are confused.They came to this good project with a lot of good will.

But Kwasniewski cannot help them and neither can Roberto Dei Mattei, Chris Ferrara or Steve Skoject. Since none of them want to affirm the taboo Feeneyite interpretation of EENS or my interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.

They are aware that the Catechisms contradict each other and there is doctrinal confusion.This would be normal since they are violating the Principle of Non Contradiction but it is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican. .-Lionel Andrades

1

https://www.peterkwasniewski.com/about

AUGUST 9, 2018

Traditional Catechisms on Whispers of Restoration support the old exclusivist ecclesiology but the team at the website interpret these catechisms as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors,EENS and the rest of Tradition

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/traditional-catechisms-on-website.html

• Whispers of Restoration (10)
• Whispers of Restoration(WR) (2)

Steve Skojec

Author Steve Skojec executive director of the website 1Peter5 has a BA degree from the University of Steubenville where they teach the New Theology which is based upon a  false premise and inference .With the false reasoning he creates a non traditional conclusion  which is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known in the 16th century when they offered the Tridentine Rite Mass.

So with the New Theology which creates a rupture  with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation he goes for  Mass in Latin and thinks it is the same as the old Mass.

Like the faculty at Steubenville he reads passages in Vatican Council II which refer to hypothetical cases, as being  objective exceptions to the orthodox passages  which support traditional exclusive salvation.

For instance he would read the passage in red as an exception to the passage in blue. This is false.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. 

So then he interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism or return etc.

This is common among those who attend only the Latin Mass call themselves traditionalists and believe the theology of the Mass today is the same as in the 16th century.

There are numerous young men and women, Catholics, who accept this reasoning.

Fr. Brian Harrison, a convert to the Catholic Church writes on Steve's website 1Peter5 and will not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.He will not admit that invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.So the Holy Office in 1949 and the popes since Pius XII were wrong.Instead he would say like Steve that Pope Benedict was correct in March 2016 (Avvenire) when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Since there was a development(rupture) with Vatican Council II( interpreted with the passages in red contradicting those in blue).

This is how Fr. Brian Harrison and Steve Skojec interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.

Unknown cases of non Catholics in 2018-2019 allegedly saved outside the Church are known exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

So with this reasoning there is a rupture with the 16th century Magisterium for Pope Benedict and the writers at 1Peter5.

This is also how the traditionalist Joseph Shaw , Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, U.K reasons when he teaches philosophy  at the liberal Benet Hall, Oxford.If BOD, BOB and I.I were simply hypothetical cases and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NS 2, GS 22 etc were the same-just theoretical for us - Shaw,Skojec, Harrison and the others would have to affirm the dogma EENS like the  missionaries in the 16th century.But this would be unthinkable for Dr.Joseph Shaw and Fr. Brian Harrison.

So does Steve Skojec also have to fake it  to protect his earnings from1Peter5?

Harrison, Shaw and Skojec are changing the interpretation of EENS so that they can protect their personal and professional interests.

Fr.Brian Harrison if he affirms EENS without BOD, BOB and I.I being alleged exceptions may not be allowed by the USCCB, to offer the Latin Mass.Since he would be saying all non Catholics in general are on the way to Hell outside the Church and there are no known exceptions according to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma EENS.

So now it is useful for him, like it is for Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, to project BOD,BOB and I.I as referring to known people in 2019.They protect thier careers in this way.

I do not earn any money from this blog(not an euro) but Hilary White and Ann Barnhardt need the financial support of their traditionalist readers  who all interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to personally known non people saved outside the Church.This was how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre reasoned and so do the SSPX bishops today.

Can you picture Hilary White projecting herself as a Feeneyite in Italian parishes ? No.

It is the same with Steve Skojec.He does not have catechetical  material which interprets Vatican Council II as not being an exception to Feeneyite EENS.Like Fr.Leonard Feeney he does not say that literally, practically, there are no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.

Even the writers on his blog, like Fr.Harrison, do not say this.So the theology and doctrines which he professes as a Catholic, is clearly leftist.

It could be approved at Benet Hall, Oxford or Steubenville,Ohio.

He too like Bishop Athanasius Schneider could interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X and then call for a new Syllabus on Vatican Council II.

The new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II would ignore the false premise( invisible non Catholics are physically visible) and false inference( they are visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and practical exceptions to EENS) which creates a non traditional conclusion( there is a new ecclesiology in the Church,which says outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation).

This is the new theology and new salvation doctrines of Steve Skojec.

Steve Skojec needs to clarify that BOD,BOB and I.I refer to invisible and theoretical cases in 2019 only.It is the same with LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc.Fr.Brian Harrison and Joseph  Shaw could do the same.

Once this is understood he would then be saying that there are no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There are also no exceptions to the past ecclesiology, which supported an ecumenism of return and the proclamation of the Social Reign  of Christ the King.

So the past ecclesiology would still be the present ecclesiology of the Church for him, as it is for me.-Lionel Andrades

https://onepeterfive.com/author/steveskojec/