Bishop Athanasius Schneider and the Lefebvrists are unable to tell the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) that they are using a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents. Since Schneider himself inteprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference and then does not like the expected conclusion.He then blames the Council and calls for a Syllabus of Errors.
Bishop Schneider like the CDF, wants Brother Andre Marie, MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, N.H, USA to interpret 1) Vatican Council II(LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc) 2) the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) 3) the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) 4) Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846 Outside the Church No Salvation 5)Athanasius Creed( all need Catholic faith for salvation) 6) Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27 Q) 7) Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism, other religions and salvation) etc with a false premise.
In this way there is a rejection of the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The alleged traditionalist will also be interpreting Quanta Cura, Mystici Corporis etc with the false premise to create a rupture with the Athanasius Creed and EENS. Since wherever BOD,BOB and I.I are mentioned in these texts , he will project them as 1) visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church, non Catholics saved without faith and baptism and so they are 2) exceptions to EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc. on exclusive salvation.For me BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. So Mystici Corporis etc do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Bishop Schneider does not make the distinction between invisible-visible,implicit-explicit,subjective-objective and what is unknown and known.
So he supports the CDF which only allows vocations to the religious life, if a candidate, rejects exclusive salvation in the Church by confusing what is invisible as visible, hypothetical as real.
Similarly he expects the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, to receive canonical recognition, like the St. Benedict Center, Still River, USA( not to be confused with the community at Richmond ,New Hampshire).
The traditionalists at St. Benedict Center, Still River, where Brother Thomas Augustine MICM is the Prior in the diocese of Worcester, USA,have to condone Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise by the bishop Robert McManus.So he has granted them canonical recognition approved by the CDF.
If Brother Andre Marie MICM,Prior at SBC, New Hampshire, would interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so negate Feeneyite EENS, he too would be approved by the CDF and the diocese of Manchester, where the bishop is Peter Libasci.
The CDF and Bishop Schneider are not asking religious communities to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.They do not want to offend the Jewish Left rabbis and those who persecute with Leftist laws.
The CDF, Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Braz de Avez want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a rupture with Tradition. They are not telling the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II in continuity with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Without the false premise there is no theological opening for the new ecumenism and the Christian theology of religious pluralism.
Vigano and Schneider do not comment upon these points. When Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions to AG 7 mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
Presently the CDF and Bishop Schneider accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which used a false premise to project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS they then overlook the same error in Vatican Council II.
Bishop Schneider needs to tell the Lefbvrists that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake in Vatican Council II. He did not know that the Council could be interpreted without the irrationality and then the conclusion would be traditional.
Now we know that the mainstream Church, including the lay movements, can interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and the Church can be traditional once again.-Lionel Andrades
In this way there is a rejection of the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The alleged traditionalist will also be interpreting Quanta Cura, Mystici Corporis etc with the false premise to create a rupture with the Athanasius Creed and EENS. Since wherever BOD,BOB and I.I are mentioned in these texts , he will project them as 1) visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church, non Catholics saved without faith and baptism and so they are 2) exceptions to EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc. on exclusive salvation.For me BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only. So Mystici Corporis etc do not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Bishop Schneider does not make the distinction between invisible-visible,implicit-explicit,subjective-objective and what is unknown and known.
So he supports the CDF which only allows vocations to the religious life, if a candidate, rejects exclusive salvation in the Church by confusing what is invisible as visible, hypothetical as real.
Similarly he expects the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, to receive canonical recognition, like the St. Benedict Center, Still River, USA( not to be confused with the community at Richmond ,New Hampshire).
The traditionalists at St. Benedict Center, Still River, where Brother Thomas Augustine MICM is the Prior in the diocese of Worcester, USA,have to condone Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise by the bishop Robert McManus.So he has granted them canonical recognition approved by the CDF.
If Brother Andre Marie MICM,Prior at SBC, New Hampshire, would interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so negate Feeneyite EENS, he too would be approved by the CDF and the diocese of Manchester, where the bishop is Peter Libasci.
The CDF and Bishop Schneider are not asking religious communities to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.They do not want to offend the Jewish Left rabbis and those who persecute with Leftist laws.
The CDF, Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Braz de Avez want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to create a rupture with Tradition. They are not telling the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Vatican Council II in continuity with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Without the false premise there is no theological opening for the new ecumenism and the Christian theology of religious pluralism.
Vigano and Schneider do not comment upon these points. When Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions to AG 7 mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
Presently the CDF and Bishop Schneider accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which used a false premise to project BOD and I.I as exceptions to EENS they then overlook the same error in Vatican Council II.
Bishop Schneider needs to tell the Lefbvrists that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake in Vatican Council II. He did not know that the Council could be interpreted without the irrationality and then the conclusion would be traditional.
Now we know that the mainstream Church, including the lay movements, can interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and the Church can be traditional once again.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment