The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston can be interpreted with or without the false premise.Bishop Schneider needs to correct his error. A clarification from him is over due.
With reference to EENS, LOHO states 'In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing'. Lionel:This is a reference to a hypothetical case.
But Bishop Schneider would interpret this passage as referring to a visible case. So the baptism of desire(LG 14) would be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) for him.
Lionel: We cannot judge any one being saved as such. So this is not a practical exception to EENS. It should not have been mentioned in the LOHO with reference to EENS.
LOHO states,'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.' ' it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. This is heresy.This is heresy based on an irrationality.There are no practical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Church for salvation. There are no known cases for example, in 2020 of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Yet this would be acceptable for Bishop Schneider as an exception to EENS.
A theoretical or hypothetical case cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2020.
If someone was allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the past centuries he or she could not be an exception to all needing the baptism of water in 2020.
Yet the Letter of the Holy Office says that it is not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.
This is magisterial heresy. This is the false church within the Catholic Church.It is accepted by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
SCHNEIDER IGNORES LOHO IN PRINCIPLE MISTAKE
LOHO states, 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.' Knowing who will be saved or not saved is restricted only to God. Why is this mentioned with reference to EENS?.
We do not know any such case.
But Bishop Schneider with the New Theology would interpret this passage as referring to a visible case and so an objective exception to EENS.
Yet this error is the based for Pope Francis saying that God wills a plurality of religions for salvation.
LOHO states, 'In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.' What has this to do with Feeneyite EENS? The 'effects', the 'helps', 'intrinsic necessity' obtained in 'certain circumstances' can only be known to God. There are no such cases known to us, for examples in 2020. There were none known in 1949. So what has this to do with EENS ? Nothing!
Bishop Schneider would not make the visible-invisible distinction and so would use the irrational premise.
LOHO in principle assumes hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS and continues, 'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.' In reality how can any one say that a particular person does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation. If there is an exception it could only known to God.So why is this mentioned here ? Since it is wrongly assumed that this hypothetical case, a speculation, is an objective example of salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is known to man !
Bishop Schneider uses this false reasoning to interpret Magisterial documents.
LOHO concludes, 'With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire'. Whether they are excluded or not what difference does it make. They are not objective. They cannot be exceptions to EENS.
There is no comment from Bishop Schneider who approved Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott , which mentioned LOHO.
LOHO states, 'Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.'
Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were saying there are no exceptions.This is common sense.The new theological doctrine in 1949 said there are exceptions.So the St.Benedict Center and Fr.Leonard Feeney were criticized.Bishop Schneider accepts the new theology with its new doctrines.This is the New Theology,before us.
LOHO persists with the new doctrine, 'Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith.' So Rome has spoken. There are objective exceptions. Those who are in invincible ignorance or die with an unconscious desire for the baptism of water, are practical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. Rome had spoken in 1949 with the New Theology and Bishop Schneider has accepted it with its error.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
