Bishop Athanasius Schneider
and Dr. Taylor Marshall contradict Pope Francis, the cardinals and the Left on
doctrine. The former
say that there are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire. They indicate
that the baptism of desire(BOD), being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) etc, are not
objective exceptions to the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed. But
for the present two popes BOD and I.I refer to visible people saved outside the
Catholic Church. They are projected as objective examples of salvation outside
the Church. So the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Church is made obsolete.
The dogma EENS was put aside by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
So
now we have Bishop Athanasius Schneider when interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall
saying that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. While for the
popes from Paul VI to Francis, BOD and I.I are exceptions for EENS, in other
words they are visible cases, for them to be practical exceptions for the past
exclusivist ecclesiology.
The
problem was there even at the time of Pope Pius XII. He over looked the Letter
of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). The LOHO projected unknown
cases of BOD and I.I as being known and objective exceptions for 16th
century EENS. Pope Pius XII did not in public support Fr. Leonard Feeney who
was being maligned by the Leftist media in Boston.
This
was about the time, after the creation of the state of Israel in 1947.
So
now it is known that in Vatican Council II, invisible and hypothetical cases (LG
8, LGF 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc) are not practical exceptions for the Athanasius Creed.
There is nothing in the Council-text to contradict the traditional strict
interpretation of EENS. While Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for
salvation.
So
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally (invisible cases are invisible) supports
traditional ecclesiocentrism for Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor
Marshall. With Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally (invisible
cases are visible), then LG 8 etc are practical exceptions for EENS and the
Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So
now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and
the other is irrational.
But
with the False Premise there will also be two interpretations of the Nicene,
Athanasius and Apostle’s Creed. There are two interpretation of Vatican Council
so there has to be two interpretations of the Syllabus of Errors.
It
means that Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have unity with the past
Magisterium and the present popes are in division with the pre-1940 popes.
Their liberalism comes with the False Premise and produces division, with
conservative and orthodox Catholics. -Lionel Andrades
Germany can interpret Vatican Council II like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall and throw away the books of Pope Benedict
-Lionel Andrades
__________________________
Posts
