Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider could have their ecclesiastical and priestly faculties respectively removed, if they do not interpret Vatican Council II , the Creeds, Catechisms, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) etc with a Fake Premise ( invisible cases are visible in 1965-2022) and so create a rupture with Tradition, especially the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and other Church Documents which affirm the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So they tacitly support the official and common heresy and schism and remain politically correct with the Vatican, the Masons and the rest of the Left.
As Lefebvrists there is no danger of being laicized since they employ the same fake premise as the liberals and Masons. They are not Feeneyites.
Unlike the two prudent bishops, Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated and his priestly faculties taken away by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston. This was approved by Pope Pius XII sometime after the creation of Israel as a state. The Jesuit priest would not use the Fake Premise; he would not say invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, were physically visible exceptions for traditional EENS, with no known exceptions.
The two bishops are deflecting attention from the real issue-the Fake Premise, to the Latin Mass, which has nothing to do with their abjuration.
When a bishop does not rationally and traditionally affirm the Creeds, Catechisms, Vatican Council II and the other Councils, EENS, Church declarations (Joint Statement on Justification with the Lutherans, the Balamand Declaration with Orthodox Christians etc), dogmas and traditional doctrines, what’s left? It is like an abjuration of the Faith, material or manifest.
The two bishops are denying the Faith to maintain their ecclesiastical and priestly status.
The laity is following them in ignorance.
Today morning at the Sunday Mass at the church San Silvestro
The laity is following them in ignorance.
Today morning at the Sunday Mass at the church San Silvestro in Capite, Piazza San Silvestro, Rome at Holy Mass in Italian the priest said that this Sunday was dedicated by Pope Francis, for the Word of God; the Bible for Christians.
But how do we interpret the Word of God, the Bible- with or without the False Premise? The dogma EENS for example, comes from the interpretation of John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 etc.The Pallotine Fathers at San Silvestro and the laity in general, like Pope Francis, interpret EENS as having exceptions- but for me there are no exceptions.
The Nicene Creed was recited at Holy Mass. It can be interpreted with or without the False Premise. The Filipino community at the church interprets it with the False Premise and I use the Rational Premise. We all affirm the Nicene Creed but our premise and conclusion are different in the same Church.
So this is the same one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church in which we are all in, but definitely one of our two interpretations is not apostolic or Patristic.
The interpretation of Church Documents, with the political premise, by Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Schneider, is not apostolic and patristic.With the Fake Premise they reject the old theology and create a new theology which is an innovation, schism and heresy. I affirm the same Church Documents as them but with the Rational Premise there is a hermeneutic of continuity with the Apostles and the Patristic period.
Clerical state
In the Catholic Church, a bishop, priest, or deacon may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offences, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons. This may be because of a serious criminal conviction, heresy, or similar matter.
Affirming Magisterial Documents with the Rational Premise in harmony with the past Magisterium could result in the dismisal of a priest or ecclesiastic from the clerical state. -Lionel Andrades
https://sansilvestroincapite.org/about-us
___________________________________________________
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider use the Fake Premise like the liberals. So they offer the Latin Mass in schism and heresy and do not deny it, for political reasons. They do not deny their mortal sins of faith and they hear the Confession of Catholics in sin.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider use the Fake Premise ( invisible cases of LG 16 etc are visible in 2022) instead of the Rational Premise( invisible cases of LG 8,LG 16,LG 14 etc are physically visible in 2022) and Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Cardinal Walter Kasper do the same.
So invisible and unknown cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14) or invisible ignorance (LG 16) or ‘elements of sanctification and truth in other religions’ (LG 8) are visible and known for them in 1965-2022 so they conclude that there are practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
For me unknown and invisible cases in 1965-2022 of non Catholics saved according to LG 8, LG 14, and LG 16 are invisible and unknown. So they are not practical exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
The traditionalists and liberals however use the same False Premise (invisible people are visible in the present times) while I use the Rational Premise (invisible people are invisible in the present times).Their conclusion is non-traditional (EENS is obsolete since there are practical exceptions) and mine is traditional (EENS is not obsolete since there are no practical exceptions in the present times).
So I can go for the Latin Mass and be orthodox while they offer the Latin Mass creating false exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, EENS and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return to the Church etc).This is irregular. It is unorthodox. It is an innovation.
They choose the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition while I choose one of continuity with Tradition.
They choose a break with the past Magisterium which is schism. I avoid it.
They re-interpret the Creeds and Catechisms with the same False Premise (invisible people are visible) and I avoid it. This is first class heresy which I avoid.
So they offer the Latin Mass in schism and heresy and do not deny it, for political reasons.
They do not deny their mortal sins of faith and they hear the Confession of Catholics in sin.
Bishop Schneider when interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall has said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14).So he used the Rational Premise (the invisible cases of the baptism of desire are invisible in the present times).However he is not saying that LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II also refer to hypothetical cases. It would mean the Council does not contradict EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors.
He does not affirm these Church Documents with no exceptions. There are exceptions for him, so the Council is a break with Tradition. This is the traditionalist position on Vatican Council II which is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican. It is acceptable for them. It is also the liberal position.They affirm the Council with exceptions and so there is a break with Tradition which they accept.
They both use the same False Premise but the traditionalists in a vague way and the liberals accept it.
But for the two bishops this is not ethical even by secular standards when they use the False Premise to create an artificial break with Catholic Tradition, in particular the old theology which was ecclesiocentric.They are following the Left in their interpretation of Vatican Council II and are liberals and not traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades
Bishop Athanasius Schneider said that the Society of St. Pius X was not in schism. But the SSPX is in schism when they interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise, like the Ecclesia Dei communities at Cortalain, France last September. The False Premise has to create schism.
In the last Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima Question and Answer session Bishop Athanasius Schneider said that the Society of St. Pius X was not in schism. But the SSPX is in schism when they interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise, like the Ecclesia Dei communities at Cortalain, France last September.
The False Premise has to create schism.
Now the SSPX cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed since there are exceptions created with the Fake Premise.There are none for me.
They cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return to the Church since there are exceptions created with the False Premise. So their New Theology is the same as the liberals and the Masons.
Their website rejects Feeneyite EENS since for them the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood are objective cases since 1965.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X (29Q-invincible ignorance) contradicts the same Catechism (24Q.27Q-outside the Church there is no salvation).This is all schism with the past Magisterium.
The past Magisterium did not use the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas did not say that the man in the forest saved in invincible ignorance was a known case and so a practical exception for EENS, which he held. Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were not objective exceptions for the strict interpretation of EENS, for St. Robert Bellarmine. This is common sense.
The SSPX interprets the Council schismatically like the FSSP. So the FSSP did not correct Bishop Roland Minnerath at Dijon, France, who has written books supporting a theology of religious pluralism and the rejection of the Syllabus of Errors.
This is schism. This is first class heresy. Schism and heresy are mortal sins of faith.
Today the SSPX can get out of schism and choose the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. They have to admit that Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and that unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cannot be known and visible exceptions for traditional Feeneyite EENS. They must announce that LG 8, LG 14. LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2022.This is something obvious.
So then there would be nothing in the Council-text to contradict the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and 16th century EENS.
Vatican Council II would be traditional, exclusivist and in harmony with the popes, saints and martyrs of the past.
This though, is not the Vatican Council II of the popes from Paul VI to Francis I. It is they who are in schism and can choose orthodoxy with the Rational Premise.-Lionel Andrades
All the Superior Generals of the Ecclesia Dei are supporting mortal sins of faith
-Lionel Andrades
A Feeneyite is someone who does not use the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.He accepts the BOD and I.I as being hypothetical only.This is the Rational Premise.
A Feeneyite is someone who does not use the False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I). He accepts the BOD and I.I as being hypothetical only.This is the Rational Premise.
So he does not reject the possibility of God choosing to save someone with BOD or I.I or the possibility of there being only Catholics in Heaven. However he does not project hypothetical cases of BOD and I.I as being practical exceptions for the 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of the Jesuits, which had no exceptions. Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions for EENS according to St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Robert Bellarmine.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was in harmony with St. Francis Xavier and St. Thomas Aquinas on EENS.
Vatican Council II says Catholics are the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4), they are the new elect. In Heaven there are only Catholics who are there with Catholic faith and the baptism of water (Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 Outside the Church No Salvation).Salvation in potential is open for all but to receive this salvation all need to be Catholic, all need to enter the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus 20, Pope John Paul II).
A Feneeyite is someone who does not project unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc as being known exceptions in the present times for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athnasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc. A Cushingite is someone who projects unknown cases of the BOD and I.I etc, as being known exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism.
The Superior Generals of the Ecclesia Dei communities are all Cushingites.
Cushingism creates a break with Tradition. It creates heresy and schism and mortal sins.The New Theology is Cushingite it depends upon the False Premise. The Ecclesia Dei communities intepret Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the False Premise, with the New Theology.Then they blame Vatican Council II in general and in ignorance, and not their false premise.
On the blog 1Peter 5 Timothy Flanders wants to 'unite the clans' with Cushingism, with Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise to produce a false rupture with Tradition, which can be avoided.The Ecclesia Dei communities and the blog 1Peter 5 are united with the liberals and the Masons in their interpretation of Vatican Council II with the same False Premise.
If he uses the Rational Premise as a Feeneyite he will be persecuted. So like Peter Kwasniewski and Roberto dei Mattei they interpret Magisterial Documents with a False Premise and avoid being Feeneyites.-Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis and the Ecclesia Dei communities in France, have chosen the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so there is heresy, schism and mortal sins at the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass. This is an abjuration of the Faith.The Courtalain communique supports the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode.
Pope Francis and the Ecclesia Dei communities in France, have chosen the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so there is heresy, schism and mortal sins at the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass. This is an abjuration of the Faith.The Courtalain communique supports the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode.
I can interpret Magisterial Documents without the common False Premise and can choose the Rational Premise.
Like Pope Francis in Traditionis Custode and the Ecclesia Dei communities in France in public supported the same abjuration of the Catholic Faith. At Courtalain,France they interpreted Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.They did not announce that the choose the Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II.With the False Premise they create schism and mortal sins of faith. In public they are denying Tradition for political reasons.They agree with Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II in Traditionis Custode.He too like the popes from Paul VI interprets Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Nicene and Athanasius Creed and Catechisms with the common False Premise.
I mentioned in a previous blog post how mortal sins of faith, first class heresy and schism with the past Magisterium is created with the False Premise.
1.Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise (invisible people are visible in 1965-2021) creates alleged practical exceptions for the 2.Athanasius Creed ( all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation from Hell), 3.changes the Nicene Creed ( I believe in three or more known and visible baptisms which exclude the baptism of water and so are practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS).With the exceptions there is 4.a new version of ecumenism and a rejection of the ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church of the Syllabus of Errors. The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are interpreted with the False Premise as in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so 5.there is a rupture with Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Church no more teaches outside the Church there is no salvation for the Ecclesia Dei communities and the 6.Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27Q) is obsolete. If they used the Rational Premise ( invisible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always invisible), they would have to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors in public and then Pope Francis and the political Left would go after them. Now with the False Premise they interpret Vatican Council II like the Masons.
They have abjured and so the Left permits them to be legal, to collect funds and have financial projects. -Lionel Andrades
The Ecclesia Dei communities in France are officially supporting Vatican Council II interpreted with an Irrational Premise which creates the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-ecclesia-dei-communities-in-france.html