With the Decree they cannot coerce the SBC to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, dishonestly. Instead it is Bishop Libasci and the Vatican cardinals, bishops and Pope Francis, who must affirm Feeneyite EENS i.e. EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which did not mention any exceptions.

 

The Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions still weighs upon the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, USA. It has been placed upon them by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and the Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire, USA.

The St.Benedict Center could contact about four or five heads of secular organizations in New Hampshire, and get simple statements from them saying that they believe; they hold, that:  LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II always refer to only hypothetical cases for us human beings. We humans cannot physically see anyone saved as such on earth or in Heaven. If someone is saved as such it would only be known to God. So they do not exist in our visible reality.

• Does LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically invisible cases in your reality ?
• Everyone who is asked will agree. Their answer will be Yes.

Then they need to contact a few Superiors of religious organizations in New Hampshire including that of the CMRI. Again they will respond with YES.

Some may think , “Yes, of course,  this is common sense”.

Then the SBC should inform Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire, about the response. Ask him, his Chancellor and Judicial Vicar, the same question.

Then clarify this issue with the Apostolic Signatura, the Supreme Tribunal at the Vatican. Personally ask the judges the same question.They too will have to answer in the affirmative.

Then ask the secular judges, who are Catholic, in New Hampshire, the same question and ask them to contact Bishop Peter Libasci. The Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions is a legal document which places restrictions on the St. Benedict Center, since the SBC affirms Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). EENS is in harmony with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally (LG 8, 14, 16 etc are invisible only) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church also interpreted rationally (CCC 847-848 refer to invisible cases always and so they do not contradict Feeneyite EENS).

So the theological and philosophical position of the Bishop of Manchester and Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, is untenable. With the Decree they cannot coerce the SBC to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, dishonestly. Instead it is Bishop Libasci and the Vatican cardinals, bishops and Pope Francis, who must affirm Feeneyite EENS i.e. EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which did not mention any exceptions.

The Judiciary in New Hampshire must ask Bishop Libasci , to clarify that he  is normal like everyone else and cannot physically see non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in the present times (1965-2023).

If the bishop does not affirm Feeneyite EENS, it means he is projecting invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II, as being exceptions. There is ‘a development of doctrine’ with the irrational premise (invisible people are visible) and irrational inference (Vatican Council II has exceptions for traditional EENS) and false conclusion (Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition).

Instead they bishop must choose the rational premise (invisible cases are invisible, LG 16 refers to an invisible case), rational inference (there are no practical exceptions in Vatican Council II for traditional EENS) and rational and traditional conclusion (Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition).

- Lionel Andrades

Bishop Athanasius Schneider's Credo is written with the objective and factual error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Also the past Catechisms are re- interpreted with the same error

 

Eclipse of the Synod: New Catechism to Launch in Rome

...Note well that none of the above is really anything new. In fact, Credo reads like any of the veteran Catholic catechisms of the past millennium, although including contemporary applications of the same timeless moral principles.

Lionel: False . Credo is written with the objective and factual error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. Also the past Catechisms are interpreted with the same error i.e when they mention invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, they both are projected as visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). This is a major error in philosophy and theology and is politically correct with the Left - but it is not Catholic.

______________________

 

Therefore, if Credo is not true, then it demands official censorship from the Vatican—an act that will require its opponents to marshal a propositional demonstration of how Credo is manifestly in error concerning the Faith.

Lionel: Bishop Athanasius Schneider interprets Vatican Council II with the same false premise as the popes from Paul VI.There are now many Catholics who interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being only hypothetical cases always. So Vatican Council II nowhere contradicts the dogma EENS, the ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed.For Bishop Schneider there are exceptions for the Athanasius Creed for me there are no exceptions. If there were no exceptions for the Athanasius Creed for him then he would be a Feeneyite on Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms and Councils and EENS.

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the Catholic Faith.Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.-Athanasius Creed.

______________________

  Of course, this is something its opponents cannot do, as the book is simply “a guide to the changeless teaching of the Church.” To condemn Credo would thus be to affirm, in a public manner, that Church teaching has changed—at which point the faithful should respond with St. Paul: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8)!

 

Lionel: Interpreting invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, has not been part of the Catholic Church's traditional teaching. The old exclusivist theology has been rejected by Schneider and Kwasniewski and there is a new theology which says outside the Church there is known salvation in the present times, there is salvation. So the dogma EENS has been made obsolete. They are politically correct. They cannot be accused of being Feeneyites.

_______________________

 

And yet, if the revolutionaries leave Credo uncontested, they must tacitly affirm it as an authentic expression of Catholic doctrine, voiced by the ordinary teaching office of the living bishopric (how collegial, synodal, and decentralized!).

Lionel: We have a politically correct Cushingite bishop who does not want to be accused of being a Feeneyite and so face excommunication or laicization. So he has allowed the teachngs of the Church to be changed.He has maintained his ecclesiastical status and is approved by his superiors.If Credo was Feeneyite neither Sophia or Angelus Press would be allowed to publish it.

________________________

 

We may therefore return to our comparison. Does your priest, bishop, or pope believe the following teaching, expressed in the pages of Credo?

 Are all religions, with their respective forms of worship, equally pleasing to God?

No. Only the religion established by God and fulfilled in Christ, with its divinely revealed worship, is supernatural, holy, and pleasing to God. All other religions are inherently false, and their forms of worship pernicious, or at least unavailing for eternal life.

Lionel: The above statement is true but it is contradicted when Bishop Schnedier and Peter Kwasniewski interpret Vatican Council II irrationally i.e they project LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . So for them not everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. There are exceptions. So with this new theology they negate the above statement.

This was also the mistake of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.

This is dishonesty. Since even after being informed they continue with this error and do not discuss it.

Peter Kwasniewski does not want to be stopped from writing books and speaking at conferences and so he is not discussing the mistake in Credo.He needs Vatican Council II to be a rupture with Tradition. He needs the hermeneutic of discontinuity with Tradition. Credo is conspicuous for what it does not say.

https://catholicism.org/

The theology of the Credo ignores the traditionalists of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, in New Hampshire, USA.

- Lionel Andrades

____________________________ 

 https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/10/eclipse-of-synod-new-catechism-to.html#more