Longenecker, Kwasniewski,Skojec agree that they are in heresy and sacrilege : no denial from them

What would be astonishing for many is that Fr.Dwight Longenecker, Prof. Peter Kwasniewski, Steve Skojec and the others,agree that they are in heresy and they attend Holy Mass in sacrilege.They have to live with this.Since they do not want to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Traditional EENS would be the only option left if they issued a denial.

They cannot deny what I have written since they would be forced to say that Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and this would be all in 2019.All includes, those who know and do not know Jesus and the Church and the importance of the Church for salvation.It includes those who have had the Gospel preached to them and those who have not.
Vatican Council II refers to all in Ad Gentes 7.

So it is the Catholic Church which teaches that all need faith and baptism for salvation, while they personally cannot know any one in 2019  saved outside the Church.

It means Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. Also Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria sj, made the same mistake in two papers of the International Theological Commission.They all assumed that there was known salvation outside the Catholic Church and so all did not need to be Catholic,all did not need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).

The same mistake was repeated by the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.They wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire(BOD) , baptism of blood(BOB)  and invincible ignorance (I.I) were exceptions to EENS.So they also projected other hypothetical cases(LG 8 etc) as being relevant to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

 This is a mistake I avoid.
For me the Conciliar Church is saying all non Catholics need to convert into the Church with faith and baptism.They  need to become  members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This means there is only an ecumenism of return.There is only the past exclusivist concept of salvation.The Church is still Feeneyite.Since like Fr.Leonard Feeney it says that literally there are no known cases of non Catholics with the BOD, BOB and I.I.Practically there cannot be exceptions to EENS for us human beings.

 This is the Catholic Church for me since BOD, BOB and I.I, like LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases.But they are not hypothetical for Longenecker, Kwasniewski and Skojec, nor for Bishop Fellay, the Angelus Press and the editor of Remnant News Michael  Matt and the publisher of The Wanderer, Joseph Matt.There are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS for them. They are exceptions since they allegedly know people saved outside the Church.These are not just invisible cases.Invisible people of course, cannot be exceptions to EENS.

With this reasoning they have changed the understanding of the Creeds, the Catechisms contradict themselves, St. Thomas Aquinas is at odds with the old catechisms and the past popes and  Vatican Council II is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( EENS, ecumenism of return).Traditional Mission and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King is made obsolete.With all this heresy their Masss is a sacrilege.They need to remove the scandal in public, and confess, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, mortal sins of faith.They need to correct the error.

They know that they are in heresy and sin and so also are the popes, cardinals and bishops. They will all continue with the error.Since if they proclaimed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, they would be persecuted.

The ecclesiastics at the Vatican to protect themselves would not allow Fr. Longenecker to offer Holy Mass and the secular forces may target him with leftist laws, to bring him in line with Satan.

So like the converts Fr.Brian Harrison and Edward Pentin, they accept that they are in heresy attend Mass in sacrilege and maintain the prudent status quo interpreting all hypothetical cases, in magisterial documents, especially Vatican Council II with the irrational New Theology and New Philosophy.

So do not expect any denial from them.Neither from Chris Ferrara,Roberto dei Mattei, the latinist Ryan Grant, and professors John Lamont, Thomas Pink, John Rao and Joseph Shaw.They accept they are in heresy. They agree with me.

They will sign petitions for the pope to accept Catholic doctrine on morals and the Eucharist but they will not say that there are no physically visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I  and LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc in 2019.They will not conclude that there are no literal  cases of BOD, BOB, LG 8, LG 16 etc in 2019 there are no practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is EENS as it was known to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Augustine and the missionaries in the 16th century. 

None of them will write:

 'Lionel, we would like to inform you that for me/us BOD, BOB and I.I  and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only.

So they are not practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.

We accept EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I not being exceptions.

We accept Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc not being objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.

We affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS, the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return.'-Lionel Andrades 

January 8, 2019

Fr.Dwight Longeneck would agree with me.The Mass he offers is heretical and sacrilegeous like the one Prof. Peter Kwasniewski attends in Latin : they don't want a hermeneuric of continuity with the past ( EENS, ecumenism of return

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/frdwight-longeneck-would-agree-with.html 

January 8, 2019

St.Robert Bellarmine was a Feeneyite and so was St. Thomas Aquinas.So is Vatican Council II 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/strobert-bellarmine-was-feeneyite-and.html

January 7, 2019

All this confusion and doctrinal innovation is allowed at Mass for Longenecker and Kwasniewski and they do not complain.They want to affirm the doctrines of the Left even when they are heretical 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/all-this-confusion-and-doctrinal.html

 

January 7, 2019

Fr.Dwight Longenecker and Peter Kwasniewski offer/ attend Holy Mass by reinterpreting Magisterial documents with a false premise .Then with this public heresy they condone sacrilege 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/frdwight-longenecker-and-peter.html

 

January 6, 2019

Our Lady said at Fatima that in the end times there will be an apostasy in the Church ? 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/our-lady-said-at-fatima-that-in-end.html

 

anuary 5, 2019

Peter Kwasniewski and Steve Skojec are comfortable with the error : in this way they are not obligated to affirm Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Repost : Our Lady said at Fatima that in the end times there will be an apostasy in the Church ?

January 6, 2019

Our Lady said at Fatima that in the end times there will be an apostasy in the Church ?

At Fatima did Our Lady say that the end times will be marked by an apostasy in the Church ? We can see it among the traditionalists Steve Skojec, Peter Kwaniewski, Fr. Brian Harrison Jospeh Shaw and others who do not want to affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma exttra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They prefer to say that invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to EENS.

They do not want to be considered Anti Semitic and so Joseph Shaw the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society,England tells the Catholic Herald, U.K reporter that the past traditionalists may be Anti Semitic but the present-trads are not.He means it sincerely. Apostasy, heresy and sacrilege are not an issue for him as long as his employer and the local bishops supports it.

So he creates a rupture with the Magisterium in the 16th century on EENS by suggesting that he accepts EENS but with BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions.So everyone does not need to enter the Catholic Church for him, for salvation.

For him the Nicene Creed he would now say " I believe not in one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins but three or more known baptisms. They are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church"

This is the first class heresy today's traditionalists support.This is being done so that they do not have to affirm EENS, the- 16th- century version.This is  apostasy in the Church . It is present even among cardinals and bishops and popes.

So Steve Skojec would be comfortable to interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance) as contradicting the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X ( EENS, ecumenism of return etc).He had no comment either way when I mentioned this in previous blog posts.

Peter Kwasniewski , Thomistic theologian, would interpret  St. Thomas Aquinas contradicting himself. Since Aquinas affirmed the strict interpretation of EEN but when he mentioned the man in the forest in invincible ignorance to whom God would send a preacher, since he was to be saved, he has to pretend like the liberal theologians that this is a known person saved outside the Church. This is the irrationality Kwasniewski employs and does not deny it. Since if he denied it he would have to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. 
So when I wrote a series of reports recently on the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in NH., USA, Phil Lawler and rest of the faculty just sat through it in silence. They knew what the implications would be.They do not want to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

Now Skojec and Kwaniewski, like Fr. Brian Harrison can pretend that there are known exceptions  to EENS and so no one can accuse them of being Anti-Semitic.

To remain politically correct with the Left the trads are supporting modernism.Hilary White recently wrote for the Remnant on modernism.She did not mention this issue.Michael Matt and Ann Barnhardt like her, support modernism by rejecting the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.The New Profession of Faith is made with the new version of the Nicene Creed.It is supported by Canon Law.So to be a Catholic in good standing according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it is necessary to say that BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. In other words there are objective non Catholics seen and saved outside the Church.

Those who signed the Filial Correction and spoke at the Lepanto and Catholic Identity Conference do not want to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I just being hypothetical, theoretical and speculative cases.It would be dangerous for their careers or media.

Even after being informed Ryan Grant and  the Rorate Caeli correspondents will not affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.

Similarly Fr.John Zuhlsdorf in response to a false accusation by Michael Sean Winters wrote that Bishop Morlino ,the bishop of Madison and he, do not affirm EENS like Fr. Feeney.
We also know that Fr. Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS.So when Pope Benedict had to say that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century, Fr. Zuhsldorf posted a meme saying, 'DON'T TOUCH'.

For Fr.Leonard Feeney and me there are no practical examples of the BOD, BOB and I.I. Literally there are no baptism of desire cases. This is something obvious.

The apologist at EWTN John Martignoni agrees. He said that  there are no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and so they are not exceptions to EENS.Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson and Fr. Stefano Visintin osb agree with him. 

But the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney do not  proclaim this  even though it is something obvious. It is common knowledge that we cannot see people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or with the baptism of blood and without the baptism of water.
The SBC no more affirm Feeneyite EENS  perhaps because of persecution from the Left.
In the past they would project BOD, BOB and I.I theologically as not being exceptions to EENS.But they would not say that literally there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.

Similarly the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are silent on Vatican Council II. Literally there are no known cases saved outside the Church mentioned in Vatican Council II.So  LG 8, LG 15 are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.But if they announce this would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.They too seek the approval of the local bishop and not run foul of laws supported by Satan and Left.

A few years have passed and Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei will not affirm Feeneyite EENS since they too do not want to be charged under Anti-Semitic laws. So they will allow Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be interpreted falsely and they will keep quiet.
The apostasy among the liberals and the ecclesiastics at the Vatican  has been  there.
But the traditionalists are the people who expect Pope Francis to be faithful to Catholic doctrine. They expect the same from the interpreters of doctrine at Medugorje. They would expect sound doctrine from Kiko Arguello and the Neo Catehecumenal Way.
They criticize Mass in the vernacular and now they wink and want to believe that the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradicts the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and it is no issue. The Nicene Creed can be reinterpreted and it is not modernisn. The Athanasius Creed can be rejected and it is  not heresy.
With all these abberrations it would be normal for them to attend Mass in Latin and it would not be a sacrilege.

-Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 5, 2019

Peter Kwasniewski and Steve Skojec are comfortable with the error : in this way they are not obligated to affirm Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/peter-kwasniewski-and-steve-skojec-are.html

 JANUARY 5, 2019

Vatican Council II has a heretical theology but in a peculiar way it can be interpreted non heretically

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/vatican-council-ii-has-heretical.html

JANUARY 4, 2019

Peter Kwasniewski uses the irrational option to interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents 

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/peter-kwasniewski-uses-irrational.html

 JANUARY 4, 2019

The SSPX must first put its house in order and then conduct doctrinal talks

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-sspx-must-first-put-its-house-in.html

JANUARY 4, 2019

If the SSPX does not admit and correct its mistake then the German bishops will persist in their error
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/if-sspx-does-not-admit-and-correct-its.html

______________________________________

 

 

 

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/our-lady-said-at-fatima-that-in-end.html

Repost : Peter Kwasniewski uses the irrational option to interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents

January 4, 2019

Peter Kwasniewski uses the irrational option to interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents

Peter Kwasniewski interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Council of Trent  since he uses the New Theology with its false premise and inference. This is a big mistake and a common one in the Church.

It is the same mistake made by Steve Skojec at 1Peter5 and also the correspondents at Rorate Caeili. They interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, like the liberals.

One person follows the other without really thinking this through.

So it is asked , "How could you be correct and every one else be wrong?".

This was possible since since I was given the  insight  to see that invisible people cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). This is common sense.It is something obvious. One does not have to be a theologian to know this.
So now we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II and EENS, theirs and mine.
1.Refers to invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) and Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc.
2.Refers to visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc.
So there are two ways to interpret magisterial documents and the conclusion is different.
N.1 is rational and it is my choice.
N. 2 is irrational and it is the common choice of Catholics.
Peter Kwasniewski uses the irrational option.Steve Skojec does the same.
Now that they know this will they change ? Hardly.
I have been saying the same thing over many years.
Many know that it is politically correct with the Left for Catholics to use the irrational option. There will be no threats if you are a public speaker or writer.
But if you use Option Number One, which is rational and traditional, there is persecution. There is general intolerance from those who call for tolerance for leftist, Satanic values.
So is Steve Skojec going to promote catechetical material which is Feeneyite and rational?
Will  Peter Kwasniewski on LifeSites News and Rorate Caeili affirm Feneeyite EENS?
Or will they say Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO)was correct since invisible cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc are visible and seen- in- the-flesh examples of salvation outside the Church in 2019.Otherwise how could they be exceptions to EENS?
Will the latinist Ryan Grant say that St. Robert Bellarmine was Feeneyite since BOD, BOB and I.I never ever were exceptions to his Feeneyite, strict interpretation of EENS ?
What about the liberals ?
Recently I met Cardinal Wilfrid Napier on the Rome metro.He had a black shirt with his cross attached to a chain around his neck. Only the silver chain could be seen since the cross was hidden in his  shirt pocket.It could only be identified by the chain.
He said the cross kept moving as he walked and so he placed it in the pocket.
I briefly tried to explain what I write on this blog before he got off at the Vatican metro station.
Is he going to affirm Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS when he is in South Africa? I find it difficult to imagine him doing so.
Will the apologists at EWTN and Catholic Answers use the rational option to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II ?
If they did so it could only be part of a miracle an intervention which would be supernatural.

Here are passages in Vatican Council II which are interpreted differently by me and every one else.The passages in  red  would be an exception to the passages in blue for other Catholics. For me they are always hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict EENS  or the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.- Lumen Gentium 14

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.-Unitatitis Redintigratio 3

We have to keep in mind that many of the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II in principle assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical.
In principle, as a rule, they assumed hypothetical cases were objective examples of salvation in the present times(1965).


This was the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So as a rule they violated the Principle of Non Contradiction.A person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance for example, cannot be seen in Heaven and on earth at the same time. If they cannot be seen on earth then how can they be exceptions to relevant to EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return ?
Now if we interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical then the passages in red, which are hypothetical, theoretical and speculative, do not contradict the passages in blue. They are not personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.
The liberals and traditionalists presently interpret the red passages irrationally.
-Lionel Andrades

 JANUARY 3, 2019

Peter Kwasniewski and Whispers of Restoration do not know how to handle it : they violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and are in a swamp

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/peter-kwasniewski-and-whispers-of.html

JANUARY 4, 2019

The SSPX must first put its house in order and then conduct doctrinal talks

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-sspx-must-first-put-its-house-in.html

 JANUARY 3, 2019

Steve Skojec

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/steve-skojec.html











 

TAGS/LABELS FROM THE IGHT HAND SIDE BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS.

• Red Column (4)

• Blue Column (4)

• Two Columns (2)

• Left Hand side column (16)

• Right Hand Side Column (17)
•  
•  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/peter-kwasniewski-uses-irrational.html

Repost : Steve Skojec

January 3, 2019

Steve Skojec

Author Steve Skojec executive director of the website 1Peter5 has a BA degree from the University of Steubenville where they teach the New Theology which is based upon a  false premise and inference .With the false reasoning he creates a non traditional conclusion  which is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known in the 16th century when they offered the Tridentine Rite Mass.

So with the New Theology which creates a rupture  with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation he goes for  Mass in Latin and thinks it is the same as the old Mass.

Like the faculty at Steubenville he reads passages in Vatican Council II which refer to hypothetical cases, as being  objective exceptions to the orthodox passages  which support traditional exclusive salvation.

For instance he would read the passage in red as an exception to the passage in blue. This is false.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. 

So then he interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism or return etc.

This is common among those who attend only the Latin Mass call themselves traditionalists and believe the theology of the Mass today is the same as in the 16th century.

There are numerous young men and women, Catholics, who accept this reasoning.

Fr. Brian Harrison, a convert to the Catholic Church writes on Steve's website 1Peter5 and will not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.He will not admit that invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.So the Holy Office in 1949 and the popes since Pius XII were wrong.Instead he would say like Steve that Pope Benedict was correct in March 2016 (Avvenire) when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Since there was a development(rupture) with Vatican Council II( interpreted with the passages in red contradicting those in blue).

This is how Fr. Brian Harrison and Steve Skojec interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.

Unknown cases of non Catholics in 2018-2019 allegedly saved outside the Church are known exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

So with this reasoning there is a rupture with the 16th century Magisterium for Pope Benedict and the writers at 1Peter5.

This is also how the traditionalist Joseph Shaw , Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, U.K reasons when he teaches philosophy  at the liberal Benet Hall, Oxford.If BOD, BOB and I.I were simply hypothetical cases and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NS 2, GS 22 etc were the same-just theoretical for us - Shaw,Skojec, Harrison and the others would have to affirm the dogma EENS like the  missionaries in the 16th century.But this would be unthinkable for Dr.Joseph Shaw and Fr. Brian Harrison.

So does Steve Skojec also have to fake it  to protect his earnings from1Peter5?

Harrison, Shaw and Skojec are changing the interpretation of EENS so that they can protect their personal and professional interests.

Fr.Brian Harrison if he affirms EENS without BOD, BOB and I.I being alleged exceptions may not be allowed by the USCCB, to offer the Latin Mass.Since he would be saying all non Catholics in general are on the way to Hell outside the Church and there are no known exceptions according to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma EENS.

So now it is useful for him, like it is for Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, to project BOD,BOB and I.I as referring to known people in 2019.They protect thier careers in this way.

I do not earn any money from this blog(not an euro) but Hilary White and Ann Barnhardt need the financial support of their traditionalist readers  who all interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to personally known non people saved outside the Church.This was how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre reasoned and so do the SSPX bishops today.

Can you picture Hilary White projecting herself as a Feeneyite in Italian parishes ? No.

It is the same with Steve Skojec.He does not have catechetical  material which interprets Vatican Council II as not being an exception to Feeneyite EENS.Like Fr.Leonard Feeney he does not say that literally, practically, there are no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.

Even the writers on his blog, like Fr.Harrison, do not say this.So the theology and doctrines which he professes as a Catholic, is clearly leftist.

It could be approved at Benet Hall, Oxford or Steubenville,Ohio.

He too like Bishop Athanasius Schneider could interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X and then call for a new Syllabus on Vatican Council II.

The new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II would ignore the false premise( invisible non Catholics are physically visible) and false inference( they are visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and practical exceptions to EENS) which creates a non traditional conclusion( there is a new ecclesiology in the Church,which says outside the Church there is salvation, there is known salvation).

This is the new theology and new salvation doctrines of Steve Skojec.

Steve Skojec needs to clarify that BOD,BOB and I.I refer to invisible and theoretical cases in 2019 only.It is the same with LG 8, LG 16, GS 22 etc.Fr.Brian Harrison and Joseph  Shaw could do the same.

Once this is understood he would then be saying that there are no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There are also no exceptions to the past ecclesiology, which supported an ecumenism of return and the proclamation of the Social Reign  of Christ the King.-Lionel Andrades

https://onepeterfive.com/author/steveskojec/

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/steve-skojec.html