Bishop Athanasius Schneider has mentioned the importance of the baptism of water without saying that literally we cannot know of a baptism of desire case. There is no comment on this point from Brother Andre Marie in his brief review of the interview with Taylor Marshall.1
Bishop Schneider accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( LOHO) which projects the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) as being 1) known in personal cases, known examples of salvation outside the Church and 2) so they are for him visible and practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the past ecclesiology.He has never said that he rejects LOHO which is placed in the Denzinger and referenced in Vatican Council II.LOHO is Cushingite.BOD and I.I are Cushingite for LOHO.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite for LOHO since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions.This is not the EENS as held by Brother Andre Marie MICM at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA.
BISHOP SCHNEIDER IS A CUSHINGITE AND DOES NOT KNOW IT
BISHOP SCHNEIDER IS A CUSHINGITE AND DOES NOT KNOW IT
For Brother Andre Marie, BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.This is Feeneyism.For Bishop Schneider they are exceptions. This is Cushingism.
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'. This is a reference to a hypothetical case. 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.
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?.
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!
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 !
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.
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.
Then the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were also mentioned in Vatican Council II.In principle they were exceptions to EENS in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14. This irrationality is affirmed by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.This is all Cushingism.
IN PRINCIPLE ERROR ALSO THERE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
IN PRINCIPLE ERROR ALSO THERE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
So in principle LOHO has assumed that hypothetical cases are objective and they are examples of salvation outside the Church.It them concludes that these are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is accepted by Bishop Schneider and Dr.Marshal.
The same in principle error was made at Vatican Council II. So in this sense Vatican Council II could not be magisterial.
This is the error of the New Theology. Dr. Taylor Marshall in the interview refers to the New Theology( in French) but does not know that the New Theology was created upon the error in LOHO. Without Cushingism there is no New Theology.
Schneider and Marshal were having a discussioin while interpreting the baptism of desire, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.Brother Andre Marie did not comment on this. This was the same error Taylor Marshall made when he was teaching at the Fischer More College.
CDF SECRETARIES
This was the error made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Diocese of Manchester, to which Brother Andre Marie has responded.2
The CDF Secretaries were telling Brother Andre Marie,' As the Congregation stated in our April 15 letter to you, which the Congregation also shared with Bishop Libasci, the principle "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" must be interpreted according to the official doctrine of the Church, as it is summarized with clarity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#846-#848)'. So the Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia were interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on invincible ignorance, like the Letter of the Holy Office.This was an objective mistake of the CDF.Schneider and Taylor Marshall have not commented on this.It has a direct bearing on their talk.
Morandi and Di Noia continue with the in principle error, 'The paragraph that follows, however, is equally binding, as it considers those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church and states that those too have the possibility of obtaining eternal salvation (cf. CCC #847).'
Brother Andre Marie has responded 3 but he had to explain the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism. When hypothetical cases are not objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, I call this Feeneyism. When they are confused as being exceptions I call it Cushingism.
Schneider and Marshall still interpret Church documents with Cushingism.This had to be corrected.
Brother Andre Marie has not commented when Bishop Schneider and Taylor Marshall do not say that according Feeneyism, Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
According to Feeneyism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church no where contradicts Feeneyite EENS.
According to Feeneyism, the BOD, BOB and I.I are not practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
This clarification was important.
-Lionel Andrades
1
2.
3.
https://df9ixb8c8gy4m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/01/20170307-Letter.pdf
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
JANUARY 9, 2016
I am not criticizing the theology per se. I am criticizing it's being placed with reference to EENS as an exception.
JANUARY 9, 2016
Meaningless, superflous theology in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
JANUARY 11, 2019
The CDF wants Catholic religious communities and lay movements to accept heresy and sacrilege otherwise canonical prohibitions will be placed upon them.
JANUARY 11, 2019
Theological Teaching of the St.Benedict Center unacceptable to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
JANUARY 11, 2019
CDF, Diocese of Manchester deception is not Catholic : nor ethical or honest even by secular standards
MARCH 7, 2020
Bishop Athanasius Schneider needed to state clearly that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire-period. There are no baptism of desire cases in our reality : similarly we cannot know of an LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 case in 2020.There are no known people saved as such.
MARCH 6, 2020
Bishop Athanasius Schneider says that the baptism of water is necessary and it is important-but he does not make the Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment