Bishop
Athanasius Schneider’s ‘play it safe’ new Catechism like the books related to Vatican
Council II published by Sophia and Angelus Press, interpret Vatican Council II,
with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA ,2 GS 22 etc, as referring to non
hypothetical, instead of hypothetical cases. I have e-mailed him many times
over the last few years but have not responded. Since as a Cushingite, and not
Feeneyite, he, like Michael Matt, John Henry Weston and others are allowed to
speak at conferences and publish books, by the political left (ADL, SPLC, and
ACLU etc).
Bishop
Athanasius Schneider, like Pope Francis, is not Magisterial when they interpret
Vatican Council II, the Creeds etc, irrationally and not rationally.
For
them LG 8 etc refer to non hypothetical, objective and visible cases and for me
LG 8, LG 14, LG 15, LG 16 etc refer to hypothetical, speculative, theoretical
and non visible cases in 1965-2023.
Cushingism
confuses what is invisible as being visible and Feeneyism sees what is
invisible as being just invisible.
So
for Bishop Schneider, as a Cushingite, sees LG 16 as a physically visible
example of salvation outside the Church. For me it is an invisible case.
For
him LG 16 is a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,
according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). For me invisible and nonexistent
cases cannot contradict the Fourth Lateran Council.
Bishop
Schneider is politically correct with the Left and expedient but not Catholic.
He
is avoiding being excommunicated or laicized as a Feeneyite or Anti Semite.
So
he maintains his ecclesiastical status by confusing invisible cases of the
baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being visible
exceptions for Feeneyite EENS i.e. EENS according to the Fourth Lateran
Council.
But
with this irrationality he changes the original understanding of the Nicene and
Apostles Creed. The Nicene Creed would mean, ‘I believe in three or more
baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are the baptism of desire, blood,
invincible ignorance etc, and they all exclude the baptism of water’. If he
said that they all include the baptism of water he would be a Feeneyite and
would get into trouble with his superiors.
Even
on the Athanasius Creed he is a Cushingite and not Feeneyite. He has not denied
this in the past, to keep his ecclesiastical status, to ‘keep his job’.
So
he interprets the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with Cushingism and not
Feeneyism. His understanding of Islam, in his Catechism, is based upon
politically correct Cushingism. It is not controversial but it is not the
Catholic teaching. Since over the centuries they interpreted Magisterial
Documents only with Feeneyism. Cushingism came into the Church in 1949.
He
did not defend the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict
Center, New Hampshire, USA. This was a doctrinal issue. Archbishop Augustine di
Noia , the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( now
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, wanted the St. Benedict Center to
accept invisible cases mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church(847-848 invincible ignorance etc) as being visible exceptions for
Feeneyite. This was the original mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office
to the Archbishop of Boston which brought a new theology into the Church, it
says outside the Church there is known salvation, there is salvation.
A
political Decree of Prohibitions is still in place against Brother Andre Marie
micm and his religious community in New Hampshire, where the bishop interprets
Magisterial Documents irrationally like Bishop Schneider.
The
issue here is now Vatican Council II and not extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is unethical for the bishop to continue
to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, even after being informed. - Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 27, 2023
Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Catechism does not discuss the issue of Vatican Council II interpreted rationally or irrationally : It does not mention that there can be two versions of the Nicene Creed depending upon the interpretation of Vatican Council II, and the baptism of desire etc.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Catechism does not discuss the issue of Vatican Council II interpreted rationally or irrationally. It does not discuss the baptism of desire as not being literal cases in the present time. It does not mention that there can be two versions of the Nicene Creed depending upon the interpretation of Vatican Council II, and the baptism of desire etc.
He does not affirm the Athanasius Creed. He is a Cushingite and not Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is the same with the popes and the SSPX bishops.
He supports Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who interpreted Magisterial Documents with Cushingism and not Feeneyism. Schneider interprets Lumen Gentium 16 with Cushingism and I choose Feeneyism. So our conclusions will be different. He will be non traditional and I will be traditional.
This will be another politically correct and personal Catechism. It will be a re-interpretation of the Baltimore, Pius X and Trent’s Catechism irrationally, when they mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. For him these are physically visible cases and for me they are invisible.
If they were invisible cases for him then he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and this would be politically incorrect with the Left. It will also be opposed by the Lefebvrists, who will have to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective mistake on the Council and also the baptism of desire etc.
Since Bishop Schneider accepts the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which has made a factual mistake, he is affirming the liberal New Theology of Pope Benedict. That Letter confuses invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This Catechism cannot be apostolic. It will interpret 29Q (invincible ignorance ) of the Catechism of Pope Pius X, irrationally. - Lionel Andrades
Bishop Schneider publishes new catechism to defend ‘integrity of Catholic and apostolic doctrine’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/bishop-schneider-publishes-new-catechism-to-defend-integrity-of-catholic-and-apostolic-doctrine/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
MARCH 9, 2021
The Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Catholic Church since there can be two interpretations.
Someone placed copies of the Apostles Creed on the table at the entrance of the church where I went for Holy Mass today in Italian.
The Creeds are no more a sign of unity in the Church since there can be two interpretations. The line marked in red is now controversial.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints..- Apostles Creed
The confusion came into the Church during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case when unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were considered objective exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the New Theology said there is salvation outside the Church; known salvation, while the past Magisterium would state over the centuries that outside the Church there is no salvation.
So for me,the the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today ( Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 etc) that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and all must accept Jesus and his teachings in the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.
While for other Catholics in church the new teaching is that the Holy Spirit teaches the Church today that outside the Church there is salvation and all do not need to be members of the Church ,to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
For me being in communion with the saints means affirming the past interpretation of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance which was rational. It did not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS.
Those who recite the Apostles Creed in the Church today are in a rupture theologically and doctrinally with the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the saints of the Middle Ages and the saints before the 1940s like St. Maximillian Kolbe who held the strict interpretation of EENS and affirmed the Athanasius Creed too.
Most Catholics are in a break with the saints, since today they interpret BOD and I.I as practical exceptions to EENS. Catholics have to choose to believe in BOD and I.I or EENS. So they contradict the past saints.
I can accept both-BOD and I.I and EENS- and I do not have to choose. The BOD and I.I are invisible cases for me in 2021 but the rest of the Church implies that they are visible. So they become practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) made an objective mistake which was overlooked at Vatican Council II. The present two popes and many traditionalists, accept the LOHO with the mistake and do not correct it.
The Nicene Creed affirms the necessity of the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins and the Athanasius Creed says outside the Church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades
https://lifeteen.com/blog/why-do-catholics-pray-the-creed/
__________________________
MAY 10, 2023
When there are exceptions for EENS in Vatican Council II then Pope Francis is saying that the Nicene Creed has been changed. How can he offer Mass after changing the Creeds ?
FEBRUARY 22, 2023
But if there are exceptions for EENS then the Nicene Creed is saying 1) there are three or more baptisms, 2) they are physically visible for them to be exceptions for EENS, and 3) they exclude the baptism of water and so are practical exceptions for EENS. 4) So EENS is obsolete since there are known exceptions
Anyone who interprets Vatican Council II irrationally is changing the Creeds. Since the False Premise and Inference, creates new doctrines.
The False Premise creates alleged objective exceptions for the Nicene Creed, ‘ I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’.
With the False Premise the Nicene Creed is changed to, “ I believe in three or more known and visible baptisms, people seen saved without faith and the baptism of water. They are saved instead with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc”. The baptism of water, which is physically visible, is changed into three or more known baptisms, also physically visible.This is a new doctrine.
They would have to be known baptisms otherwise they could not be exceptions for the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So officially there are exceptions for EENS.It is now : outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation. This is a new doctrine.Invisible cases cannot be visible and known exceptions for EENS.So it is implied that these are physically visible cases.
Everyone does not need to be a member of the Church for salvation, as it was taught by the missionaries in the 16th century.This is new doctrine.It comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
This big change comes only when LG 8, !4, and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are confused as visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in the present times (1965-2023). Then there are exceptions for EENS.
But if there are exceptions for EENS then the Nicene Creed is saying 1) there are three or more baptisms, 2) they are physically visible for them to be exceptions for EENS, and 3) they exclude the baptism of water and so are practical exceptions for EENS. 4) So EENS is obsolete since there are known exceptions.- Lionel Andrades
,
Posts
