Monday, April 25, 2016

Bishop Athanasius Schneider misses the bus again

Pastorally we cannot say that a particular person living in mortal sin will not go to Hell if he dies immediately. We humans cannot know.
Pastorally we cannot say that a particular non Catholic will not go to Hell if he dies immediately. There is no way of knowing exceptions to mortal sin or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Similarly pastorally how can we say that a marriage should be annulled , since it was not a marriage in the first place?
How can we pastorally give a dispensation in an inter faith marriage as if we know of a case of salvation outside the Church and so the couple are not living in mortal sin?
A priest in the Confessional can grant absolution to a person in mortal sin but pastorally he cannot say that a person living in mortal sin has Sanctifying Grace.This would only be known to God.
This is the point that Bishop Athanasius Schneider seems to miss in his interpretation of Vatican Council II and in his comment on Amoris Leitizia(AL).1
AL is based on their being known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.
For Bishop Schneider there are known exceptions to the traditional theology on morals and faith( salvation). He has accepted the new theology. The result is a new ecclesiology.His interpretation of Vatican Council II is based on known exceptions ( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc.) to the dogma EENS.
With the new ecclesiology he interprets Vatican Council II and finds it wanting.
Bishop Schneider accepts 'known exceptions', 'subjectivism as objectivism' and 'situation ethics' as theories. He also believes they can be recognized and implemented in real life.
So Vatican Council II's Lumen Gentium 16 would not only be hypothetical for him but also practically known in personal cases.
AL(301) would not refer to theoretical moral possibilities but actual cases in which a judgment and exception can be made. This would be normal.
What if the popes realize that humanly speaking, practically, we cannot judge any exception to the traditional moral and salvation theology? Could he stop them?. Theoretically there may be numerous 'permutations and possibilities'. But in reality we cannot judge any body as being saved as such.
I can present an extraordinary case of moral situation ethics for example, but in reality I cannot meet anyone saved as such.
The liberals and Masons know this. So they mix up what is unknown as being known. Then they create exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and morals. Over time, the exceptions become the norm in the Catholic Church.
 Annulments and dispensations have been mass produced to attack the family. AL too mixes up what is unknown as being known to create more sacrilege.
Unknown cases in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc. ) are presented as known and so the Council becomes a break with the dogma EENS. Then it is assumed there is salvation outside the Church. Since there is salvation outside the Church non Catholics are allowed to marry Catholics and it is not considered being in adultery. The non Catholic spouse is assumed to be saved outside the Church. This is another attack on the family but this is the reasoning that Bishop Schneider also uses to interpret Vatican Council II and Church documents.
It is the norm for him as in the rest of the Church, to mix up what is unknown as being known.
Why doesn't Bishop Schneider clearly say that there are no known exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II? Subjective cases cannot be objective. We cannot know of anyone for example saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) or 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8).So UR 3 and LG 8 are irrelevant to traditional Catholic exclusivist ecclesiology. Why does he still  interpret Vatican Council II like the Neo Catechumenale Way? Or vice versa.
Why does he not say that we can never know when a Catholic sacramental marriage was invalid at the outset?
Related imageDavid Domet ( blog Vox Cantoris) received an annulment since it was easy to get one.
Related imageLouie Verrecchio ( blog Aka Catholic) received a dispensation since it was easy to get one.
They criticize the Novus Ordo Mass but value their 'Church' annulment and dispensation. So they believe they are not living in adultery. Domet went and married again in 'the Church '.They both can now receive the Eucharist.
Why does Bishop Schneider not say that bishops and priests can never really know when a person living in concubinage can receive the Eucharist as an exception?
How can the priest know when a divorced and remarried has Sanctifying Grace even though they are in mortal sin.? Why do ecclesiastics assume all this is possible? How does the bishop or a priest have the right to grant an annulment or dispensation, break a family and permit new marriages and possibilities for receiving the Eucharist without it being considered sacrilegious?. Why was it granted so easily, for example, to David Domet and Louie Verrecchio ?2
How does an ecclesiastic have the right to regularize an irregular (mortal sin) relationship by breaking a marriage? How can they break marriages or validate adulterous and heretical ones based on a rejection of the faith ( EENS) and moral( mortal sin/sacrilege) teachings of the Catholic Church? -Lionel Andrades
How easily annulments and dispensations are given and now Amoris Laetitia offers another Church-approved means to strike at the family


Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX bishops and priests confuses what is invisible as being visible.Card. Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past

Related image

Bishop Schneider uses the common Gnostic interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II

Bishop Athanasius Schneider makes the same error as John Vennari and Louie Verrechio

Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious

SSPX the only way out

As a sense of anticipation grows concerning the possibility that the Holy See may soon grant canonical recognition and regular jurisdiction to the Society of St. Pius X, so too does the anxiety of many so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics), and not without reason.- Louie Verrecchio
 SSPX Rome
If the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  does not enter the Church canonically  the Jewish Left  could declare them a sect or a cult and have them banned.If they do enter the Church canonically they will have to accept the theological Document 1 approved by the Jewish Left for the Catholic Church.It says Jews do not need to convert.They will also have to accept the innovations in moral and salvation theology approved by the Left.
So they have a choice. They have to be faithful to Jesus or the enemies of the Church.The Left's instructions are being followed by the two popes who have compromised.
It would help if the SSPX theologians understood that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has an objective error.It assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to traditional Catholic salvation theology.
Related imageOnce this error is identified the SSPX can re-interpret Vatican Council II as not contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 16th century missionaries.
The SSPX can then affirm the 'traditional' Vatican Council II in harmony with the 16th century interpretation of the dogma EENS.They can then ask the Vatican to do the same.
In this way they will be able to affirm traditional salvation and moral theology, without the 'known exceptions', subjectivism and situation ethics irrationality.They will also accept Vatican Council II not interpreted with these theories.
Related imageThey must then ask the two popes to do the same.
At least the Left  would no more be able to say that the SSPX is in schism or rebellion. They cannot say that the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II.
Related image I repeat this will not be acceptable to the Left but at least they cannot say that the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II. Instead the onus will be on the Vatican to affirm a Vatican Council in agreement with the old moral and salvation theology, the old ecclesiology.
Related image
 Instead the SSPX would put the responsibility on the pro-Mason ecclesiastics  to affirm Vatican Council II  like they would do , in  agreement with the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
Related image
This seems the only rational way out.
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Document on the Jews :Pope Francis and the Vatican are 'under seige and surrender', in submission to Satan's lobby

Image result for Fr Norbert Hofmann SDB Photo
Church changes traditional de fide doctrine : Interview with Fr Norbert Hofmann SDB - NCRegister


Traditionalists and sedevacantists need to affirm Catholic moral and salvation theology by avoiding the irrational inference, the mix up between what is visible and invisible.