Friday, July 21, 2017

Bishop Athanasius Schneider still incoherent and confused : has repeated last report without addressing previous critical points


Bishop Athanasius Schneider is  still incoherent and confused.It is as if he has copy and pasted his last report on Rorate Caeili without addressing any of the points I have raised in my blog last May 2017 and before.Probably he does not understand what I am saying. Since his premise is invisible baptism of desire is visible and mine is -it is invisible. Upon this irrationality is constructed his New Theology, Cushingite theology, which is the key he uses to interpret Vatican Council II.So both of us would read the same passages and our conclusions would be different.For example Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would be a visible example of salvation outside the Church without the baptism of water for him.For me it would be a theoretical case and irrelevant to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus,upon which the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church rested.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicts himself in the interview he recently gave to a Polish Catholic daily mainstream paper  I wrote in May.He does the same today on Rorate Caeili, which is still avoiding interpretating Vatican Council II with Feeneyite theology.
Like the SSPX bishops Schnieder does not state the obvious, which is, invisible-for-us- baptism of desire is not visible for us. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known to the 16th century missionaries 1 If the baptism of desire was invisible for him, which is common sense, then the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.He would be looking at the Council with a different perspective. He has not addressed this point.Possibly, he too will go to the next world like Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari without doing any thing about it.
For him LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No denial from him here. Since they are exceptions he infers that they are objective cases in our reality. Only objective cases can be exceptions.To be an exception, the baptism of desire, for example,has to be a visible, concrete case.For me they are not objective cases. So our interpretation of Vatican Council II would be different, worlds apart.
 He writes today on Rorate Caeili:
 Vatican II was a legitimate assembly presided by the Popes and we must maintain towards this council a respectful attitude.2
 But which Vatican Council II is he referring to ? This is another point he always ignores.Is it Vatican Council II Feeneyite, with invisible for us baptism of desire just being invisible or, is it Vatican Council II, Cushingite, with invisible for us baptism of desire being visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Probably he will never answer this. Since if he affirms Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite) and the Syllabus of Errors the Vatican will penalize him and the Jewish Left will demand an ounce of his blood.In his diocese he would be saying all Muslims are on the way to Hell unless they formally enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'.
So he does not touch this point, like Rorate Caeili, and prudently goes on repeating what he has been repeating for years with his Cushingite reasoning and analysis of Vatican Council II.

In his may 2017 report ,when he says 'there is no other religion which saves man, except the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church is the unique Church of God, because the Church is the living Christ Himself. Jesus Christ is really corporally risen from the dead', he could mean all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. This is the liberal theology of Pope Benedict.This is the Rahner-Ratzinger New Theology.So he is part of the problem.Even today he does not dare break free of the New Theology based on invisible people allegedly being visible exceptions to exclusivist salvation in the Catholic Church.
He writes today:
Vatican II must be seen and received as it is and as it was really: a primarily pastoral council. This council had not the intention to propose new doctrines or to propose them in a definitive form. In its statements the council confirmed largely the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church.
When he assumes hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS obviously new conclusions and new doctrines will come forth.

Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character.
He is sincere but lost in the woods here.Since he does not make the Cushingite-Feeneyite, visible-invisible, concrete-theoretical, distinction.He is not aware of the objective error in the Latter of the Holy Office 1949 which has influenced Vatican Council II and changed Catholic theology.
 A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.
Agreed.Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) does not have the hermeneutic of continuity. It is really heretical.
There must be created in the Church a serene climate of a doctrinal discussion regarding those statements of Vatican II which are ambiguous or which have caused erroneous interpretations. In such a doctrinal discussion there is nothing scandalous, but on the contrary, it will be a contribution in order to maintain and explain in a more sure and integral manner the deposit of the immutable faith of the Church.
They had a serene doctrinal discussion before. Fr. Luiz Ladaria s.j for the Vatican and Fr. Jean Marie Gleize for the SSPX were both interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingite irrationality.The conclusion was a rupture with Tradition which was acceptable for Ladaria and unacceptable for Gleize.Both groups accepted the New Theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

We can see a positive indication in the fact that on August 2, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a preface to the volume regarding Vatican II in the edition of his Opera omnia. In this preface, Benedict XVI expresses his reservations regarding specific content in the documents Gaudium et spes and Nostra aetate. From the tenor of these words of Benedict XVI one can see that concrete defects in certain sections of the documents are not improvable by the “hermeneutics of the continuity.”
When Pope Benedict says this he is only supporting his New Theology which is based on a false premise.Since he assumes there are explicit and known cases of people saved outside the Church in GS 22 and NA 2, Vatican Council II does not have a continuity with Tradition. So he is still supporting the liberal and Masonic interpretation of the Council and Bishop Schneider is clueless.
If Pope Benedict wanted he could have said that GS 22 and NA 2 refer to hypothetical cases. They cannot be personally known people in 2017. So they do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.They are not a rupture with Tradition.
He did not say it and Schneider has fallen for the ruse.
Bishop Schneider also picked up the bait in March 2016 when Pope Benedict did not say that Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) was not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries of the 16th century. Instead Pope Benedict affirmed the liberal and pro-Masonic position when he said that Vatican Council II was 'a development' of the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium of the 16th century.So EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century he said blatantly and clearly. He was referring to Vatican Council II, Cushingite and he is correct.Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS and he made this magisterial,as Prefect of the CDF.
But the ambiguity went over Bishop Schneider and he did not issue a critical statement.Pope Benedict was saying formally that Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition and it was acceptable for him.There was no continuity.Bishop Schneider was completely at sea.
-Lionel Andrades

1

 MAY 8, 2017


Bishop Athanasius Schneider incoherent and confused http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/05/bishop-athanasius-schneider-incoherent.html


2

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/guest-op-ed-bishop-schneider.html

[Punishment In Hell] Adulterers In Hell video

[Punishment In Hell] Adulterers In Hell



There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.This is why the Devil hates Catholics.- Gloria Polo


There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.There is no way to enter Heaven but the Eucharist.This is why the Devil hates Catholics.There is no way to enter Heaven but the body and blood of Christ- Gloria Polo(36:00)


Powerful Testimony Near Death Experience of Dr Gloria Polo.

At none of Our Lady's apparitions has she said that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational premise -but it can re interpreted

Image result for Photo of Sr.Lucy
In her Letters to relatives in 1969 and after, Sr. Lucia mentions the diabolical disorientation in the world.1 She mentions 'the disorientation of the times' .But Out Lady does not mention 'false doctrines' in Vatican Council II created with an irrational premise and which can be avoided today. 'The devil has deceived souls and now there are 'blind men leading blind men', says Suzanne Pearson quoting Sr. Lucia.



Let us review the two column approach here before I get to the point I want to make.

Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column? 


LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN

All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit                        or  explicit for us.
hypothetical               or   known in reality.
invisible                      or   visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)  or   defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                  or   objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
 n.


If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2017 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The dead- saved are 'visible'.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

_____________________________________

After 1965 Vatican Council II was being interpreted with the right hand side column, the irrational column.The mainstream media and Catholic liberals like Fr. Hans Kung s.j used the irrational column. Since this irrationality was the norm in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.The 'dogma of the faith' was changed and lost.
After 1965 they could have chosen to interpret Vatican Council II with the blue columm but this did not happen.
At none of the apparitions of Our Lady was she able to explain this problem and its solution to any of the seers.The right hand side column results in 'false doctrines' a disorientation in the Church and blind men leading blind men.
Image result for Photo Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests
Why did Our Lady not tell the seers about this aspect of Vatican Council II. Was it because the new theology was false but also complicated.It would have been complicated to explain it to the young seers.Then it was being supported by the magisterium,popes and cardinals, but also traditionalists and conservative Catholics.How could she explain the error to all of them? I am aware how even now how hard it is for them to accept what I write.  Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre were interpreting Vatican Council II with the right hand column.  Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made the same mistake. This was a mistake of the 'upper hierarchy of the Church' too which Suzanna Pearson refers to.Even Padre Pio does not talk about it.
Image result for Photo Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests
I have been writing on this issue for over 20 years,initially through e-mails and letters and then through my blog and the internet.It is clear that what I write about is not popular. Neither the lay Catholics or the ecclesiastics want to accept it.There is a diabolical disorientation.
Cardinal Ratzinger
Cardinal Ratzinger supported the error.Intentionally or unintentionally in March 2016 he did not correct the mistake.Instead he supported the mistake in public and he was the spokesman for the Third Secret at Fatima.
The dogma of the faith will be lost except in Fatima. John Salza agrees that the dogma of the faith refers to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is our private opinion.Salza has written a book and many articles and has given talks.Yet he finds it difficult to accept what I write.It is hard for him to accept that every one, popes, cardinals, apologists and hundreds of thousands of people were wrong and that I am correct. Also even if I was correct why did not any one mention this before, he wonders like many others.He could say,'not even Our Lady'.
Malachi Martin and Fr. Nicholas Gruner did not know, like John Salza, that Vatican Council II could have been interpreted with the blue column.Now that Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and John Salza know about it they still have nothing to say.A few years have passed.
The error had come into the Church officially with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office ,Pope John XIII and Pope Pius XII overlooked the error.Even Pope John Paul II interpreted Vatican Council II with the red hand column and did not seem aware of the alternative choice.
Image result for Photo Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests
Our Lady did not explain this issue in detail to also Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests.
Here are the two columns again.

COLUMN A or COLUMN  B
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e being saved with the seeds of the Word (AG 11), invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) can be interpreted with COLUMN A or COLUMN B



COLUMN A
Implicit or us.
hypothetical for us.
invisible.
dejure (in principle).
subjective.
COLUMN B
explicit for us.
known in reality.
visible in the flesh.
defacto (in fact).
objective.
If COLUMN B is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition.There are known exceptions. The dead-saved are visible. This is an irrational and common interpretation of Vatican Council II.

If COLUMN A is chosen in the interpretation then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.The Catholic Church's teaching on other religions and Christians communities and churches is the same before and after Vatican Council II.2

Our Lady did not mention this issue since it was too complicated to explain.It was hard for many to understand it. Then popes and cardinals do not welcome the conclusion. Neither do the lay people welcome it as if there is a diabolical disorientation in the Church.
-Lionel Andrades






1.
Fatima and the Diabolical Disorientation July 15, 2017 http://isoc.ws/

2.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and-pope.html




______________________________


JULY 21, 2017

At ISOC Suzanne Pearson and Judith Sharpe are unaware of Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) : Malachi Martin and Nicholas Gruner were also using the irrational premise http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/at-isoc-suzanne-pearson-and-judith.html


July 20, 2017


Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/frnicholas-gruner-and-john-vennari-did_20.html




July 20, 2017

Did Pope Benedict intentionally not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Vatican Council II was not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/did-pope-benedict-intentionally-not_20.html


July 20, 2017

It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in heresy and not Fr.Leonard Feeney

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/it-was-archbishop-of-boston-cardinal_20.html

____________________________________________________________________________________________________



July 8, 2014

There are Catholic religious and lay persons who use the the left hand side column in the interpretation of magisterial text
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/there-are-catholic-religious-and-lay.html#links


JULY 11, 2014

Lay Catholics,including bloggers still do not realize that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the blue or red column

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/lay-catholicsincluding-bloggers-still.html

At ISOC Suzanne Pearson and Judith Sharpe are unaware of Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) : Malachi Martin and Nicholas Gruner were also using the irrational premise

'In the Spirit of Chartres Committe Inc,(ISOC) has also got it wrong on Vatican Council II. Suzanne Pearson and Judith Sharpe in an interesting discussion 1 are not aware that there is a Vatican Council II Cushingite and a Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
When Our Lady said at Fatima that 'the dogma of the faith will be lost' it is really lost on both of them.Since they both interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
That Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion is different, from the familiar one, was not known to Malachi Martin or Fr. Nicholas Gruner.
If Suzanne Pearson and Judith Sharpe choose to interpret Vatican Council II with all hypothetical cases being just hypothetical, then the Council is not a rupture with the dogma of the faith.Presently Dr.E.Michael Jones and Dr.Robert Sungenis mentioned on ISOC website are using a false premise to interpret the Council.They are doing so innocently but it does reflect the general 'diabolical disorientation' in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades
what-we-have-lost
1.
Fatima and the Diabolical Disorientation
July 15, 2017
isoc.ws

July 20, 2017

Fr.Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari did not know
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/frnicholas-gruner-and-john-vennari-did_20.html

July 20, 2017
Did Pope Benedict intentionally not tell Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Vatican Council II was not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/did-pope-benedict-intentionally-not_20.html

July 20, 2017
It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in heresy and not Fr.Leonard Feeney
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/it-was-archbishop-of-boston-cardinal_20.html

Chartres pilgrims do not know about Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) : Cardinal Burke will not tell them about it

Image result for Photo of Chartres Pilgrimage
In a previous post I mentioned that Fr.Nicholas Gruner did not know about Vatican Council II (Feeneyite). He did not know that with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) the Council supported the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.

Similarly Chris Ferrara when he wrote his book The Great Facade he did not know that by switiching the interpretation of the baptism of desire(BOD) for example, you can get a completely different interpretation of EENS. BOD can be interpreted as being visible or invisible, explicit or implicit and the interpretation of the Council is one of continuity or rupture with the past magisterium.
Similarly when Ralph Martin wrote his books on evangelisation and salvation he did not know that Vatican Council II was Feeneyite and that his interpretation of the Council was irrational and Cushingite.
Image result for Photo of Chartres PilgrimageImage result for Photo of Chartres PilgrimageImage result for Photo of Chartres Pilgrimage
It means all these 50 years every one had the wrong interpretation of Vatican Council II.They were using the irrational premise. They assumed invisible for us baptism of desire was explicit. They also concluded that BOD excluded the baptism of water in the Church.So BOD and invincible ignorance (I.I),in LG 16, AG 7, LG 14 etc were explicit exceptions to Tradition for them. They wrongly placed the fault on Vatican Council II when the fault was really their premise, visible or invisible BOD and I.I.
Similarly those who attend the Chartres pilgrimage annually would be in general rejecting Vatican Council II and would not know of Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).
Cardinal Raymond Burke if he does know about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) will he affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the missionaries of the 16th century? Is he going to say that he was wrong about the Council which really is in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite)? Will he say that there are no known exceptions to EENS (Feeneyite) mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II ?
Can all those who attend the Chartres Pilgrimage say this?
It has been difficult all these years for the St. Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the supporters of the St.Benedict Centers who are there at Chartres. It has been difficult for Michael Matt.
Prof.Joseph Shaw who teaches at Oxford University will affirm that all non Catholics in 2017 are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)?
Is he going to tell Una Voce and Ecclesia Dei that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century and so Pope Benedict XVI made a mistake with his announcement in March 2016 (Avvenire)?
It is easier to criticize Vatican Council II without making the distinction between Vatican Council II, Cushingite and Feeneyite.It is not so easy to affirm Vatican Council II, Feeneyite because of the persecution which will follow from the Left.
After so many of these reports on the Internet over the last few years on Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) Rorate Caeili, the other day, posted another re-hashed version of a Vatican Council II analysis interpreted with Cushingism. They were loyal to Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, the liberals and the Left. But what if they posted a report in support of Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)? The phone calls
would ring and Rorate Caeili would be threathened. So at Rorate Caeili they act as if they do not understand any other interpretation of the Council, other then the one approved for them and the Church, by the Left.
This is also the general understanding at the Chartres Pilgrimage.Do you think that Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt will be comfortable affirming Vatican Council II and EENS Feeneyite? Do you think Bishop Sanborn who has a seminary in Florida and meets the state and academic requirements will announce that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all Jews, Muslims, Protestants are on the way to Hell without 'faith and baptism'? Will he say that
Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite) which has the same message?
Will he ? It is much easier, safer and prudent to criticize Vatican Council IIin order to make a living or live comfortable in the USA and Europe.
So simply offering the Traditional Latin Mass at Chartres is meaningless in the sense that the ecclesiology of the Mass supports EENS and Vatican Council II ( Cushingite). Summorum Pontificum was offered with the condition that the theology would be based on invisible baptism of desire being a visible exceptions to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).Nothing new. Same old heresy.
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated since he could not accept Vatican Council II (Cushingism). No one told him about Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).The SSPX General Chapter Doctrinal Statement of 2012 was rejected by the CDF and Ecclesia Dei since it affirmed EENS and Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) in an indirect way. It said every one needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no possibilities of salvation outside the Church.
It is easy to attend the Old Mass at Chartres and it can be enjoyable walking but when you come back home it is not so easy to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and EENS ( Feeneyite)
.-Lionel Andrades