Bishop Athanasius Schneider could have been using the common false premise of being able to see the dead

Michael Voris mentions that Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan suggested that 'the time had come for a Syllabus of Errors to be published by the Holy Father clearing up the misinterpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which have become so rampant. Those errors include a false ecumenism, indifferentism regarding world religions..'

It is possible that Bishop Athanasius Schneider was misinterpreting Vatican Council II since he used the common false premise of being able to see the dead and then assumed these cases were exceptions to the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.

The call for a new Syllabus of Errors, this time on Vatican II, should be heeded
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/01/21/the-call-for-a-new-syllabus-of-errors-defining-misrepresentations-of-vatican-ii-should-be-heeded/
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/bishop-schneiders-call-for-new-syllabus.html


A Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II
Michael Voris said

About two years ago – a very well respected bishop .. Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan was addressing a large group of bishops and cardinals in Rome.He suggested that the time has come for a Syllabus of Errors to be published by the Holy Father clearing up the misinterpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which have become so rampant.
Thos errors include a false ecumenism, indifferentism regarding world religions...

A Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II must clarify:-

1. Those who know about Jesus and the Church and those who do not know; who have not had the Gospel preached to them, are known only to God (AG 7,LG 14). We cannot judge these cases.

2. Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are known only to God.So Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

3. Those saved with 'elements of sanctification' (LG , 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3), 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11) etc are not known to us in 2013.

4. Since there are no known exceptions in 2013 , Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (Outside the Church No Salvation).The Catechism 846 and the dogma on exclusive salvation tell us that all need to enter the Church visibly, all need to convert.One can convert with visible Catholic faith and visible baptism of water.

The baptism of desire and blood (martrydom) are possibilities but not exceptions to AG 7 and the dogma since they are not visible to us for them to be exceptions.

So we can accept the baptism of desire etc in principle and also affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Lionel,

All that we need is a simple affirmation that the doctrinal decrees of one ecumenical Council cannot be contradicted by the decrees of another ecumenical Council. This would mean that Vatican II did not contradict the Council of Florence's decree that,

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

nor the Fifth Lateran Council which declared that,

Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit.

and also that,

For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.

Vatican II can be easily reconciled with the above declarations of the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Yes, everyone without exception needs to convert to the Catholic Faith, be sacramentally baptized for the forgiveness of original and personal sin, partake of the Church's sacraments, profess the Catholic faith wholly and completely, and submit oneself to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of God. Per Vatican II, is there a group of individuals who, "through no fault of their own", do not adhere to the above. Well, maybe, maybe not. As I said before, Dante, without any controversy whatsoever, placed two of these individuals in Purgatory and another two in Paradise. So, yes, how many of these folks are out there, if any, is known only to the One and Triune God. I think that the error of so many Catholics is to assume and/or presume that the "if any" is, in fact, "many" or even "all", hence, "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" becomes "no salvation outside of Planet Earth," which some modernists like to joke about.

In any case, Time & Eternity will tell.

P.S. I want to take a break on the forum for awhile, say, three weeks. Go ahead and reply to this thread, if you wish, but, please, no new posts for several weeks. I think that we have two pages of good material for our forum guests to browse through, and I do not wish to appear to be "beating the same dead fish" over and over. Thanks.