Masturbation and Pornography are mortal sins !
Friday, October 11, 2013
Bloggers have still not discovered the Cushingite premise being used by Pope Francis in his ecclesiology and interpretation of Vatican Council II.
For the pope there could be no need for non Catholics to convert, to avoid Hell, since he assumes that Vatican Council II, for example, refers to known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For him there are known exceptions in 2013, of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR) etc. For him we can meet or know a non Catholic who does not have to convert into the Church.This is the basis of liberalism, the false premise of the dead man walking and visible. It is this premise that Pope Francis uses like the liberal Jesuits.When this premise is identified Vatican Council II is traditional and in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The two bloggers in the following reports still use the Cushing premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So they cannot see the basis for the error in doctrine of Pope Francis on other religions and salvation.
Pope Francis’ Ecclesiology
Speaking of Solemn Nonsense
No one denies that the pope has made a Cushingite error
Pope Francis' error has made salvation theology over the last 60 -plus years obsolete
Pope Francis is interpreting magisterial documents with an objective error : he is using a dead man walking and visible theory
San Francesco d' Assisi era una tradizionalista in accordo con Papa Giovanni XXIII e Concilio Vaticano II
San Francesco Assisi era un traditionalista quando lui afferma il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lui era in accordo con Concilio Vaticano II che dice tutti bisogna fede e battesimo per salvezza.
Lui era in accordo con il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica 846 che dice tutti bisogna entrare nella Chiesa come una porta.
Lui e in accordo con la Lettera di Santo Ufficio 1949 di Papa Pio XII a Archivescovo di Boston che referisce 'il dogma ', 'infallible affermazione'(infallible statement).
La Lettera non afferma che implicito desidero or salvezza in invincibile e visibile per noi o questi case e un contradizione per extra ecclesiam nulla salus, come San Francesco d' Assisi afferma il dogma sulla esclusivo salvezza in la Chiesa Cattolica.
In questo senso Sant Francesco d'Assisi era in accordo con Papa Giovanni XXII e Concilio Vaticano II chi e senza ambiguita sulla altre religioni e communita Christiane. Il dogma ha detto che loro tutti bisogna entrare nella Chiesa Cattolic per andare in Paradiso e evitare l'inferno.Per San Francesco d'Assisi inferno era reale. Lui crede che il Sultano bisogna convertire in la Chiesa Cattolica per evitare l'inferno.
There is a Most Holy Family Monastery report on Pope John XXIII whom they accuse of being a Freemason and making Vatican Council II a liberal document based on Freemason principles, especially on other religions and Christian communities. Then there are personal judgements of the actions of this pope, which could also be interpreted in a different way by me.
Basically we can see Vatican Council II and Pope John XXII being interpreted with the Cushing heresy of the 1940's, the same factual error is being made by Peter and Michael Dimond in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. They have accepted the liberal interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and extended it to other Church documents , in which it is assumed that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. These 'ghosts' are assumed to be exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.The Letter of the Holy Office can also be interpreted traditionally if we realize that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, mentioned in the Letter, are not exceptions to 'the dogma' and the'infallible teaching' also mentioned in the Letter.
Once this error of Cushingism is removed we have Pope John XXIII and Vatican Council II as traditional.
It has been in the interest of the Freemasons and other enemies of the church that we interpret Vatican Council II using an irrational premise.This is being done by the MHFM. Their entire apologetics is based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and visible-to- us baptism of desire. So on this shaky edifice they reject a Cushing's Vatican Council II and refer to the only,one true Church of Jesus, as a Vatican Council II sect.
The fault is not with Pope John XXIII or Vatican Council II but with their use of the false premise in interpreting magisterial texts. Until today, they are unable to cite any magisterial text which says (1)that the baptism of desire is visible to us or (2) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They also refuse to deal with this issue on their E-Exchanges and videos.
In Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II contradicts most of what the MHFM says on Pope John XXIII with respect to other religions and Christian communities and churches. AG 7 and LG 14 state all need faith and baptism for salvation. Could the Council be clearer than this?
AG 7 is listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation. Could it be more clearer and direct than this? CCC 846 also says all need to enter the church 'as through a door'. This was the phrase used by the Church Fathers for Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Jesus asks us to love all people- heretics, communists, non Catholics...This is expressed in our friendly relations with them.We can be kind to them in inter religious dialogue and ecumenism which is a part of mission, when we can speak the truth with charity.
Even if Pope John XXIII was a Freemason as is alleged, Vatican Council II is traditional on the subject of other religions, ecumenism and religous liberty.
13. The Scandals and Heresies of John XXIII
How Can 'Baptism of Desire' Be Contrary to Dogma? Exactly! Why cannot we accept implicit baptism of desire known only to God along with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.? Why cannot we accept St.Thomas Aquinas' 'ignorant man in the forest' who is saved along with St.Thomas' rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. Why cannot we accept the baptism of desire of St.Alphonsus Ligouri along with the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Peter and Michael Dimond ?
Since the baptism of desire is always explicit for God only and implicit for us humans it is not contradictory to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, an error made by Peter and Michael Dimond in the following video.
Once they understand that the baptism of desire is only a possibility and not an exception, they will be able to see that Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) supports the dogma on salvation as interpreted by them, while LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is not a known or unknown exception.LG 16 is a possibility known only to God and not an exception.-Lionel Andrades
How Can 'Baptism of Desire' Be Contrary to Dogma?