Thursday, May 22, 2014

Franciscans of the Immaculate (FFI) interpret all documents of Vatican Council II with the defacto-dejure, objective-subjective, in fact-in theory distinction

Franciscans of the Immaculate (FFI) must be aware that Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, Fr.Fidanzio Volpi, the FFI Commissioner and Sr. Fernanda Barbiero overseeing the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate   interpret Vatican Council II by not making  the defacto-dejure,objective-subjective, in fact-in theory,visible-invisible distinction. So their interpretation is irrational.They do not also make the secular- religious distinction in the interpretation of Dignitatis Redintigratio, Vatican Council II.
The FFI  can interpret all the documents of Vatican Council II without inferring that Nostra Aetate 2 refers to those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' who are visible to us on earth. They can clarify that the  deceased-saved (with 'a ray of the Truth'  are defacto not visible to us, in real life. They are accepted only in principle ( dejure, in theory,hypothetically)  so they cannot  become explicit ( defacto, visible, objective)  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So defacto there are no known cases of a someone saved with 'a ray of the Truth'. De jure ( in principle) we accept it as a possibility known only to God.
With the defacto-dejure, objective-subject, in fact-in theory clarification we can interpret all documents in Vatican Council II as supporting Tradition. Without this distinction Vatican Council II emerges ambiguous, irrational  and non traditional.
If the FFI  are aware, Vatican Council II documents ( Ad Gentes, Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintigratio, Nostra Aetate etc) can be interpreted rationally, without inferring that there are dead-saved in 2014 who can be personally known to us.
The FFI must clarify that they affirm Vatican Council II and Tradition and their interpretation is different from that of the Vatican Curia.They can also point out the error of Cardinal Braz and Fr.Volpi. They both infer that what is dejure and known only to God is defacto on the streets of Rome.When  informed they may  not want to make this irrational interpretation of the Council.
When Vatican Council II is in harmony  with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the result is traditional - even on  religious liberty. In a state with a secular Constitution , as mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae (DH) a non Catholic is de facto free to live and express his religion, while de jure (in principle), in faith, the Catholic knows that the non Catholic must convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
No text in Vatican Council II (DH) says that we have not to believe that in principle all political and social legislation must have Jesus as its head.We can still accept it  and proclaim it, even if the Church does not have the de facto power to implement it in a secular state.
Neither does the traditional understanding have to change in principle (dejure) on the Social Reign of Jesus, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc.Vatican Council II in its text does not ask it of us.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
Catholic religious communities also have the right not to be hindered de facto in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
Non Catholics may not be prohibited physically.Morally and verbally we can express Catholic religious beliefs with freedom.This includes the teaching  outside the church there is no salvation, all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
Religious truth, in all its fullness, is found only in the Catholic Church.All political states should affirm Catholic teaching and be obedient to the pope or to a political representative of the Holy Father. De jure this should be the relation of the Church and state.Even though defacto now it is otherwise.

In a Catholic confessional state non Catholics de facto have no right to proclaim their religious beliefs through the media and political organisations.This is not true in a secular state and DH is referring to a secular state.

Analyse the text of DH here (Dejure means in principle, Defacto means in reality)
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom-Dignitatis Humanae  2

Defacto,yes in a secular state. In a Catholic confessional state, in certain ways it is limited or prohibited.
This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.-DH 2
Defacto yes in a state with a secular Constitution, de facto no in a Catholic confessional state.  Italy is  a secular state. So this is accepted in principle ( de jure).
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.-DH 2
In a secular state, Yes.In a  Catholic confessional state this dignity is recognised and a non Catholic has the freedom to live his religion.This was true in Italy when the popes had temporal powers. The permitted the Jews and other non Catholics to live and follow their religion.
This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
Defacto in a secular state.Yes.
This right... to religious freedom... is to become a civil right.Note religious freedom is to become a civil right in a secular state.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth
Dejure,yes they are all to seek the truth. The truth is found in only the Catholic Church (AG 7). De jure, yes.
However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.
No one is to be forced.
Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
The popes permitted people of different religions to live in territory politically controlled by them.
Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents.(DH 15)
Defacto under many constitutions.
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.
They have religious freedom in states with a secular constitutions. These are not the freedoms of a Catholic Confessional state 'in which error has no rights'. They are not allowsed to propagate error through the offical media and organisations in a Catholic state. In  principle, it also acknowledges the right of Catholics to their beliefs including that of the non separation of Church and State and the Social Kingship of Jesus over all legislation and intuitions.
So the Franciscans of the Immaculate can interpret DH as 1.Acknowledging religious freedom in only state constitutions which are not those of the Catholic Confessional states.
2.In principle acknowledging the right of Catholics to their beliefs including that of the non separation of Church and State and the Social Kingship of Jesus over all legislation and instuitions.

So even though Cardinal Braz and Fr.Volpi interpret Nostra Aetate 2 as a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition, the FFI can interpret it as being in harmony with Tradition.
Even though the Vatican assumes Dignitatis Humanae is a break with the dogma on salvation and Tradition, for the FFI it is a continuity with Tradition.
Though the Vatican Curia do not mention Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, the FFI can proclaim it in mission and evangelisation, inter religious dialogue and ecumenism.-Lionel Andrades

Franciscans of the Immaculate set an example for other religious communities : Vatican Council II without the irrational inference

According to reports some Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have asked to be released of their pontifical vows so that they can work under a diocesan bishop and offer the Traditional Latin Mass.These Franciscans of the Immaculate are not aware that Vatican Council II documents can be interpreted with or without the irrational interpretation. So they can accept Vatican Council II in perfect agreement with Tradition.
The Vatican Council II which they reject is the one with the false inference.
I repeat that the Vatican Council II which they reject is the one with the false inference - there is a choice, there is an alternative, there is another interpretation which is also rational.
The Vatican Council II which they reject is the one with the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error. 
Without the false inference, the Cushing-Jesuit premise; the Richard Cushing Error, Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Catechism of Pope Pius X and Tradition in general.
This was never discussed at any FFI conference on Vatican Council II. At an  FFI Conference in Rome I put  two basic questions on this issue to Roberto Mattei. He did not answer them.1
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate can set an example for all Catholic religious communites. Show them that Tradition and the dogma on exclusive salvation is compatible, it is in agreement. With implicit for us baptism of desire and  invisible for us being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, there are no exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. We can have it both ways. We can affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirm implicit- for- us- being saved with ' a ray of the truth' (Nostra Aetate 2).It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradictiion.Vatican Council II  is traditional when there is no mix up between ithe terms mplicit and explict, dejure and defacto, hypothetical and in reality.
Only if being saved with 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11) was explicit for us then it would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If your new Superior at the FFI gives you permission, call a press conference, or make it known in some way, that you affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise- that of being able to physically see the dead-saved.
Those who oppose you politically will  see that you are affirm Vatican Council II, and you also uphold Tradition,including the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
This will be unacceptable to them but at least they cannot say that you are denying Vatican Council II. It will also be an eye opener for other religious communities to affirm the centuries old interpretation on salvation along with Vatican Council II.

A Vatican Council II without the false premise, the irrational inference, works in your favour and is against the political position of your new superiors.
-Lionel Andrades
TWO QUESTIONS which Prof. Roberto de Mattei did not answer.
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?

Words Fail: Kasper calls Francis “radical pope,” says he has papal support on divorcees receiving Eucharist

Words Fail: Kasper calls Francis “radical pope,” says he has papal support on divorcees receiving Eucharist (May 21, 2014 ) 
Well I’m certain Cardinal Kasper, quite radical himself, certainly hopes Francis is radical. I guess we’ll see what develops in the next 6 months.
Find below an amazing set of quotes from Cardinal Kasper via FideCogitActio (emphasis from Fide, I lied, I do have comments):
“This pope is not a liberal pope. He is a radical pope! … This pope goes back to the gospel [But great Saints like Pius X, Pius V.......apparently they did not go back to the Gospel! What a calumny!] . … I told the pope, ‘Holy Father, there will be a controversy [after the consistory]. … The pope laughed and told him, ‘That’s good, we should have that!’ … I do not know if my proposals will be acceptable…. I made them in agreement with the pope, I did not do them just myself. I spoke beforehand with the pope, and he agreed.” …[This is extremely troubling if true. And I'm afraid we have more than just the self-serving claims of one modernist, we do have a great deal of evidence that Pope Francis is quite sympathetic to Kasper's "novelties," which aren't novelties at all, but yet another form of the endless temptation to create "god" in our own image]
Kasper said he was confident that the process of debate that Francis had launched on the topic of family life and sexuality would in the end produce some significant reforms, in part “because there are very high expectations.” [And so you see how the process works. Create "expectations" by publicly undermining Dogma. Create expectations through a very heavy PR campaign. Use a friendly media to advance your campaign. Then say the "popular will" must be satisfied, no matter how erroneous it is. This has been the primary strategy of the modernists since 1958]
He noted that the church has often changed, or “developed,” over the centuries, and quite recently in the 1960s when, for example, the Second Vatican Council reversed long-standing teachings against religious freedom and dialogue with other believers. [No, the Church has never "developed" like it has in the past 50 years, which many faithful souls see as a terrible retrograde development. Dogma cannot change. But if you make up fuzzy definitions of what constitutes Dogma, you can get away with a great deal, and that is precisely what modernists have done. UPDATE: I wanted to add a bit about this statement in bold above. "Reversed long-standing teachings".....that is certainly what many traditional Catholics think. Many modernists, of course, think VII did, too, for opposite reasons. This is one of the critical areas of VII that really needs to be worked out by holy popes and theologians, to reconcile this novel approach to "religious freedom," if possible, to the entire Magisterium. I won't hold my breath. But here we have a prince of the Church arguing that Vatican II did indeed attempt to change Church Doctrine. While others say no, that can't happen. How are the faithful to make heads or tails of such a situation? Perhaps that confusion is the point?]
Kasper reiterates that he’s not advocating a change in the church’s dogma on the sanctity of marriage, [I'm sorry, but this is just BS] but a change in the “pastoral practice” about who can receive Communion. “To say we will not admit divorced and remarried people to Holy Communion? That’s not a dogma [noumenon]. That’s an application [phenomenon] of a dogma in a concrete pastoral practice. This can be changed.” [Absolutely it's a vast change in Dogma, and essentially argues that the State of Grace no longer exists, or doesn't matter. Kasper is saying anyone, regardless of sinfulness, is fit to receive the Blessed Lord in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is directly counter to Scripture (perhaps Cardinal Kasper has forgotten 1 Cor 11:27-29, since it has been excised from the Novus Ordo) and the constant Tradition of the Faith. As FideCogitActio notes, the modernists are conducting their campaign of practically obliterating Dogma in the exact same manner that the Arians did 1700 years ago.]
Kasper said it is the voice of the faithful that has made the difference. “The strongest support comes from the people, and you cannot overlook that,” he said.
“If what people are doing and what the church is teaching, if there is an abyss, that doesn’t help the credibility of the church,” he said. “One has to change.”
———End Quote———
OF COURSE! And so we see a prelate, who has spent absolutely NONE of his time in the past 50 years since the Council trying to get the “faithful” to adhere to the constant belief and practice of the Church, now just give up! Maybe that was the plan all along, eh? Modernists want the Church to be indistinguishable from liberal protestant sects that have embraced every modern error conceivable, and at the same time committed effective suicide in doing so. What a great future they have planned for a billion souls!
There’s an old joke in The Simpsons. Ned Flanders had beatnik parents, and when young Ned begins acting out due to lack of discipline, the exasperated parents tell a child psychologist: “We’ve tried absolutely nothing, man, and we’re all out of ideas!”
Does that not describe the leadership we’ve seen in the past 50 years? “We haven’t tried even a little bit to teach you people the Faith, and now that you’re lost in error, we give up!”
Don’t you like it when a plan comes together? First contraception, now divorce. From these two you can essentially unwind all Catholic moral Dogma. This modernist approach is very much like their approach with the fake, ginned up “vocations-crisis.” Modernists fomented the crisis by blocking thousands of young men from ordination, in order to force a situation where the priesthood would, in effect, no longer exist.
I will remind people that this matter is really NOT about divorce, remarriage, or any of the rest of the smokescreens. This is about redefining either/or/both the Church’s belief about sin and the State of Grace, and the reality of the Blessed Sacrament. The entire moral Dogma of the Faith can essentially be destroyed through this “pastoral” application. There will literally be nothing left of sin, and we may as well be unitarians.
None of the above is to accept Kasper’s claims regarding Pope Francis’ support for his errors as factual. But a number of events would suddenly make much more sense if Kasper is being truthful, or even somewhat truthful.
But then again, Pope Paul VI really wanted to change the Church’s stance on contraception, but something – many think the intervention of the Holy Ghost – prevented that from occurring.
Not that we should be complacent and simply trust in the Holy Ghost, as laudable a thing to do as that is. These guys are maneuvering to do to bigamists receiving the Blessed Sacrament what they did to contraception, if not worse. They plan on making the Doctrine meaningless, practically speaking. So much prayer is called for, and possibly, more concrete action. I’m not sure what that would entail, but sending a letter Apostolic Nuncio and the Holy See probably wouldn’t hurt.
Lord, we surely must be great sinners to deserve shepherds such as these. Have mercy on us!

'Here are some excerpts from recent messages to Maria Divine Mercy (MDM) that reject the Catholic Church as a whole:
“The Catholic Church will make a number of alarming statements, as to why it has to change and amend every part of its structure.”
“the Catholic Church will become a leading force in the new one world religion.” (message of 1 Nov 2013)
“My Catholic Church on earth will be sucked into a one world church, in the name of unification.” (message of 16 May 2012)
“My Son’s Church will become the seat of the antichrist…. My Son’s Church will be persecuted, destroyed, desecrated — until eventually, it will house the throne upon which will sit the antichrist.” (message of 29 Oct 2013)
“Within six months of the heresy being introduced into My Church, many who ignored My Call, will flee and seek out those who remained true to My Holy Word. Then My Army will swell, grow and gather the remnants from all Christian churches and fight the spirit of evil.” (message of 20 Oct 2013)'

( I place these messages here to be read allong wih the statements of Cardinal Walter Kasper.They are not necessarily true.- Lionel Andrades)

1. According to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, any Catholic who commits apostasy, formal heresy, or formal schism is automatically excommunicated from the Church.
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception
of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

(Excommunicated by a Pope who gives the Eucharist to Catholics  in sin, does not affirm  the dogma on exclusive salvation, rejects the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church...?  - Lionel Andrades)