Friday, July 18, 2014

Dobbiamo ricordare che noi esseri umani non possiamo vedere i morti che ora sono in paradiso o all'inferno

Dobbiamo ricordare che noi esseri umani non possiamo vedere i morti che ora sono in paradiso o all'inferno. I morti non sono fisicamente visibili da noi sulla terra.

Quindi, se tuo fratello, sorella, zio, zia, padre o madre dicessero che possono vedere i morti che sono in cielo e che tutti noi possiamo fare lo stesso, naturalmente, noi non gli crederemmo.

Allo stesso modo se un cardinale o Santo Padre dicesse che noi umani possiamo vedere i morti che ora sono salvati in cielo noi ci rifiuteremmo di credere.
Se un sacerdote o un vescovo affermassero che lui e tutti gli esseri umani possono vedere fisicamente i morti in Cielo noi dovremo respingere tale affermazione.
Così, quando il Sant'Uffizio 1949 nella Lettera all'Arcivescovo di Boston rispetto a Don Leonard Feeney ha detto che i defunti salvati erano visibili
e questi casi erano visibili eccezioni per tutti bisogno del battesimo di acqua per la salvezza
, si rifiuta di esso. Perchè nel tempo presente non possiamo vedere i morti salvati in Paradiso.

Come Cardinale Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani nella Lettera Sant'Uffizio 1949  capire,dedurre, supporre che battisma di desiderio e una eccezione per insegnamenti di dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus che dire che tutti bisogna entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica? Lui supporre che questi case e visibili sulla terra.Questi casi dovrebbero essere visibile e conosciuto per essere diventa eccezione.Come possiamo vedere i morti salvato cosi?.Non conosciamo il nome e cognome di questi 'eccezione'.Lui supponendo che si possa stringere la mano di qualcuno che è morto e che considera un'eccezione per la necessità di entrare nell Chiesa Cattolica con battesimo di aqua ? Obiettivamente questi casi non sono visibile sulla terra.Lui dedurre che obiettivamente questi casi sono noti per noi.



Questa e errore di fatto del cardinale Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani.Questa e un errore obiettivo della Lettera di Ufficio Santo 1949.

Allo stesso modo se Papa Pio XII e Papa Francesco facessero questa affermazione irrazionale essa sarebbe respinta. Nel 2014 noi accettiamo in generale, che i defunti non sono visibili sulla terra.Chi non e visibile non posso diventa una eccezione.

Quando Roberto de Mattei o Cristiana Siccardi indica che i non cattolici adesso si salvano con 'un raggio della Verità' (NA 2) ecc.è un'eccezione al dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ dobbiamo rifiutare questa .Perche e irrazionale. In questo anno ( 2014) non conosciamo nessuno caso di defunti che si siano salvati grazie ad 'un raggio della Verità '. Questo è un fatto. E 'conoscenza comune.Questa non e una opinione o teologia.

Allora, dove è l'eccezione nel Concilio Vaticano II per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nel Sillabo e nel Catechismo di Papa Pio XII ? Non ci sono eccezioni perchè noi non possiamo vedere i morti salvati nonostante l'ignoranza invincibile (LG 16).

Me se voi accettate che i casi invisibili per noi sono casi visibili, nella vita reale, il Concilio Vaticano II contraddice la Tradizione. Questa e la problema con Don Pierpaolo Petrucci,  il Distretto Superiore di Fraternita San Pio X a Albano,Italia,
 
Si può ricordare che extra ecclesiam nulla salus è fondamentale per la nostra comprensione e interpretazione del Concilio Vaticano II. 

 
1. Se si assume che ogni salvezza che e referisce nel Concilio Vaticano II è invisibile per noi e visibili solo per Dio, allora NA 2, UR 3, LG 8, LG 16 non contraddice l'interpretazione letterale del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus secondo Don.Leonard Feeney di Boston,i Concili della Chiesa, i Padri della Chiesa, i santi e il Concilio Vaticano II (Ad Gentes 7).Concilio Vaticano II non e una roturra con Tradition.

2.Se si presume che questi casi sono visibili a noi nella vita reale; possiamo vedere il defunto salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile nel 2014, poi il Concilio Vaticano II è una rottura con il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Significa che c'e salvezza fuuri della Chiesa Cattolica. Tutti in 2014 non bisogna entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica per salvezza.


Il Concilio Vaticano II è stato criticato dai tradizionalisti, tra cui Roberto de Mattei. Loro e quelli che
presume che il defunto salvati sono visibili. Molti dicono che Concilio Vaticano II (con la falsa premessa) è una rottura con la Tradizione, ma non sanno chi e l'esatta causa.Loro stanno utilizzando la falsa premessa.La causa esatta è la falsa premessa. Si sta assumendo i morti sono visibili. Si supponendo che conosciamo il nome e cognome di una persona salvata in ignoranza invincibile o il battesimo di desire.E presumere che possiamo vedere con i nostri occhi fisici qulcuno salvato con 'un raggio della Verità'(NA 2). La falsa premessa si presupposto che i morti salvati sono eccezioni visibili per il dogma. Una contradizione con tutti Tradizione.
Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X - Distretto d'Italia
Roberto de Mattei, i vescovi e i sacerdoti della Fraternita Sacerdotale di San Pio X non vogliono dire che erano sempre sbagliato sull Concilio Vaticano II. Né vogliono affermare il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Loro avrebbe preferito dire come i liberali che il Concilio Vaticano II è una rottura con extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Sul Concilio Vaticano II loro utilizzano lo stesso ragionamento dei progressisti.

La Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 haa fatta un errore oggettivo e cattolici stanno trovando questo difficile da accettare.-Lionel Andrades

So how can the USCCB , the SSPX, CathInfo forum and so many others say there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? This is heresy?

If these cases are "visible," then why can't we name those individuals? Who are they?
 Risultati immagini per Photo USCCB logo
Lionel: 

Correct, that's my point. So how an the USCCB , the SSPX, CathInfo and so many others say there are exceptions to EENS ? This is heresy? 

 
I don't think that the SSPX has ever made such a claim, even implicitly. If you believe otherwise, please post the exact paragraph from a SSPX document.
 
Lionel:
Q. 28.
But, in the case proposed, if a person in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?

A.

Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power. (Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.). http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm


 

The discussion is on the 'Feeneyite' posiiton. You say that there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). There are no visible cases. There are no defacto, known cases who would not need the baptism of water in 2014. There are none whom you know.This is a given
 
Then you say that the SSPX does not state that there are exceptions to EENS.In other words the SSPX has not made a mistake.
So I quoted you this passage above  from the SSPX website which criticizes Feeneyism and says that the baptism of desire is an exception. The baptism of desire is an exception? You can see and know any case defacto?
 
You have not commented on this!-
Lionel Andrades
_______________________________________

 

Fr.Nicholas Gruner was extra ecclesiam nulla salus the dogma of the faith which are Lady referred to at Fatima?

Foto: The return of the International Pilgrim Statue to the Capelinha for a short visit during the Month of May 2014.
 
So when the Council of Florence defines that neither Jews nor heretics nor schismatics will enter the Kingdom of God unless they repent of their error before they die, then that is the truth for all time writes Fr.Nicholas Gruner.
However the Council of Florence does not mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
No magisterial document states that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to cases visible and known to us. Not even
Vatican Council II makes this claim.
 
No magisterial document, ordinary or extra ordinary, states that there are visible, known -to- us exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
In our time many Catholics-----priests, bishops and Cardinals, as well as lay persons-----are losing the sense of dogma. They are forgetting that if they do not safeguard their faith sufficiently, so that they culpably deny or even doubt one dogma-----a doctrine of the Catholic faith that has been infallibly taught by Jesus Christ through His Catholic Church-----then they commit a mortal sin. If they do not repent of this sin and make a worthy confession [or an act of Perfect Contrition on their deathbed] then they shall go to Hell for all eternity. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that sins against Faith are among the greatest of sins.
Some people are losing the sense of dogma because they do not sufficiently guard their minds against false ideas, teachings and doctrines which seek to supplant or to suppress, or to undermine their Catholic faith. Others, by never trying to understand or not seeking to know what the real teachings of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church are, do not even recognize that they have bought into the lies of the age which exclude them from accepting the teaching of the Gospel in one or many points. - Fr.Nicholas Gruner
 
Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani committed a mortal sin ? He implied that the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus had changed. He inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was a defacto exception.
 
This was accepted by the Holy Office 1949, Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre etc and no pope made the correction in public.
 
Was this the dogma of the faith which Our Lady of Fatima referred to ?
It has been changed.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/fatima13.htm


July 18, 2014
Fr.Nicholas Gruner and the traditionalists at the Fatima Network are not going to criticize the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) : they too assume the dead are visible

Fr.Nicholas Gruner and the traditionalists at the Fatima Network are not going to criticize the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) : they too assume the dead are visible

Fr.Nicholas Gruner and the traditionalists at the Fatima Network are not going to criticize the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for using an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Since even though Fr.Nicholas Gruner affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus inspired by Scripture, the popes and the Church Councils, he is useing the irrational theology of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani. Theologically, Fr.Gruner  conceives the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as refering the cases objectively visible to us in 2014.Of course when asked he would deny this. He would say  we cannot see the dead.Probably even Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 would say the same thing.He was not aware that when someone says there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus  he is implying that the dead now saved are visible to us.
 
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities known only to God. We accept this in theory, hypothetically, in faith and in principle. We cannot accept these cases as being defacto known personally in the present times.This is a given. There is no way we can know these cases in 2014 .
So when these deceased persons do not exist in our reality how can they be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014?
 
So this is the dual postion held by Fr.Gruner, the SSPX bishops and priests and so many other Catholics. They affirm traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they also reject it with visible for us baptism of desire etc.
They then extend this reasoning to Vatican Council II as does the USCCB. It is assumed there is visible for us being saved with ' a ray of the Truth '(NA 2),seen in the flesh being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3) which are explicit, visible for us exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they reject Vatican Council II.
 
They use the irrational reasoning with reference to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and they accept the Letter issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani.They use the same irrational reasoning with reference to Vatican Council II and they reject the Council.
 
So when the USCCB assumes that the dead-saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to Tradition Fr.Gruner and the traditionalists have nothing to say. -Lionel Andrades

In the following link Fr.Nicholas Gruner is admonished by  W.Paul Doughton for the wrong reasons.Doughton himself assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us in the  present times ( defacto).However is not aware of the inference he is making.

Pange Lingua (Corpus Christi)


Pange Lingua (Corpus Christi)





Adoro Te Devote (by St. Thomas Aquinas)








Tantum Ergo (Mode I, Benecticion, Corpus Christi)


"Another evolutionary biologist rejects the bogus theory of Evolution"

"Another evolutionary biologist rejects the bogus theory of Evolution"

Dean Kenyon, Emeritus Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University recounts the steps that led to his growing doubts and rejection of Evolutionary theory.

Interesting, isn't it.
http://pblosser.blogspot.it/

Evolutionary biologist rejects…..evolution
remurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/evolutionary-biologist-rejects-evolution/
 

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is still no denial from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) of a heretical and  objective error  they make in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

It  was said in a previous post on this blog that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is central to our understanding and interpretation of Vatican Council II.

1.  If it is assumed that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is invisible for us and visible only for God then NA 2, UR 3, LG 8,LG 16 do not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Archbishop Thomas Edward Gullickson understands this.He knows that it is common sense.Deceased people in Heaven cannot be explicit exceptions on earth to all needing faith and baptism to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

2. If it is assumed that these cases are visible for us in real life; we can see the deceased-saved in invincible ignorance in 2014, then Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition in general.This interpretation is irrational and is the one being used by the USCCB and the American bishops.It is common in the dioceses.It's also heretical. Since it changes the meaning of parts of the Nicene Creed.It denies a defined dogma.

So whenever there are references to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the USCCB media,it must be noted, that they are using the irrational interpretation. They assume that the dead-saved in invincible ignorance are physically visible to us and so are exceptions to Tradition. They also contradict Archbishop Gullickson, Catholic priests and lay apologists who interpret Vatican Council II as not being ambigous but traditional.


 

The USCCB  in response to these blog posts has not denied that they are using an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. While traditionalists do not criticize the USCCB  since they are making the same error .They include Robert Sungenis,Roberto de Mattei, Dr.John Rao, Christopher Ferrara, Fr.Nicholas Gruner etc.

 
These traditionalists will affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus based on Scripture and the traditional magisterium only. They will reject extra ecclesiam nulla salus theologically. Since in theology they accept that the Holy Office 1949 inferring that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is based on a false premise that they have created a theology.The new theology has as its basis  an irrationality.The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake which is being repeated by the USCCB and the traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades 


 Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links

Thursday, July 17, 2014
NO DENIAL FROM THE USCCB: IRRATIONALITY BEING USED IN ALL THE U.S DIOCESES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/no-denial-from-usccb-irrationality.html#links
 
July 15, 2014
USCCB Secretariate for Divine Worship statement is heresy

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/usccb-secretariate-for-divine-worship.html#links
 
CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS CONTRADICT USCCB DIVINE WORSHIP SECRETARIATE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/catholic-religious-contradict-usccb.html#links
 
June 21, 2014
Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links

Catholic Religious contradict most Catholic priests and nuns : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-most.html#links

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links