Friday, August 1, 2014

Traditionalists,liberals and sedevacantists have something in common

The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) still assume that the baptism of desire is physically visible to us on earth. For them the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This same error is being made by the traditionalists, liberals and other sedevacantists.
Peter and Michael Dimond cannot name any one in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire. Yet they will consider the baptism of desire as an objective-to-us exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They accept the dogma and reject the baptism of desire ( explicit).
They cannot cite any text in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that the baptism of desire is physically visible to us or that it it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They will reject Vatican Council II since they assume that all salvation mentioned in the Council is ' seen in the flesh'. It would have to be seen in the flesh to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.If something or someone does not exist in our reality it cannot be an exception.Yet it is an exception for so many Catholics.
The same errror is made by the Vatican Curia, the SSPX and the sedevacantists CMRI.The case of the visible to us baptism of desire!This is something they all have in common.
-Lionel Andrades
From the MHFM website: .E-Exchanges
Subject: Catechism of Trent and "Baptism of Desire" update
RE: Your updated version of the section of your Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation book, entitled: The Catechism of Trent and "Baptism of Desire"
First, let me congratulate you on the excellent research that had to have been done to produce such a meticulous and superb presentation. There is so much for one to consider within these (approximately 150) paragraphs. But I wish to say that I appreciate your dignified yet likeable, easy-to-follow manner of refutation, which always makes it a joy, and never a chore, to listen to or to read…
The points you selected from the Catechism as those specified to be taught to the faithful are noteworthy; and its (the Catechism's) repeated references to the Extraordinary Magisterium are also extremely noteworthy. I'm glad you discussed the matter of popes having recommend the Summa even after the Definition of the Immaculate Conception. This is important for the reasons you explained and clarified: it doesn't make the Summa somehow infallible (and how could it be when it contains such errors?). I would like to add that not only does the general approbation of popes not make the Summa infallible, but it also does not make the popes who have given the Summa a general approbation (often accompanied by glowing praises) heretics themselves, as some radical schismatics have falsely asserted; for as you said: "The papacy and the dogmas unerringly define the rule of Catholic faith. The rule of faith is not decided by theologians or fallible books. . . . Men can be mistaken and overlook things in a book, as the facts about the Summa Theologiae prove. . . . God allows errors to be taught by fallible men and in fallible sources because, as Scripture teaches, there must be false doctrines.
1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
You irrefutably proved your case that the arguments used by "baptism of desire" heretics, and others, which they cite from the Catechism of Trent, are "not even part of the official teaching of the Catechism to be passed along to the faithful".
To repeat your words: "If the obstinate proponents of “baptism of desire” believed in God, they would focus on what the Magisterium clearly teaches. They would adhere to what the infallibly-protected proclamations of God’s Church directly proclaim on the matter. . . If they had fidelity to papal teaching, they would then see that the Magisterium has never taught “baptism of desire”, or that anyone can be saved without the Catholic faith, or that anyone can be saved without actual membership in the Church. They would realize that while God protects every inch and paragraph of such proclamations, the same protection is not granted to every paragraph of the teaching of catechisms, theologians, etc. . . . The teachings of the Chair of St. Peter cannot be mistaken, and that protection was not granted to everyone.
My sincere thanks for your massive contributions to the eternal welfare of souls in this time of the Great Apostasy.
Dear Brothers:
How applicable… is that passage from Luke 16: "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither would they believe were one to rise from the dead." Protestants and false Christians like to believe that the sin which damned Dives was his unwillingness to assist a homeless and hungry man sleeping in Dives' driveway when, in fact, Dives could very well have been a philanthropist and pillar of his community from a worldly point of view. Surely there were such individuals then (as now) who were publicly known and esteemed for their largess. But as this important quote makes clear, the sin of Dives and his brothers was the sin against faith. The contrast between Dives and Lazarus was meant to remind the listener that worldly goods will avail nothing, and that the only true Good was the attainment of eternal life. This parable, therefore, was and is a warning not only to the Jews but applies every bit as much to the false traditionalists and other heretics who reject the dogmas of the Catholic Church. The true Popes, under the New Law, are the equivalent of Moses in the Old. For men to disregard God's Authorized Spokesmen was, and is, to reject the very authority of God Himself. In a way, it is even to pretend that God does not exist.
Thus, this parable should be a clear warning to all of how grave the rejection of Catholic dogma actually is. When heretics reject dogma, they are rejecting God, pure and simple. When Core and Dathan, the protestants/heretics of their day, attempted to disregard God's appointed leader and spokesman (preferring to create "doctrines" themselves), the earth opened up and Core and his followers were sucked down into Hell where they are now and will be forever. Long before them, it was the rejection of God's revealed dogmas by members of His first order of creatures which established Hell to begin with. And ultimately, and probably soon, it will be the almost total rejection of God's dogmas by mankind that will bring about the end of the world. It couldn't be simpler. When creatures reject the will and authority of God and refuse to obey Him, the consequences are immense and eternal.
The research/work which MHFM has done to demonstrate the infallible Catholic dogmas… is nothing short of astounding. This soul-saving information is available nowhere else today. Thus, what ingratitude and arrogance people have -- and what frauds they prove themselves to be -- when these so-called "Catholics" and "Christians" dismiss this historic and authentic Catholic scholarship out of hand and obstinately refuse to even examine it. Be assured that… we too daily contemplate (with horror) the breadth of the unpassable chasm between those who will to believe, and those who will not. Thank you MHFM.
Lee Ann
Subject: BOD
Dear MHFM,
Great Catholic teaching on BOD. I hope all Catholics read this material. Scripture teaches us to be holy as our heavenly Father is holy. But if we desire to be holy as the Father is, does that mean we are holy? We have to act and do God's will to be holy in the eyes of God. Being fulfilled in the desire to be holy doesn't cut it… And so it is with the desire for baptism, it doesn't measure up to actually being baptized… Satan disguises himself as the angel of light. BOD is just one of his demonic tricks that many fall into. Thank you for this heavenly work in these wicked times.

None of the two Franciscans of the Immaculate groups will affirm Vatican Council in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Franciscans of the Immaculate will still not affirm Vatican Council II, without the inference of being able to see the dead.None of the two groups will affirm the Council in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Brother Terrance Chartier F.I. writing on the Franciscans of the Immaculate website, with the approval of Fr.Alfonso Bruno, thanks Father Gianfranco Berbenni, OFM Cap, on behalf of the students of theology, for coming from Florence and conducting classes.
He says "If all of us brothers had confidence in the leadership of the Church, many problems would not have occurred." 1
Bro.Terrance Chartier and the new novices now have a new formation approved by 'the leadership of the Church'.
They will reject Tradition and especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they will have to assume that the deceased saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) etc are physically visible to them in Rome.So these deceased become exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.This error was also there in the Franciscans of the Immaculate formation, during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.
In ecclesiology they will be taught that the Church is no more exclusive. There is salvation outside the Church. This error was there in the religious  formation  before this pontificate.
Vatican Council II.
They will be taught that Vatican Council II is a break with the past since all salvation mentioned in the Council is visible to us.This error too was there before this pontificate.
 San Francesco d'Assisi
The Franciscans of the Immaculate will still not  affirm Vatican Council II, without the inference of being able to see the dead.None of the two groups will affirm the Council in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In general both groups assume that there are visible exceptions to the dogma.One uses this reasoning to reject Vatican Council Ii and the other uses the same reasoning and accepts the Council.
 San Massimiliano Kolbe
Vatican Council II without the false inference is in harmony with St.Francis of Assisi and St.Maximilian Kolbe on the subject of exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
During the past pontificate the religious formation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate affirmed traditional Catholic teachings. They rejected the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise.However they were not aware of the premise as being the cause of the hermeneutic of rupture.
Now Bro.Terrance Chartier F.I will have to reject traditional Catholic teaching and affirm Vatican Council II with an irrational premise. This will really be a rejection of the traditional teachings and also Vatican Council II ( inference-free version).
Fr.Alfonso  Bruno, Fr. Alessandro M. Calloni, Fr.Louis M. Maximilian Smith, and  Fr. Martin M. Fonte state 'Furthermore, our solidarity with the figure and work of Father Fidenzio Volpi, Apostolic Commissioner, obliges us to continue collaborating with him more loyal to the achievement of the purposes set out by the Holy See at the time of his appointment, and that is the re-establishment of full adherence to the guidelines set by the Holy Father in the field of ecclesiology, doctrinal, liturgical and administrative staff.

'We are confident that under the paternal leadership of the Apostolic Commissioner  all of these objectives will be achieved and we are confident that with  the illumunation of the Holy Spirit on him and on us all...' 2
 How can the Holy Spirit teach that there are deceased persons now saved in Heaven who are visible-on-earth exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.? How can Vatican Council II be interpreted with this fantasy ? And then attribute this irrationalitiy to the Holy Spirit ?
'adherence to the guidelines set by the Holy Father in the field of ecclesiology, doctrinal, liturgical and administrative staff ' means that the same fantasy theology will be taught to the students and upheld in public ?
How can the leadership of the Church, approved by Pope Francis, which Bro. Terrance mentions, teach this? This has not been part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead on earth. Upon this irrationality a new theology and ecclesiology has been built and it is part of the religious formation of the Franciscan students.
-Lionel Andrades

Francisan Friars of the Immaculate dissidents use phrases like 'being in step with the thinking of the Church' when it means choosing sin and Hell

Sure, this means thinking with the Church and being faithful and obedient to the Vicar of Christ. The extent of damage caused by Roberto de Mattei to our Institute should be now more than obvious, even to those brothers who were encouraged by his support. From this nothing good will come.

This is not an opposition against 'dissidents', or against the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life or the Apostolic Commissioner. AIt is an opposition against Pope Francis. And whoever touches the Pope does not end well. This has been verified repeatedly. I pray that the traditionalists who have been radicalized finally learn the lesson, and I sincerely hope that Roberto de Mattei, and even New Catholic and Francesca Romana at Rorate Caeli, really love what the Church loves and hate what the hates the Church
.-Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I 1
So many of these blog posts over the last few years have been sent to Fr.Angelo Geiger and he has not responded.
Now neither Fr.Angelo Geiger or Fr.Alfonso Bruno have responded when the subject is the Catholic Faith.By now it is clear that the take over of the Franciscans of the Immaculate was ideological and these dissidents are using phrases like 'being in step with the thinking of the Church' and  'obedience to the Vicar of Christ' - even when it means choosing sin and Hell.
There can be only a rational answer to the TWO QUESTIONS and they know it:So they will not answer. They do not want to affirm the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church which is also that of Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7). This dissent they call 'thinking with the mind of the Church' and being 'obedient to the pope'.
They know that if the Franciscans of the Immaculte, the main body, answers these TWO QUESTIONS they will be affirming Vatican Council II and Tradition! Then there would be no excuse to maintain the persecution.Now they can pretend that Vatican Council II is not being accepted.
If the FFI answered the two questions it  would also be a problem for the dissidents who have to accept the ADL version of Vatican Council II .They must  pretend that they ( and we allegedly) can see the dead saved with the baptism of desire and these cases in Heaven are physically visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.These deceased, who are invisible to me, are examples for them, of salvation outside the Church.
This issue is related to other religious communities in Rome and also to diocesan religious.Can they accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus and a Vatican Council II with no explicit exceptions to the dogma? Yes they can!

However the Vatican Curia and the auxiliary bishops do not want this.They do not want to answer the TWO QUESTIONS .They do not want to interpret Vatican Council II rationally.Cardinal George Pell will be offering the Traditional Latin Mass in October using a false ecclesiology based on this irrationality of being able to see the dead.These deceased now saved are are alloged exceptions to 'the old ecclesiocentric ecclesiology'. This would be public heresy in Rome in October for the Juventutem youth.
Here are the TWO QUESTIONS related to Vatican Council II that are being avoided.
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 to us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
I affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted by the Church Councils, the popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston and confirmed in Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).Fr.Angelo Geiger denies this. This is the sin of heresy.He will not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public and considers this thinking with the mind of the Church.( A heretical church?). If you and the others,can deny a defined dogma and interpret the Nicene Creed with an irrationality and then use that same irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechsim of the Catholic Church, why is it important for the Franciscan Friars and Sisters to accept Vatican Council II ? Whether they accept Vatican Council II with or without the irrationality, why is it so important? Especially  when the FFI dissidents and others in the new ideological- left church, have taken so much liberty with the teachings of the Catholic Church and consider it being 'obedient to the pope' etc.?
For me LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), LG 8 (elements of sanctification and truth), UR 3( imperfect communion with the Church),NA 2( a ray of the Truth),AG 11(seeds of the Word) refer to cases invisible for us and visible only for God. I accept an implicit for us baptism of desire and reject an explicit for us baptism of desire.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
For Fr.Angelo Geiger these cases are explict and so Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradtion.This is irrational. It is also the sin of heresy.
Their Seraphic Father, St.Francis of Assisi affirmed the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus just as I do.He referred to heresy, mortal sin and Friars going to Hell.(Little Flowers of St.Francis of Assisi). This teaching is being denied to the Franciscan novices.They have a vocation to the Franciscan life and they are being given new doctrines approved by the Jewish Left.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate can accept Vatican Council II as I do.It is a traditional interpretation. It is a rational one.It is thinking with the mind of Church before and after Vatican Council II according to magisterial texts interpreted without an irrational premise.It is not thinking with the mind of the Church according to the progressivists who claim the dead are visible to them.-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Angelo Geiger and his Franciscans of the Immaculate group cannot accept Vatican Council II ( inference-free) because of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Fr.Angelo Geiger has deleted the questions I asked him on his new blog

March 4, 2014
No response from Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I : SSPX and F.I must continue to reject Vatican Council II with the dead man walking premise

March 3, 2014
Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I can the Franciscans of the Immaculate understand Vatican Council II as I do ?http://eucharistandmission.blo...
Fr.Angelo Geiger will not say that he finds nothing wrong with my interpretation of Vatican Council II. Neither will he say he approves of it and the SSPX and the F.I could use ithttp://eucharistandmission.blo...
Can the SSPX accept Vatican Council II as I do ?http://eucharistandmission.blo...
Certo, e questo significa pensare cum Ecclesia ed essere fedeli ed obbedienti al Vicario di Cristo. L’entità del danno causato da Roberto de Mattei al nostro Istituto dovrebbe essere ormai più che evidente, anche a quei frati che sono stati incoraggiati dal suo supporto. Da ciò non verrà niente di buono.

Questa non è un’opposizione contro ‘alcuni dissidenti’, o contro la Congregazione per gli Istituti di Vita Consacrata e il Commissario Apostolico. E’ un’opposizione contro Papa Francesco. E chi tocca il Papa non finisce bene. Questo è stato verificato reiteratamente. Io prego che i tradizionalisti che sono stati radicalizzati imparino finalmente la lezione, e spero sinceramente che Roberto de Mattei, ed anche New Catholic e Francesca Romana di Rorate Caeli, amino veramente ciò che la Chiesa ama e odino ciò che la Chiesa odia.
L’inganno Cripto-Lefebvriano: un Francescano dell’Immacolata risponde a De Mattei