Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Thinking From a True Premise on Iraq-Ann Barnhardt

 
Imbecile pundits who still can’t get their heads around objective reality are sowing confusion with regards to the overthrow of the government in Iraq.  Let’s state the obvious so that clear, logical, reasoned thinking may follow:
1.  The Obama regime is delighted to see Iraq destabilize because its objective is the reformation of the islamic Caliphate.  Baghdad is now primed to be conquered by ISIS, who are Musloid Brotherhood/Al Qaeda and have been supported and armed by the Obama regime, which is up to its neck in musloid agents.
2.  Additionally, the Obama regime is heavily allied with Turkey, which has as one of its top goals the reconquering of all Kurd territory, and a likely genocide against the Kurds.   Erdogan of Turkey has aspirations to reform the Caliphate as Ottoman-centric, with himself as the Caliph.  He will happily let the ISIS brutes do all of the dirty work in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere and will use them to squeeze the Kurds from the South, and then when ISIS is no longer useful, or excessively dangerous to him, he will slaughter them and declare himself the Caliph of the musloids, enthroned at Istanbul.  I’m sure Obama will be invited to the coronation at the
Hagia Sophia.
3.  Obama the man is a meaningless puppet and always has been.  I don’t know what it is going to take for people to comprehend that the drug-addled, sodomite imbecile is of zero importance to the decision making and strategy being implemented out of the White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom.  Sitting around acting all shocked that he is playing golf on the Vineyard with Valerie Jarrett’s cousin and Ahmad Rashad while World War 3 is fomenting is simply idiotic, especially after we are SIX YEARS into this.  The only real relevance Obama the man now has is, as I have bluntly put it, as an “Expendable Faggot” whose false flag assassination by his handlers would ignite the mother of all Reichstag Fires, and which I fear more and more with each passing day.
4.  The Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America is no longer extant, and hasn’t been for years.   It was overthrown in a cold coup by enemies of the now-dead constitutional republic, and of western civilization in general.  The people now running the government headquartered in Washington are malignant psychopaths who view the idea that was “America” and people who associate themselves with that system as “Americans” to be THE ENEMY.  Everything they have done, are doing, and will do has as its aim the destruction of that system and the subjugation and eventual extermination of the people who associate themselves with it.  They are, in fact, exactly the same as ISIS and the musloid political system:  convert, pay the submission tax as long as we deem you economically harvestable, die.  But by all means, please keep telling yourselves that “if we just pick up a few more congressional seats” and “get a guy Like Ted Cruz (whose wife is a Goldman Sachs executive) in”, everything will be fine.  You bet.  Any why don’t you take up thumb-sucking and hair twirling too, while you’re at it, because that will actually be a better use of your time than soaking in a tepid, sulfuric pool of of your own cowardice and self-delusion.
 http://www.barnhardt.biz/
 
Islamic State supporters give out leaflets in London hailing the caliphate
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/islamic-state-supporters-give-out-leaflets-in-london-hailing-the-caliphate

Dialogue with the MHFM comes to a stop again

On May 17,2014 I wrote to the Most Holy Family Monastery on my blog the following: _______________________________
 
You(MHFM) write on your website: It’s that in addition to the dogmatic arguments (and the key question) which destroy ‘baptism of desire’, it’s important not to forget about the teaching of papal encyclicals to the entire Church in the modern period.They are thoroughly and completely on our side. (Lionel: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus) I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I repeat: They do not claim that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so is relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. _________________________________
That was the end of the dialogue with the MHFM in May 2014.They never responded.Perhaps they did not understand what I am saying. Since for years they have been looking at the baptism of desire issue theologically. They were unaware of the error on which this theology was built.The premise of the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston in 1949 was wrong. They assumed there was salvation outside the Church. They assumed that the baptism of desire was visible to us. This is the same error being made by the MHFM. Of course the MHFM could not cite any of the saints saying that the baptism of desire is visible. They just left it at that.They could not admit they were wrong all these years. Once again they have ended the dialogue. They do not have an answer. Here is my last e-mail to them, the other day, hoping they would see and admit that they were irrational all these years.No answer from them. They will continue to write about the baptism of desire on their websites and not refer to this point.
_________________________________
 
For the MHM from Lionel
 
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions',says the American apologist John Martigioni. He agrees with me .He says that the baptism of desire is not physically visible. How do you deal with this? He is saying that the baptism of desire is not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How would you respond? He is not talking theology. He is saying that with our physical eyes we cannot see any baptism of desire case? It's as simple as that. So how can the baptism of desire be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation? How can there be an exception when you do not know and cannot know any exception? On my blog I have quoted John Martigioni in detail. So when will you respond to this point on the baptism of desire? There are Catholic priests in Rome who repeat the same thing on the baptism of desire.I have written about it on my blog.(See Catholic priests in the right hand bar).They say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades
 
Dialogue with the MHFM 2
 
August 10, 2014

There can be a Vatican Council II according to a leftist or 'right wing' ideology : it depends upon the premise

There can be a Vatican Council II according to a leftist ideology or a 'right wing' ideology.The leftist interpretation makes the Council 'ambigous'.The traditional interpretation makes Vatican Council II pro- extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The leftist interpretation uses the dead-are-visible-exceptions premise.The traditional interpretation does not use this irrational premise. The traditional interpretation would be called right wing extremism by the leftists.It would simply be Catholic for the opponents of the Left. The irony is that the progressivists and traditionalists are using the leftist interpretation of Vatican Council II. Sedevacantists and traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II using the dead man walking and visible premise.They infer that those non Catholics who are now dead and saved without the baptism of water, are visible in the flesh, exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with faith and baptism.(AG 7). So there is known salvation outside the Church for non Catholics according to the leftist version.They are referring to deceased non Catholics who are visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water, in the present times for salvation.The deceased are visible! They are examples of known salvation outside the Church?!
So LG 16, NA 2,UR 3,LG 8 etc refer to the deceased now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water. Vatican Council II becomes a break with Tradition. This is the 'leftist' interpretation of Vatican Council II held by the sedevacantists CMRI and MHFM and the traditionalists SSPX,FFSP etc.They criticize a Vatican Council II with the false premise .They are not aware of the false premise nor of the alternative. If they avoided the false premise (dead are visible exceptions) then Vatican Council II would be right wing ideology.
So there is a simple option available for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Society of St.Pius X. They can affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise.Vatican Council II would be traditional on other religions and ecumenism.It would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Vatican Council II is not controversial.It is the use of the irrational premise ( i.e there is salvation outside the Catholic Church) which makes it controversial.It is ambigous for Michael Voris, Louie Verrechio, Robert Sungenis and others since they use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.They are not aware of the alternative. -Lionel Andrades