Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Islamic terrorism is another strand of the Communist revolution ?- Cornelia Ferrara

Today we see American support for the Islamists in Syria and Iraq.Here is a talk given last year by Cornelia Ferrara. She explains how the Freemasons and Illuminati representing Satan, are creating disorder and revolt all over the world in different forms.She also refers to the Arab Spring revolution.
The Masonic phenomenon is also there  in the Catholic Church she observes, giving examples.She sees the emergence of a false church in the Catholic Church predicted  by Catherine Anne Emmerich and Fulton Sheen.-L.A









Sign Petition to cancel upcoming Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Sign Petition to cancel upcoming Extraordinary Synod on the Family   
August 26, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo 
 
Over at The Remnant Newspaper’s website, Christopher Ferrara has a loooooong article about the upcoming Synod and all the many, many reasons faithful/traditional Catholics might want to oppose it. Some of the reasons are mere annoyances or doubts caused by TFG’s behavior, while many others are quite detailed and deserve serious consideration. Because the post is so long and detailed, it’s a bit difficult to excerpt, but here’s a couple of extracts (my emphasis and comments):
First they came for the Roman Rite, which they destroyed. Then they came for the Church Militant, which they disarmed and surrendered to the spirit of the age. Now, at the Synod, which threatens to become Vatican II rebooted, progressivist bishops and their apparatchiks will be coming for the moral law itself under the guise of a search for “pastoral solutions” to “challenges facing the family” [This is a point Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt have argued extensively in other settings. Suffice it to say, the argument, I believe, proves beyond a doubt there is certainly a large segment of the hierarchy that does seem set on that last bit, which is the unwinding of the Church's entire moral law, or whatever remains after 50 years of concerted assault. I will say that Cardinal Kasper and his greatest ally have been almost diabolically wise in their choice of point of attack, because if one undoes the current belief surrounding marriage as one time union of man and wife resulting in a radically new and different union that simply can't be undone, while simultaneously turning the Blessed Sacrament, the reception of God in the Flesh Himself, into something to which every person has a positive right, irrespective of their sinfulness......if you do these two things, the entire moral Doctrine of the Faith can be completely unwound and destroyed, along with much of the remaining positive theology in other areas. The Church would be left a totally prostate liberal protestant sect, about on the par with the episcopalians. And look at how well they're doing, with their average congregation size of, I kid not, 67 souls]
But the proposal to find “solutions for remarried divorcees” is only part of the looming threat posed by the Synod—a Synod for which there is no more actual need than there was for the disastrous Second Vatican Council itself. The entire Synod project smacks of an effort to determine Church practice on the basis of what people who reject Church teaching would like to see. In that regard, the Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris(working document) refers to the earlier “Preparatory Document” containing a survey filled with loaded questions which give the impression that Church teaching is a matter for debate and discussion at the “pastoral” level. While the questionnaire was directed solely to the bishops, many bishops promptly distributed it widely or posted it on diocesan websites to obtain “input” from any priests and members of the laity who wished to speak for “the People of God.” The result, quite predictably, was that a questionnaire intended for the bishops became an opinion poll generating what the Instrumentum Laboris calls “significant reflection among the People of God” regarding “new demands of the People of God.” Demands! [So, after 50 years of catering to the absolute lowest common denominator in the Church, from aggrieved liberals to apostate priests, how has that worked out? Has the Church, through this debasing of Herself, at least attracted scads of liberal converts and reverts into the fold? Absolutely not. In fact, it is the liberals who have left, or stayed gone, in the greatest numbers. Because liberalism/leftism is a competing religion in its own right, one our secular friends much prefer to any worldly version leftists in the Church can trot out]
It seems, however, that “the People of God” have a problem with the Law of God. Half a century after the imaginary “renewal of Vatican II” supposedly began, the Instrumentum admits: “[t]he People of God’s knowledge of conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the Magisterium of the family seems to be rather wanting,” that “many Christians, for various reasons, are found to be unaware of the very existence of this teaching,” and that “even when the Church’s teaching about marriage and the family is known, many Christians have difficulty accepting it in its entirety.”[Ha! That's a mild understatement! How about stating the Truth, which is that a whole great swath of people are deeply mired in sin, and don't want to be reminded of that fact, so they demand the Church change Her beliefs in order to assuage their own consciences. It still won't work, because God is God and sin will remain sin - all that will happen is the continued destruction of the Church and condemnation of millions of souls] It is of course inconceivable to the ideologues of Vatican II that what the Instrumentum describes is a catastrophic failure of the attempt to “update” Church teaching by restating it in more accessible language. Yet the very title of the document, “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization,” is an implied admission that fifty years after the Council it islapsed Catholics who must be evangelized because they are more or less apostates, producing the “silent apostasy” John Paul II lamented. Instead of admitting the Council’s utter failure to “renew” the Faith, however, the drafters of the Instrumentum—one can only laugh at the suggestion—call for yet another “updating” of Church teaching…..[Well, of course. As I’ve said recently, the post-conciliar Church represents a competing religion, the religion of secular leftism, trying to exist within the Church. That is impossible, which is why these “spirit of…..” types are irrepressibly hostile to the traditional practice of the Faith. And as Ferrara notes, they are dogmatic ideologues, so they are completely closed to any contradictory evidence – they are literally blind to the destruction their project to redefine the Church has caused. Or, they secretly see it as a feature, and not a bug. Either way, they press ahead with one “new evangelization” and “new catechesis” project after another, only to see Church attendance, donation, vocation, and other indicators slip, yet again. And then we’ll have another “new” program, more slip, etc., ad infinitum, until……..? But I will say this Synod represents one of the gravest threats to any possibility of true restoration in the Church in the past few decades. And it won’t take a formal “change” to Doctrine, Doctrine can be obliterated in practical terms by secular pastoral approaches
So I almost put a question mark at the end of the lede, because while I fear this upcoming Synod (while retaining confident hope of a miracle), I don’t think a petition is going to accomplish very much – especially one with only 1000 signatures. It would take 1000 times that many to attract any serious attention. But, in conscience, I thought I would go on the record as putting forth my wish that it be stopped. I am very concerned that even some subtle “pastoral” changes that seem innocuous at first could have enormous repercussions that are impossible to discern in advance. Certainly we’ve seen that with regard to many pastoral “advances” made in the past 50 years.
You can sign the petition at the bottom of the Remnant link. Whether you sign or not, prayer is an even better response.

Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam like the SSPX uses modernism in the interpretation of magisterial documents ?

Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has written on modernism with reference to Pope  Pius X.
Boniface  after so many years, still finds it difficult to address a modernistic interpretation of the Catechism of  Pope Pius X and also that of Vatican Council II made by him and the Society of St.Pius X.

I sent him this is post on the irrationality in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and he ignored it.

 
He is using modernism, as is the SSPX and the sedevacantists in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and also Vatican Council II.
 
In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q is not contradicted by 29 Q unless you assume that those who have received implicit desire (baptism of desire) are explicit for us and Boniface and the SSPX and the sedevantists CMRI,MHFM do just this!
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905
 
 
Boniface recently posted an article on Vatican Council IIand how it was a rupture with the past according to some of the Council Fathers. I  sent him an e-mail showing how it was the use of the false premise which made Vatican Council II a break with the past.This is the same error made in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X. Perhaps he is still studying that post- or, still does not know what I am saying.
-Lionel Andrades

If that line in the Catechism is not wrong, then the only way I can explain it, is as saying God will send those persons who are there without the baptism of water back to earth to be baptised

God having taught for centuries that no one can go to Heaven except with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, now makes a U-turn?
 
George:
Once again as you did numerous times on the No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church forum you ignore the point that I was making that no one can tell God what he will do in regards to how he handles personal judgement and Salvation.

Lionel:
Look at it from another angle. You cannot tell God ( you cannot judge) that God having taught for centuries that no one can go to Heaven except with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, now makes a U-turn ?.

God 'handles personal judgement and salvation' and through the Catholic Church he tells us how he will judge.
George:
When you make a defacto statement that..."If any one is saved without the baptism of water ( with the baptism of desire etc) then God will send him back to earth to be baptized with water"

Lionel:
I am making this in the context of
1) The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible to us and so are irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.It is possible for a person to be saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance.This is accepted hypothetically and not as a defacto, known reality.It can only be theoretical.It can never be objective.It is objective only to God.

3.Since the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments, it is referring to a theoretical, hypothetical case. In the sense, God being God he can do anything.
 VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. -Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257

CCC 1257 is not referring to a defacto case. If it was referring to a defacto case it would contradict itself.Since CCC 1257 also says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.So this reference to God not being limited to the Sacraments is de jure  and not defacto.
However then the issue is even if it is de jure( in principle, in theory, in faith) it would still contradict the dogmatic teaching in principle.

So if that line in the Catechism is not wrong, then the only way I can explain it, is as saying God will send these persons who are there without the baptism of water and who are not going to Hell- back to earth to be baptised.
At least this is what the saints experienced and this is not a personal opinion.

-Lionel Andrades

 



 

Either way, with or without the Sacraments the person would not be alive on earth, and so would not be an exception to all needing the baptism of water

In general God is bound to the Sacraments.This is the traditional de fide teaching.
 

George Brenner:
Sorry, Lionel but you are confusing to subjects:

1. Teaching the faith that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church and all must be Baptized in which we agree.

Lionel:
Yes all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and there are no exeptions. There are no known exceptions. De facto we do not know any exceptions.

The Church here is telling us that God is bound by the Sacraments.Without the baptism of water one cannot go to Heaven.

George Brenner:
...judgement by God of an individual after death to which we are not privy and you should not comment.

Lionel:
God will send most people to Hell since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
This is the teaching of the Bible (John 3:5.Mk.16:16)and the Magisterium in agreement with Tradition.
The Church here is telling us that God is bound to the Sacraments.Without the baptism of water one cannot go to Heaven.

It is not a personal judgement.




George Brenner:
God would send a person back to earth to be baptized. That is for God and God alone to determine. God himself could baptize , an angel could baptize etc etc etc beyond the pale of our puny brains.

Lionel:
In general every one needs the baptism of water. However there could be a soul saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water.
The person dies without the baptism of water but is not sent to Hell like the others. Instead he is sent back to earth only to be baptised.This is mentioned by St.Francis Xavier and the saints.

Then suppose there is a person in invincible ignorance.He could die not knowing the Gospel through no fault of his owm. God would send a preacher to instruct him and baptize him before he goes to Heaven.This was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. So there are only Catholics in Heaven. They are all there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

George Brenner:

Stick with the script. You have blown your whole thesis out of the water. You post every day that we cannot see the dead and yet you can see God sending a soul back to earth to be baptized.

Lionel:
We cannot see the dead of course. This includes those who are saved with the baptism of water and return to receive the baptism of water.This is a hypothetical case.
Since we cannot see the dead saved with the baptism of desire or blood these cases are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are irrelevant since they are in Heaven and visible to no one in the present times.

George Brenner:

Sheer nonsense and dangerous usurping of the will of God in matters we can not see.

Lionel:
We cannot see the dead of course.So there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is a theological point.Is the the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water or without it ?.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says that God is not bound to the Sacraments.

In general God is bound to the Sacraments.This is the traditional de fide teaching.
When the Catechism says God is not bound to the Sacraments perhaps it refers to a hypothetical case, known only to God. This could be a person who dies without receiving the Sacraments and is sent back to earth for the baptism of water.

Similarly a person could die in invincible ignorance and God may choose to judge that person as not having to go to Hell. He could be sent back to be instructed and baptised with water.

Either way, with or without the Sacraments the person would not be alive on earth, and so would not be an exception to all needing the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
-Lionel Andrades


If any one is saved without the baptism of water ( with the baptism of desire etc) then God will send him back to earth to be baptized with water.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/if-any-one-is-saved-without-baptism-of.html#links