Friday, December 5, 2014

Why cannot you say that the SSPX made a doctrinal mistake ?



Indignus famulus” “Every separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological HERESY in principle. …there can be no truth without life and no life without truth.
=========
CraigW:
Would you say the SSPX is wrong here ? A theoretical possibility ( baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) is considered a defacto exception to the dogma EENS.The SSPX USA is following the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htmhttp://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
Craig in theory has accepted that there are no exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation and there are no Church documents before 1949 which say that these cases are known to us or are explicit exceptions to Tradition.No Church document! So in ‘practice’ why does he not say that the SSPX has made a factual error in the two links above ?
Cardinal Muller calls this heresy.

I ask Lynda, can you quote any pope or saint before 1949 who said that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ?
No answer. Why does she not say that she does not know of any case and there is no such case before ?
Instead she will in’ practise’ support the SSPX error.
Cardinal Muller calls this the separation ….

Why does Quo Vadis Petre not admit that the doctrine of the baptism of desire refers to a hypothetical case ? Is this too difficult?
Would he then have to say that the SSPX made an error ? And of course he does not want to ? Another case of separation of… by Catholics who do not use their real name to proclaim the faith.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/dialogue/#comment-27458

Sedevacantists and traditionalists are making the same doctrinal heresy as Rome.

Janet:
God Bless your efforts! However your arrows are wasted on nonbelievers. Aim them where they belong in ROME against the Seat of the Anti-Christ.
Lionel:
Sedevacantists and traditionalists are making the same doctrinal heresy as Rome.
 
Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria are refusing to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/pope-francis-cardinal-muller-and.html
Is not implying that the dead now in Heaven are explicit exceptions on earth to Tradition, 'defective' for Una Voce ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/is-not-implying-that-dead-now-in-heaven.html

Ecclesia Dei, SSPX and the Latin Mass Society interpret Vatican Council II with the same irrationality as the two bishops
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/ecclesia-dei-sspx-and-latin-mass.html

If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference, then it is a doctrinal issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/if-bishops-of-argentine-and-albano.html#links
 
The SSPX must respond to Bishop Semeraro by citing Catholic doctrine on Vatican Council II which supports their position
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-sspx-must-respond-to-bishop.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/another-bishop-excommunicates-faithful.html
-Lionel Andrades
 

Dichiarazione comune delle religioni firmata in Vaticano

martedì 2 dicembre 2014

Dichiarazione comune delle religioni firmata in Vaticano

Tappa decisiva dell'ONU delle Religioni. Fatti autoritari
sganciati dai nostri Fondamenti. La prassi cambierà il mondo
Alcuni passaggi, di mons. Antonio Livi, dalla Introduzione a La sinagoga bendata di E.M. Radaelli, (da incorniciare anche il resto) [qui].
Per accompagnare un'immagine, relativa ad un evento, tra i molti che ci stanno sommergendo a ritmi incalzanti ormai si direbbe irrefrenabili: una dichiarazione comune delle religioni firmata in Vaticano. Della serie: «Questa e quella per me pari sono». Riguarda la schiavitù: impegno sacrosanto. Ma chi ricorda al mondo che la vera schiavitù è quella del peccato e che solo Cristo Signore è colui che salva ed è solo da questo e non dalle volontà umane che tutte le schiavitù possono essere eliminate? Siamo costretti a segnalare e rimarcare queste tappe inquietanti, che non posso pensare restino senza effetti nel mondo ecclesiale, ma soprattutto nella sfera spirituale e dunque nel mondo intero. Se non fosse che conosco tanti sacerdoti sconvolti quanto noi e parrocchie in cui nonostante le difficoltà la lampada della Fede continua ad ardere, mi sentirei sperduta. E mi risuona nel cuore la Voce e la Parola inconfondibile: «Sono con voi tutti i giorni fino alla fine dei tempi».
[...] Il pragmatismo – ben chiaramente teorizzato da gran parte della filosofia contemporanea, e inconsapevolmente recepito da tutti gli altri ambiti della cultura, non esclusa quella cattolica – ha sepolto progressivamente la coscienza del primato che la verità ha in ogni momento e in ogni aspetto della vita umana.
[...] Partendo dalla premessa (falsa) che di per sé ogni religione, se ritenuta vera, produce intolleranza, fanatismo e conflitti, si insiste nel costringere le confessioni religiose negli angusti e innaturali spazi di un “minimo comun denominatore”, che (guarda caso) coincide con il Dio del deismo settecentesco, quello che è invocato dalla Massoneria a garanzia di un ordine politico nel quale la religione non deve avere alcuna influenza pratica.
[...] E ai nostri giorni l’operazione politica dell’ideologia pacifista ha buon gioco nel suo progetto di omologare a sé anche la cultura teologica, perché l’indifferentismo e il relativismo dogmatico sono già penetrati in ampi settori dell’opinione pubblica cristiana, anche tra i cattolici, tanto che la Chiesa ha dovuto intervenire (senza molto successo, purtroppo, almeno per ora) con il documento chiarificatore intitolato Dominus Iesus.
L'efficacia non c'è stata né "per ora" né tanto meno poi... La tradizione storicista ormai rende obsoleto anche questo.
 
http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.it/
http://www.enricomariaradaelli.it/aureadomus/convivium/convivium_sinagoga_introduzione1.html
 

Asserendo che non vi potesse essere una vera attività politica che non passasse attraverso il culto della Regalità sociale di Gesù Eucaristico

Re EucaristiaUn talentuoso teologo e filosofo tomista, monsignor Andrea Cappellazzi, all’inizio del secolo scorso scrisse un bel trattato sugli aspetti sociali e politici del culto eucaristico, asserendo che non vi potesse essere una vera attività politica che non passasse attraverso il culto della Regalità sociale di Gesù Eucaristico. Verità sostanziali, certo scomodissime e lontane dal sentire di oggi ma sostanziali. Ecco perché in fondo la Santa Messa (di San Pio V, giova ribadirlo) è il vertice di ogni agire sociale, è e deve essere l’Alpha e l’Omega di ogni azione politica, ecco perchè è il centro della Civiltà. Ora se questo centro si oscura QUASI ovunque per molti decenni e poi riappare più o meno marginalmente, coperto dai cascami dell’estetismo, del ritualismo o della banalizzazione ideologica, oppure separato dal Corpo dottrinale bi-millenario del Depositum Fidei , è come un capo mozzato e non bastano le ciprie ed i belletti di sontuose liturgie a renderlo meno orribile e più “vivo”. A voi, cari lettori, le debite conclusioni e gli ulteriori approfondimenti.
 

This is a rejection of the Syllabus of Errors, the Social Doctrine of Christ the King and extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditionalists and sedevacantists have noticed nothing.

The Society of St.Pius (SSPX) and the Vatican are making an objective errror. This can be seen clearly in CCC 1257 against which the SSPX has never protested.
Janet:
You can never negotiate with the devil! I guess history is proving that right as we see the Society of Saint Pius X negotiating with the devil for alleged unity
Rome has a heretic on the throne of Peter, and we as Catholics should unite and demand our Church BACK.
Lionel:
The Society of St.Pius (SSPX) and the Vatican are making an objective errror. This can be seen clearly in CCC 1257 against which the SSPX has never protested.
See it here:
Here it says all need the baptism of water for salvation in the present times.
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...'
Then it says that for some, in the present times, baptism is not necessary for salvation i.e those who are in ignorance. (Note :the baptism of water can only be given in the present times. So we are not referring to a hypothetical case here)
 'for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.'
Then once again it says that the baptism of water is defacto necessary. This would mean every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water.
'The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude'
Then it refers to some who do not need the baptism of water defacto. They are those who do not have the means of being baptised. In other words we defacto know where the necessity of means and precept can be applied. This is not just the prerogative of Jesus to judge. Seemingly even we can judge.
'that all who can be baptized '
Then comes the cream of the double speak and assuming hypothethical cases are defacto visible to us in the present times.
'God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.'
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism in the present times but every one does not need the Sacrament of baptism in the present times.
Apparently Cardinal Ratzinger personally knew of a defacto exception, a person who would be going to Heaven without the baptism of water.This line is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Here is the complete text of CCC 1257.
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.
This is a rejection of the Syllabus of Errors, the Social Doctrine of Christ the King and extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditionalists and sedevacantists have noticed nothing.
-Lionel Andrades


 

Whatever be your understanding of Feeneyism objectively you do not know any exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014

 

QuoVadisPetre:
Lionel, rather than hear all your irrelevant discussion, obfuscation, etc. concerning BOD (like visible cases, etc.), show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD, other than Fr. Feeney. Of course, I’ll be waiting forever, since you will find none, but your answer will prove interesting and illuminating.
 
  • Quo Vadis Petre:
    Lionel, rather than hear all your irrelevant discussion, obfuscation, etc. concerning BOD (like visible cases, etc.), show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD,
Lionel:

I am affirming the baptism of desire. I am saying it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
I am also saying that it refers to a hypothetical case. It does not refer to someone personally known to us in 2014.
So for me these cases are invisible.
Invisible cases cannot be defacto, objective, seen- in- the- flesh- downtown exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith in 2014 for salvation.
So like Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes and Church Councils I affirm the dogma and do not claim that there are any known exceptions.

____________________________________________

Quo Vadis Petre:
show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD, other than Fr. Feeney.
Lionel:
I do not speak for the liberal theologians or for Fr.Leonard Feeney’s community in the USA. I speak for myself.
The Council of Trent has not said that the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) is visible to us in the present times or that it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I agree with the Council of Trent.
I repeat : I do not deny implicit for us baptism of desire. I reject explicit for us baptism of desire, which is an irrational concept that originated in 1949 and is known to me as Cushingism.

_____________________________________________

Lionel:
Why don’t you just agree with me and say it clearly 1) before 1949 you cannot cite any one saying the baptism of desire is visible to us or 2) that the baptism of desire is an explict exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Why don’t you agree with me and say that you personally do not know any one in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ? This is common sense and not theology.
Whatever be your understanding of Feeneyism and what ever be the theology you have accepted, objectively you do not know any exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
_________________________________

Quo Vadis Petre:
other than Fr. Feeney. Of course, I’ll be waiting forever, since you will find none, but your answer will prove interesting and illuminating.

Lionel:
There are more links at this post.There are statements from priests and the apologist John Martigioni.
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/archbishop-thomas-egullickson.html#links

-Lionel Andrades


Cardinal Müller: Separation of Theory and Praxis Would be a Heresy

A SUBTLE CHRISTOLOGICAL HERESY
Cardinal Müller: Separation of Theory and Praxis Would be a Heresy

Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith in the "Osservatore Romano"said that ny separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle ".

Vatican City (kath.net/KAP) The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reiterating that there should be no gap between teaching and pastoral care in the Catholic Church. "Every separation of theory and practice of the faith would be the manifestation of a subtle Christological heresy in principle," Mueller said in a speech, which was published by the Vatican newspaper "L'Osservatore Romano" on Tuesday. This would "obscure" the dynamics of the Incarnation, which is part of any "healthy theology", said Mueller. Christ had said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. Therefore, there can be no truth without life and no life without truth.

The occasion was the opening of the General Assembly of the International Theological Commission of the Vatican on Monday. Müller is the President of the Advisory Board of the CDF. Cardinal Müller had said several times in the the Synod of Bishops on the family, that there can be no change in the Church's practice in relation to the divorced and remarried, because thereby the indissolubility of marriage will be questioned. Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the CDF: Statements Synod of Bishops publish (engl.) Copyright 2014 Catholic News Agency, Vienna, Austria All rights reserved. Photo Cardinal Müller (c) Diocese of Regensburg
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.it/ 
 http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2014/12/cardinal-muller-separation-of-theory.html