Sunday, October 11, 2015

When will Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB make an announcement on the Franciscans of the Immaculate doctrinal issue ?

Immagine correlata
Immagine correlata
No doctrinal decision has been made by Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB, the Commissar of the suppressed Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) whose priests want to offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the old ecclesiology.

BALTIMORE CATECHISM(1808)
Many now know that doctrinal confusion has come into the Catholic Church with the Baltimore Catechism(1808) which says there are three baptisms, water, desire and blood. It suggests that the baptism of desire(BOD)  and blood(BOB) are baptisms like the baptism of water, and has the same effect of removing Original Sin and restoring Sanctifying Grace.This is how it is generally interpreted by the contemporary Magisterium .
We now know that the BOD and BOB cannot be administered like the baptism of water. It cannot be repeated like the baptism of water. It cannot be known in particular cases.There is not a single personally known case past, present or future. This is knowledge held only by God.Physically we humans cannot see or know people in Heaven.
The BOD and BOB do not exist in our reality and is a theoretical subject while the baptism of water is concrete, known and visible.
However the baptism of desire and blood were placed in the Baltimore Catechism in the Section on the necessity of baptism.
This was also repeated in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Immagine correlata
So it was inferred by Catholics that the BOD and BOB were explicit  and excluded the baptism of water.They became exceptions to all needing water-baptism for salvation.
It was inferred that these cases were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON 1949
This inference became concrete in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.BOD, BOB and  being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were considered exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This was an error since there were no known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in 1949 or before and no magisterial document before 1808 suggested that there were such cases known and so they were exceptions to EENS.
This was an error of observation, it was a factual error ( being able to see salvation outside the Church) and it was magisterial in 1949.
Immagine correlata
The contemporary Magisterium considered invisible cases to be visible, something which was hypothetical with or without the baptism of water, as being concrete, known and tangible in personal cases on earth.
Invisible cases had become explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS for the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949 and the years which followed, upto today.
Zero  cases were considered exceptions to the dogma EENS, this was a doctrinal change in the Catholic Church.
Reality showed that BOD and BOB had no connection to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology based on EENS.
Also the baptismal grace which comes with the baptism of water cannot be given by the Church with the BOD and BOB, they are gifts of God and they are known only to Him.
They do not exist for us, as a baptism, equal to the baptism of water.
I can meet someone on the streets who will receive the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and I know he will be saved if he dies immediately after being baptised with water.I cannot meet someone saved or about to be saved with BOD or BOB.If they existed they would only be known to God and these cases could be followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Immagine correlata
So even though BOD and BOB had no link to all needing the baptism of water for salvation, it was placed in Vatican Council II with passages which said all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).Again it was inferred that these cases were like the baptism of water, and were exceptions, to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.So AG 7 and LG 14 contradict itself with known BOD and BOB. AG 7 and LG 14 also contradict LG 16's being saved with explicit invincible ignorance.This would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

MAGISTERIAL HERESY
Until today, for the Vatican Curia, the present Magisterium, Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) refers to being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water and so is an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS and the old ecclesiology based on EENS.So explicit LG 16 becomes a break with the past and Vatican Council II is accepted with this irrational reasoning by the contemporary Magisterium and rejected by the traditionalists and sedevacantists.
All this is according to the reasoning of the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
This is how Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB and the later Fr. Volpi, commissars of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, would interpret Vatican Council II.
For them LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 would refer to explicit cases, saved without the baptism of water but with the effect of the baptism of water, and so they would be exceptions to the dogma EENS and the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
So the old ecclesiology is rejected allegedly with Vatican Council II and this is also accepted by many priests, sisters and brothers in the F.I community founded by Fr. Stefano Mannelli F.I.
Now that we have identified the cause of the doctrinal change in the Catholic Church we can avoid it.
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted by all without ambiguity and in accord with the old ecclesiology.
The Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass can be offered with the old ecclesiology .Ecclesiology does not depend on the liturgy but on avoiding the irrational premise i.e LG 16, LG 8 etc would not refer to visible for us cases.

MISSING LINK
We have found the missing link.LG 16 can be considered explicit or implicit, visible or invisble. It is irrational to consider LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to explicit cases.This is not common sense.It is rational instead to consider them as implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us.
So if the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests, who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass, affirm LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible for us, there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology, usually associated with the Latin Mass.There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of EENS. So they would be affirming Vatican Council II ( as sought by the Commissar) and also the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
 It's as simple as that!
So the old doctrinal option, rejected by the contemporary Magisterium because of the Magisterial heresy,is available again for them, when they reason out correctly.The ecclesiology does not depend on the Latin Mass.
So Fr. Sabino Ardito must explain his position on this issue.It was avoided by Fr. Volpi and the Secretary General of the F.I.
Will they permit all the priests of the F.I  to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible and not visible,hypothetical and not concrete, unknown to us and known only to God ?
Immagine correlata
Could these hypothetical cases be followed by the baptism of water in the Catholic Church since this is the dogmatic teaching  and also the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) ?
This is a doctrinal issue. It has to be decided upon by Fr. Ardito and his superiors.
How does he and Cardinal Braz de Avez interpret Vatican Council II ? Is it obligatory to consider LG 16 as being explicit for us in real life, when we cannot see or know any such case?
It seems Pope Francis and the political Left do not want the Traditional Latin Mass because of the old ecclesiology.They do not want Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism( no exceptions). They are willing to accept the Traditional Latin Mass being offered by the FSSP priests and others who like the popes, accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism( there are exceptions to EENS).
So now we know that the Traditional Latin Mass in itself is no  more an issue.

ONLY ONE RATIONAL OPTION 
Since even the priests of the F.I who offer the Novus Ordo Mass  have only one rational option in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and it is in harmony with the old ecclesiology.
So when is Fr. Ardito going to make an announcement on this issue?
Presently there is doctrinal ambiguity in the community and they are using a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past, and acceptable to the contemporary Magisterium.
-Lionel Andrades


Franciscans of the Immaculate Commissioner and Superiors Meeting : doctrine is not on the agenda http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/09/franciscans-of-immaculate-commissioner.html
An injustice was done to Fr.Settimo Mannelli F.I
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/09/an-injustice-was-done-to-frsettimo.html
Why does the Commissar want Fr.Settimo Manelli F.I and Franciscans of the Immaculate to violate common sense and fundamental premises held by man ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/09/why-does-commissar-want-frsettimo.html

This is the ecclesiology of the new Salesian Commissar of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, Fr.Sabino Arditio http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/this-is-ecclesiology-of-new-salesian.html

July 31, 2014     Comitato dell'Immacolata ask for a clarification

Until Fr.Ardito resolves this explicit-implicit confusion, which is the basis of the new ecclesiology, the FFI priests , can ask to offer only the TLM with the old ecclesiology http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/the-salesian-commissar-of-franciscans.html





When will Pope Francis allow the Traditional Latin Mass at the Franciscans of the Immaculate churches in Rome?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/when-will-pope-francis-allow.html



FFI priests ask Cardinal Robert Sarah if A is in conflict with B for him http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/ffi-priests-ask-cardinal-robert-sarah.html

zzgeiger
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/no-response-from-frangelo-geiger-fi.html#links