Monday, October 12, 2015

Humility of Heart 21

Traditional Catholic Priest

BY FR. PETER CAROTA

Humility Of Heart Part 21

85. Humility of heart, St. Thomas teaches, has no limit, because before God we can always abase ourselves more and more even unto utter nothingness, and we can do the same to our fellow men. but in the exercise of these exterior acts of humility it is necessary to be directed with discretion so as not to fall into an extravagance that might seem excessive. “Humility,” says St. Thomas, “lies chiefly in the soul, and therefore a man may submit himself to another as regards his interior acts, and this is what St. Augustine means when he says: “Before God a prelate is placed under your feet but in exterior acts of humility it is necessary to observe due restraint.” [2a 2æ, qu. clxi, art. 3 ad 3]
Profound humility should exist in every state of life, but exterior acts of humility are not expedient to all. For this reason Holy Writ says: “Beware that thou be not deceived into folly and be humbled.” [Ecclus xiii, 10]
We can learn of the pious Esther how to practice humility of heart in the midst of pomp and honours: “Thou knowest my necessity,” she cried to God, “that 1 abominate the sign of my pride.” [Esther xiv, 16] I attire myself in this rich apparel and with these jewels because my position demands it; but Thou, Lord, seest my heart that through Thy grace I am not attached to these things nor to this apparel, and that I only wear them of necessity. Here indeed is a great example of that true inward humility which can be practiced and felt amid external grandeur. But now we. come to the point. This humility of heart must really exist before God, whose eyes behold the most hidden motions of the heart; and if it does not exist what excuse can we allege before the tribunal of God to justify ourselves for not having had it? and the more easily we could have acquired it now, the more inexcusable will it be for us on that day.
86. The malice of pride lies in reality in the practical contempt which we show for God’s will by disobeying it. Thus it is, says St. Augustine, there is pride in every sin committed, “by which we despise the commandments of God.” [Lib. de. Salut. docum. c. xix] And St. Bernard explains it in this way that God commands us to do His will: “God wishes His will to be done”; and the sinner in his pride prefers his own will to the will of God: “And the proud man wishes his own will to be done.”
And it is this pride that so greatly augments the grievousness of sin; and how great our sin must be when, knowing in our minds that God deserves to be obeyed by us, we oppose our will to the will of God, whom we know to be worthy of all obedience. What wickedness there is in saying to God, “I will not serve,” [Jer. ii, 20] when we know that all things serve Him.” [Ps. cxviii, 91] To give an example of this, let us imagine a person endowed with the noblest qualities possible, such as health, beauty, riches and nobility, and with every natural gift and grace of body and soul. Now, little by little, let us take away from that person all those gifts which come from God. Health and beauty are gifts from God; riches and rank, learning and knowledge, and every other virtue are all from God; body and soul belong to God. And this being so, what remains to this person of his own? Nothing; because all that is more than nothing belongs to God.
But when this person says of himself: “I have riches, I have health, and I have knowledge,” etc., what is meant by this “I”? Nothingness; and yet this “I,” this nothingness, that derives all it possesses from God, dares to disregard this same God by disobeying His sovereign commandments, saying to Him, if not in words most certainly in deeds, which is far worse, “I will not serve”; no, I will not obey. Ah, pride, pride! But, O my soul, “Why doth thy spirit swell against God ?” [Tob. xv, 13] Am I not right in preaching and recommending this humility to thee? Each time thou sinnest thou art like the proud, Pharao, who, when he was told to obey the commandments of God, said: “Who is this God? I know Him not.” [Exod. v, 2]
87. The mistake lies in our having too high an opinion of what the world calls honour, esteem and fame. For however much the world may praise or honour me, it cannot increase my merit or my virtue one jot; and also if the world vituperates me, it cannot take from me anything that I have or that I am in myself. I shall know vanity from truth by the light of that blessed candle which I shall hold in my hand at the hour of my death. What will it profit me then to have been esteemed and honoured by the whole world, if my conscience convinces me of sin before God? Ah, what folly it would be for a nobleman, possessing talents which would endear him to his king and make him a favourite at court, if he were to seek rather to be adulated by his servants and menials, and to find pleasure in such miserable adulation. But it is a far greater folly for a Christian, who might gain the praise and honour of God and of all the angels and saints in heaven, to seek rather to be praised and honoured by men and to glory in it. By humility I can please God, the Angels and the Saints; therefore is it not a despicable pride that makes me desire the esteem, praise and approbation of men, when we are told that “He is approved whom God commendeth?” [2 Cor. x, 18]
The thought of death is profitable in order to acquire humility; and humility helps us greatly to obtain a holy death. St. Catherine of Siena, shortly before her death, was tempted to thoughts of pride and vainglory on account of her own holiness; but to this temptation she answered: “I render thanks to God that in all my life I have never felt any vainglory.” Oh, how beautiful to be able to exclaim on one’s death-bed: I have never known vainglory.
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/10/12/humility-of-heart-part-21/

Michael Voris and the CMTV Staff repeat the error of the Baltimore Catechism

Immagine correlata
Baptism
Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism

315. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.
Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.
Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

318. Who can administer Baptism?

The priest is the usual minister of Baptism, but if there is danger that someone will die without Baptism, anyone else may and should baptize.

319. How would you give Baptism?

I would give Baptism by pouring ordinary water on the forehead of the person to be baptized, saying while pouring it: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

324. When should children be baptized?

Children should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

325. What sin do Catholic parents commit who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children?

Catholic parents who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children, commit a mortal sin.

326. What do we promise through our godparents in Baptism?

We promise through our godparents in Baptism to renounce the devil and to live according to the teachings of Christ and of His Church.

327. Why is the name of a saint given in Baptism?

The name of a saint is given in Baptism in order that the person baptized may imitate his virtues and have him for a protector.

328. What is the duty of a godparent after Baptism?

The duty of a godparent after Baptism is to see that the child is brought up a good Catholic, if this is not done by the parents.

329. Who should be chosen as godparents for Baptism?

Only Catholics who know their faith and live up to the duties of their religion should be chosen as godparents for Baptism.
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson24.html
____________________________________________________
Immagine correlata
ERROR IN THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
Church Militant - Serving Catholics
The Baltimore Catechism(1808) states there are three baptisms, water, desire and blood. It indicates 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.
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.
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 formally 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
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).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 explicit LG 16 ( invincible ignorance).This would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Father Roman ManchesterMAGISTERIAL 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 and the error has been accepted by Michael Voris and the Church Militant TV Staff.The error is there on the Vortex and  Mic'd Up programs.

Michael Voris says on the Vortex
'The deeper principle beyond being a “card-carrying, on the parish rolls” Catholic is: How does one actually attain salvation?
So the key to the question “Is there salvation outside the Church?” is to first understand that the Church’s role is to assist souls in attaining and maintaining a state of grace. This is the sole purpose for the sacraments: to infuse supernatural grace into the soul, visible signs instituted by Our Lord for the imparting of grace.' 1
Immagine correlata
Note : he does not directly say that every one needs to be a card-carrying member. He avoids saying every one needs to have their names on the parish baptism rolls to be saved. Since this would be Feeneyism. He has to acknowledge the Baltimore Catechism error.Since it is Magisterial. He has to affirm Cushingism which says there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He has to say that the baptism of desire and being saved with the baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance are exceptions.So he adapts to the common fantasy theology.
He  goes on to affirm Cushingism when he says:
Now true, God’s grace is not bound by the sacraments. He can certainly operate outside of them.
As if we could know some such case today which would be an exception to the dogma.
He continues:
He did in such manifest cases as the conversion of St. Paul, for example. Saul received a singular grace of conversion. And while that grace was not mediated through a formal sacrament, it nevertheless did come through the Church—as all graces do.
In other words we know of some person in the present times who was saved or is going to be saved through a grace 'not mediated through a formal sacrament'.As i he would know such a case.He has to accomodate the Baltimore error and the Boston Heresy so he supports this line of thinking. He does not directly say like the saints that every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
He concludes, affirming the Magisterial Heresy and the irrational interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846, 1257) when he says:

All salvation comes through the Catholic Church, and outside of Her there is no salvation.

Immagine correlata
Here is is accomodating the baptism of desire and blood, as being explicit and so being an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. He denies the dogma as it was interpreted over the years by the popes and saints.
Similarly in a Mic'd Up interview of Louie Verrecchio, they both assumed Lumen Gentium was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Again we see the influence of the Baltimore Catechism reasoning.
For Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio 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.So they would be exceptions to the dogma EENS and the pre-1808 ecclesiology.This is their inference. The text of Vatican Council II does not state that these cases exclude the baptism of water or that they are explicit for us.

Similarly when Christine Niles hosted a Mic'd Up program on Extra Ecclesiam  Nulla Salus she was affirming Cushingism.At 13.30 Fr.Roman Manchester  refers to invincible ignorance as an exception to the dogma after earlier affirming the dogma.He was ambigous. Then at 15:17 Christine Niles talks about invincible ignorance as if it is relevant to the dogma.At 15:54 she starts reading the error on invincible ignorance made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, without pointing out that it is an error. Since she was not aware of its roots in the Baltimore Catechism.2


Now that we have identified the cause of the doctrinal change in the Catholic Church they 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.
Immagine correlata
MISSING LINK
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.
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 Michael Voris, Christine Niles and the Staff at CMTV  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.There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of EENS. So they would be affirming Vatican Council II and also the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades

1
Holy Trinity Seminary does not clarify if they refer to Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 is visible or invisible
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/holy-trinity-seminary-does-not-clarify.html


Immagine correlata

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/when-will-fr-sabino-ardito-sdb-make.html

Sedevacantist seminary repeats the error of the Baltimore Catechism




Immagine correlata


Baptism

Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism

315. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.
Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.
Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

318. Who can administer Baptism?

The priest is the usual minister of Baptism, but if there is danger that someone will die without Baptism, anyone else may and should baptize.

319. How would you give Baptism?

I would give Baptism by pouring ordinary water on the forehead of the person to be baptized, saying while pouring it: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

324. When should children be baptized?

Children should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

325. What sin do Catholic parents commit who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children?

Catholic parents who put off for a long time, or entirely neglect, the Baptism of their children, commit a mortal sin.

326. What do we promise through our godparents in Baptism?

We promise through our godparents in Baptism to renounce the devil and to live according to the teachings of Christ and of His Church.

327. Why is the name of a saint given in Baptism?

The name of a saint is given in Baptism in order that the person baptized may imitate his virtues and have him for a protector.

328. What is the duty of a godparent after Baptism?

The duty of a godparent after Baptism is to see that the child is brought up a good Catholic, if this is not done by the parents.

329. Who should be chosen as godparents for Baptism?

Only Catholics who know their faith and live up to the duties of their religion should be chosen as godparents for Baptism. 
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson24.html
____________________________________________________
Inline image 1
ERROR IN THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
ImageImmagine correlata
The Baltimore Catechism(1808) states there are three baptisms, water, desire and blood. It indicates 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.
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.
Immagine correlata
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.
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.

Immagine correlata
VATICAN COUNCIL II
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.
Immagine correlata
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 and the error has been accepted by the  sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Fl.,USA. It is there on their website.1
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.
sisters
Here is the text from their website.
Most Holy Trinity Seminary was founded in 1995 in order to provide priestly training for young men who thoroughly reject Vatican II,(in which LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to explicit cases instead of invisible cases.For me it is Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 refer to invisible cases.) its reforms, and the Modernist hierarchy which promulgates them.(the modernism comes from assuming LG 16, LG 8 are visible instead of visible. This was the reasoning in the Baltimore Catechism) This position is in contrast to the seminaries of traditionalist groups that operate with the approval of the Modernist hierarchy, or who seek this approval.( they also assume LG 16, LG 8 are visible instead of invisible. So Vatican Council II ( with the irrationality) becomes a break with Tradition.)

The Seminary trains priests according to pre-Vatican II standards.( but they also accept the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the same irrationality) Its rule, discipline, spiritual formation, and academic curriculum imitate faithfully those which were in effect in seminaries before the Second Vatican Council.( before 1808 there were no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For the seminary the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are exceptions. This is an innovation from 1808.) By training priests in this manner, the seminary hopes to contribute to the solution to the problem of the nearly universal desintegration of Catholic faith, morals, discipline, and liturgy  which the Second Vatican Council has caused.(When Vatican Council II is referred to it needs to be qualified that this is Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 etc are invisible instead of visible.For me LG 16, LG 8 etc is invisible so Vatican Council II would not be a break with the pre-1808 ecclesiology in the Catholic Church).

The seminary sees that the only solution to the problem of Vatican II( Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are visible and known in personal cases.This is irrational.It is also Magisterial.), however, is to condemn it as a false council( it would be a false interpretation of the Council, I agree. If I would use the irrational premise I too would get a non traditional conclusion)  which was dominated by heretics, and to discard and ignore its decrees and enactments. Consequently, the Seminary does not seek to be recognized by the heretical hierarchy which promulgates Vatican II,(also with the same irrational premise i.e LG 16 etc are visible instead of invisible and so is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology which the seminary follows by excluding Vatican Council II)  nor does it seek to work with the Novus Ordo clergy, as if in a single church or religion.( since they too are using the same irrational premise but accept Vatican Council II with the same non traditional conclusion.)

The Seminary therefore repudiates the idea of the Motu Proprio Mass, or that of a fraternity of priests which has received permission or seeks permission from the Novus Ordo hierarchy to function in communion with the Modernist heretics.

The Catholic Church, in the outlook of the Seminary, will not be cured of its current problems until the hierarchical sees, particularly the papacy, are once again occupied by Catholics. For as long as Modernist heretics possess the mere appearance of authority which they now possess, the problem of Vatican II (with LG 16 visible instead of invisible)will continue. In the meantime the Seminary, as well as the priests who emanate from it, shall abhor even the suggestion of an official recognition from the Novus Ordo hierarchy(which interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the seminary and uses the Baltimore Catechism premise and inference), or of a compromise with the Modernists, whom St. Pius X called the “most pernicious of all the enemies of the Church,” who are striving “utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ.”

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.
Immagine correlata
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 sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada  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 and also the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades



1.
Immagine correlata
Holy Trinity Seminary does not clarify if they refer to Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 is visible or invisible
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/holy-trinity-seminary-does-not-clarify.html

Immagine correlata

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/when-will-fr-sabino-ardito-sdb-make.html