Sunday, January 24, 2016

Parole chiare e forti di Papa Francesco :"il matrimonio gay non è famiglia"

  1. Parole chiare e forti di Papa Francesco
    Collegamento permanente dell'immagine integrata
  2. Collegamento permanente dell'immagine integrata

Sentinelleinpiedi per dire #stopcirinnà e NO #unionicivili! Appuntamento al #familyday!

  1.  ha Ritwittato
    Sempre di più le Sentinelle in PIedi a Trieste in piazza della Repubblica...
    Collegamento permanente dell'immagine integrata
  2.   ha Ritwittato
    Collegamento permanente dell'immagine integrata

' You don't know theology!' - Ross Douthat and Edward Pentin told

Edward Pentin
Ross Douthat
The leftists are saying that  they have the sole narrative on theology and any one who does not agree with them ' does not know theology'.
Massimo Faggioli tells Ross Douthat1that the latter does not know theology and Fr.Norbert Hoffman sdb suggests the same to Edward Pentin.2
In a sense they are correct.Since Douthat, the New York Times columnist and Edward Pentin, correspondent at the National Catholic Register are not telling the Left that the 'new theology' in the Catholic Church is based on an irrational premise and inference.It was made official and common with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
The leftist professors of theology were telling Ross Douthat  that with Vatican Council II ( Cushingism version)  there is no old ecclesiology. They mean it sincerely. Since they can only intepret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the Cusningite premise and inference to reach a non traditional conclusion. While Douthat cannot correct them since he does not know that there is a Feeneyite alternative.
-Lionel Andrades



See (1:17)


Possibly Prof. Massimo Faggioli thinks Fr.S.Visintin, Dean of Theology at St.Anselm, Rome is a 'criminal' and does not know theology, like Ross Douthat

Possibly Prof. Massimo Faggioli thinks Fr.S.Visintin, Dean of Theology at St.Anselm, Rome is a 'criminal' and does not know theology, like Ross Douthat

From Sandro Magister's blog with comments

At the Vatican There Is a “Seismograph” That Is Setting Off Tremors

The latest incident is on how Francis interprets and implements Vatican Council II. The “school of Bologna” is chanting victory. But two letters from the pope say the opposite

by Sandro Magister

ROME, January 20, 2016 – The incident slid by without making a sound. But it is no small matter. Its object is nothing less than the hermeneutic with which Pope Francis interprets and implements Vatican Council II.

The protagonists were:

- Luis Badilla Morales, director of the Vatican website "Il Sismografo";
- Massimo Faggioli, Church historian and leading exponent of the famous “school of Bologna,” according to which the Council marked a “rupture” and “new beginning” in the history of the Church;
- and Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, a former diplomat and high-level curia official, the leading critic of the Bolognese interpretation of Vatican II, as well as a longtime friend of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The spark was struck on Thursday, January 14, when “Il Sismografo” published an enthusiastic interview with Faggioli, signed by Badilla and by another curator of the site, Francesco Gagliano:

> Faggioli: "Papa Francesco…"

In it, Faggioli maintains that Pope Francis “speaks very little of the Council,” but that “he does it, he applies it constantly, and the most fascinating thing is that he has never shown any interest in the hermeneutical question of the Council.”
Massimo Faggioli is aware of what I write on this blog EucharistandMission, but he is a liberal.His theology like that of Pope Francis and the others mentioned in this report by Sandro Magistro, are Cushingites, as is Sandro Magister who has a degree in theology.
They all accept a baptism of desire without the baptism of water, just like the contemporay magisterium. They assume that these cases were known to human beings in the past. In other words someone in the Church physically  saw these cases in Heaven without  the baptism of water. Then then infer that these 'unknown' cases are explicit, known, seen in the flesh,so they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the old ecclesiology. 
Vatican Council II, example LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc, refer to explicit  cases in the present times, is their reasoning. For Massimo Faggioli, Badilla Morales, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and Francesco Gagliano, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. It is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and  the Council of Trent on the necessity of the baptism of water for all with no exceptions.It is a break with the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and ecumenism, with reference to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II is a break with the Nicene Creed for all of them.Since Vatican Council II indicates there are more than one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin. There is no more the traditional  'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' but 'I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, water, desire and blood, also imperfect communion with the Church, seeds of the Word, elements of sanctification and truth and invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.'
This is the hermeneutic  used by these theologians. It is a hermeneutic of rupture. They assume unknown cases are known and then conclude that these unknown cases are known exceptions to the old ecclesiology. They wrongly attribute their  conclusion to the text of Vatican Council II, when the fault is there with their irrational inference.

Francis, in fact - according to Faggioli - “is the first pope not to have uncertainties on how the Council should be interpreted,” because his thought is the following: the Council “is now in our hands and we are the ones to interpret it, without reopening controversies of thirty or forty years ago.”
They do not realize that to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference is a controversy.It is not a  controversy since they ignore my blog.

Naturally, the enthusiasm of Faggioli and of his interviewers is explained by the fact that they identify Francis’s interpretation of Vatican II with that of the “school of Bologna.”
The School of Bologna insterprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. They refuse to interpret Vatcan Council II with traditional Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. Neither are there known exceptions mentioned in the text of  Vatican Council to the traditional, strict interpretation of EENS.

It was therefore to be expected that this would unleash a reaction from the most systematic critic of the Bolognese interpretation, which is Marchetto.

And in fact less than three hours later a reply from Marchetto appeared on “Il Sismografo,” in which he rejects as “not true” the statement according to which Pope Francis “has never shown interest in the hermeneutical question of the Council.”

As proof of this Marchetto attached two letters that Francis wrote to him and “wanted to be read publicly.”

In the first of them, the pope thanks him for having corrected “an error or imprecision on my part,” congratulates him on “the purity of your studies of Vatican Council II” and on the love he has shown for “the hierarchical Holy Mother Church”; and finally calls him “the best hermeneut of the Council”:..

But then, after www.chiesa on October 12 dismantled the thesis of conspiracy by publishing the letter written to the pope by the thirteen cardinals together with their names, Badilla didn’t hold back anymore. He spoke out repeatedly on “Il Sismografo” with his own highly polemical personal comments against the cardinals who signed the letter, who at the synod were among the most determined in opposing changes of doctrine and practice in the matter of marriage.

And from the United States Professor Faggioli - who teaches the history of Christianity at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis and theology at Villanova University in Philadelphia - backed him up with even more virulent and direct attacks, to the point of calling for the imprisonment of one of the thirteen, Cardinal Robert Sarah, guilty of having given in the synodal assembly “speeches that would carry criminal charges in some Western democracies.”
Possibly Prof. Faggioli also believes that to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and inference would be 'criminal'. It would be anti-Semitic and racist. Prof. Faggioli is one of the signatories to the Editor of the New York Times.The group of leftist professors of theology. They wanted Ross Douthat, Op-Ed Columnist dismissed for not accepting their theology based on unknown cases being objective exceptions to the old ecclesiology.

Faggioli’s article containing this pearl, published on “The Huffington Post,” was promptly reissued by Badilla on “Il Sismografo,” without weakening the camaraderie of the two in the slightest.

On the contrary. The camaraderie culminated precisely in the interview of a few days ago, with Badilla’s gushing introduction of Faggioli, lauded “for his intense, timely, and keen journalistic activity for various publications,” naturally in addition to “his solid formation as an historian not only of the Church.”

The fact that a semiofficial website like “Il Sismografo,” whose reason for being would appear to be impartiality, should now tip out of balance with such biased onslaughts is a question that will certainly be brought under examination in the reorganization that is underway among the Vatican information outlets.
The Vatican is aware of what I have been writing on my blog like Prof. Massimo Faggioli and correspondents at The Tablet, Crux, National Catholic Reporter.-It is something  they do not want to discuss. They would prefer the irrationality and the hermeneutic of rupture.


But in the meantime the question of how Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II has come to the forefront more than ever.

On January 15, the day after the clash between Faggioli and Marchetto, “Il Sismografo” came back to the topic by reissuing, without comment, the position statement of a famous Italian theologian, Andrea Grillo, a professor at the Pontifical Atheneum of Saint Anselm, entirely in favor of the former and against the latter, and even derisory toward the two papal letters, dismissed as insignificant “curial letters”:.. ( Continued on Sandro Magister's website)
At the Pontifical University St.Anselm, the present Dean of Theology is Prof. S.Visintin. This Benedictine priest agrees with me. I have quoted him many times on my blog.He has said there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.For him there are no known exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS. This is something obvious. Objectively, empirically we cannot see or know any exceptions to EENS.We cannot see people now dead for us and who are in Heaven or elsewhere.
For political reasons none of the names mentioned in this article by Magister will want to quote Fr.Visintin or discuss this issue.They cannot suggest that he does not theology as was done recently by Fr.Norbert Hoffman SDB, Secretary of the Vatican Commission for Relations with the Jews, in an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register.
Possibly Faggioli thinks Fr.Visintin is a 'criminal' and does not know theology and does not want to make a big thing about it and will get a challenging response as that  of Ross Douthat , the NYT columnist.
-Lionel Andrades

You cannot say that the magisterium at Baltimore made a mistake in the Baltimore Catechism, even though you know that no one in Baltimore could have seen or known a baptism of desire case in real life.

Anyone and everyone that we might meet would be taught the rigorist formula of EENS. There are no exceptions to what we can teach and Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are completely irrelevant to teaching and living totally in the EENS mode.

But you still say there is a baptism  of desire without the baptism of water. So you contradict yourself.

You cannot say that the magisterium at Baltimore made a mistake in the Baltimore Catechism, even though you know that no one in Baltimore could have seen or known a baptism of desire case in real life.
You also do not know any saint who has said that BOD cases were visible or personally known to them, persons  who were saved with BOD and without the baptism of water.
Then when I say that I accept BOD only with the baptism of water you are not willing to accept this.

What happened in the Church at the time of the letter of 1949 is for a separate discussion that can bear no fruit until we get this issue of known/unknown behind us along with explicit/implicit.
The issue of known/unknown, explicit/ implicit baptism of desire is at the centre of your interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II and you still do not want to discuss it.

 The known/unknown is easy or at least it should be for we can not possibly know that all souls in heaven have physically been baptized with water for that is totally in God's domain.  The explicit/implicit for me is also simple.
Yes it is simple. I agree we cannot know if there is a soul in Heaven, baptised or not baptised with water.So the magisterium has made a mistake when it inferred that the baptism of desire and blood, and being saved in invicible ignorance( of the Gospel through no fault of their own) refers to known cases without the baptism of water.
They did not know any such case and yet they taught that there were people in Heaven without the baptism of water.

 It is you that continually bash by name many of the Popes, Saints, catechisims as being wrong.

The saints, popes and catechisms before the Baltimore Catechism were not wrong.It is liberal theologians who interpret them using the  irrational premise ( baptism of desire cases are personally visible on earth) and irrational inference ( these 'known' cases are exceptions to the old ecclesiology), who were wrong.These theologians interpretation , accepted by the contemporary magisteriu, are  a rupture with the old intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You also make the same error.

  I continually mention the Saints, Popes and councils of centuries past because if you were consistent in your positions you would have to go after them also for the contemporary Church professed the same thing.
The contemporary Church is a break with St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, St. Francis of Assisi and numerous others, who affirmed the strict intepretation  of the dogma EENS. So I criticize the contemporary magisterium for their irrational reasoning  which produces heresy.This heresy is politically acceptable to the Left, who represent Satan in many of their political aims and policies.In conscience I cannot support this.

 What you are correct about is that the catechesis of what the church still believes is NOT taught correctly by the greatest majority of clerics and lay Catholics.
They say the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water as if they could know. You make the same error.
You tell me that you accept EENS in its strict sense but then also say there is a baptism of desire without the baptism of water, which you accept.You do not see the contradiction.

 Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were taught throughout the centuries and by those very names.
Yes and they are accepted. However you have no right to interpret the saints( St.Charles Borromeo etc) by using an irrational premise and inference, like the liberal theologians at Boston during the time of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is also the approach of the FSSP priests in your diocese.

  The Church has clearly defined the conditions for BOB and BOD.

The Church has always considered them as hypothetical cases.
The liberal theologians consider then de facto, known cases, objectively visible.

The magisterium of the past considered them as theoretical cases, known to God.
The contemporary magisterium considers them objective cases, known to us humans.

The contempory magisterium has placed BOD in Vatican Council II when it is a theoretical case.It then interprets them as objective cases, known to us humans. So Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with the dogma EENS, the old ecclesiology and the old understanding of ecumenism and salvation of  non Catholics.

When will you discuss these 'conditions' ?

  There have been countless souls throughout the centuries that were catechumens who died BEFORE receiving the waters of Baptism.
Countless ? Do you know of any one of them? 

  There have been countless souls who converted to Catholicism through BOB before receiving physical water of Baptism.
Can you name one of them? Then explain how could it be known that they were exceptions to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation?

 Many of these Saints were named by the Church and so we DO KNOW that as far as the Church was concerned they entered Heaven without the physical waters while on Earth and are explicit examples.
How could 'the Church' ( contemporary magisterium) know or see or physically name St.Emerentiana as being in Heaven without the  baptism of water? Does 'the Church' also say that a  particular person, had this '20-20' vision to see St.Emerentiana or St.Victor etc, in Heaven without the baptism of water? So, this gifted person in the Church, made this official announcement in 'the Church'?

 The Church, you and I can not know if they were baptized with water miraculously by God after their death.
Lionel :
Since we cannot know how can you say that 'the Church' and you know of countless persons saved with BOD and without the baptism of water?
-Lionel Andrades