Friday, February 5, 2016

Video : Everything I do I do it for you, Jesus ( Sebalda Productions 4:09 )

Widow's Joy: He Didn't Deny Christ When Beheaded

Immagine Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider announcing in public that all non Catholics need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II

Sheep starving

Bishop Schneider speaks, sheep 

continue to starve

AKA Catholic


From Louie Verrechhio's blog with comments.

Louie Verrecchio:To which he made some very curious statements…
Bishop Athanasius Schneider:
Indeed the very source of the current crisis in the Church, the crisis of marriage, of the family and of the morality in general is not the liturgical reform, but the defects in faith, the doctrinal relativism, from which flows the moral and liturgical relativism.
Lionel: I agree with Bishop Schneider here. The crisis is not the liturgical reform but the defect in faith, the doctrinal relativism...
For, if I believe in a defective manner, I will live a defective moral life and I will worship in a defective, indifferent manner.
Lionel: Yes if I believe there is salvation outside the Church, then  the Catholic Faith has been changed.
 It is necessary first to restore the clearness and firmness of the doctrine of faith and of morals in all levels and, from there, start to improve the liturgy.
Lionel: Yes!
Affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).You will then be affirming the old ecclesiology. You can then interpret Vatican Council II with the old ecclesiology.
The integrity and the beauty of the faith demands the integrity and the beauty of one’s moral life and this demands the integrity and the beauty of the public worship.
Lionel: The integrity and beauty of the faith demands integrity especially on the issue of EENS and Vatican Council II.
Begging His Excellency’s pardon, he has it exactly backwards.
The maxim, one that Bishop Schneider most certainly knows very well, is lex orandilex credendilex vivendi – loosely translated, the law of prayer (worship) establishes the law of belief, which itself establishes the way in which one lives.
Lionel: Vice versa. It is belief (doctrines, dogma) which establish worship- forms ( liturgy).If I believe there is salvation outside the Church and non Catholics are going to Heaven , then the Traditional Latin Mass is another worship-form in the Church and it is a break with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past.
In its treatment of the liturgy, even the new Catechism renders the maxim as meaning, “The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays…” (cf CCC 1124).
Lionel: If the Church believed in the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the faith of the people at Mass would be different.They would be aware of the importance of Mass and how all non Catholics need to be there at that precious worship.They would want their non Catholic friends to also be there.

And yet, Bishop Schneider would have us believe lex credendi, lex vivendi, lex orandi?
In essence, this novel twist on the traditional understanding of liturgy would make of Holy Mass a mere outgrowth of the moral life; i.e., a largely human endeavor born of faith, you know… like the services created by and for the heretics.
Lionel: The Freemasons today are not objecting to the Traditional Latin Mass. They are objectiing to the TLM with the old ecclesiology.They object to the extra ecclesiam nulla salus- ecclesiology.
Similarly they would object to any one who accepted Vatican Council II and also the old ecclesiology.
The issue is the ecclesiology. I attend the TLM and Mass in Italian with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus- ecclesiology.I understand the importance of Mass in Italian as a Sacrifice.It is also a necessity for salvation. It is part of a Church which is fomally necessary for salvation. So it is important that all people with no exceptions, be formal members of the Catholic Church.They must attend the Catholic Mass, the Catholic Sacrifice, and be saved from going to the fires of Hell. It it is with this concept that I come to Mass. This is in what I believe when when I pray at Mass.
Bishop Schneider doesn’t believe that.
One is left wondering why he feels compelled to pretend that the post-conciliar liturgy, the Novus Ordo Missae in particular, isn’t a primary instigator of the current ecclesial crisis?
Lionel: Why should he? I attend the TLM and Novus Ordo Mass and interpret Vatican Council II knowing all non Catholics need to formally enter the Church for salvation.
So for me the teachings of the Church, dogmas and doctrine, have not changed before and after Vatican Council II. This is what I believe. It is with this belief I pray.
Clearly, Bishop Schneider knows better. Within the very same interview he said:
Perhaps such clerics [as those who oppose the Mass of Ages] have fear of the great power of the truth irradiating from the celebration of the traditional Mass. One can compare the traditional Mass with a lion: Let him free, and he will defend himself.
Lionel: The  Mass of Ages is a Lion when the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS is affirmed.  The present Traditional Latin Mass is the Mass of Ages  only in the exterior form of the liturgy. The dogmas and doctrines of the faith have been removed.The dogma EENS and Vatican Council II is interpreted with Cushingism i.e every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church,since there are known exceptions. The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to  non Catholics saved without the baptism of water and they are known to  us ( or can be known ) and so are explicit exceptions to the old ecclesiology. It is with this liberal doctrine that Catholics pray at the Traditional Latin Mass today.It is Cushingism and not Feeneyism.This was not how St.Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier offered the Mass of Ages.
Has it occurred to Bishop Schneider that one may compare the Novus Ordo to a lion as well; one that devours the Catholic faith?
Lionel: In what does the Novus Ordo Mass devour the Catholic faith? One can be a devout traditionalist, a conservative on all issues and then still attend this Mass.
For instance, now at the Novus Ordo Mass annulments for marriage are given and also a non Catholic can marry a Catholic. This is not the fault of the Holy Mass. The fault is there with the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When it is believed that outside the Church there is no salvation no Catholic would take a Protestant or Jew to a church to be married. It would be known that this would be adultery. Now it is not adultery since it is assumed there is known salvation outside the Church,there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the fault is not there with the liturgy of the Novus Ordo Mass . The fault is there with the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Of course it has, but don’t take my word for it.
In a 2012 interview, His Excellency spoke of “five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ” that he equated with instances of “rupture,” among which he numbered: the celebration of Mass facing the people, Communion in the hand, the loss of the Latin language, and the use of female acolytes.

Lionel: He did not mention the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Concluding on an up note, I have to commend Bishop Schneider for speaking up in defense of the Society of St. Pius X:
Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.
Lionel: The SSPX, like Bishop Schneider is not affirming the perennial Catholic truth on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They do not comment on the factual mistake, the innovation, in the Baltimore Catechism and  the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston  which causes confusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is with this confusion in doctrine that Catholics are called to prayer. 
Magisterial heresy, ecclesiastical heresy, has replaced Catholic orthodoxy.There is a change in faith and so there will be a change in worship.
Hey, Mike Voris, pay attention… Bishop Schneider went on to say:
… one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.
Lionel: The SSPX is not a remedy. They offer the Traditional Latin Mass with confusion over ecclesiology. They are clearly interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrationality and do not seem to have a clue about it or do not want to admit that they were wrong all these years. They were duped by the liberals including those in the magisterium.

Bishop Schneider concluded his remarks on the Society by saying:
I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.
Lionel: He wants the SSPX to be accepted canonically after they rubber stamp Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. This is how Bishop Schneider interprets Vatican Council II and retains his canonical status.

When canonical recognition may be granted to the SSPX is anyone’s guess, but I agree with this assessment of Bishop Fellay wholeheartedly.
Let us hope and pray that “full communion” prelates, like Bishop Schneider, will not wait until the Society is regularized to begin emulating Bishop Fellay, and to address head-on “the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy” from their own privileged places “inside the Church.”
Lionel: Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Bernard Fellay like Louie Verrecchio have to see the error of the present crisis originating in the Baltimore Catechism and then continuing in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then on to Vatican Council II. Once they have identified the error they are in a position to re-interpret Vatican Council II, with no changes in text, as being in harmony with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would be a new Church but it would also be the old Church.
Imagine Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider announcing in public that all non Catholics need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II and the popes and saints of the past.
Imagine this being said by priests during the homily. They would be saying Vatican Council II has brought in a different type of revolution in the Church.
It would be a new Catholic Church, vigorously alive.There would be liberal bishops and cardinals opposing all this but with no reference text in Vatican Council II to support their ideology.Imagine how important all this would be for the ordinary lay Catholic's understanding of mission and evangelisation.
Then imagine the Left protesting and lay Catholics, simply quoting Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

Don't churn out more stuff on what the magisterium and others should do.Tell us what you believe.

What is so sorely needed in the Church today is genuine theological debate about important issues both within the Church and also within the world.Fr. Richard G. Cipolla, Rorate Caeili.

Fr. Richard G. Cipolla has written that there must be a genuine theological debate on the Church and the World.Another vague piece.How can it be genuine when he and others will not affirm exclusive salvation in the Church?. He will not say Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation, to avoid Hell(AG 7, LG 14, NA 4).So would there be a conversation among Catholics holding on to different doctrines ? He would be on the side of the liberals. Since he will not initiate a dialogue by saying every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church for salvation; every one needs to have his name on the Parish Baptism Register to avoid Hell and there are no known exceptions in 2016.How can there be a dialogue on this issue which is related to the Catholic Mass when the traditionalists are denying the Faith ? They will not affirm exclusive salvation in the Church.At least not in public.

The Baltimore Caechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. Objectively no one in Baltimore or Boston  would know of an explicit exception.But will Fr.Cipolla  be willing to say it in a public conversation?

Fr.Cipolla and Rorate Caeili could directly affirm the Faith on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, and then let the Church at large, traditionals and liberals, respond.
They simply have to keep citing Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
When there is opposition simply say. 'No one could have known of an exception.No one could have known of someone saved outside the Catholic Church'.
Say it! Affirm the Faith. Be direct.In this way there will be a change in the Church. Theologically contradict the Jewish Left-Vatican document on inter religious dialogue with the Jews.Don't write vague pieces on what Catholics believe or what traditionalists believe today. Don't talk like the liberals or the magisterium.
The contemporary magisterium instead of affirming the truths of the Faith on exclusive salvation will deny it, claim you are not a Catholic and may publically excommunicate you.
SImilarly, at CMTV, Michaell Voris and  the Staff at Church Militant TV (CMTV)  are afraid. If they theologically affirm exclusive salvation in the Church, the Archbishop of Detroit will be upset. The Archbishop of Detroit like the list of heretics mentioned on the Vortex this week, does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Church. But then neither does Michael Voris. For all of them the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to cases without the baptism of water, who are known in the present times. So theologically for CMTV , like the list of ten heretics, there are known exceptions, to the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.No dialogue here.
Vatican Council II is there before Fr.Richard Cipolla, Michael Voris and 'New Catholic', the anonymous editor of Rorate Caeili.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with there being exceptions  to exclusive salvation in the Church or there not being exceptions. One interpretation is irrational and the other is traditional and rational. So always there are  two options.Go ahead and affirm Vatican Council II with rationality. 
Affirm it with Feeneyism and then make this public.It's common sense that there could be no known exceptions in the past or today.
Say the obvious.
Don't churn out more stuff on what the magisterium and others should do.Tell us what you believe.The discussions on CMTV are superficial since they do not upset the boat.
Similarly the reports on Rorate Caeili are beginning to look hypocritical and false since they are not affirming exclusive salvation in the Church and for personal reasons are not even discussing this subject.-Lionel Andrades                                                          

Op-Ed: "The Conversation that must be had: a genuine Theological debate about the Church and the World"

ABORTO: quando l’aborto procurato uccide anche la madre

(di Tommaso Scandroglio) Ecco i fatti. Gabriella Cipolletta, di anni 19, sta assumendo un farmaco per curare un fungo della pelle. Ad un certo punto scopre di essere incinta e il medico curante – così pare – le suggerisce di abortire perché il farmaco potrebbe causare delle malformazioni al feto.

Allora la ragazza, all’undicesima settimana di gravidanza, si reca al Cardarelli di Napoli per sottoporsi all’intervento, ma durante l’operazione muore. E così ovviamente anche il figlio che portava in grembo. Caso di aborto micotico.
La reazione dei media è stata la consueta. Tutti a chiedersi cosa è andato storto nell’intervento, di chi è la colpa, perché l’esercizio di un diritto si è trasformato in una condanna a morte, perché se la legge prevede l’aborto sicuro e senza rischi una giovane donna ci deve rimettere la vita e pure nel più grande ospedale del mezzogiorno. E dunque: cosa si è inceppato nella perfetta macchina di morte che è l’aborto di Stato? A noi, a dire la verità, non importa molto trovare le risposte corrette a queste domande, perché il nocciolo della questione è un altro.
In primis affidiamo madre e figlio alla misericordia di Dio. Ogni morte segna un lutto. In secondo luogo abbiamo avuto plastica testimonianza che l’aborto sicuro al 100% non esiste. Difficile non registrare l’imbarazzo di chi ha voluto la 194 perché la mattanza dei figli avvenisse nel rispetto di tutte le garanzie per la salute della donna. Altrimenti – potrebbe appuntare qualcuno – meglio tornare nelle catacombe dell’aborto clandestino.
Però quando si tira in ballo la 194 per dire che è una norma che tutela la salute della donna, oltre a dimenticarsi della sindrome post abortiva che colpisce quasi tutte le donne, si tralascia di aggiungere che l’operazione a cui si sottopone la donna per eliminare il figlio è tre volte più letale del parto. Meglio quindi per la salute della donna – criterio ovviamente mai valido per sopprimere il bambino – continuare la gravidanza piuttosto che portarla a termine.
In terzo luogo vicende come queste alzano il velo, anzi il piumone dell’ipocrisia mediatica. Si parla sui giornali di buona sanità quando ci scappa un solo morto – il bambino – ma diventa malasanità se i morti sono due. Però l’aspetto forse più importante ed anche più delicato di tutta questa faccenda è quella dell’assunzione di responsabilità di chi compie la scelta abortiva.
Lo ripetiamo a favore dei cultori dei nobili sentimenti: È doveroso dispiacersi per ogni persona che su questa terra ha chiuso gli occhi per sempre. Però ciò non toglie che chi si espone consapevolmente ai rischi di un atto illecito dal punto di vista morale (e Gabriella aveva prestato un consenso realmente informato?), ne deve sopportare il peso. La scelta libera e volontaria di compiere un’azione malvagia deve accettare anche i possibili suoi effetti negativi. Non si può invocare una immunità dai pericoli che io stesso ho provocato. Non si può chiedere al legislatore di tutelare il malvivente dai rischi del suo crimine: che il rapinatore di banche non si becchi mai una pallottola dalle forze dell’ordine, ma che venga sempre trattato con in guanti bianchi. La 194 invece vuole proprio questo: compi pure il male, ma in tutta sicurezza. Uccidi tuo figlio, ma a te non venga torto nemmeno un capello.
La riflessione, ce ne rendiamo conto, è assai urticante, ben al di sotto del livello minimo consentito del politicamente corretto e potrebbe suonare, a torto, in un certo modo così: “Te la sei cercata, cara Gabriella”. Ma al di là dei suoni più o meno gradevoli che alcune riflessioni possono ingenerare nei timpani dei lettori, il criterio per interpretare nel modo più corretto possibile questa vicenda di duplice omicidio – uno volontario e l’altro colposo – ci viene ancora una volta dal Vangelo. «Perdona loro perché non sanno quello che fanno» e «di chi spada ferisce di spada perisce». Quest’ultimo brocardo, oltre ad applicarsi a tutte quelle madri che anche se non perdono la vita in sala operatoria durante l’aborto la perdono spiritualmente dopo, si adatta perfettamente al professionista in camice bianco che ha fatto abortire la giovane Gabriella. Il medico tra le cui braccia la ragazza è spirata è lo stesso che la fece nascere. Aspra e cruda nemesi. (Tommaso Scandroglio)


Bishop Schneider let us know what you believe on exclusive salvation. You are a shepherd.

It's incredible how a conservative bishop in our times chooses the Left Path, the path of Satan, that of the political Left. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is not affirming the Faith in public by contradicting the Vatican Document on the Jews, nor is he affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with  the 'rigorist interpretation'.He is also supporting the Left when he interprets Vatican Council II with an irrationality, with Cushingism, instead of traditional Feeneyism.
May be he's just ignorant or may be he is doing this to maintain his 'canonical status'.
He supports the traditionalists but offers the Novus Ordo Mass with the new ecclesiology, which is heretical and supported by the Freemasons.The ecclesiology is irrational and not Catholic.
For him peace and security takes a priority over saying "all non Catholics are on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)."
He cannot say in public "every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church to avoid Hell in 2016 according to Vatican Council II etc". He will not publically affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology on salvation.
He will avoid saying  all non Catholics, Jews included, need to convert formally into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and
that this is the teaching of the Church, according to Vatican Council II,  which the present magisterium is rejecting.
He is not willing to 'sacrifice' his career, yet he wants the laity to make the sacrifice, may be lose their jobs and reputation, while proclaiming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The dogma of the faith has clearly been lost as Our Lady observed at Fatima.
Even New Catholic the editor at Rorate Caeili chooses 'safe subjects'  in interviews.He will prudently maintain the Leftist lies on Vatican Council II. Since he is not going to project the Council as being in harmony with the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS.
In the past the SSPX bishops would call for  the conversion of non Catholics, but now there was not a whimper when the Vatican Document on the theology accepted and demanded 
 by the Jewish Left, was proclaimed by a fearful and corrupt magisterium.Bishop Fellay too has come in line.The SSPX wants to build its new seminary in the USA ,in which they will teach the politically accepted teachings, of the Left, who represent Satan.
When the traditionalist leaders, shepherds, do not oppose the wolf, they are abetting in the danger to an in
nocent flock.They are supporting the lies.They are not speaking the truth,only, to avoid living on the streets.Not a single cardinal or bishop is saying Vatican Council II is Feeneyite, it is pro-St.Robert Bellarmine on exclusive salvation. They do not want to be harassed. They do not want the experiences of Bishop Richard Williamson and Robert Sungenis.
For me there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.For Bishop Schneider there are such cases.
For me the baptism of desire and blood are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. For Bishop Schneider they are.
For me references to salvation, in Vatican Council II are hypothetical  and known only to God in personal cases.For the bishop they refer to explicit cases.
For me Vatican  Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is in agreement  with the rigorist intepretation of the dogma EENS. Bishop Schneider does not say anything on this subject.
For me Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God, the Church is the new people of God, they are the Elect. They are the new Chosen People.Outside the Church there is no salvation (NA 4, AG 7, LG 14).
The Jews were the elect but they rejected the Messiah, do not have the Temple and the Sacrifice and are dominated by the Jewish Left which promote pro-Satanic things( pornography, abortion,Sodom and Gomorrah...).
For me Vatican Council II says most people are on the way to Hell, since they die without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14). There is no comment from Bishop Schneider on this subject.
For me the CDF Notification on Fr. Jaques Dupuis S.J during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II contradicts the name and teachings of the Department for the Theology of Religions at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome.There is no comment from any one on this subject.
Satan, through the political Left is increasing his domination over society and is now extending it within the Church.Bishop Schneider and the others say nothing on the subject of exclusive salvation.
Speak the truth with love if you must but at least speak it.
The interviews he gives to Rorate Caeili and others are vague and general  they do not touch the subject of exclusive salvation, the exclusivist ecclesiology.If he affirms exclusive salvation in the Church he would be opposed by the magisterium and the SSPX. So they tell us lay Catholics who do not have a theology degree, that there are known cases of people in Heaven in 2016 saved without the baptism of water.
They tell us they know of specific cases, seen in the flesh cases,  who were saved without the baptism of water, they were saved outside the Church. So there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Hypothethical cases are defacto and practically known.Someone saw St.Emerentiana go to Heaven without the baptism of water.Possibly he was an American at Baltimore or Boston.
Every one is comfortable with all this nonsense.
Why does Bishop Athanasius Schneider not use these interviews  to make a direct statement. Let us know what you believe bishop.You are a shepherd!
Affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades

 Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX bishops and priests confuses what is invisible as being visible.Card. Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past