Tuesday, March 29, 2016

MagdiCristiano Allam : Piango la vigliaccheria dell' #Europa che si sottomette all' #islam

- Piango la vigliaccheria dell' che si sottomette all'


Pakistan: Major Muslim orgs say law protecting women from abuse is un-Islamic


  BY 


“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34
Muhammad “struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” — Aisha (Sahih Muslim 2127)
CouncilofIslamicIdeology
Pakistan religious groups say law protecting women from abuse ‘un-Islamic,'” by Mubasher Bukhari, Reuters, March 15, 2016:
An all-parties conference convened by Pakistan’s oldest Islamic political party and attended by powerful religious groups asked the government on Tuesday to retract an “un-Islamic” law that gives unprecedented protection to female victims of violence.
The Women’s Protection Act, passed by Pakistan’s largest province of Punjab last month, gives legal protection to women from domestic, psychological and sexual violence….
But since the law’s passage, many conservative clerics and religious leaders have denounced it as being in conflict with the Muslim holy book, the Koran, and the constitution.
On Tuesday, representatives of more than 35 religious parties and groups came together for a conference called by the Jamaat-e-Islami party and condemned the women’s protection law as un-Islamic.
“The controversial law to protect women was promulgated to accomplish the West’s agenda to destroy the family system in Pakistan,” read the joint declaration issued at the end of the concrescence. “This act … is redundant and would add to the miseries of women.”
The passage of the new law was welcomed by rights groups but spirits have since dampened as conservative voices have increasingly called for its retraction.
On Monday, Fazlur Rehman, the chief of one of Pakistan’s largest religious parties, the Jamiat-i-Ulema Islam, said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had promised him at a meeting that he would address the reservations of religious parties.
“Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif heard our reservations against the Punjab Protection of Women Against Violence Act 2016. He promised to amend the law so that it doesn’t contravene the teachings of the holy Koran,” Maulana Fazl told journalists at his residence.
Earlier this month, the Council of Islamic Ideology, a powerful Pakistani religious body that advises the government on the compatibility of laws with Islam, declared the Women’s Protection Act un-Islamic.
A prominent lawyer has also filed a petition in the top sharia court asking it to strike down the law.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/pakistan-major-muslim-orgs-say-law-protecting-women-from-abuse-is-un-islamic

Pakistan: Muslim murders 53 at park as Christians were celebrating Easter


  BY 


UPDATE: A Taliban group has claimed responsibility and says that it was targeting Christians.
—–
“He says the area was crowded because Christians are celebrating the Easter holiday and many families were leaving the park when the blast occurred.”
PAKISTAN-UNREST-CHRISTIANS
Tragedy strikes Lahore: Blast at Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park kills 53, injures 30 on Easter,” First Post, March 27, 2016:
A blast ripped apart a public park in Pakistan’s eastern city of Lahore, the capital of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s political heartland of Punjab, rescue officials said.
The deafening explosion — apparently caused by a suicide bomber — hit gate no.1 around 6:30 pm when the park was teeming with families, specially women and children, dazed witnesses said.
“At least 10 people have been killed in a blast outside Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park,” Jam Sajjad Hussain, spokesman for Rescue 112 said, adding that more than 30 people were injured and had been taken to various hospitals in the city. Most of the injured are women and children, Hussain said.
Senior police officer Haider Ashraf said the explosion took place Sunday in the parking area of Gulshan-e-Iqbal park. He says the explosion appeared to have been a suicide bombing, but investigations were ongoing.
He says the area was crowded because Christians are celebrating the Easter holiday and many families were leaving the park when the blast occurred. He says the death toll could still rise as many of the wounded were in a critical condition. In fact, Pakistani newspaper Dawn tweeted that the death toll was at least 53. Emergency has been declared at all government hospitals in Lahore, the paper said.
ARY News said five to six kg of explosives may have been used in the explosion, which was heard in a large part of Lahore, capital of Punjab province.
 Some reports said the bomb might have been fixed on a parked motorbike….


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/pakistan-muslim-murders-53-at-park-as-christians-were-celebrating-easter







http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Day 5 - The Divine Mercy Novena | 2016 Pray for heretics and schismatics

Jesus asks St.Faustina to pray for 'heretics and schismatics'.
These were the words of Jesus in the Diary of St.Faustina Kowalski.
-L.A



Liberals and traditionalists negate the dogma theologically with their known exceptions in 2016.It is also magisterial

Whatever you make think of this theology, it is certainly not new.
Lionel:
It was not there before the Council of Trent.To assume there is known salvation outside the Church is an irrationality and an innovation. It is the basis of this new theology.
_______________________

Writing nearly a century before the Second Vatican Council, Bl John Henry Newman had this to say: “One of the most remarkable instances of what I am insisting on is found in a dogma, which no Catholic can ever think of disputing, viz., that "Out of the Church, and out of the faith, is no salvation." Not to go to Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as of St. Augustine and his contemporaries in the fourth and fifth. It can never be other than an elementary truth of Christianity; and the present Pope has proclaimed it as all Popes, doctors, and bishops before him.
Lionel:
Even the SSPX proclaims it and at the same time says the baptism of desire etc is an exception to EENS.In other words theologically there is known salvation outside the Church.They can see or know cases of the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.
_____________________
But that truth has two aspects, according as the force of the negative falls upon the "Church" or upon the "salvation." The main sense is, that there is no other communion or so called Church, but the Catholic, in which are stored the promises, the sacraments, and other means of salvation;
Lionel:
 Yes and theologically it is also said, not everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation EXCEPT FOR...
Or as Vatican Council II suggests, all need to enter the Church with faith and baptism (AG 7, LG 14) but....
Or, as Michael Voris says on the Vortex, every one needs to enter the Church but not every one needs to be a card carrying member !.
Liberals and traditionalists negate the dogma theologically with their allegedly known exceptions in 2016.It is also magisterial.The contemporary magisterium contradicts the Council of Trent and pre-Council of Trent magisterium.
_______________________

the other and derived sense is, that no one can be saved who is not in that one and only Church. 
Lionel: 
Yes however since there is known salvation outside the Church they also assume a non Catholic can be saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church. As if this case was known, they infer that this person does not need to formally enter the Church for salvation.
Who is this person? What is his name?
________________________

But it does not follow, because there is no Church but one, which has the Evangelical gifts and privileges to bestow, that therefore no one can be saved without the intervention of that one Church.”
Lionel:
If there is some one saved without the intervention of this one Church it would not be known to us. So why mention it with respect to the dogma EENS?
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/leon-bloys-role-in-the-catholicism-of-jacques-and-raissa-maritain

The local liberal bishop took over EWTN and projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation

Mother Angelica held the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)  according to the popes,Church Councils and saints. When the local liberal bishop took over EWTN he projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger supported the local bishop and the USCCB with the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.It assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. For the CDF Prefect there was known salvation outside the Church but for Mother Angelica there was no known salvation outside the Church.Cardinal Ratzinger however was still reported as being a fan of EWTN.

Present day EWTN like Pope Benedict, continues to project the dogma EENS as having exceptions.The traditionalists do the same.

When Christopher Ferrara wrote EWTN a Network Gone Wrong he made the same mistake. He did not know that assuming there is known salvation outside the Church, in the new theology,  was responsible for EWTN's break with Tradition.He did not know that there was an objective  error in the theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It was  heresy, approved by the magisterium.

Chris Ferrara would use the irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and the result would be non traditional.Then he would reject Vatican Council II.

The new EWTN would also use the same irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II but would welcome the non traditional result ( like Pope Benedict in his interview with Avvenire) and then accept Vatican Council II.
 The theological committees of the new EWTN, without Mother Angelica, would  then consider Christopher Ferrara and Fr.Nicholas Gruner as 'schismatic', 'pre conciliar' and 'dissenting'.
Ferrara and Fr.Nicholas Gruner did not know that by avoiding the inference, that of there being known exceptions to the dogma EENS, Vatican Council II and EENS, would be in harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Church.
But not every one agrees with the new EWTN without Mother Angelica.
John Martignoni who has a program on EWTN says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.He refers to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as 'zero cases'.Zero cases for him ( and for me) cannot be exceptions to anything.
-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________

What would be the reaction of EWTN or the other forums they are associated with if Fr.Harrison and Patrick Madrid said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us and so - one can also affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?
 
This was the original position of Mother Angelica. She held the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the popes. Councils and saints. However, when the local liberal bishop took over they projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.
Gradually EWTN began saying that it was not necessary for every one in the present times to enter the Catholic Church since there could be visible to us cases saved in invincible ignorance etc. It was assumed there were known exceptions.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/frbrian-harrison-like-other-convert.html


When Mother Angelica was there at EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) there was a page on their website devoted to the Church teaching outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.Mother Angelica insisted that this was the teaching of the Church and made available a list of Church Fathers who affirmed what later became a dogma at the Council of Florence.

 Fr.William Most's artcile on the EWTN website, The Church and Salvation and his article on the internet, The Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney placed by EWTN on the internet indicate there is dissent at EWTN and a rejection of the Church's teachings.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2009/10/ewtn-without-mother-angelica-is.html

_________________________________________________


Bishop Robert J.Baker approves the irrational interpretation of EWTN/NCR speakers and writers ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/bishop-robert-jbaker-approves.html

SEPTEMBER 24, 2011


APPEAL TO CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, VATICAN: IT’S TIME TO CLARIFY THE BOSTON HERESY OF RICHARD CUSHING http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/09/appeal-to-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html


ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0228-ewtn.htm

"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says"

Comments On: Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

Lionel:

MARCH 27, 2016

Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/card-ratzinger-interpreted-vatican.html

Blogger Mark Citadel said...
Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!


Anonymous Chuck Martelowski said...
Does not the fact that 1962 came thirteen years after the Cushing letter indicate that the vibrating theological heads of the Great Council were already well convinced of "known salvation," whether or not it contradicted the long established doctrine of EENS? It is not rational to argue that V2 makes perfect -- and perfectly traditional -- sense, if only we do Lionel's "I Dream of Jeannie" head gazoink. It forces one to argue that the intent of the authors plays no role in interpreting what they wrote. In fact, EENS had to go if the agenda of the V2 theologians was to move forward with the business of "profoundly evolving" the Church to the requirements of the zeitgeist. In other words, if the Cushing letter had not existed, it would have been necessary for the V2 conspirators to invent it.

I agree with much of what Lionel says, and in any case do not intend to turn this thread into a cheap suit of back-and-forth argle-bargle.

Lionel:
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, like that of Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949, was an injustice.There was no known salvation outside the Church
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-excommunication-of-archbishop.html
-L.A


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6312447&postID=2702835882696222549

The Nicene Creed was changed with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake : it was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

The Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' refers to one known baptism, the baptism of water. It can be repeated, it can be seen, it is physical. Every one needs this physical baptism for salvation. We do not know of any physical exception.We cannot meet someone who will not need this physical baptism and be saved.

PHYSICAL EXCEPTIONS FOR CARD.RATZINGER
But for Cardinal Ratzinger, there being salvation outside the Church, there were physical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. He approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which suggested that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, happened without the baptism of water and they were exceptions to all needing the physical baptism of water.So now there was not one known baptism but there were three known baptisms, three physical baptisms for Cardinal Ratzinger. They are water ( as before) but also desire and blood.

THERE IS NO 'PHYSICAL' BAPTISM OF DESIRE
This is irrational since the baptism of desire for example, cannot be administered, it is not physical and it is unknown to us.So the traditional meaning of a Creed has been changed by using an irrational inference.
Like the Nicene Creed changed for Catholics,the Athanasian Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvaton has also been rejected with alleged known salvation outside the Church.

OFFICIAL HERESY
Cardinal Raztinger has been encouraging heresy in the Church with his irrational new theology based on known physical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) he says with reference to all needing the baptism of water for salvation that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'.It is as if he would know of some exception to the necessity of the baptism of water that he mentioned it in this context. 1
The change in the Nicene Creed came with the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which mentions being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.They should not have been mentioned in the 1949 Letter. Since there are no explicit cases in our reality and we cannot say that someone has been saved with the baptism of desire for example, with or without the baptism of water.
The original error was there in the Baltimore Catechism which assumes 'the desirethereof' ( Council of Trent) was a baptism like the baptism of water, and it had the same results. This was speculation. Since no one could have known this in reality or confirmed it. This would not be a physical case. So it would not be relevant to the subject, that is, the necessity of the baptism of water for all for salvation.
NO CORRECTION FROM CDF
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was  then mentioned in Vatican Council II, when it was something superflous.The error was not corrected by Cardinal Raztinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Insread Cardinal Ratzinger uses this Cushingism theology in the magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis s.j (2001).

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 MISTAKES
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing (who is not in invincible ignorance, since those cases it is assumed refer to objective persons who will be saved and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire...

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

HYPOTHETICAL CASES ARE CONSIDERED EXPLICIT IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

'...the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.'
'...the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation' are known only to God , and if they ' can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.', we would not know of any such case. So it cannot be relevant or an exception to EENs. So why did they have to metion it in the Letter? Since they wrongly assumed these were objective cases.They were explicit exceptions for the magisterium.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. This is a reference to a hypothetical case so why is it mentioned here with reference to EENS ? We have here the beginning of 'a development of dogma' based on alleged known salvation outside the Church.Hypothetical cases are considered objectively known. Then it is inferred that these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to EENS.
'However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire,...' So what if God accepts also an implicit desire ? It is an unknown case for us. So what connection does it have with EENS?.
'those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation...O.K this is theoretical speculation. A lot of goodwill.But what's it doing in this Letter? Is this not a confusion of what is invisible as being invisible, what is speculative as being objective ?
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...He reproves those who exclude defacto, known, objective cases of person saved by implicit desire? Why is implicit desire mentioned here when it has no connection with EENS since there are no physically known cases, for it to be an exception to EENS.2    -Lionel Andrades
 
  
1.
The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the CDF Prefect, like that of Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949, was an injustice.There was no known salvation outside the Church
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-excommunication-of-archbishop.html
2.
Chris Ferrara and the SSPX bishops use the irrationality of the Letter ( hypothetical-objective exceptions) to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/chris-ferrara-and-sspx-bishops-use.html



Card. Ratzinger interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrationality when a rational option was available .He then excommunicated Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops for not accepting this heretical version of the faith
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/card-ratzinger-interpreted-vatican.html
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrationality. May God bless him for that
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-was-correct-in.html

_______________________________________________________