Sunday, May 8, 2016

Roma: Marcia per la vita oggi









MG_3896

IMG_6551


MG_3806












http://blog.messainlatino.it/2016/05/roma-marcia-per-la-vita-altre-foto.html
http://www.marciaperlavita.it/

"Do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” - Pope Francis to Archbishop Bruno Forte.

forte'

"do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions. -Pope Francis to Archbishop Bruno Forte.
Which premise is Pope Francis referring to ? 
Christopher A. Ferrara
Christopher Ferrara does not answer 1.
Both Bruno Forte and the pope know that there are irrational premises used in theology. I think Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schonborn also know what was the irrational premise. The false premise was  used to create a new theology in faith and morals.
But Christopher Ferrara and the traditionalists still do not understand.
They do not know what was the specific premise that Pope Francis referred to.
''do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.
THE PREMISE IS:
The premise is that there is known salvation outside the Church and the conclusion is that the dogma EENS is not longer valid.
The premise is that we know of people saved without the baptism of water and the conclusion is that there is salvation outside the Church. So there is a new doctrine on salvation.
The premise is that we can know objectively subjective factors which would indicate that a person in manifest mortal sin is not going to Hell and so the conclusion is that there are exceptions to the traditional understanding on mortal sin.
Since the premise for Pope Francis is that there is known salvation outside the Church, the conclusion for Pope Francis, is that  all Methodists and Protestants do not need to convert into the Catholic Church to be saved from Hell.
ABP.LEFEBVRE WAS UNAWARE OF THE PREMISE
I mentioned in an earlier blog post that the books recommended by Hilary White 2 notice the  change in the the Church .They however do not mention the theology based on an irrational premise which has created the change.More important, they were unaware that without this theology,without the irrational premise, Vatican Council II is orthodox.
Abp. LefebvreD. Von Hildebrand, Michael Davies were using an irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II.They assumed hypothetical cases  were explicit and these explicit cases, it was concluded, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.They also assumed that these hypothetical cases happened without the baptism of water.
If any pope or religious, uses an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, the conclusion has to be irrational, non traditional- and heretical.I think the popes and Archbishop Forte know this.
Related image

Cardinal Walter Kaspar has used the irrational premise.I have pointed it out on this blog. 

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith  has done the same.

Even Bishop Bernard Fellay has on line interpreted Vatican Council II using the false premise.He has reached an irrational conclusion i.e Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The contemporary magisterium does not make the explicit-implicit distinction.With an irrational premise and conclusion Vatican Council II is projected as a break with Tradition and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Without the irrational premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and affirms the old ecclesiology.
Catholic Schools Banner
Catholic students in catechesis and religion class are taught this objective error.They have to accept the new theology based on the irrational premise and conclusion.
Youth Minister certification

The children are taught :-

1. We human beings can physically see the dead in Heaven.This is the premise.

2. We can know someone in Heaven in the present times who is there without 'faith and baptism'.This is the irrational premise.

Related image
The secular media uses an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth, without the baptism of water".
Then they reach an  irrational conclusion which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and without formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."
Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENs.

 Whenever any one says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to EENS , he  is using the false premise.
1) He infers people in Heaven saved as such are explicit on earth to be exceptions. The dead for us,  now  in Heaven  are visible in the flesh!?

2) He infers he knows of people on earth who will be saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

So if anyone says there are exceptions to EENS it is irrational. It is fantasy. It is heretical and contradicts the pre-1949 Catholic tradtional teachings.

The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council is a break also with the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma.



The point is that we can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the premise.The result is non traditional or traditional.There is a choice. There is an option for example, before the SSPX etc.

The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2016.
Related image

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, blogger-priest, made an objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II when he used an irrational premise to interpret the Council.The result is a non traditional conclusion, a break with the past.

The fault is not there with Vatican Council II but his assuming that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Avoid the premise and the conclusion is traditional.This is the missing link in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.
To reiterate:
what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
what Tradition.
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils does not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
It is with the false premise and false conclusion
n this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the batism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
Related image
The SSPX presently interprets Vatican Council II with the irational premise and so rejects the Council. Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria and the CDF/Ecclesia Dei  officials also interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise - but accept the Council.
None of the two, mention the irrational premise when they discuss Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
Pope's Forte: Spilling the Beans
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2507-pope-s-forte-spilling-the-beans
2.
 Von Hildebrand: Trojan Horse and Devastated vineyardthe Charitable Anathema 
Abp. Lefebvre: Letter to Confused Catholics
Michael Davies: everything...