Wednesday, May 18, 2016

If Bishop Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism he will be considered anti-Semitic.Instead he is willing to reach an agreement with Rome in which Vatican Council II will continue to be interpreted with an irrational premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.

– Would you be ready to grant them the status of a personal prelature?
Pope Francis: That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently.
Bishop Fellay seems ready to sign an agreement with the Vatican which is there before him according to his interview with the National Catholic Register.
All indications are that he will not affirm Vatican Council II as not contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Instead for him,  the Vatican and the Left, Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma EENS.
This is the politically correct position of Bishop Fellay and the SSPX.
If he interprets Vatican Council II without subjectivism made object, without the exceptions- theory, then the Council would affirm the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries. This would make the SSPX anti Semitic.He would be saying all Jews, and other non Catholics, need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.
We know that Bishop Williamson was sidelined by the Vatican and the SSPX because of his anti-Semitic position.Bishop  Fellay and the Vatican avoided any support for Bishop Williamson to protect their interests.
If Bishop Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism he will be considered anti-Semitic. So he he is now avoiding it.
Instead he is willing to reach an agreement with Rome in which Vatican Council II will continue to be interpreted with an irrational premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.
For political reasons he is not going to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise since it would be saying the Council does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of EENS. He would not want to be dubbed a Feeneyite.-Lionel Andrades

Italian Bishop Decries Civil-Unions Bill, Stresses Papal Defense of Natural Family

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, president of the Italian bishops’ conference, emphasizes that the bishops 'underscore the Pope’s statements.'


Bohumil Petrik/CNA
Italian Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco in Cortile di Damaso, Vatican City, before meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on May 16, 2015.
– Bohumil Petrik/CNA
VATICAN CITY — In a powerful speech Tuesday at the opening of the Italian bishops’ general assembly, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa decried the civil-unions bill passed in the nation’s parliament last week, emphasizing that Pope Francis himself always advocates for the natural family.
The president of the Italian bishops’ conference peppered his May 17 speech with several lengthy quotes from Francis and lamented that the Pope’s affirmations of the family are so often ignored in the mainstream press.
The annual gathering of the Italian bishops, May 16-19, is on the topic of “Renewal of the Clergy.” Pope Francis began the assembly with a brief speech on the priesthood on Monday, followed by a closed-door question-and-answer session with the bishops.
Italy’s civil-unions bill passed May 11.
Championed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, the bill passed the Chamber of Deputies by a 369-193 vote of confidence for Renzi. It had already passed the Senate in February, after being watered down “to win the backing of conservative and Catholic senators,” according to The Guardian.
The bill affords couples in civil unions many of the rights of married couples, but its concession added to gain the support of some conservative senators is that parental rights are not granted to non-biological parents in a civil union.
Sen. Monica Cirinna, who sponsored the bill, said the watered-down version is a “hollow victory” and only “a first step,” according to the BBC.
Cardinal Bagnasco decried the new law and said that it “certifies an equivalence” between civil unions and marriage, even “though the law affirms that civil unions and marriage are different things.”
Such “differences are only tricks of terminology or juridical artifacts, which can be easily bypassed.”
According to Cardinal Bagnasco, the law is just an intermediate step “on the path to the final strike, which will eventually include the approval of surrogate motherhood, a practice that exploits women, taking advantage of their poverty.”
Surrogacy is currently illegal in Italy.
Cardinal Bagnasco underscored that people “want the parliament to be committed” to tackling real issues, such as unemployment and poverty. “What are public institutions doing,” he asked rhetorically, to give a long-term response to these issues?
He added that Catholic Relief Services in Italy had provided 12 million meals for the poor and is on the frontlines assisting migrants who arrive, often illegally, on the nation’s shores.
“These are the real problems of the country, of the people. So, it is not understandable why (the Italian Parliament) spent so much emphasis and energy on causes that do not tackle these issues and merely respond to ideological schemes,” the cardinal stressed.
Cardinal Bagnasco also noted Pope Francis’ repeated defense of the natural family.
He quoted from the Pope’s joint declaration with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, in which the bishops said that “the family is based on marriage, an act of freely given and faithful love between a man and a woman. … We regret that other forms of cohabitation have been placed on the same level as this union, while the concept, consecrated in the biblical tradition, of paternity and maternity as the distinct vocation of man and woman in marriage is being banished from the public conscience.”
The cardinal also recalled that Pope Francis called the family “the foundation of coexistence and a remedy against social fragmentation” in his speech to the community of Varginha in Rio de Janeiro on July 25, 2013.
The Pope also, Cardinal Bagnasco continued, stressed at a colloquium held Nov. 17, 2014, that “complementarity lies at the foundation of marriage and the family,” and for this reason, “children have a right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s growth and emotional development.”
Cardinal Bagnasco also recalled that the Pope has often underscored that gender ideology is “a mistake of the human mind” and doubted whether “gender identity” is “an expression of frustration and resignation, which seeks to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it.”
“It cannot be understood why these clear statements from Pope Francis, which the bishops often reiterate, are kept under silence, as if the Pope had never said or written them.”
The bishops of Italy, Cardinal Bagnasco said, “underscore the Pope’s statements, so that they can turn into effective commitment.”

Read more:

Il “matrimonio gay” è legge. Uno scandalo pubblico senza precedenti


(di Lupo Glori) Mercoledì 11 maggio l’Aula della Camera ha dato il via libera definitivo al disegno di legge dal titoloRegolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze, meglio conosciuto come “ddl Cirinnà”, dal nome della sua prima firmataria, la senatrice del Partito Democratico Monica Cirinnà.
Il Governo, così come al Senato lo scorso 24 febbraio, ha preferito “blindare” il testo con il voto di fiducia, ottenendo l’approvazione della legge con 372 voti a favore, 51 contrari e 99 astenuti.
Il provvedimento sulle unioni civili, che istituisce di fatto nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano un simil-matrimonio riservato alle coppie omosessuali e regolamenta i rapporti di convivenza tra le coppie eterosessuali, è stato fortemente voluto dalpremier Matteo Renzi che a caldo, in diretta su Radio Capital, ha così commentato il risultato appena raggiunto dal proprio governo:
«Quando ci sono delle cose giuste da fare vanno fatte. Sono molto contento, oggi è un giorno di festa, l’Italia fa un passo in avanti. Era un giorno molto atteso. Naturalmente ci sono le polemiche di quelli che avrebbero voluto di più, di quelli che avrebbero voluto di meno, ma c’è una gioia molto forte, molto diffusa di coloro che finalmente vedono riconoscere diritti alle coppie omosessuali».
Un pensiero ovviamente in piena sintonia con quello della sua musa, la ministra per le Riforme, Maria Elena Boschi che, dopo essersi presentata in aula agghindata per l’occasione con una coccarda arcobaleno appuntata sulla giacca, ha fatto eco alle parole del proprio capo, dichiarando:
«Oggi è una bellissima giornata per tutti gli italiani e le italiane. Dobbiamo pensare ai cittadini, abbiamo fatto una legge e ci aspettiamo che i primi cittadini che devono dare l’esempio, rispettino le leggi del Parlamento come avviene in ogni stato serio, democratico e civile».
Subito dopo il voto, la stessa Boschi, assieme al candidato sindaco del Pd a Roma, Giachetti, e ad i senatori Cirinnà e Lo Giudice, è scesa in piazza Montecitorio a raccogliere gli applausi dei numerosi militanti LGTB accorsi a festeggiare e dare il meritato tributo agli artefici politici dello storico successo legislativo.
In serata, la festa si è spostata da piazza Montecitorio a Fontana di Trevi sulla quale per l’occasione è stato proiettato un grande fascio di luce arcobaleno in tinta con le bandiere delle diverse sigle ed associazioni LGBT presenti. Star e madrina della serata è stata di nuovo la ministra Boschi, neo incaricata dal premier Renzi delle deleghe sulle Pari opportunità e le adozioni internazionali, portata in trionfo assieme agli altri parlamentari che con il loro impegno hanno contribuito all’approvazione della legge sulle unioni civili.

Nonostante l’epocale risultato, i militanti LGBT hanno però tenuto a sottolineare come tale legge, frutto di un compromesso al ribasso, non rappresenti che un semplice punto di partenza in vista della totale equiparazione con il matrimonio eterosessuale, figli compresi.

A tale proposito l’attivista Imma Battaglia ha addirittura parlato di sconfitta per il popolo omosessuale, dichiarando:
«Oggi i veri sconfitti sono gli omosessuali che con questa legge non vedono affatto superate le discriminazioni nei loro confronti. L’approvazione della legge sulle unioni civili è sicuramente un passo importante che ci fa essere meno tristi, ma non possiamo nasconderci dietro un dito: non è la legge che volevamo e per la quale tanti di noi hanno lottato».
In questo senso – continua la Battaglia – il ddl Cirinnà non è che il primo piccolo passo di un processo ben più ampio:
«Per noi però questo non è affatto un punto di arrivo ma di partenza. Questa non è affatto la legge che desideravamo, perché noi vogliamo il matrimonio egalitario e la possibilità di poter adottare figli. Volevamo la stepchild adoption che invece è stata stralciata negandoci ancora una volta il diritto di essere genitori. Quindi il nostro auspicio è che dopo titubanze e ambiguità si recuperi al più presto questo svantaggio».
Dopo la legge sul divorzio introdotta nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano il 1 dicembre 1970 con la legge n. 898 Fortuna-Baslini, poi confermata attraverso il referendum abrogativo del 12 maggio 1974, e la legge n. 194 sull’aborto del 22 maggio 1978, la data dell’11 maggio 2016 con l’approvazione del “ddl Cirinnà” sulle unioni civili, rimarrà impressa come un’altra pagina nera della storia politica italiana.
La normalizzazione sociale delle unioni tra persone dello stesso sesso costituisce infatti un fenomeno, oltre che inedito, più scandaloso ancora dell’introduzione del divorzio e dell’aborto, entrambi “accettati” nell’ordinamento legislativo, ma tuttavia presentati come “soluzioni estreme”, ossia “mali minori” da tollerare.
Al contrario, la legalizzazione dell’omosessualità, messa in atto attraverso il riconoscimento giuridico delle unioni civili, viene imposta in nome della sua pretesa bontà e normalità intrinseca, trasformando dunque un assoluto male morale in un bene assoluto da diffondere e promuovere nella società come modello pienamente positivo. In questo senso, l’omosessualità costituisce uno scandalo pubblico senza precedenti, proprio perché sdogana e promuove come “buoni”, comportamenti perversi che vanno contro la natura dell’uomo e che perciò meritano di essere definiti “anormali”. Questo scandalo si perpetua e manifesta ogni giorno attraverso legami pubblici e stabili rappresentati dalle “famiglie” same-sex, l’unione tra persone dello stesso sesso, oggi riconosciuta dallo Stato italiano. Una situazione di immoralità pubblica e permanente che nessuna società, nel corso di più di duemila anni di storia, ha mai osato legittimare o legalizzare.
Il dibattito, fortemente divisivo, attorno allo pseudo-matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso ha avuto inoltre il limite di incentrarsi unicamente attorno ai diritti della persona, tenendo da conto dunque il mero piano soggettivo, e tralasciandoquello che in realtà costituisce il vero nocciolo della questione, ossia la valutazione oggettiva del comportamento omosessuale attraverso i basilari e dirimenti concetti di naturale e innaturale, vero ed erroneo, giusto e ingiusto.
Il passaggio dell’omosessualità da condizione patologica o perversione eccezionale a status “normale”, è frutto di tale ribaltamento di valutazione e di una studiata operazione di ingegneria sociale che, come scriveva Mario Palmaro (1968-2014), «vorrebbe trasformare una normalità di tipo sociologico in una normalità di tipo antropologico morale: se gli omosessuali sono presenti in numero rilevante, e la gente li approva, allora significa che essere gay è un comportamento assolutamente innocente del punto di vista etico».
Questo artificiale processo di legittimazione sociale degli atti contro natura riporta alla memoria il veritiero e duro monito del filosofo francese Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850):  «Quando la ragione pubblica smarrita onora ciò che è spregevole, disprezza ciò che è onorevole, punisce la virtù e ricompensa il vizio, incoraggia ciò che nuoce e scoraggia ciò che è utile, applaudisce alla menzogna e soffoca il vero sotto l’indifferenza o l’insulto, una nazione volge le spalle al progresso e non vi può essere ricondotta se non dalle terribili lezioni delle catastrofi» (F. Bastiat, Armonie economiche, Utet, Torino 1954, p. 595.). (Lupo Glori)

Then the liberals and Masons would have a problem with Vatican Council II and not the SSPX.It is Pope Francis who would feel uncomfortable with the traditionalist Council : Doctrinally the Vatican is in error but the SSPX bishops and priests, are not aware of it

The mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was transferred on to Vatican Council II. In many passages in the Council there are references to hypothetical cases. These hypothetical cases are interpreted as being objective and known in the present times.So this is the new theology with which Vatican Council II is interpreted with.

It was similar to 1949 when the baptism of desire for instance, was a hypothetical case but it was assumed to be explicit and known in personal cases. So it was wrongly assumed to be relevant and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was a mistake.
However today he hypothetical cases (LG 16 etc) in Vatican Council II can be interpreted as just being hypothetical.They are not objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. So Vatican Council II can be interpreted  with the old theology, on other religions and Christian communities.This is hard to believe for many Catholics. Since they are so conditioned to read Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objective,that they cannot believe there can be such a dramatic change in our interpretation of the Council.
Yet it is there before us. Any one can check it out and announce it.
So when Pope Francis now says that the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II , for him, there is only a Vatican Council II in which hypothetical references are considered to be objective in the present times.It is a Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise to reach a non traditional conclusion.
1.The premise is that there are known cases of people saved outside the Church without the baptism of water.
2.The premise is there is known salvation outside the Church.
3.The premise is that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
4.The premise is that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
5.The premise is that we humans can know of people on earth in the present times, who will be saved without formal membership in the Catholic Church.
The conclusion is that not every one needs to be a formal member of the Church for salvation.
The conclusion is not every one needs 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14)  to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
The conclusion is that there could be an Anonymous Christian saved in a  Christian community,  Protestant or Pentecostal, who believes in Jesus and this is enough or salvation.Since it is not necessary to formally enter the Church any more.
The conclusion is that there could be a non Christian, Hindus, Buddhist, saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church, without him having to formally enter the Catholic Church.
In  the previous post 1. I mentioned that there is a factual error in Vatican Council II and the SSPX does not want to admit it and so say that they were wrong all these years and the two popes do not want to admit it and say that the Council supports the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) .They both have their interests.The St.Benedict Centers, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, also do not want to comment on this issue since they have made the same mistake as the SSPX on Vatican Council II
Archbishop Bruno Forte. Image courtesy of
This month Archbishop Forte quoted Pope Francis saying 'do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.
The premises are there in Vatican Council and the popes draw a conclusion which is a break with Tradition and so they welcome this non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.
I interpret Vatican Council II without the premise and so the conclusion is not a break with Tradition.
Image result for photo unthinkable
For Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper interpreting Vatican Council II without the irrational premise, would be unthinkable.
Similarly in another post 2 I wrote that Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider, like Pope Francis, have accepted that there is salvation outside the Church. Since for both of them being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to objective cases. They would have to be objective for them to be exceptions to EENs.This was the thinking of the cardinals who issued and approved the Letter of the Holy Office during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
They inferred that I.I and BOD were explicit.
They assumed hypothetical cases of the the BOD and I.I were explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite traditional interpretation of EENS. In other words they could physically meet or see persons saved without the baptism of water and who did not need to formally convert into the Church. They could know someone on earth who would be saved without formally having to enter the Church.
This cannot be known to human beings!
It is with this error that Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of discontinuity with Tradition.
If Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider avoid this error Vatican Council II is not a break with the past.
1.They both simply have to understand there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance in 2016.This is factual. There cannot be any such known case.
2.They have to simply understand that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II refers to hypothetical cases and not objectively known exceptions to EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
This means there is no known salvation outside the Church, past or present.
This is an important  point  for the re-conciliation of the SSPX with the Vatican.
Doctrinally the Vatican is in error but the SSPX bishops and priests, are not aware of it.They all see the vague result of Vatican Council II being a break with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors but are unaware that this rupture is caused by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively  known.If this error is avoided Vatican Council II would be traditional. Then the liberals and Masons would have a problem with Vatican Council II and not the SSPX.It is Pope Francis who would feel uncomfortable with the traditionalist Council.- Lionel Andrades
There is still hope that the SSPX can turn things around without compromising on Vatican Council II ( interpreted with the irrrational premise and conclusion)
May be someone who is in contact with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could ask them these two questions and send me their response