Monday, July 25, 2016

Yes what are you going to do about it?



From the blog Rome Reports

The Downfall of Luciferian Pride

 

13015-Lucifer-Fall-of-by-Gustave-Dore-1866.630w.tn
The Fall of Lucifer, by Gustave Dore, 1866.

The Sin of our Age

It is often said that pride is the sin of our age...

Vatican II as the consummate sin of Pride

Now the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, as Pope Pius XII taught, the Holy Spirit, Her quasi-soul.  As is seen in the history of the Church, in moments of crisis, the Holy Spirit has raised up holy Saints and Doctors and Popes who have called councils to condemn errors and restore disciplines...
After 60 years, anyone with a sense of honesty must admit that something is wrong with Vatican II and its implementation.  That leads to the obvious conclusion that pride has entered into the mix somewhere...
Lionel: Something is still wrong. Since traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical LG 16, LG 14 etc are really explicit and objective in the present times and so they are not hypothethical.
Avoid this error and Vatican Council II changes before your very eyes.
____________________

Pride visible in the Conciliar Texts

It is a work of pride to assert anyone can be saved apart from Christ and apart from His Church.  But this is what Nostra Aetate did...
Lionel: We have an example of the irrational premise here. A hypothetical reference is considered objective and a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The fault is there with the interpretation and not Vatican Council II.
_______________________

What are you going to do about it?

Lionel: Yes what are you going to do about it?
-Lionel Andrades


https://fromrome.wordpress.com/

Traditionalists need to make the transition to invisible for us baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.They will not be denying BOD and I.I but will be rationally choosing a hypothetical for us BOD and I.I.Then they can watch how Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church changes

Often traditionalists will say that they do not accept Vatican Council II since it is a rupture with Tradition and they cannot accept what I say since the Catholic Church accepts the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).
They do not realize that I am saying the same thing.They do not connect their irrational interpretation of BOD and I.I  with their position on Vatican Council II.It is because of the irrational interpretation of BOD and I.I that Vatican Council II has a rupture with Tradition for them.
With an irrational premise, like that of the contemporary magisterium, 'the Church', they interpret Vatican Council II in a non traditional way.
If they can see how physically visible for us BOD and I.I produces a Vatican Council II which is a rupture with Tradition, they can avoid this wrong premise.With invisible for us BOD and I.I , Lumen Gentium  14( BOD) and Lumen Gentium16(I.I) do not contradict the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So the old ecclesiology is intact.
Image result for Photos of wrong premise worng conclusion
With invisible for us BOD and I.I the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of EENS is not contradicted, I repeat. So the Church, before and after the Council of Trent, has the same ecclesiology.This would be a nightmare for the liberals and the Left.
Image result for Photos of wrong premise worng conclusion
The traditionalists now need to make the transition to invisible for us BOD and I.I .They are not denying BOD and I.I .They are rationally choosing a hypothetical for us BOD and I.I.Then they can watch how Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church changes.
Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Boniface on Unam Sanctam Catholicam, has written  many reports critical of Vatican Council II but they are based on physically visible for us BOD and I.I.
AKA Catholic
Similarly Louie Verrecchio depends on the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council, with hypothetical references considered non hypothetical.
So what I write here is important for them.They cannot understand what I am saying since our premises( visible/invisible BOD)  and conclusions (rupture/ continuation with EENS) are very different.
-Lionel Andrades

The Vortex—Satan’s Trophies

Church Militant

Like the Fatima visionaries, we should meditate on hell - Donal Anthony Foley

A statue of Our Lady of Fatima is carried during a candlelight vigil at the sanctuary in Portugal (AP)
Reflecting on the horrors of hell can help us to avoid ending up there
What are we to make of the vision of hell which was seen by the Fatima children on July 13, 1917?
The vision was revealed in Sister Lucia’s Third Memoir – which was written in the summer of 1941 – when she stated that she was going to reveal the first two parts of the Fatima secret, and that the first part of this secret was the vision of hell.
This is how she describes it:
“Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent.”
After this horrifying vision, Sister Lucia went on to say:
“This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.”
Clearly, this vision was very brief, but very powerful and indeed terrifying. Sr Lucia then says:
“We then looked up at Our Lady, who said to us so kindly and so sadly: ‘You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.’ ”
Our Lady then went on to outline what needed to be done if souls would indeed be saved and peace given to the world – that is the second part of the secret.
The first point to make about this vision is that it strongly affirms the existence of hell, a fact which has been downplayed by some Catholics in recent years; the vision seen by the children, though, and the whole of Catholic tradition are opposed to that type of thinking. And in addition, Jesus mentions hell a number of times in the New Testament, and in quite graphic terms.
For example, in St Mark’s Gospel, after describing various sins that would make a person worthy of going to hell, such as corrupting little children, or using parts of the body for sinful purposes, he says: “And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:42-48)
In St Matthew’s Gospel, in the parable of the sower, Jesus uses the weeds and the wheat of the parable as symbolic of the lost and the saved, saying: “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn” (Matthew 13:30).
There is a reference to the traditional concept of hell here in the fact that the weeds are burned.
Later on, Jesus explained the meaning of this parable to his disciples, saying:
“Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Matt 13:40-42)
So from these and other scriptural passages we get a general picture of hell as a place of eternal punishment, a punishment involving fire, a never-ending fire, and also as a place of remorse and despair.
Thus the thought of hell is meant to be a sobering one for us, and one we should take seriously. The vision of hell certainly made a very strong impression on the Fatima seers, and particularly on Jacinta, as Sister Lucia further relates:
“The vision of hell filled her with horror to such a degree, that every penance and mortification was as nothing in her eyes, if it could only prevent souls from going there.”
In fact, hell became a preoccupation of young Jacinta. One time she exclaimed:
“Oh, hell! hell! How sorry I am for the souls who go to hell! And the people down there, burning alive, like wood in the fire!”
Lucia tells us that, she would then kneel down with her hands joined, and recite the prayer that Our Lady had taught them: “O my Jesus! Forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.”
At other times, she asked her cousin: “Why doesn’t Our Lady show hell to sinners? If they saw it, they would not sin, so as to avoid going there! You must tell Our Lady to show hell to all the people. You’ll see how they will be converted.”
Before she died, Jacinta spent some time at an orphanage in Lisbon. The Sister in charge, who was known as Mother Godinho, was able to talk to Jacinta. In some cases, it seems that the things Jacinta spoke of came from Our Lady, but in others they resulted from the infused wisdom with which the little girl was gifted. In fact, Mother Godinho asked Jacinta about this, saying, ‘Who taught you these things?’ to which she responded, ‘Our Lady, but some of them I thought myself. I love to think.’
Jacinta reportedly told Mother Godinho that many people went to hell because of “sins of the flesh”. She also apparently said that certain fashions would be introduced which would be very offensive to Our Lord.
Clearly we are living in a time when sexual immorality and immodest fashions are widespread, so these points very much apply to our age.
We are not likely to see either heaven or hell in this life, but in the first part of the Fatima secret we have been given a clear reiteration of hell’s existence and horror. Like Jacinta, we need to mediate on hell – in our case so as to ensure that we don’t end up going there.

Donal Anthony Foley is the author of a number of books on Marian  Apparitions, and maintains a related web site at www.theotokos.org.uk. He has also a written a time-travel/adventure book for young people


http://www.m.www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/07/21/like-the-fatima-visionaries-we-should-meditate-on-hell/

So Boniface and the traditionalists affirm one thing ( Great Commission and need to enter the Church) but act in a manner contrary ( there are theological exceptions to the Great Commission)

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
 
The point is, you can't mentally affirm one thing but act in a manner contrary to it for forty years. You can't affirm the Great Commission is still a mandate while acting as if there is no particular class of people who actually need Christ and His Church. You cannot say the Great Commission applies to persons individually but not to the Church collectively (related: "The Great Commission is Institutional"). To purport to be able to do so is the worst form of Doublespeak, which the human mind cannot long endure. This is why, given a disconnect between what is taught and what is actually happening "on the ground", the praxis becomes dominant and the teaching fades into the background - not forgotten, but kind of ignored, as the woman noted about Purgatory...-Boniface, Unam Sanctam Catholicam
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.it/
 
Lionel:

The point is, you can't mentally affirm one thing but act in a manner contrary to it for forty years.
Yes we cannot affirm mentally that the catechumen who desires the baptism of water, died before receiving it, went to Heaven is a known case. We cannot act as if this imaginery personal is a known case in the past or present.This is what Boniface and the other traditionalist do.This is how they act. They express it in their writings and their talks.
We cannot say the popes and saints mentioned the baptism of desire and also not say that none of them said that these cases were explicit and objective.The popes and saints knew that these cases were hypothetical. This has to be said too.l It is common sense that they are hypothetical cases.Yet  Boniface and the traditionalists do not do so. So there are exceptions to the Great Commission in their words and actions. There are exceptions also to all needing the baptism of water for salvation according to the Bible ( John 2:5).
Boniface and the traditionalists affirm one thing( Great Commission and need to enter the Church) but act in a manner contrary ( there are  theological exceptions to the Great Commission).
_____________________________
 
 You can't affirm the Great Commission is still a mandate while acting as if there is no particular class of people who actually need Christ and His Church.
Lionel: This is precisely what is done by Boniface, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, John Salza and Robert Siscoe, Louie Verrecchio and the sedevacantists Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bishop Donald Sanborn.This is also the position of the conservatives Ralph Martin, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Michael Voris...
Theologically there are people for all of them, who do not need Christ.Since there is salvation outside the Church. There is salvation outside the Church since the baptism of desire (BOD)  and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to physically known cases instead of invisible persons in our reality. Since these hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical they are projected as exceptions to the old ecclesiology based on the dogma EENS.This is the liberal interpretation of EENS. This is also the hermenutic for Vatican Council II approved by the liberals and the contemporary magisterium. It is all accepted by Boniface and the 'liberal traditionalists' who attend only the Traditional Latin Mass.
______________________________
 
 You cannot say the Great Commission applies to persons individually but not to the Church collectively (related: "The Great Commission is Institutional").
Lionel: Yes the Great Commission should be institutional, as in past centuries, but the contempoary magisterium interprets being saved in BOD and I.l as exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.So the Church today has rejected the old ecclesiology. There are exceptions to the old teachings on ecumenism and salvation for non Christians.With the new theology, accepted by Boniface, there are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church. So there must also be exceptions to the Great Commission.
________________________________
 
To purport to be able to do so is the worst form of Doublespeak, which the human mind cannot long endure.
Lionel: Yes this is double speak.This is also the double speak of the SSPX and the sedevacantists. Their new theology says every one needs to enter the Church but some do not. We also can see the double speak in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1257). It says all need the baptism of water for salvation( defacto) but some do not.Why? Since God is not limited to the Sacraments.But God is not limited to the Sacraments is hypothetical. It is not defacto known in personal cases. However the confusion between what is visible and invisible, objective and hypothetical,explicit and implicit, is useful for double speak. Even the traditionalists and sedevacantists are supporting this confusion.They use this doublespeak.
_______________________________
 
 This is why, given a disconnect between what is taught and what is actually happening "on the ground", the praxis becomes dominant and the teaching fades into the background - not forgotten, but kind of ignored, as the woman noted about Purgatory...-Boniface, Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Lionel: The praxis is in line with the irrational theology. The praxis reflects the new theology based on known cases of BOD and I.I as was postulated in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter used a false premise to create a new conclusion and the Church accepted it.Even Archbishop Lefebvre accepted it.
The traditionalists are proud to say that they are not Feeneyites. Like wise with the liberals.
The traditionalists have the same position on Vatican Council II as the liberals, even though there is a choice available i.e Vatican Council II with LG 16,LG 8 etc not being explicit and so not being exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
Instead Boniface and the tradtionalists have the same liberal position on the dogma EENS(Cushingite) which is politically correct with the Left and is a rupture with pre-Council of Trent understanding of EENS.
-Lionel Andrades