Friday, October 7, 2016

CDL. BURKE DOUBLES DOWN ON DANGER OF ISLAM

NEWS: WORLD NEWS

by Bradley Eli, M.Div., Ma.Th.  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  October 6, 2016    
We are not strong in faith, and an easy prey for conquest"
ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Cardinal Raymond Burke is doubling down on the threat Islam poses to the Christian world, pointing again to its inherent goal of world domination, now more attainable owing to the loss of Christian identity in the West.
In a new interview posted this week by Il Giornale, Cdl. Burke warns that Christians aren't recognizing Islam for what it really is. "It is clear that Muslims have as an ultimate goal conquest and power over the world. Islam, through the sharia, their law, will rule the world and allow violence against the infidels, like the Christians," he explained.
Appointed patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta by Pope Francis, Cdl. Burke points to history as proof that Islam has always had this goal of world conquest with special designs on Europe. "The whole history of the Islamic presence in Europe is an attempt to conquer it," he commented. "We just celebrated, on September 8, the victory of the Knights of Malta after a three-month siege by the Muslims in 1565. Malta would have been the springboard to Europe."
This reaffirms the same point Cdl. Burke made in July regarding the Christian battles with Muslims at Lepanto in 1571 and Vienna in 1683. "These historical events relate directly with the situation of today. There's no question that Islam wants to govern the world."
In his interview this week, Cdl. Burke says one reason for people's misunderstanding of Islam is owing to their mistaken notion that we Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. "Many people do not understand what Islam really is," he said. "They create these slogans: We all believe in the same God, that we are all united by love and so on. It's not true."
In an August press conference, Cdl. Burke clarified that Catholics and Muslims don't worship the same God.
I don't believe it's true that we're all worshipping the same God because the God of Islam is a governor. … Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually. … And it's not a law that's founded on love. … We have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world.
This week the cardinal contrasts the God of Christianity — Triune and Incarnate — with the God of Islam. "Islam is a threat in the sense that the true Muslim Allah must rule the world," he clarified. "Christ in the Gospel said, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.'"
The former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church's highest court, noted that the Qur'an itself, to which Muslims answer, calls for worldwide domination. "On the contrary, the Islamic religion which is based on the law of the Qur'an aims to govern all countries where there are Muslims," he continued. "While they are the minority they cannot insist, but when they become the majority they must apply the Sharia."
The American-born prelate says Islam is expanding owing to a loss of Christian identity in the West. The solution, he notes, is for the West to defend its Christian roots.  
[T]here is only one Savior of the world, Jesus Christ. We must not proselytize, imposing Christianity, but if we believe in Jesus it is our duty to bear witness. … We supinely accept practices that are contrary to the natural law, such as abortion or the so-called marriage between persons of the same sex. It is the proof that we are not strong in faith, and an easy prey for conquest.
During the interview, Cdl. Burke was asked about the "writings of the Islamic State" on the "walls of Sirte, former stronghold of ISIS in Libya … regarding the conquest of Rome."
He responded, "It is a real danger. Islam is realized in conquest. And what is the most important conquest in the confrontation with Christians? Rome."
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-burke-doubles-down-on-the-danger-of-islam

John Allen at Crux says he has no position on this issue: Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism instead of the usual irrational Cushingism ?

John Allen



to me
Thanks for writing Crux. To the best of my
 knowledge, certainly not in the six months 
 I’ve been editor, we’ve never touched on 
the Feeney case, so I’m not sure which 
 “position” you’re referring to. In any event,
 Crux as such has no editorial line at  all 
– what we have are the positions of our
 individual authors.

JLA

* * *
John Allen
President
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47TVhPTklleENFblE&export=download
Crux Catholic Media Inc.
3422 Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80238
US Mobile: +1.646.373.5238
Italy Mobile: +39.389.614.6131
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47UFUxNTNQOVZVWkU&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47NllJZjhwLTB2VjQ&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47bzUyekcxaHpIZUk&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47d2lkQ09WcmxqUnM&export=download





From: Lionel Andrades
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2016 12:28 PM
To: John Allen
Subject: Re: Crux contact


You have been interpreting Vatican
Council II with Cushingism i.e there 
are known exceptions (LG 16, LG 8
 etc) in Vatican Council II to the 
Feeneyite interpretation of the 
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
(EENS). This has been your position 
even before you were at Crux.
Even now you are not saying that
Vatican Council II can be interpreted
with Feeneyism i.e there 
are no visible exceptions mentioned 
in the Council-text, to the Feeneyite 
interpretationof EENS.
Similarly you accept the dogma EENS 
as having exceptions in the baptism of
 desire etc as suggested in the Letter 
of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop
 of Boston.
This has been magisterial for you 
and you have always supported this.
So there is a choice. We can 
interpret Vatican Council II in which
 LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) refers
 to visible- in- the- flesh cases in 2016 
and so it is relevant to EENS or like me, 
we can interpret LG 16 as referring to an 
invisible case and so it is not relevant 
or an exception to the centuries old
interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Isn't Crux's position clear on this issue?
In Christ
Lionel



to me
Lionel:

Thanks for writing. Crux as such has 
no position on anything, other than 
a commitment to the best journalism
 of which we’re capable. 
Our writers have positions, I suppose,
 though I certainly don’t have a 
personally developed one on
 the issue you raise.


JLA


* * *
John Allen
President
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47TVhPTklleENFblE&export=download
Crux Catholic Media Inc.
3422 Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80238
US Mobile: +1.646.373.5238
Italy Mobile: +39.389.614.6131
https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47UFUxNTNQOVZVWkU&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47NllJZjhwLTB2VjQ&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47bzUyekcxaHpIZUk&export=download https://docs.google.com/a/cruxnow.com/uc?id=0B2xtMM-HkS47d2lkQ09WcmxqUnM&export=download


Muslim international student CUTS THROAT of female student, gets put in chokehold by heroic Canadian boy

Muslim international student CUTS THROAT of female student,

 gets put in chokehold by heroic Canadian boy

ByPAMELA GELLER on October 7, 2016
ubc-totem-park
UPDATE:  “The girl attacked at UBC was found by XXXXXXX’s daughter. It was a Saudi student who had postings on his Facebook of decapitation. He was trying to cut her head off.”
The enemedia is not just scrubbing, it’s covering it up. Worse, they are running tripe about pressure from schoolwork. You would behead anyone because your homework was challenging?
==============================================
And so he did.
The suspect is an international student from Saudi Arabia, and was studying engineering. He has been banned from the campus following the charges, and remains in police custody…. more
Saudi Muslim student Thamer Hameed Almestadi almost cut the throat of a female student before being stopped by a heroic Canadian student who credited his martial arts training for his quick actions that led to the suspect’s arrest. The victim did not know her would-be killer.
Casey said he’s been referred to as a hero, but he acknowledged he wasn’t the only one who was able to help the young woman.
“There were a lot of people there that day… there were a lot of girls on the floor, the floor advisors, head of security, the police, there were tons of people. Either we’re all heroes or none of us are.” 

Thamer Hameed Almestadi, 18, has been charged with attempted murder in an incident on the UBC campus.
Saudi international student tries to MURDER girl with knife, gets put in chokehold by heroic Canadian boy,” Rebel Media, October 6, 2016:
A Canadian boy is a hero after he stopped a Saudi student at the University of British Columbia from murdering a female victim with a knife.
Engineering student Adam Casey saved the day by putting the Saudi in a headlock. According to CTV, Casey ran up the stairs when people came out of the Salish House residence on Tuesday looking for help. The victim’s neck was partially cut when witnesses ran through the open door.
“I tried to get his hands off of her neck but he was holding quite tightly,” Casey said. “I had to go to him and put him in a chokehold.”

When police arrived on the scene, Thamer Hameed Almestadi was detained by Casey and other students.
Court records show counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault and assault with a weapon have been approved against the 18-year-old Saudi. Police say the attack was not random and that the suspect knew the victim.
Almestadi has been banned from the campus following the charges, and remains in police custody.
The victim was rushed to the hospital and is expected to recover from non-life-threatening injuries.
- http://pamelageller.com/2016/10/muslim-international-student-cuts-throat-of-female.html/#sthash.1wQdMcXw.dpuf

Pakistan: Christian girl kidnapped, raped because family refused to convert to Islam

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Ask Edward Pentin and John Allen if we can interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of irrational Cushingism

I have affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,845,846), Nicene Creed ( I believe in one (known) baptism for the forgiveness of sins( and not three), the Athanasius Creed ( outside the Church there is no salvation), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Feeneyite EENS.I am not a sedevacantist nor a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II. I am a Catholic.
I interpret all these documents and Church teachings with Feeneyism while the Vatican Curia/CDF/Ecclesia  does it with Cushngism.
You could ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or with Feeneyism and if Cushingism can be replaced with Feeneyism, by all.
John Allen at Crux could ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei if I have permission to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( there are no  visible exceptions to EENS) and if you also could do the same.
campo bambine 1
Ask Edward  Pentin if  Church documents and teachings- Nicene Creed, dogma e xtra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS),Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism or Cushingism and one of them is irrational .
Once the problem has been identified it can be solved.
They simply have to interpret these magisterial teachings and documents with traditional Feeneyism.This means they have to avoid the New Theology which has come in a direct way from the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
An objective mistake was made in the Letter when it assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible in the present times.The same error was repeated in Vatican Council II and so there are superficial passages ( LG 14,LG 16 etc) which create ambiguity.
The same error and ambiguity is also there in Dominus Iesus  and Redemptoris Missio which are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.There are Feeneyite passages in them but over all the theology is Cushingite.

The SSPX needs to  be aware of this and correct their doctrinal position on Vatican Council II.They need to admit that Vatican Council II Cushingite is a rupture with Tradition but Vatican Council II Feeneyite is in line with the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

So when Pope Benedict XVI a few months back said that EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century this was based on Cushingite theology, the new theology which he and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J advocated.
Without this theology, EENS is once again today (2016) as it was for the Jesuit missionaries in the Middle Ages.

The SSPX must ask Pope Benedict XVI to come back to the Faith.Rome must come back to the Faith as Archbishop Lefebvre wanted.They can do this by interpreting Vatican Council II and other magisterial teachings with rational Feeneyism.
Ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism( as done by the Vatican Curia) or with Feeneyism( as I interpret the Council) and if Cushingism can be replaced with Feeneyism, by all.
-Lionel Andrades
https://gloria.tv/video/XvAQJcQXHTTV1TqcDqCF4p33y/postings/

I affirm Church teachings and magisterial documents with Feeneyism the present magisterium does it with Cushingism

Cannoli:
a pseudo catholic who, like the Trojan Horse, is posing as a faithful Catholic in order to gain credibility among Catholics at this site
Lionel:
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the present magisrterium, Crux and the SSPX does so with Cushingism.The present magisterium, the liberals, sedevacantists and the SSPX could agree or disagree with me here.
I use Feeneyism and the SSPX uses Cushingism.
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.
For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.

For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.

For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.

For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.

For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.

I avoid the New Theology, while the SSPX uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for the SSPX it is Cushingite.
-Lionel Andrades
TERMS EXPLAINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.

Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.

Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.

Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.

Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
 
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism. It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.
(The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion)
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
 
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite). It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite) .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite).It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite).CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________

1.

SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 2016

Don Aldo Rossi, SSPX Prior had nothing to say to me today morning

 
AUGUST 19, 2016
No denial from the SSPX: dogmas and doctrine changed
 
 


Bishop Fellay's understanding and interpretation of Vatican Council II is hereticalhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/the-letter-of-holy-office-1949-has_25.html
 
If you name important people who reason, like you, it would not change anything.Since you all would be violating the Principle of Non-Contradictionhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/if-you-name-important-people-who-reason.html