Monday, January 23, 2017

La Stampa still trying to white wash the error of Amoris Laetitia

La Stampa has posted an editorial Amoris Laetitia: Where Truth and Mercy Embrace 1 justifying 'philosophical subjectivism' and playing God.The writer tries to answer the questions of the four cardinals in the dubbia.
Philosophical subjectivism is common in the Catholic Church after the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was issued and not corrected.It suggests that we can subjectively identify non Catholics saved  without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It considered the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as not being theoretical and hypothetical.Instead ,it postulated them as being practical exceptions to the Feeneyite and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For the cardinals in Rome and Boston in 1949 the Letter referred to defacto and known cases of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before receiving it and is now in Heaven.
So with this irrational subjectivism in salvation theology for the ideological magisterium, we now have subjectivism in moral theology being taught at pontifical universities.This moral subjectivism,is the norm.
An extraordinary case is mentioned by moral theologians Fr.Curran and Fr.Harding and they judge that this theoretical and unknown person has been saved, or will be saved and is an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Then they insist, they judge,that we cannot judge moral cases in general according to the traditional teachings of the Church.
This is the error of Amoris Laetitia and which La Stampa is still trying to white wash.The editorial like Amoris Laetitia assumes we can judge exceptions to the general moral teachings of the Church and so there are exceptions to the norm given by Bible and interpreted by the popes and Tradition.This is the new moral theology of Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.
It directly contradicts Ecclesia di Eucharestia and Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul II and Catholic Tradition in general.
This new faith ( salvation) and moral theology is the work of the Devil,through the usual Leftist sources and especially the Synagogue of Satan.They control the mainstream media.Catholics are given this false narrative on morals, supported by the present ideological magisterium of the Catholic Church.
La Stampa cites Vatican Council II.The writer is unable to see that there are many errors in the Council based on philosophical subjectivism.The wrong inference is that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are practical exceptions, known to us human beings, to the dogma EENS.
Since there is a change in the exclusivist ecclesiocentrism of the past, Cardinal Walter Kasper in an interview before the Synod, said there could be changes in other areas of Church teaching and that the Eucharist could be given to the divorced and remarried.
He meant if no one objects to the philosophical subjectivism in Vatican Council II and the 1949 Letter then why object to it in moral theology.
The editorial in La Stampa too agrees.For them a Confessor would be able to detect exceptions to the general moral teaching and these exceptions would be the new general rule in Catholic moral theology.The Maltese and German bishops have confirmed.This is the new norm and it has been supported by L'Osservatore Romano and the one world religion people.
Praxis and doctrine has been changed and they do not consider it heresy.They do not say that Pope Francis is supporting heresy.
There is a new doctrine in faith(salvation) and morals, based on subjectively being able to know practical exceptions  to the general rule . This is enforced pastorally and now it has been legitimized, made official, by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia.
It is a rejection of the Church's teachings on mortal sin, the Eucharist and the sanctity of marriage.-Lionel Andrades


Bloggers are not discussing the real issue in the Rockford diocese

None of the traditionalists bloggers are concerned that the Most Rev. David J. Malloy the Bishop of Rockford is not permitting priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and affirm in public the old ecclesiology associated with this Mass.None of them are saying that the priest should be able to say that outside the Church there is no salvation since this was how Mass was offered over the centuries.
None of them are saying that Vatican Council II must be interpreted with Feeneyism and in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known and offered by the priests in the 16th century.
None of them are saying that Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance), Lumen Gentium 14( catechist with the desire for the baptism) refer to invisible, hypothetical and theoretical cases. So they are not exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members in 2017 to avoid the fires of Hell.

Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.
None of them are saying that Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) and so there is no change in ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Instead like the Bishop of Rockford and Pope Francis they have accepted an extra ecclesiam nulla salus in which invisible cases are supposed to be known exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvaton.
Like the liberals and the Masons the traditionalists have accepted that Vatican Council II is break with Tradition and in particular the dogma EENS , since LG 16, LG 14,LG 8 refer to visible and personally known cases in 2017 saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
They like to refer to themself as traditionalists and criticize 'those modernists' when they themself  approve of the standard modernism of the liberals like EENS ( Cushngite) and Vatican Council(Cushingit).They interpret all magisterial documents using an irrational premise to create an innovated and non traditional conclusion.
When writing about the Rockford issue these points are not mentioned by Fr.John Zuhlsdord, Joseph Shaw ,New Catholic at Rorate Caeili and others.
Since in their personal life and on their media they would not like to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).
So with this silence EENS (Cushingite) and Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) is not an issue with the Rockford diocese Bishop and priests.

For the priests of the Institute of Christ the King the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is Cushingism.
For these traditionalist priests Vatican Council II,LG 16 etc refers to explicit cases objectively seen in 2017.This again is Cushingism.It is also fantasy theology.
It is a deception and a lie.It is worldly prudency, syncretism and indifferentism.It is faking it to maintain the peace and their status quo.
They know that if they say that the baptism of desire is always invisible for us and never was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, then Bishop Malloy would not give them permission to offer the Latin Mass.Since this would be Feeneyism. It would be rational and Catholic.
They know that if they had said in public that Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) does not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS since invisible cases cannot be exceptions, they would not be allowed to offer Holy Mass.Even though they would be traditional and non heretical.
So the bloggers also maintain this silence and protect their reputation and status quo.
-Lionel Andrades

January 22, 2017

Catholic bishops and priests affirm the old ecclesiology in public,do not use the irrational premise, then we have the Mass of the Ages, the Traditional Latin Mass