Sunday, April 2, 2017

02/04/2017 Messaggio di Medjugorje

1,2k

Medjugorje - Aparición a Mirjana del 2 de abril de 2017

Medjugorje - Aparición a Mirjana del 2 de abril de 2017
 

Medjugorje - Aparición a Mirjana del 2 de abril de 2017

05:55

Apparizione a Mirjana del 2 aprile 2017

Fr. Alessandro M.Minutella critical of Vatican Council II (Cushingite) suspended : Fellay condones Cushingism in exchange for status the popular Palermo priest lost

 Vatican Official Confirms Agreement with SSPX
Archbishop Pozzo said that, in interpreting the documents of Vatican II, one clear principle would be continuity: that if an understanding of the Council’s message involves a break with the constant teaching of the Church, “this intepretation must be rejected as false or inadequate.”
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31058
Don Alessandro M.Minutella has been critical of Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and a false Church within the Catholic Church and the bishop of Palermo, Italy has suspended him from the parish (San Giovanni Bosco).
alessandro_minutella-535x300
This is the bishop who rode a cycle within the church as if this is a qualification for being a bishop, approved by the Masons who represent Satan.
Now Bishop Bernard Fellay  condones Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism by the present magisterium, in exchange for the canonical status which Don Massimilliano has been temporarily deprived of .
Bishop Fellay does not support Don Alessandro  by showing him how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism as a philosophy and theology.This priest himself mistakenly interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and knows there is something wrong.Like Bishop Fellay and Mons. Pozzo he does not affirm in public a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite) rejected politically by the bishops in Palermo and Sicily.
The SSPX was also silent when the joint Catholic-Jewish Left document was issued in December 2015 changing the Catholic identity.There was not a  single SSPX bishop or priest who said that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism and it would not be a rupture with Tradition. They were all afraid of the Jewish Left and wanted their precious canonical status.The priests and bishops did not want to disobey Fellay and issue a statement. Or they too would be suspended like Minutella.
Now in Rome the homilies are  boring and politically correct since it is clear that no one wants to be suspended like the priest in Palerno who has been told he has to leave the parish in 15 days  for the good of the parishioners.In Rome there are new doctrines in ecumenism which contradict Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). There is a false inter-religious dialogue which also contradicts Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
When teachings on faith and doctrine are not lived by affirmation then the teachings on morals too are ignored, this is being observed.
The SSPX and Mons. Guido Pozzo condone  Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and do  not talk about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).This  is a doctrinal white wash and deception.-Lionel Andrades
 
Video : Don Alessandro Maria Minutella Omelia 31 marzo 2017
https://youtu.be/JDnRt3JdisE
 
 
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.They use Cushingism.
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.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .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.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
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.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
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.It is Feeneyite.
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.It's basis is Cushingism.
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 ( 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..
Council of Trent : A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.
Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water. -Lionel Andrades
________________________

 
March 2, 2017
Who am I (Lionel) and what do I believe in ?

 MARCH 21, 2017


Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but the Angelicum hides this Catholic teaching

 
MARCH 19, 2017

Rapid Response Team needed at the Angelicum University : unethical academics teach factual and objective errors

MARCH 20, 2017


VATICAN STOP THE DECEPTION AT THE ANGELICUM UNIVERSITY http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/vatican-stop-deception-at-angelicum.html

 

MARCH 22, 2017


The Angelicum University does not come to Vatican Council II knowing that the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : since then the interpretation of the Council changes

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/the-angelicum-university-does-not-come.html

PALERMO. IL VESCOVO IN BICICLETTA TOGLIE LA PARROCCHIA E IMPONE IL SILENZIO AL PRETE CRITICO

10  6
marcotosatti.com

PALERMO. IL VESCOVO IN BICICLETTA TOGLIE LA PARROCCHIA E IMPONE IL SILENZIO AL PRETE CRITICO. – …

Marco Tosatti Il Vescovo di Palermo, Corrado Lorefice, ha imposto a don Alessandro Minutella di lasciare la parrocchia di cui è responsabile entro quindici giorni, di mantenere il più rigoroso silenzio e di prendersi un periodo di riposo. Qui sotto …
 
 
 

There are philosophical errors in Vatican Council II and Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not discuss it

There is a philosophical error in Vatican Council II and Archbishop Guido Pozzo is not discussing it. It makes the Council a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known in the 16th century.When the philosophical error is side stepped, Vatican Council II emerges new and different.It is in perfect harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
Feeneyism is the missing link.If we can put aside being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire for a moment, and then look at Vatican Council II, it is a different Council.This will be uncomfortable for those who interpreted the Council as 'a revolution' or with 'a new spirit' including Pope Francis, liberal cardinals and ecclesiastical Masonry.
Image result for Atila S.Guimaraes PhotoImage result for Roberto de Mattei Photo
Atila S.Guimaraes and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms and Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no salvation outside the Church.
Image result for Photo Mons. Guido Pozzo
Guido Pozzo is not going to correct them. Instead he says in principle Vatican Council II will not be interpreted as rupture with Tradition when he and the CDF interpret the Council with irrational Cushingism.
He will not affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism since then he would have to say that the ordinary means of salvation is 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) in the Catholic Church.
IN PRINCIPLE ERRORS IN VATICAN COUNCIL KEPT HIDDEN
He will not discuss errors made in principle in Vatican Council II.As a norm it seeps throughout the Council-text.
In principle the Vatican Council II Fathers assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible.
In principle they assumed people in Heaven are objectively visible on earth.
In principle they assumed that we can know of non Catholics on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION VIOLATED IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
In general, as a norm, the Principle of Non Contradiction was violated at Vatican Council II.

The Church, in the  text of its documents including Vatican Council II does not teach that the baptism of desire is the ordinary means of salvation.Yet this is how Guido Pozzo interprets the Council.
cannot meet someone on the streets who will be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.
cannot meet someone who will be saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The Church in its magisterial documents does not teach that conscience is the ordinary means of salvation.
POPE FRANCIS AND GUIDO POZZO IN PRINCIPLE ARE WRONG
Yet this is how Vatican Council II is interpreted by Pope Francis and Mons. Guido Pozzo.In principle they are wrong.
The baptism of desire; the case of the unknown catechumen who sought the baptism of water but died before it was given to him,is always an invisible case. It was not so for the Council Fathers.They assumed this  catechumen was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it was a visible case for them.It had to be visible to be an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.Their premise was wrong.How can there be a visible case of this catechumen being saved?
POZZO DOES NOT SAY ALL NON CATHOLICS ON THE WAY TO HELL ACCORDING TO VATICAN COUNCIL II
Mons. Guido Pozzo is not saying that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II.He remains politically correct with the Left and is now ready to accept the SSPX in the Church who also remain quiet on this issue.
VATICAN COUNCIL II VIOLATES BASIC LAWS OF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING
The Council Fathers violated basic laws of logic and philosophical reasoning.
They were following the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which did away with the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The simple Letter from a cardinal put aside the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils. It was discarded by assuming the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible instead of invisible cases.This was a new precedent in the Church. An innovation in theology.It created a new doctrine which has been placed in Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
MONS.POZZO IN PRINCIPLE INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS A RUPTURE WITH THE PAST
Mons.Pozzo  does not state that when he (and all of us) meets a non Catholic he can know that they are on the way to Hell, not because he can judge personally, but because the Church teaches this in magisterial documents before and after Vatican Council II.
He will not say this and yet in an interview last month he said that Vatican Council II in principle is not being interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.Of course it is being interpreted as a rupture with Tradition and this is being done officially by the two popes and the CDF.
TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Today there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One assumes hypothetical cases are hypothetical. The other one, like Cardinal Cushing, assumes hypothetical cases are objectively and personally known.They are not hypothetical.
POZZO, CDF KNOW ONLY THE IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL
So for me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc would refer to hypothetical cases only(first interpretation). So they would not be exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.
For the two popes, the CDF and the traditionalists they would be exceptions to EENs,they would be visible for us cases  in 2017(second interpretation). Only because they are assumed to be visible they are exceptions.They can only be exceptions if they are visible and known, I repeat,in the present times.Someone in the future or the past cannot be an exception in the present time. 
MIX UP AT VATICAN COUNCIL II : INVISIBLE-VISIBLE, SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE
There was a mix up at Vatican Council II among what is invisible and visible, subjective and objective, implicit and explicit for Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits when they were drafting a document based on a philosophical error to create a new fantasy theology in the Catholic Church.
WHEN I MEET A NON CATHOLIC ON THE STREETS I KNOW HE IS ON THE WAY TO HELL

Yes when I meet a non Catholic I know that he or she is on the way to Hell since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says so. Also the Catechism of Pope Pius X repeats the same message.Similarly Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation.All non Catholics die without faith and baptism.Most people die without faith and baptism so the majority of people on earthy are on the way to the fires of Hell.

EXPLICIT MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH IS THE NORM ACCORDING TO VATICAN COUNCIL II ( FEENEYITE)
Image result for Photo cARDINAL lUIS lADARIA s.J
Explicit  membership in the Catholic Church is the norm according to Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).The baptism of desire is not the norm.The ordinary means of salvation is being incorporated into the Church as a member.However this is rejected in the theological papers of the International Theological Commission whose former President is now the Secretary of the CDF, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J.He will oversee the work of the SSPX when they have canonical status.
MAGISTERIUM CONTRADICTS VATICAN COUNCIL II(FEENEYITE)
Mons.Guido Pozzo contradicts Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) as do the two popes and the CDF Prefect.So now they must be glad that Bishop Bernard Fellay has no objection to their error.Rome has not come back to the faith, and will not come back,  as long as they use Cushingism in the interpretation of the Council.
IF THE TWO POPES AND THE WHOLE WORLD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION THEN THEY ARE WRONG

If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.If the popes and cardinals assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2017 then they are all wrong.It is as simple as this.

IF FOR YOU AN INVISIBLE CASE IS PHYSICALLY VISIBLE THEN THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG.
If for you it is normal that someone saved in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; the 'rigorist interpretation', then something is seriously wrong.
IF BAPTISM OF DESIRE LISTS REFER TO VISIBLE INSTEAD OF VISIBLE CASES FOR YOU THEN SOMETHING IS WRONG
If a website can cite a whole list of popes and saints citing the baptism of desire and infers that they were physically visible cases, instead of theoretical possibilities expressed with goodwill and speculation, then there is something seriously wrong.
The Principle of Non Contradiction cannot be violated irrespective of the importance of the websites or their numbers.
POZZO IS TAKING THE SSPX INTO THE CHURCH VIA THE BACK DOOR
Pozzo is taking the SSPX into the Church via the back door.He does not answer questions on Vatican Council II and issues political, meaningless statements like in principle Vatican Council II will not be accepted as a break with Tradition, when this really is the CDF official policy.-Lionel Andrades




When I meet a non Catholic on the streets I know he is on the way to Hell since the Catholic Church teaches this : this would be news for many Catholics

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/when-i-meet-non-catholic-on-street-i.html