Monday, June 5, 2017

Two popes in heresy but then so is Chris Ferrara so he does not notice it

From:With respect, Cardinal Müller, it's not "impossible"     by Christopher A. Ferrara

June 1, 2017 http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1020.asp



_________________________________________________________________________________

What is impossible, as the renowned canonist Ed Peters observes, is that “a pope commits the Church to a heresy. However grave might be the consequences for a pope falling into heresy, the Church herself cannot fall into heresy at his hands or anyone else’s. Deo gratias.”
Lionel: The Church itself has fallen into heresy including Pope Francis and Christopher Ferrara.They are not aware of an irrational premise in their reasoning which creates new doctrines and a new theology.
Image result for Photo of two popes in heresy
_____________________________
But, as Peters further observes, while the Holy Ghost would never permit a Pope to impose heresy upon the Church Universal, “the canonical tradition yet recognizes (and history suggests) that a given pope could fall into personal heresy and that he might even promote such heresy publicly, which brings us to some thoughts on those possibilities.”
Lionel: The two popes are in heresy and they are imposing it upon the people. The popes from Pius XII to Francis have been in doctrinal heresy which is created with a new theology, based on an irrational philosophy.
Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this on March 2016 in daily Avvenire when he said that with Vatican Council II there was a development of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (EENS). The dogma was no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century and this is accepted by the present two popes.He confirmed magisterial heresy created by the use of an irrational premise to elicit a non traditional conclusion, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS in particular.The same irrationality is used to interpret other magisterial documents and it is accepted by the whole Church.
______________________________
 Image result for Photo of two popes in heresy
I do not here contend, although others may, that Francis has publicly promoted heresy in the strict sense, which (as Peters notes) is defined by canon law as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth that must be believed by divine and catholic faith. 1983 CIC 751.”
Lionel: Chris Ferrara cannot contend that Pope Francis is in heresy since he does not know what is the specific cause of the heresy, in salvation theology.He cannot know since he himself ,like Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests, uses the same irrational reasoning to create heretical conclusions which in general, is accepted in the whole Church.
__________________________________
Image result for chris ferrara Mark shea debate photos
 Rather, I simply note, contra Cardinal Müller, what Peters notes, quoting Wrenn’s canonical commentary:
“‘Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair.’ ….
Lionel: For the two popes and Chris Ferrara the dogma EENS, which has been defined by three Church Councils and is a de fide teaching of the Church, is no more like it was for the magisterium of the 16th century.Effectively and doctrinally it has been changed.This is heresy. The magisterium has changed it and is now saying so in public. They have rejected EENS  with invisible baptism of desire for example, being a visible exception.So EENS as it was known for centuries is no more. This is heresy.
For the two popes, Chris Ferrara and the SSPX bishops the Nicene Creed has been changed to 'I believe in three or more baptisms, which replace the baptism of water and are examples of salvation outside the Church. They are the baptisms of desire, blood, seeds of the Word etc.'  This is the new understanding of the Nicene Creed.
For the two popes and Chris Ferrara,traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals in general Vatican Council II can only be interpreted with irrational Cushingism.They have not and will not interpret Vatican Council II with rational and traditional Feeenyism, as did the missionaries in the 16th century.
This is all first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.This is heresy in the Church at large and the the heresy of the two popes and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican.
I interpret the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II with Feeneyite reasoning and theology.So I am in harmony with the 16th  century magisterium.There is no  rupture with Tradition for me. Pre and post Vatican Council II theology and doctrine are the same for me.
________________________________________________

Image result for Photo of two popes in heresyImage result for Photo of two popes in heresyImage result for Photo of two popes in heresy
“To be sure, all admit that in talking about popes falling into heresy we are talking [about] a very remote scenario…. And the great Felix Cappello, Summa Iuris I (1949) n. 309, thought that the possibility of a pope falling into public heresy should be ‘entirely dismissed given the special love of God for the Church of Christ [lest] the Church fall into the greatest danger.’
Lionel: I have shown above how the two popes are in heresy and this heretical interpretation of the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II is suported by Prefect of the CDF,Cardinal Gerhard Muller. He wants the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to formally accept all this heresy, to have their situation regularised by his office.If bishops and priests affirm Vatican Council II , the Nicene Creed and the dogma EENS, like me, they could be suspended.
________________________________________________

Image result for Photo of two popes in heresyImage result for Photo extra ecclesiam nulla salusImage result for Photo Vatican Council II
But Cappello’s confidence (at least in the scope of divine protection against heretical popes) was not shared by his co-religionist, the incomparable Franz Wernz, whose summary of the various canonical schools of thought about the possibility of a papal fall from office due to heresy is instructive.
“After reviewing canonical norms on loss of papal office due to resignation or insanity, Wernz-Vidal, IUS CANONICUM II (1928), n. 453, considers the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope (emphasis and citations omitted):
“‘Through heresy notoriously and openly expressed, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into such, is, by that very fact, and before any declaratory sentence of the Church, deprived of his power of jurisdiction…. I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis.’” [paragraph breaks added]
Lionel: In March 2016 Pope Benedict openly, and for me notoriously, expressed heresy supported by Pope Francis.
I have reported this before and there has been no denial from the CDF or the Vatican .Nor has there been any denial from any of the traditionalists or sedevacantists.There has been no official denial also from any one in the SSPX or the FSSP.I assume the common error is obvious to all of them, including Chris Ferrara.No one wants to talk about it in public.
______________________________________________

Image result for Photo of two popes in heresy
I do not touch here upon the question of how such self-deposition of a Pope on account of personal heresy would be declared by the Church. That is another discussion entirely. But if the canonists agree that it is possible for a Pope to fall into personal heresy, it is certainly not impossible, as the Cardinal opines, that a wayward Pope would “present a doctrine which is plainly against the words of Jesus Christ,” even if he dares not impose his error upon the Church. 
Lionel: Jesus in Mark 16:16 has said that he who does not believe will be condemned and in John 3:5 that  all need the baptism of water for salvation. For the two popes all do not need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.There are exceptions.1) The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned exceptions of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance and 2) these exceptions were also mentioned in Vatican Council II, including LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.So the two popes have contradicted Jesus by presenting exceptions based on invisible cases being visible exceptions to Jesus' teachings in Mk.16:16 and John 3:5.
________________________________ 
Image result for Photo of two popes in heresyImage result for Photo of two popes in heresy
Such is the case with AL, which imposes nothing upon the Church, but does open the door to the overthrow of the Church’s bimillenial Eucharistic discipline by any bishop so inclined, while others hold the line.
Lionel: Amoris Laetitia uses philosophical subjectivism to change moral theology and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also uses philosophical subjectivism to change salvation theology.So we have the faith changed with actual doctrine on salvation being changed.This is done with a new and irrational theology approved by the two popes.-L.A 
__________________________________
Image result for Photo of two popes in heresy
Suffice it to say that the Bergoglian pontificate is a dramatic and historically unique demonstration of the strict limits of papal infallibility, here almost daily exceeded. And this indeed must be part of the unparalleled ecclesial crisis the Third Secret foretells.-Chris Ferrara
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1020.asp



JUNE 5, 2017

Image result

When Chris Ferrara wrote The Great Facade he did not know Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/when-chris-ferrara-wrote-great-facade.html




Video Marcia per la Vita - Roma 20 maggio 2017






Processione di riparazione pubblica per il gay-pride di Reggio Emilia

https://gloria.tv/

Processione di riparazione pubblica per il gay-pride di Reggio Emilia

05:37
Processione di riparazione pubblica per il gay pride

Senza precedenti, nella “rossa” Reggio Emilia, l’iniziativa del Comitato “Beata Giovanna Scopelli” di sabato 3 giugno. Le piazze e le strade italiane sono ormai abituate a veder sfilare l’omaggio alla perversione e alla sovversione dell’ordine creato con i gay pride che sono l’appuntamento scontato della retorica relativista cara alla democrazia; ma le stesse piazze e strade non sono invece più abituate a vedere quel che hanno visto sabato: una processione di riparazione dei peccati, specialmente quelli pubblici garantiti dalla libertà d’espressione.
Alcune centinaia di fedeli cattolici (350? 450? C’è chi parla di 600), partiti da Porta Santo Stefano e guidati da alcuni sacerdoti della Fraternità San Pio X, hanno percorso diverse centinaia di metri in quella che, da alcune critiche faziose definita una “manifestazione d’intolleranza”, è stata invece in senso stretto un atto liturgico, un atto cioè della Chiesa, così come previsto dal Rituale Romano.
Sul modello della processione prevista per le Litanie maggiori e minori nel tempo che precede l’Ascensione, una processione penitenziale si svolge con la presenza di un celebrante in paramenti viola preceduto dalla croce, dalle lanterne e dall’incenso, e seguito dai fedeli; il canto delle litanie dei santi è previsto appunto per invocare la protezione celeste scongiurando i castighi giustamente meritati dall’umanità per le proprie colpe soprattutto pubbliche, che questa preghiera vuole giustamente riparare. Durante la processione si sono aggiunte la recita dei misteri dolorosi del rosario, le litanie del Sacro Cuore di Gesù e l’atto di riparazione al Sacro Cuore di S.S. Pio XI: il tutto sotto l’attento sguardo dei giornalisti e in compagnia di innumerevoli scatti fotografici…
La “riparazione” si spiega con la dottrina cattolica della virtù di giustizia, la quale, lesa dal peccato, esige una contropartita che può essere il castigo del colpevole (eterno o temporale) o appunto un atto che ripari l’ordine violato dal peccato. Il peccato pubblico, nella fattispecie, era la manifestazione omosessuale svoltasi poi il pomeriggio per le stesse strade, i cui organizzatori (presenti ai bordi della processione) hanno con disappunto dovuto notare il gran concorso di popolo che certamente non potevano aspettarsi.
Ringraziamenti e vivissimi complimenti vanno dunque al comitato “Beata Giovanna Scopelli” per l’impeccabile organizzazione, l’ottimo sistema di comunicazione in occasione della pressione mediatica dei giorni precedenti all’evento, e il coraggio per aver suscitato questa grande risposta dei fedeli venuti da tante parti d’Italia.
Non può non aver colpito, invece, l’assordante silenzio della gerarchia ecclesiastica locale, che già nei giorni precedenti si era distinta per aver rifiutato non solo ogni partecipazione ufficiale alla processione, ma anche per aver rifiutato di “accoglierla” in cattedrale e, addirittura, sul sagrato di essa! Ma la regalità sociale di Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo, lo sappiamo, non è un concetto caro alla chiesa conciliare; inutile, dunque, pretendere dai vescovi diocesani di oggi ciò che i vescovi diocesani degli anni ’60, durante il concilio, già hanno rifiutato a Cristo e alla sua Chiesa…
In definitiva, quindi, l’atto di sabato nient’altro è stato che la manifestazione di questa regalità sociale; la Chiesa cattolica che prega con i suoi ministri e i suoi fedeli rende a Dio un omaggio pubblico tanto più gradito, quanto più grande è l’offesa alla sua legge, e, al giorno d’oggi, quanto più difficile risulta porsi in contrapposizione (ancora una volta: pubblica) al pensare comune, al politicamente corretto che non rifiuta nessun comportamento per degradante che sia, nessuna espressione ideologica per falsa che sia.
Ciò che la Chiesa vuole riparare in circostanze come questa, precisiamo, non sono soltanto i singoli atti di sodomia, che Dio può perdonare a chiunque ne sia sinceramente contrito; non soltanto la manifestazione pubblica della presunta bontà di tali atti; ma, in realtà, la precisa idea gnostica che regge tutto quest’edificio: la pretesa satanica, cioè, che l’ordine voluto da Dio possa essere sovvertito dall’uomo. Che una creatura, insomma, possa essere uguale a Dio. Il gay pride, lo si vede bene, non è solo una ridicola parata da circo che esalta un peccato qualunque; dietro iniziative del genere c’è l’antico serpente che suggerì ad Eva di voler esser come Dio.
Anzi, per risalire più indietro ancora, c’è Lucifero che disse “Non serviam”.
La bella processione di Reggio Emilia sabato 3 giugno, invece, era lì che, con le preghiere della Chiesa, gridava a gran voce: “Quis ut Deus?”.

When Chris Ferrara wrote The Great Facade he did not know Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different

Image result
HE DID NOT KNOW
When Chris Ferrara wrote The Great Facade he did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different. He did not know that we also have a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyism) which is not a rupture with the past ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.Roberto dei Mattei and Attila Guimaraes also wrote their books on Vatican Council II using an irrational new theology.They did not know about the alternative.
Chris Ferrara uses Cushingite instead of  Feeneyite lens to read Vatican Council II.I have mentioned this quite a few years back and have repeated it and have sent him e-mails about it.
There is no response.
For all of them Lumen Gentium 16 refers to a known case of salvation outside the Church.LG 16 contradicts EENS and the Syllabus of Errors for them. So they reject Vatican Council II.In their books they criticize Vatican Council II.
In his reasoning he seems rational,since the false premise is overlooked and he resumes there are known cases of salvation this year, or last year, or in 1949 or 1892.1

INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FALSE INFERENCE
For him someone like St.Emerentiana or St.Victor is in Heaven without the baptism of water.So when Pope Benedict and the liberals ( Masons) say there is 'a development of doctrine' Chris Ferrara does not have a clue to the specific error.Since he uses the same irrational reasoning.His premise is - people in Heaven are visible and known.They include people saved with the baptism of desire.His inference is : so there is salvation outside the Church.1This is also how the magisterium wrongly interprets Vatican Council II and there has been so much confusion over the last 50 years when Vatican Council II is interpreted with an irrational premise ,invisible people are visible and so LG 16, LG 8, GS 22, UR 3, NA 2 etc; invisible cases are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

THERE IS A SPECIFIC CHANGE IN CATHOLIC SALVATION THEOLOGY
Ferrara in his debate with Mark Shea refers to his book  The Great Facade 2 and says there has been no change in the teachings of the Catholic Church on salvation and the need for Jews to convert.
At (41:50) he says that it is a dogma of the faith to make disciples of all nations and this includes the Jews.The Council of Florence says that Jews,heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life unless before death they are joined to the Catholic Church.
Objectively speaking the Jews and others need to believe and be baptised for eternal life or be condemned he said. That is the objective reality of the situation.
Image result for photos Mistakes
He says there is no change in the Church's teaching on salvation.This is incorrect.
There has been a clear change with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This change later shows itself dramatically in Vatican Council II.It can be interpreted with Cushingism( invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to EENS) or Feeneyism ( invisible baptism of desire is irrelevant to EENS).So we have a Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) which is either Cushingite or Feeyneyite.For Chris Ferrara it is Cushingite.For me it is Feeneyite.
For Chris Ferrara Vatican Council II (LG 16) is a rupture with Tradition, it is a break with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).For me Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc ) is not a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Image result for chris ferrara Mark shea debate photos
Chris Ferrara did not know this when he wrote the book nor when he participated in the debate with Mark Shea who rejects the Council of Florence and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Theologically, he is a Cushingite on the dogma EENS.
On Vatican Council II Ferrara and Shea are Cushingites, they use the same new theology.
All those priests and nuns who left their religious vocation after Vatican Council II were all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so were rejecting the conclusion.
Chris Ferrara is a Cushingite on Vatican Council but rejects the conclusion of this interpretation. Mark Shea and the present magisterium,also Cushingites, accept the conclusion, for them Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
So in the second edition of The Great Facade which includes the pontificate of Pope Francis, he still does not mention this fundamental issue. He still does not know or want to know that he was wrong all these 50 years on Vatican Council II. He was correct that Vatican Council II( Cushingite) was a rupture with Tradition. But he did not know that the rupture is caused with the irrational premise and without the premise we have Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
Image result for chris ferrara Mark shea debate photos
Inspite of so many reports on the Internet over some six years he has updated his book and will probably write another one based on Vatican Council II and EENS being Cushingite.This would be a facade.
The typical Catholic school which he mentions in the AOTM debate, interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and Chris Ferrara is unable to correct them, since he is a Cushingite too!
Before 1949 they evangelised knowing that the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen who dies before receiving it was a hypothetical case.
They also knew that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are also people not known to us on earth, they would only be known to God. So this is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
The liberal theologians made it relevant, it was accepted by the popes and Archbishop Lefebvre and then also by Chris Ferrara.
Image result for chris ferrara
So when Chris Ferrrara wrote EWTN A Network Gone Wrong he could not criticize EWTN on this point. Since he also has changed Church teachings on salvation, like EWTN, by mixing up what is invisible as being visible, what is hypothetical as being defacto and concrete.-Lionel Andrades



1.

MARCH 20, 2016


The central point of what I want to say

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-central-point-of-what-i-want-to-say.html


2.
http://www.aotmclub.com/shea-ferrara-debate