Sunday, October 8, 2017

Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam -tough order!

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Boniface at the Unam Santam Catholicam blog has a post titled Massimo Faggioli.
So I sent him this post as a comment.

  • Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Vatican Council II with the same reasoning as Massimo Faggioli and Fr.James Martin s.j

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html

He probably does not understand it.
Since for him there is only visible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I). This is common among traditionalists.
This is why they criticize Vatican Council II. It is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.
In the past too Boniface could not understand what I am saying.
This is why Faggioli can say that there is a rupture with the old Catholic theology. Vatican Council II has changed it all.
Boniface cannot respond. Since he uses the same reasoning as Faggioli.They are both saying Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church.They are not aware of their false premise.
In the blog post I sent him I was trying to show him that we can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I referring to invisible and unknown people. So our premise changes.
The interpretation of Vatican Council II also changes. It is no more a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors as Faggioli believes.
However to respond to Faggioli, Boniface has to re-think BOD, BOB and I.I and then also LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II.
It means he has to change his concept of Vatican Council II and also EENS.
Tough order!
-Lionel Andrades


Polish Catholics Gather at Border for Vast Rosary Prayer Event

Polish Catholics Gather at Border for Vast Rosary Prayer Event

04:10
NNews on Oct 7, 2017 Polish Catholics Gather at Border for Vast Rosary Prayer Event. WARSAW, Poland — Polish Catholics clutching rosary beads gathered at locations along the country’s 2,000-mile border on Saturday for a mass demonstration during which they prayed for salvation for Poland and the world.

Many participants described it as demonstration against what they see as the secularization of the country and the spread of Islam’s influence in Europe.

The event, “Rosary at the Borders,” was sponsored in part by several state-owned companies and was timed to coincide with the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. It also commemorated the 1571 naval Battle of Lepanto between Christian fighters, under orders from the Pope, and the Ottoman Empire.
https://www.gloria.tv/

ROSARY on THE BORDERS of POLAND 7.10.2017


ROSARY on THE BORDERS of POLAND 7.10.2017

02:38
/more videos below...in comments/
Polish faithful people responding to Holy Mother, Maria
who appeared 100 year ago in Fatima
got together one year ago
for GREAT REPENTANCE in Czestochowa /200,000 people/.
Yesterday they /probably more then million of people/
went to all borders of Country /POLAND/
to pray ROSARY for Polanad, for whole world and for SINNERS.
/British BBC creating above video and comentary,
called what happend in Poland yesterday "controversial prayer".
We have call it HATE SPEECH !/

JESUS and MARIA

Archbishop Guido Pozzo rejects the Syllabus of Errors with Vatican Council II and EENS interpreted with the false premise : SSPX must note the doctrinal error

Image result for Photo Archbishop Guido Pozzo with SSPX
The SSPX must clarify the doctrinal position of Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia  and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J  since for them the Syllabus of Errors is redundant and superflous.It is the same also for Pope Benedict.
They have rejected the Syllabus of Errors and they do this by confusing invisible baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.The old eclusivist ecclesiology of the Church is put away with this mix up between what is visible and invisible, known and unknown.
With there being known salvation outside the Church for them ( with the false premise) there is a new ecumenism. It contradicts the Syllabus of Errors.
With there being known salvation outside the Church for them at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith  and Ecclesia Dei offices at the Vatican,all non Christians do not need to enter the Church as members for salvation.Again the Syllabus of Errors is contradicted.
Cardinal Ratzinger always rejected the Syllabus of Errors and now Archbishop Pozzo, as Secretary of Ecclesia Dei is doing the same.
Visible for them LG 16, UR 3, LG 8, GS 22, NA 2 etc also contradict the past ecclesiology of the Church.So Vatican Council II(with the hypothetical cases are visible premise)  is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors, for the cardinals and archbishops at the Vatican.
For me there is no known salvation outside the Church.This is the position the SSPX must choose.I cannot meet or see any one saved outside the Church.I cannot name any particular exception to EENS in the present time.
There are no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II and EENS are premise-free for me.They do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
So I am affirming the Syllabus of Errors,Vatican Council II (premise-free) and EENS(premise-free).I am in harmony with the SSPX General Chapter Statement(2012) which affirmed EENS(premise-free).
But the SSPX have to note that Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei rejects the Syllabus of Errors.He does this with Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise.
He may also want the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble which would indicate that in principle the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II, EENS and other magisterial documents interpreted with the irrational premise.-Lionel Andrades



TERMS EXPLAINED


Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): 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, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): 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 exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.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 ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.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 ( premise-free),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:(with the false premise) 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 used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the  the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly 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 premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): 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: : (with the premise) 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 is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).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.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): 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.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): 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( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): 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 cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
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 needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________
Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
For Archbishop Pozzo hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.

EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR HIM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR HIM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR HIM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)

2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)

3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)

4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)

 5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________

Massimo Faggioli and Cardinal Burke have to be shown their theological mistake : rejection of the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise


Massimo Faggioli says on Twitter that we have to choose the theology of the Syllabus of Errors or Vatican Council II as interpreted by the popes.
He also says:
This is how Cardinal Raymond Burke reasons too and the complicated theology he hides under the rug and gets on with life.They both use the same reasoning.Faggioli  accepts Vatican Council II with an irrationality and Cardinal Burke also accepts Vatican Council II with the irrationality, complains at times, but does not outright reject the Council( with the false premise) as do the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).
The way I see it is, all their problems begin with the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.The false premise was created in 1949 in a big way and then it was made official at Vatican Council II.
The false premise is: invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are physically visible.
The strange inference is: These visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The final non traditional conclusion is : They are examples of salvation outside the Church and are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are rejected.
Image result for Photo Cardinal Raymond Burke with Massimo Faggioli
Image result for Photo Cardinal Raymond Burke with Massimo Faggioli
This is how Massimo Faggioli and Cardinal Burke reason.This is the reasoning from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis.
1.We have to ask ourselves what would be the conclusion if we considered BOD, BOB and I.I being simply invisible in 2017? These speculative cases are physically invisible in 2017. This is common sense. It is something obvious.
2.Similarly what if LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only speculative and unknown people in 2017?
So what is the conclusion? How do you read the text of Vatican Council II?
There will be a change. Of course there will be a change. When the premise is changed the conclusion will also change.
With invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 16, LG 8 etc the conclusion is a Vatican Council II ( premise-free) and an EENS( premise-free) which does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
But for Massimo Faggioli the Syllabus of Errors is contradicted with Vatican Council II.He uses the irrational premise, what is invisible is visible for him.There is a visible for him BOD,BOB and I.I. So he says either Vatican Council II or the Syllabus.The Syllabus is a theological view that is not Catholic anymore, for him.
Even for Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia, Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Pope Benedict  the Syllabus of Errors is meaningless today.Since with visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I  being mistaken as visible exceptions to the the dogma EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology is  put away.
With there being known salvation outside the Church there is the new ecumenism.It contradicts the Syllabus of Errors.
With there being known salvation outside the Church all non Christians do not need to enter the Church for salvation.This is a new doctrine on salvation and other religionsAgain the Syllabus is contradicted.
Visible for us LG 16, UR 3 etc also contradicts the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.There are visible and known cases of people saved outside the Church is also Faggioli and Burke's reasoning.
So the old Catholic theology is no more there with the new theology based on the irrational premise.
Now  what if we avoid the premise I keep asking? Of course there will be a Vatican Council II which is premise-free.A different Council.We will read the same text but differently.
For me invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I are not personally known examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.I cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Church.Someone who does not exist in our reality cannot be an exception to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There can only be an ecumenism of return for me.There is no practical known case of a Protestant saved outside the Church and theologically, with the old ecclesiology, there is no other choice.So for me Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism but it contradicts Faggioli's concept of ecumenism.
With there being no known salvation outside the Church for me there is only the exclusivist ecclesiology and traditional mission.So for me Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and salvation.But it contradicts Faggioli's concept of salvation in other religions.
When Pope Benedict XVI says that Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity he means Vatican Council II with the premise is in harmony with EENS, also interpreted with the premise i.e BOD,BOB and I.I are visible cases.He will not affirm EENS without the premise.Neither will he affirm Vatican Council II without the premise.Since it would be in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology and this would be politically incorrect for him.
It is the same with Massimo Faggioli who does not affirm Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since he accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which uses the false premise. So there is now a new ecclesiology for Faggioli and Burke.
Cardinal Burke offers the Tridentine Rite Mass with the new ecclesiology in his mind and not that of the magisterium of the 16th century.
Cardinal Burke and Massimo Faggioli need to affirm EENS(premise-free) and Vatican Council II(premise-free) since it is unethical and deceptive to consider BOD, BOB and I.I and also LG 16, LG 8, UR 3,GS 22, NA 2, AG 11 etc as referring to visible and known cases saved outside the Church.Then with this deception the old ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors is rejected.Unknowingly this is what Massimo Faggioli and Cardinal Burke are doing.It is the same with the ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Ecclesia Dei, Vatican.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 8, 2017

Image result for Photos SSPX negotiations

SSPX begin negotiations immediately : affirm Vatican Council II ( premise free)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/sspx-begin-negotiations-immediately_8.html

https://hughosb.com/2017/10/06/the-correctio-filialis-a-tangential-observation/
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.it/2017/10/massimo-faggioli.html

SSPX begin negotiations immediately : affirm Vatican Council II ( premise free)

Image result for Photos SSPX negotiationsImage result for Photos SSPX negotiations
Pope Benedict says Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the hermeneutic of continuity.He is referring to Vatican Council II (premise-free).
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei has said that Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past.This is expressed precisely in Vatican Council II ( premise-free).

Image result for Photos SSPX negotiations

OCTOBER 7, 2017


Tell your bishop you affirm Vatican Council II(premise-free) : it is rational, simple and traditional and not a rupture with the past

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/tell-your-bishop-you-affirm-vatican.html


OCTOBER 7, 2017


SSPX canonical recognition is assured : Vatican Council II (premise-free) is no more an issue

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/sspx-canonical-recognition-is-assured.html


 OCTOBER 7, 2017


SSPX must re-open negotiations for canonical status : cite new doctrinal references and explanations on this blog

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/sspx-must-re-open-negotiations-for.html

-Lionel Andrades