Saturday, October 14, 2017

We are in the same Church but the two popes and I interpret the Nicene Creed, EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism differently

Pope Francis talks with Kiko Argüello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way, in Rome on March 6.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are the popes.I accept this. But I affirm the dogma EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is a not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century for me. It is not so for them. I affirm the Nicene Creed but without the irrational premise. So I am not affirming the Nicene Creed like the two popes. Similarly I accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But unlike the two popes and most bishops and priests I do not interpret the Catechism (1994) with an irrational premise.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/innocent-catholics-in-neo-catechumen.html




 OCTOBER 10, 2017


CDF Doctrinal Commentary – Professio fidei supports heresy approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/cdf-doctrinal-commentary-professio.html


OCTOBER 13, 2017

Maike Hickson could ask Abp.Guido Pozzo and the SSPX the relevant questions : right to canonical status

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/maike-hickson-could-ask-abpguido-pozzo.html


OCTOBER 12, 2017


Abp.Guido Pozzo cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology since Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for him with invisible cases being visible : SSPX priests must correct his error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/abpguido-pozzo-cannot-affirm-syllabus.html

 OCTOBER 10, 2017


Vatican doctrinal error could not have been made clearer : Lefebvre, Feeney censure based on the false premise

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/vatican-doctrinal-error-could-not-have.html

ITALY FOLLOWS POLAND’S LEAD, PRAYS ‘ROSARY ON THE BORDER’

ITALY FOLLOWS POLAND’S LEAD, PRAYS ‘ROSARY ON THE BORDER’

NEWS: WORLD NEWS


David Nussman  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  October 13, 2017   

Inspired by massive Rosary rally in Poland



ITALY (ChurchMilitant.com) - Faithful Catholics in Italy are fasting on bread and water and praying the Rosary together throughout the country. 
On Friday, the 100th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the Italian Association Accompanying Marian Sanctuaries (Associazione Italiana Accompagnatori Santuari Mariani, or AIASM) sponsored a nationwide day of fasting, as well as a Rosary.
Organizers called it "Rosary at the Border" and praised the Rosary as "the most powerful peace initiative" for their country and the world. 
The event's inspiration came from the "Rosary to the Borders" rally in Poland on October 7. Poland's Rosary to the Borders drew well over 1 million participants, making it the largest prayer event in Europe since the 2016 World Youth Day in Kraków, Poland. 


Leaders of last week's "Rosary at the Border" never said it was about defending Poland's immigration policies. However, the Polish government has stood in defiance of the European Union's mandated quota of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. Therefore, the immigration issue was likely on the minds of many participants. 
International media had a field day with the story, insisting that the event was "controversial" and "Islamophobic." 
In contrast, the stated goal of the Italy prayer initiative is "to ask Our Lady to save Italy and Europe from Islamic nihilism and from the denial of the Christian faith." 
Our Lady teaches us that the Rosary is the most powerful weapon against evil and that, along with fasting, it can also stop wars and natural disasters. Tweet
The event's organizers asked participants to make a good confession, be in a state of grace and fast on bread and water all day. They encouraged the faithful to gather in churches 
The AIASM organizers described the event as "following the teachings of Mary and following the beautiful example of our Polish brothers." 
The event description also noted, "Our Lady teaches us that the Rosary is the most powerful weapon against evil and that, along with fasting, it can stop wars and natural disasters." 
Since the Italian peninsula is often called "the boot," owing to its boot-like shape on maps, one Polish news outlet put some clever wordplay in the headline, which reads, "The Italians fastened the 'boot' with the Rosary today." 
In Poland, the Rosary crusade on October 7 featured hundreds of churches and other locales along the nation's borders. Friday's event in Italy, on the other hand, was not literally 'on the border' — at least not to the same extent — but nonetheless sought to espouse the same mentality, asking God to bless and defend the nation. 


David Nussman

David Nussman is an intern with the News Department at CMTV
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/italians-pray-rosary-at-the-border

Innocent Catholics in the Neo Catechumenal Way like those among traditionalists need to be helped out

Pope Francis talks with Kiko Argüello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way, in Rome on March 6.1980, John Paul with  Kiko Argüello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way.


Pope Francis talks with Kiko Argüello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way, in Rome on March 6.
Pope Francis talks with Kiko Arguello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way, in Rome on March 6.
The two popes are supporting a false catechesis by catechists of the New Cathechumenal Way of Kiko Arguello.During their catechesis they say every one does not need to enter the Church.I was present at a catechesis when the lay catechist, from the 'first community', drew the figure of a ship on the blackboard.He said that in the past it was thought that every one needed to enter the boat for salvation.But not any more.
This is still approved by the magisterium of the Church.
I was also present at an Ecclesiology class conducted by an American Dominican at the Angelicum, University of St.Thomas Aquinas,  Rome . He said that everyone does not need any more to enter the Church for salvation. He cited the cases of Fr. Leonard Feeney, like the good liberal and heretic that he was.
Fr.Francesco
Even until today this error is being taught at the Angelicum by Fr. Francesco Giordano, the Director of the Human Life International Office in Rome. He seems to be doing this to protect his career.The truth is not a priority.
These priests-professors were supported by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine. The German cardinal and future pope was not going to say in public that invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, were not visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was not going to say that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office in 1949 was in heresy with their new found irrationality i.e invisible people are visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church.
But when Cardinal Ratzinger kept quiet and allowed this error to be taught, since he did not want to be a martyr like Pope Calistus, whose feast we celebrate today, where were the apologists John Hardon, the bishops Lefebvre,Fellay and Williamson ? Why was there no one to correct him? Why does not Cardinal Burke and the other traditionalists today like the catechists of the Neo Catechecumal Way, state every one does not need to enter the Church since there are no exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I known in the present times?
Five months back Archbishop Guido Pozzo and the two popes wanted the SSPX to accept a magisterium which teaches irrationality and there have been no public objections from any one in the SSPX,on this point.
Now the catechists of Kiko Arguello's community and the traditionalists like the SSPX, need to be explained that invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I never ever were exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II (LG 16, UR 3 etc) is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
SermonsSermons
But when are  the Focolares, Charismatic Renewal and the traditionalists going to announce the obvious i.e we cannot meet or see any one in 2017 saved with the baptism of deire etc?
Before religious communities ask for canonical status they should also ask the Vatican to affirm the Catholic faith in public for them. Ask them to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being invisible in 2017. So there are no explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries of the 16th century. If they are not willing to do so why would you want them to grant you canonical status ?
Why ask for recognition from popes and bishops who will not affirm a de fide teaching of the Church, which Pope Pius XII called 'infallible'. Let your religious community remain as a society.Stay in the lay state.But don't ask for canonical status from the popes and bishops who are denying the faith on the exclusivist ecclesiology- issue.As them first to convert then seek canonical status.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are the popes.I accept this. But I affirm the dogma EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is a not a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century for me. It is not so for them. I affirm the Nicene Creed but without the irrational premise. So I am not affirming the Nicene Creed like the two popes. Similarly I accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But unlike the two popes and most bishops and priests I do not interpret the Catechism (1994) with an irrational premise.
The interpretation of magisterial documents with an irrational premise is the work of Satan and so ecclesiastical Masonry is obliged to follow.I as a Catholic am not obliged to do so.
The innocent people in the Neo Catechumenal  Way and the traditionalists who follow religious leaders who use the false premise, need to be helped out.Someone needs to show them where they are wrong and how they must resist the two popes who are in schism with the magisterium of the past and are teaching error on the issue of salvation.They need to help the two popes to come back to the Catholic Faith.-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.)
Instead they assume  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 THEM 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 THEM 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 THEM 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
___________________________________