Friday, October 27, 2017

Gospel Reading at Mass today : You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

October 27, 2017


Friday of the Twenty-ninth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 477


Reading 1

ROM 7:18-25A

Brothers and sisters:
I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh.
The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not.
For I do not do the good I want,
but I do the evil I do not want.
Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it,
but sin that dwells in me.
So, then, I discover the principle
that when I want to do right, evil is at hand.
For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,
but I see in my members another principle
at war with the law of my mind,
taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Miserable one that I am!
Who will deliver me from this mortal body?
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Responsorial Psalm

PS 119:66, 68, 76, 77, 93, 94

R. (68b) Lord, teach me your statutes.
Teach me wisdom and knowledge,
for in your commands I trust.
R. Lord, teach me your statutes.
You are good and bountiful;
teach me your statutes.
R. Lord, teach me your statutes.
Let your kindness comfort me
according to your promise to your servants.
R. Lord, teach me your statutes.
Let your compassion come to me that I may live,
for your law is my delight.
R. Lord, teach me your statutes.
Never will I forget your precepts,
for through them you give me life.
R. Lord, teach me your statutes.
I am yours; save me,
for I have sought your precepts.
R. Lord, teach me your statutes.

Alleluia

SEE MT 11:25

R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Blessed are you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth;
you have revealed to little ones the mysteries of the Kingdom.

R. Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel

Jesus said to the crowds,
"When you see a cloud rising in the west
you say immediately that it is going to rain–and so it does;
and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south
you say that it is going to be hot–and so it is.
You hypocrites!
You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky;
why do you not know how to interpret the present time?


"Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate,
make an effort to settle the matter on the way;
otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge,
and the judge hand you over to the constable,
and the constable throw you into prison.
I say to you, you will not be released
until you have paid the last penny."













Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation

So for the bishops in Worcester and Manchester,USA the St. Benedict Centers are no more a problem.Since with Vatican Council II( with the premise) theologically they negate EENS( premise free).This is acceptable for the upside down magisterium.

Image result for Photo of upside down

Louie Verrecchio, Ann Barnhardt,David Domet and Eric Gajiewski still cannot state that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict are in heresy on the salvation issue since they are in the same boat.On Amoris Laetitia, Ann Barnhardt is correct. We cannot judge when an unmarried young couple or divorced and remarried couple are really living together as brother and sister.I know it is common for such couples to claim they are brother and sister, when they are looking for a place to stay, in Rome, for example in a religious house which accepts guests.
But with the same reasoning Ann is not saying that we cannot on earth claim that a particular  person is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

So when the four of them  do not affirm Feeneyite EENS, then like Fr. John Hunwicke they have changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire,blood and ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.'
Of course they will say that they believe outside the Church there is no salvation but they also believe that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions. Otherwise they would be Feeneyites.
So the premise is important for them.
The premise is: invisible people are visible in the present times.
The premise is, hypothetical cases are not always hypothetical as in the case of the baptism of desire.
The premise is that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known people saved outside the Church in the present times.
When Amoris Laetitia suggests that a priest can judge when a couple married and divorced are living together as brother and sister, it is false.Similarly it was false for Archbishop Augustine Di Noia at Ecclesia Dei to tell Edward Pentin when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that he knows someone outside the Church, a Protestant, whom he admires, and knows  will be saved.
So with this confusion among conservative Catholics we now have Pope Francis teaching 1) that we can judge when someone in a mortal sin of morals is not in mortal sin and 2) we can judge when Protestants who are outside the Catholic Church in mortal sins of faith, are not in mortal sin.
In both cases they will be given the Eucharist by Pope Francis.
Ann, Louie, David and Eric may oppose him on the first point(morals) but give him a pass on the second point(faith/salvation).How can Ann say that a heretical pope cannot be a pope and Pope Benedict is her pope  when Pope Benedict is in heresy too?
Similarly the sedevacantists at the Most Holy Family Monastery,Peter and Michael Dimond will affirm EENS( premise-free) and so criticize Pope Francis for being a heretic.But since they also do not affirm Vatican Council II (premise free) they overlook this mistake in the popes.Peter and Michael only accept Vatican Council II(with the premise) as an interpretation.They reject the non traditional conclusion and Vatican Council II itself.They then call all those who accept Vatican Council II( with the premise), the Vatican Council II sect.They will not comment on Vatican Council II( premise free).
Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St.Benedict Center(SBC) will affirm EENS( premise-free) like Fr. Leonard Feeney, but will not state that a pope or cardinal is in heresy for not affirming Vatican Council II ( premise free) since the SBC makes the same mistake.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center, Worcester,USA where Brother Thomas Augustine MICM is the Prior have been granted canonical status.They affirm Vatican Council II with the premise as does their bishop.Brother Andre Marie and Brother Thomas Augustine and members of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,traditionalists, like their bishops,are in line with the two popes and the political Left.They use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.This is the same false premise which they reject with reference to EENS.

So for the bishops in Worcester and Manchester,USA the St. Benedict Centers are no more a problem like at the time of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since with Vatican Council II( with the premise) theologically they negate EENS( premise free).
The St.Benedict Centers are traditionalists who affirm EENS (premise-free) and Vatican Council II( with the premise).While the SSPX and their supporters affirm EENS( with the premise) and Vatican Council II( with the premise).Even the two popes affirm EENS( with the premise) and Vatican Council II(with the premise).
So in all the dioceses in Italy, including the SSPX chapels, it is EENS and Vatican Council II with the premise. So they have negated the traditional EENS( premise free).
The Catechism calls EENS( premise free) an 'aphorism'(CCC 846) and Cardinal Ratzinger accommodated EENS( with the premise) by stating that all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.All of them include known cases of the baptism of desire etc.
I affirm EENS ( premise free) and Vatican Council II (premise free).So I can see the two popes in manifest heresy on also the salvation/faith issue.

Image result for Photo of topsy turvyImage result for Photo of topsy turvy
I do not have to attend the Tridentine Rite Mass, to affirm the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, of which the liberals and the Left are afraid.I can attend the Novus Ordo Mass and state that invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I have nothing to do with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.Not to be Feeneyite on EENS for me is to be a heretic.But for the present liberal magisterium in heresy Feeneyism is heresy.It's topsy turvey.


I am not a sedevacantist on Vatican Council II for whom invisible cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are visible exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of EENS.So I can attend Mass in English or Greek and affirm the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation, just like in the 16th century.

Since the two popes, trads, sedes, liberals and Masons are not doing the same they remain in a general heresy, just like at the time of Arius and Athanasius.Even after being informed so many of them are in a mortal sin and heresy of faith.This includes Ann, Louie, David and Eric.
They could claim ignorance.
-Lionel Andrades

October 26, 2017
How can it be said that a pope in heresy cannot be a pope when the traditionalists are making the same error?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/how-can-it-be-said-that-pope-in-heresy.html

October 26, 2017
TradCat Knight uses the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/how-can-it-be-said-that-pope-in-heresy.html

_______________________________________________

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.


Image result for Photos of Extra  ecclesiam nulla salus

The two popes, the cardinals and the traditionalists( the exception being the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Centers) do  not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) quoted here.Since for them invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma 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.)
http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
________________________________

The two popes, cardinals and traditionalists including the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,USA,assume hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II  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.If he did not use the false premise these magisterial documents would not be a rupture with traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Image result for Photos of Catechism of the Catholic church
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM WHICH FOR THEM 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).
__________________________________

Image result for Photos of Vatican Council II
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH FOR THEM  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.
______________________________________

Image result for Photos of Letter of the Holy Office 1949

The two popes, the cardinals and the traditionalists interpret the Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical and invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance being visible and known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.The traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center are an exception.

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON INTERPRETED AS NOT BEING 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
___________________________________


Conclusion: 
The two popes, cardinals and traditionalists interpret  Church documents with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.The St.Benedict Centers and the Most Holy Family Monastery are among the exceptions. They affirm EENS( premise free).
They all use the irrational premise at some time.
They all interpret the Baptism of Desire (with the false premise) and  Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise).
They all irrationally  choose Vatican Council II (with the premise).
They interpret the  Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise).
In first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II they interpret the Nicene Creed ( with the premise).The Nicene Creed with the premise is used in the Profession of Faith for  religious.
For them it is  Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise)and not according to the missionaries in the 16th century.The St.Benedict Centers and the MHFM are an exception.
With the irrational premise they all interpret  the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free).
The New Theology of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF is based on the irrational premise.The two popes, cardinals and traditionalists intepret Vatican Council II only with the New Theology.-Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________

 DECEMBER 17, 2016

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


DECEMBER 18, 2016

When I meet a non Catholic on the streets I know he is on the way to Hell since he could not be in the subsist it or know or did not know about Jesus and the Church category http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/when-i-meet-non-catholic-on-streets-i.html



_________________________________________________________________