Thursday, January 25, 2018

"DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO SAY!" Jordan Peterson DESTROY Transgender Professor

Traditionalists cannot tell Faggioli Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is unknown or unthinkable.

What's Up With Francis-Church?
Hilary White:  I must say I do appreciate it when they helpfully confirm a thesis.
~

From status quo to insurgencyConciliar vs traditionalist Catholicism

Lionel: This is false. Hilary White uses a false premise and so her conclusion is different.

For me the Conciliar Church, the post Vatican Council II Church in its ecclesiology is 'traditionalist Catholicism  ', it is traditional.This would make no sense for Hilary White.Since she is not aware of the difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism as a theology, to interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.1

_______________________

Today’s Catholic neo-traditionalism has very little in common with 20th century theological, institutional and ecclesiastical Catholic conservatism
Lionel: Today's traditionalism and neo traditionalism is the same as today's progressivism and modernism.Both groups are using a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.So when Hilary White complains about Vatican Council II being a rupture with the past, the liberal theologians are happy. She is interpreting the Council just like the political Left. 
On the other hand I avoid the false premise and know only Vatican Council II Feeneyite and so I am in harmony  with the past ecclesiastical, theological and institutional Catholic conservatism. The liberals are not happy with this.



For me there is a wide gap between Hilary and myself. She attends the Traditional Latin Mass while affirming the new theology and ecclesiology like the liberals,while I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Rite Mass and affirm the old ecclesiology of 'Catholic conservatism.'The difference between her and me is the theology of Feeneyism and Cushingism.She is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite theologically and philosophically.
_______________________

The fault lines between different religious worldviews within Western Catholicism are currently being redefined around the so-called “life issues”. We see among liberals the resurgence of Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” argument, while conservatives insist that abortion is the only defining moral issue.
This rift conceals a larger and deeper reshaping of the entire ideological landscape of Catholicism, but most particularly on the conservative side.For one thing, there has been an inversion of roles between liberal-progressive and traditionalist-conservative Catholics. (There are also significant differences between liberals and progressives, as well as between traditionalists and conservatives; but this is for another article).
Liberal-progressive Catholic culture in mainstream media and in academia is perceived (and to a large extent perceives itself) as the new status quo, the establishment and the gatekeeper. When those of this leaning peer from their windows to see what is happening in the streets, they tend to see merely a revolt when there might actually be a revolution going on.
This explains the reluctance of liberal-progressive Catholic culture to engage **theologically** with the neo-traditionalist Catholic movement and the temptation of the former to dismiss the latter.
Lionel: How can they engage theologically when they are both using the same New Theology, Cushingite theology which is an innovation in the Church ?
_________________________
 This temptation can be explained by the fact that old school, Roman-theology Catholic conservatism no longer exists.
Lionel: That  'old school, Roman-theology Catholic ' exists for me since I avoid the irrationality of  the traditionalists and the liberals.For me extra ecclesiam nulla salus for example is Feeneyite. For Hilary White it is Cushingite.
I also have had the opportunity to express myself and speak the truth since I am not attached to a profession, career, income etc unlike other Catholics.I do not depend on donations from traditionalists to write on  the Internet.
__________________________
 Today’s Catholic neo-traditionalism has very little in common with 20th century theological, institutional and ecclesiastical Catholic conservatism.
Lionel: In the past they did not assume invisible cases of the baptism of desire, were visible exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So there was no rupture with Tradition. But today it is different.
For Hilary White, Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, the two popes, cardinals Kasper and Koch and the political Left, invisible cases of the baptism of desire are visible exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church( even though they do not know of any such case) and so there is a rupture with the pre 1930 Catholic conservatism.
This is not being admitted by todays traditionalists.For example Chris Ferrara, Roberto Mattei and many other traditionalists wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing about Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).They have been informed about it but they will not comment.Since they do not want to admit that they made a factual mistake over the last 50 years.
Also to protect their financial and other interests they are not affirming the Catholic Faith on Mission, exclusive salvation and other 'sensitive issues'. Even if they know about Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) which is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) will they affirm it in public ? Will Bishop Bernard Fellay affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) which is the basis for the Social Reign of Christ the King ? How can he, since like the popes and cardinals at the Vatican he does not want to be anti-Semitic etc ? Doctrinally he also is affirming Vatican Council II(Cushingite) like Hilary White and this is politically correct with the Left.
_________________________
One thing I’ll say for our friend Massimo Faggioli, he definitely isn’t trying to hoodwink anyone. He’s come right out and said it many times.
Lionel: The traditionalists cannot contradict Faggioli since they interpret Vatican Council II with the same false premise as he does. So their conclusion is non traditional. Faggioli likes the conclusion while the traditionalists reject it.




No one is telling Faggioli that Vatican Council II can also be interpreted as being in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is unknown or unthinkable for the traditionalists.
________________
 It’s a different religion. We’ve been saying it for a long long time. Good to be in such a happy state of agreement all ’round.
Lionel: For me the traditionalists and liberals today are in the same religion and they are a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church.   -Lionel Andrades
1
JANUARY 21, 2018
Pamphlet Copy : Are you a Catholic ? Check the blog Eucharist and Mission(Lionel's blog) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/are-you-catholic-check-blog-eucharist_21.html


JANUARY 21, 2018



Catholic religious have to fake it to get a degree from a secular or pontifical university in Rome

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/catholic-religious-have-to-fake-it-to.html


It’s a revolution, stupid!   https://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2018/01/23/its-a-revolution-stupid/

________________________________________________________________



OCTOBER 19, 2017


Screen Shot 2017-10-06 at 11.49.39


And Faggioli and the rest get away with it once again

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/and-faggioli-and-rest-get-away-with-it.html


 OCTOBER 8, 2017

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/massimo-faggioli-and-cardinal-burke.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.
________________________


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 O
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.(This 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.( Again we have a theoretical and hypothetical reference. We do not know who is united to the Church only in desire and will be saved.) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________

Gospel Reading at Holy Mass today :"Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature...whoever does not believe will be condemned-Jesus

January 25, 2018

Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, Apostle
Lectionary: 519


Reading 1ACTS 22:3-16

Paul addressed the people in these words:
"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia,
but brought up in this city.
At the feet of Gamaliel I was educated strictly in our ancestral law
and was zealous for God, just as all of you are today.
I persecuted this Way to death,
binding both men and women and delivering them to prison.
Even the high priest and the whole council of elders
can testify on my behalf.
For from them I even received letters to the brothers
and set out for Damascus to bring back to Jerusalem
in chains for punishment those there as well.

"On that journey as I drew near to Damascus,
about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me.
I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me,
'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?'
I replied, 'Who are you, sir?'
And he said to me,
'I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.'
My companions saw the light
but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
I asked, 'What shall I do, sir?'
The Lord answered me, 'Get up and go into Damascus,
and there you will be told about everything
appointed for you to do.'
Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light,
I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus.

"A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law,
and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,
came to me and stood there and said,
'Saul, my brother, regain your sight.'
And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him.
Then he said,
'The God of our ancestors designated you to know his will,
to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of his voice;
for you will be his witness before all
to what you have seen and heard.
Now, why delay?
Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away,
calling upon his name.'"


Responsorial Psalm

PS 117:1BC, 2

R. (Mark 16:15) Go out to all the world and tell the Good News.
or:
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Praise the LORD, all you nations;
glorify him, all you peoples!
R. Go out to all the world, and tell the Good News.
or:
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
For steadfast is his kindness toward us,
and the fidelity of the LORD endures forever.
R. Go out to all the world, and tell the Good News.
or:
R. Alleluia, alleluia.

AlleluiaSEE JN 15:16

R. Alleluia, alleluia.
I chose you from the world,
To go and bear fruit that will last, says the Lord.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.

GospelMK 16:15-18

Jesus appeared to the Eleven and said to them:
"Go into the whole world
and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved;
whoever does not believe will be condemned.
These signs will accompany those who believe:
in my name they will drive out demons,
they will speak new languages.
They will pick up serpents with their hands,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them.
They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."


_____________________________


Image result for Conversion of St. Paul photoImage result for Conversion of St. Paul photoImage result for Conversion of St. Paul photo