Friday, February 23, 2018

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j in schism : enforcing it on the whole Church





Cardinal Luiz  Ladaria s.j is in schism with the past Magisterium.I instead interpret magisterial documents in harmony with the past Magisteriums.I simply avoid an irrational premise.
For him Vatican Council II is a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the past ecclesiology.He uses an irrational premise to create this break with the past. I avoid the premise. So for me Vatican Council II is not a  rupture with the Syllabus of Errors .
Cardinal Ladaria, Cardinal Mueller and Pope Benedict rejected the Syllabus of Errors. They did not celebrate its 170 anniversay a few years back. For them the Council was 'a development'.Since there is known salvation outside the Church for them, hypothetical cases are examples of this known salvation, this development of a dogma.

Outside the Church there can be no known salvation for me. Only God can know if there is an exception to the norm.The norm for salvation is being a member of the Catholic Church(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441). Baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)  are not the norm.Neither can they be known  as exceptions.
The present Magisterium of ecclesiastics are using Vatican Council II to create a schism with the past popes and they act as if there is only one interpretation of the Council.I know of another one.It is rational, traditional and non heretical. 
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria interprets the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).For me there is no rupture.
Pope Benedict confirmed this schism in March 2016(Avvenire) when he said that EENS is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.He said that there was a development with Vatican Council II. He meant that he would not interpret Vatican Council II like me and so then there would not be a rupture with the past.This was the developent.He also calls the dogma EENS, defined by three Church Councils an 'aphorism'(CCC 846)
So with this official schism he says that the problem with the SSPX is doctrinal. They have to interpret Vatican Council II like him and not me . They have to choose heresy and schism for canonical status.
The SSPX could affirm Vatican Council II and EENS like me i.e treat hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical, but this is not being asked of them by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS the inference is that these are known people saved outside the Church. Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ladaria and Cardinal Muller imply that these are visible and known people who are examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church. Since they are known cases saved without the baptism of water outside the Church, this new teaching contradicts the Nicene Creed. In the Creed we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.It is the baptism of water. Now the understanding is 'I believe in three or more baptisms, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'. It is the Holy Spirit, mentioned in the Nicene Creed which is supposed to have taught this irrationality according to the present Magisterium.
So when we say in the Nicene Creed I believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church it means , the Catholic Church with the new ecclesiology.This new ecclesiology is based on invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I being a visible rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology. In the past ecclesiology BOD, BOB and I.I were considered  hypothetical cases. Not any more.
Since there is known salvation outside the Church, for all these liberals, who would be approved by ecclesiastical Masonry, Cardinal Marx gives the Eucharist to Protestants and Pope Francis says Protestants are redeemed.
With the use of an irrational premise Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church. The past ecclesiology would be triumphalism for him and the Masons.This is schism, official schism, pontifical schism.There is a choice, a hermeneutic of continuity but it is being rejected.A break from the past is intentionally being sought and Cardinal Cupich calls it a paradigm shift coming from Vatican Council II.He means Vatican Council II as interpreted by Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria and not me.So Cardinal Marx says there is no more an ecumenism of return for Protestants in Germany.
I affirm the Syllabus of Errors and the ecumenism of return based on the past ecclesiology of the Church which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise.
I refuse to go into schism by  interpreting magisterial documents with the invisible- people- are- visible offical linr, which creates a rupture with the past popes and the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism, non Christian religions etc.-Lionel Andrades

 FEBRUARY 23, 2018


This is how Michael Voris, Louie Verrechio, the FSSP and SSPX must re-read the text of Vatican Council II.It means there is no known salvation outside the Church, Protestants are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church, inter faith marriages are adultery and Protestants receiving the Eucharist are in a sacrilege

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/this-is-how-michael-voris-louie.html

This is how Michael Voris, Louie Verrechio, the FSSP and SSPX must re-read the text of Vatican Council II.It means there is no known salvation outside the Church, Protestants are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church, inter faith marriages are adultery and Protestants receiving the Eucharist are in a sacrilege





Once on a Church Militant program Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio observed that there are passages in Vatican Council II for and against Tradition, in support and against the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.This is a Cushingite way of looking at Vatican Council II.It must be avoided.



This is how the liberals interpret the Council text.Instead Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio should have said that Vatican Council II supports Tradition and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The passages which seem to contradict EENS are hypothetical references.They are theoretical cases.
This is the rational way to interpret the Council. 

I recall the late Mons.Ignacio Barreiro speaking to a young American priest of the FSSP at his HLI office in Rome. Mons. Barreiro was telling him that Vatican Council II speaks both ways, it is for and against Tradition. There are some passages which support Tradition and there are others which oppose it. The FSSP priest agreed.



This is incorrect.The controversial, innovative passages in Vatican Council II come from assuming unknown people are known in the present times and they are examples of salvation outside the Church, even though there are no such people.




This is reading Vatican Council II according to the popes since Paul VI but it is irrational.There is also a rational alternative which is not known to most Catholics. 
So it is important not to say that Vatican Council II supports Tradition but is also a break with Tradition. This is common among traditionalists. This is the pro-Masonic and irrational way to see the Council. Instead say that there are passages in Vatican Council II that support the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and there are passages which seem to contradict them at first sight, but really do not do so.
They are there because of the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was overlooked by the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II.







It was then not corrected by the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.It is an objective mistake and so cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.


We have to go back to the 1949 Letter and see that hypothetical and known only to God cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance never ever could be explicit and objections to the dogma EENS.The Letter made an objective mistake.



Similarly in Vatican Council II, LG 14 ( unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before receiving it and is allegedly saved), LG 16( case of an unknown person saved without the baptism of water but in invincible ignorance) cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Likewise GS 22, UR ,NA 2, LG 8 etc are all hypothetical cases and so are not relevant to Feeneyite EENS. There is no development with Vatican Council II when it is read like this . 



The Council, without the 'development', without mixing up what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible,  does not  contradict EENS accordiung to the missionaries in the 16th century, as Pope Benedict alleged in March 2016(Avvenire).


This is how Michael Voris, Louie Verrechio, the FSSP and the SSPX must re-read the text of Vatican Council II.
Then it means that there is no known salvation outside the Church and so Protestants are on the way to Hell and they need to convert into the Church as membrs.A marriage to a Protestant would be adultery and Protestants,being outside the Church, cannot be given the Eucharist otherwise it would be a sacrilege and bring pain to Jesus.-Lionel Andrades.




____________________________________________



FEBRUARY 23, 2018






Tell Card.Marx that you affirm Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades.There is no known salvation outside the Church. So Protestants cannot receieve the Eucharist (Graphics)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/tell-cardmarx-that-you-affirm-vatican.html