(Rome) On May 11, at the European University of Rome a conference was held on "unjust laws and civil disobedience". The conference was organized by the Faculty of Human Sciences at the University. The administration invited the legal historian, Luca Galantini and the legal philosopher Tommaso Scandroglio.
The meeting took place as part of the "Week of the Law" by the Campus Ministry of the Vicariate of Rome. It was aimed at commemorating the legal philosopher Mario Palmaro, himself a faculty member of the European University of Rome and the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum. Palmaro had become one of the internationally best-known critics of Pope Francis in his last months.
Speakers at the conference were numerous renowned legal scholars, philosophers and historians, among them Giacomo Rocchi, Supreme Court of Italy, the ethicist Marco Pagani of the University Ca 'Foscari in Venice, the historian Roberto de Mattei of the European University of Rome, the canon lawyer Romeo Astorri of the Sacred Heart Catholic University of Milan, the legal philosopher Elvio Ancona of the University of Udine, the legal historian Luca Galantini of the European University of Rome and many others.
The systematic treatment of the subject was initially engaged from an ethical and legal philosophical point of view, illuminating the definition of an "unjust act". Secondly the event was the to explore historically as a focus the facultas resistendi against unjust laws as an expression of a legitimate and compelling social contradiction. Finally, a bridge to the present day was completed with references to government efforts to introduce unjust laws in legitimate jurisdictions, thus exercising unacceptable coercion.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Corrispondenza Romana
Image: Corrispondenza Romana
There are now several intrinsically unjust and evil "laws" in most countries that we are morally bound to oppose insofar as possible. Of course, such laws are null and void for breaching the Natural Law, Divine Law - natural justice.
ReplyDeleteThe participants at this conference do not affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on salvation, the same as the Vatican Curia and the Rome Vicariate.If they affirmed the rigorist interpretation of the dogma it would be a legal issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Legion of Christ university will officially remove a student who affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.Since there would be threats of anti-Semitism or racism.First comes security and then the Faith. They call it worldly prudence.
Here are other responsible people who will look the other way:-
CM,SSPX,MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1289-cm-sspx-micm-deny-the-faith-to-please-superiors
-Lionel Andrades
C'mon Lionel...the SSPX and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are the ones you're calling liberal??? Pull your head out of your nether region, and quite eating the good guys. Seriously, you're doing francis' work....think about that.
DeleteThat's a rather short and very conservative list of Faith deniers, Lionel. Your field has narrowed somewhat in recent years.
DeleteSusan.
DeleteC'mon Lionel...the SSPX and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are the ones you're calling liberal???
Lionel:
Any one who says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a liberal.
The Angelus Press of the SSPX (USA) has published a book 'Is Feeneyism Catholic' by Fr.Francois Laisney, which assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is apparition theology, liberal theology.
There are liberal consequences, non traditional results. Since there are known exceptions for the SSPX (USA), all do not need to enter the Catholic Church in the present times.Sounds familiar. Pope Francis....
Since there are known exceptions , there are exceptions to the traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political systems. Every one doesn't have to be Catholic to go to Heaven....
Since there are known exceptions, an ecumenism of return is good but it is not obligatory for salvation.This is all liberalism.
_______________
The Slaves of the Immaculate affirm the dogma correctly and God bless them for this but- for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Vatican Council II is a break with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Since LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, LG 8 etc refer to known exceptions in the present times. They would have to be known to be exceptions to the dogma. And if they are known in 2015 they are apparitions of the dead!
How can being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), a ray of the that Truth which saves (NA 2) etc be a known or unknown exception to the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? How can it even be relevant to the dogma?
So like the liberals, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ( and the SSPX) say that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma. For me this is liberalism, since I affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II. The Council is not 'ambigous' for me, with reference to the dogma.
For the SSPX and the MICM, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
_____________________
Pull your head out of your nether region, and quite eating the good guys.
Lionel:
The good guys are using the same irrationality as the Vatican Curia.They are part of the problem and not the solution.
Seriously, you're doing francis' work....think about that.
Lionel:
I am affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma in agreement with Vatican Council II. So my ecclesiology is ecclesiocentric, if I attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass.
For me Vatican Council II supports an ecumenism of return (AG 7 and LG 14) and there are no exceptions mentioned in the Council II. For me the Council is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, since I avoid Marchetti's error.
Does Pope Francis say this ? No!
Do the SSPX and MICM say this ? No!
Then who do you think really supports Pope Francis and the error in the Catholic Church?
The good guys!
Lionel, in all charity, you're the kind of guy that gives traditionalists a really, really, really bad name. You do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not? Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible.
DeleteAgain, in all charity, I make the observation that you appear to be a longer-winded (much longer-winded) gabriel, on the other end of the scale.
You might wanna have a nice donut and cup of good coffee and enjoy the beautiful day.
Lionel, in all charity, you're the kind of guy that gives traditionalists a really, really, really bad name.
DeleteLionel:
I'm still not understood.
I can't help it.
___________
You do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not?
Lionel:
I accept this.
I accept that God is God and can choose to do what he wants.
I accept that this is only a theoretical concept for us since we are not God.
I accept that being human, for us this is only a hypothetical statement, that God is not bound to the Sacraments.
So in no way can a hypothetical statement of something theoretical for us humans, refer to an actual case today ( May 2015).
So if there is no actual exception to the dogma there is no objective exception. There is no exception. There cannot be any exception for us.
So acknowdlege God is God and can do what He wants, when he wants but please do not imply that this refers to a known exception to the dogma in the present times.
This would be irrational.
____________
Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible
Lionel:
So please do not imply that the baptisms of desire and blood are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
We both accept the theoretical possibility of the baptism of desire and blood, but we cannot infer that these theoretical cases, possibilities known to an unlimited God, is an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on salvation.
They have nothing to do with the dogma.
Legion of Christ universities in Rome have compromised to remain legal
ReplyDeleteOn May 11, at the European University of Rome a conference was held on "unjust laws and civil disobedience". The conference was organized by the Faculty of Human Sciences at the University. The administration invited the legal historian, Luca Galantini and the legal philosopher Tommaso Scandroglio. According to a report on the Eponymous Flower, the ' systematic treatment of the subject was initially engaged from an ethical and legal philosophical point of view, illuminating the definition of an "unjust act". Secondly the event was the to explore historically as a focus the facultas resistendi against unjust laws as an expression of a legitimate and compelling social contradiction. Finally, a bridge to the present day was completed with references to government efforts to introduce unjust laws in legitimate jurisdictions, thus exercising unacceptable coercion.'
COMPROMISE ACCEPTED BY THE VATICAN
What was not reported is that the European University of Rome and its sister organisation in the same premises, the University Pontificial Regina Apostolorum have accepted unjust anti-Semitism, racists and proselytism laws. So they have changed Catholic dogma and doctrine to 'adapt' to these new laws. They have also accepted these laws, defacto, in discipline.So Catholic students who affirm the Faith, are expelled or not allowed to sit for exams.The priest-professors of the Legion of Christ religious community, and the lay Catholic professors, at these two universities are not teaching Catholic truths to avoid litigation and a bad mark on their teaching careers. This changing of Church teachings, in order not to succumb to unjust laws is the norm accepted by the Legion of Christ administration the Vatican and the Rome Vicariate.They have compromised.
I personally know the professors and students at these two universities, since I studied Philosophy at UPRA for three years and was not allowed to sit for the Jurisidiction exam or continue studies because of the many people protesting against my Catholic beliefs on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. My Catholic beliefs which were in accord with Vatican Council II seemed to violate the leftist laws and so the university felt threathened financially.
So the present legal position of the two Legion of Christ universities in Rome are :-
Every one does not need to defacto convert into the Catholic Church for salvation in 2015 since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words there are known exceptions in the present times.Salvation in Heaven is visible on earth to become exceptions to the dogma.
They are using irrational, apparition theology to interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a break with the past.The professors, including Roberto De Mattei, use apparition theology, the visible-dead premise, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, for example, and so remain legal and employed.
This is the teaching position of the Dean of Theology, the Chaplain and professos of Philosophy.- Lionel Andrades
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1290-legion-of-christ-universities-in-rome-adapt-to-leftist-laws#9846
Hello, Mr Andrades, Yes, you are right. The majority of Catholic prelates have bowed down to unjust "laws" and policies, abandoning their solemn, grave duties to souls, to God, to the Laws of God. The Apostasy gets uglier and more diabolic every day, as with the scandalous statements by bishops in Ireland regarding the intrinsic evil of sodomy and the worse sin of giving it a public legal status, so implicating everyone in the sin.
DeleteTancred, I think Lionel has started up his blog again...in your comments section. oy.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll have to plan for when mine gets closed down.
DeleteHA!
DeleteOn second thought, that's sadly not too funny. You do very good work friend...please God, may you be able to do so freely for a very long time.
Thank you!
DeleteAll is well.
The blog is functioning
Lionel
Prof. Roberto de Mattei also uses apparition theology
ReplyDeleteProf. Roberto de Mattei, whom I respect and whose work I appreciate, unfortunately also uses apparition theology . A professor of history he interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past. He uses the hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of the Council similar to the liberals and heretics whom he criticizes.The Rhine Flows into the Tiber is one of his books.
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, yes- because of apparition theology.So while remaining legal in Rome he changes the Catholic Faith with an irrational interpretation of magisterial documents.
This is the policy at the Legion of Christ and other Catholic universities in Italy.Some of my good former professors at the university, well meaning persons, are using this theology.
The Legion of Chirst priests, are good priests, dedicated persons, but they are being forced by the Vatican to use an irrationality, a false premise and inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents.It keeps them legal.
This is important, for important persons in the political Left machinery, who oversee the university and the Vatican.
So to avoid being targeted by the Left as some type of 'hater' Roberto Mattei, Corrado Gnerre and other good people, infer that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite version of the dogma. This may be legal and politically correct and this keeps them employed but this is irrational and a lie.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/prof-roberto-de-mattei-also-uses.html
Susan:
ReplyDeleteYou do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not? Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible.
Lionel:
Susan when you link(connect) the baptism of blood and desire here you are using liberal theology, the same as the SSPX and MICM. They make the same mistake.
Can you accept the baptism of desire and blood, period ? Can you assume these cases are not explicit for us ? Can you accept that these cases are always implicit and invisible for us?
So you will be accepting the traditional interpretation of the dogma and also an invisible for us ( and known only to God) baptism of desire and blood.
Can you look at this issue like this and without the models used by the SSPX and the MICM?
Susan:
ReplyDeleteYou do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not? Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible.
Lionel:
Susan you could compartmentalise your thinking.
Accept the baptism of desire and the blood and compartmentalise this.Do not link it to anything i.e not to the dogma.
Then think about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and do not link it to anything, not to baptism of desire and blood. Compartmentalise it.
Now in the same way accept LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance), LG 8 ( being saved with elements of sanctification and truth), NA 2, UR 3 etc and compartmentalise it. Do not link it with anything. Just accept it.
In the same way accept AG 7 and LG 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.
This is how it was accepted over the centuries. They did not connect one with the other.
It was the Masons, Americanists and others over a century who had been campaigning against the dogma. They wanted to get rid of it. So they linked the two. They linked being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma.
So the popes have had to respond to them. So they began referring to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire when they began talking about the dogma. Since the Americanists had made the connection.
Then in Boston the enemies of the Church had their big victory when the Holy Office 1949 accepted it. It was then included in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the error was blatant in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,1257).This was the new theology.
So now if you look at it compartmentalised, as separate, without any connection between the two, you can accept the baptism of desire and blood ( both are invisible for us) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( which says all need to be formal members of the Church in the present tmes).This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Here you will be avoiding the SSPX, MICM and Vatican Curia model which connects the two.
So if asked, you could say that you accept the baptism of desire and blood and also the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they are not connected.
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary liberalism: same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar
ReplyDeleteWhen the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM) say that the baptism of desire must be followed by the baptism of water, they need to clarify that these are hypothetical cases, accepted in theory.They are not explicit cases in the present times ( May 2015).
So these cases are not relevant to the dogma, in the sense, that every one needs to be a formal member of the Church ( with faith and baptism) today and there are no known cases of any one saved with the baptism of desire, followed by the baptism of water.
We cannot make a link between the two.
If we make the link we create liberal theology.
So it can only be said that someone can be saved with the baptism of desire, followed by perfect charity and the baptism of water, and every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church with no exceptions, today.
The MICM may mean well, but unknowingly have complicated the issue when they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma. Instead they could say that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc refer to cases saved with the baptism of water.So they are not explicit exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In this way Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) would support the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and LG 16 etc would not be exceptions.Vatican Council II would not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.So the MICM could announce that they accept Vatican Council II with an ecclesiology which is ecclesiocentric and traditional.
Presently, they affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma.This is liberalism.
Their position is the same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar who says the Council is ambiguous and a break with Tradition and he accepts the Council.
The MICM has informed the Vatican that they accept Vatican Council II.While they also say that the Council is a break with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Cardinal Kaspar and the MICM are using the same new theology which comes from Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's mistake.
They need to identify the mistake, avoid it and re-interpret all magisterial documents without Marchetti's irrational premise and inference.
Cardinal Kaspar accepts Vatican Council II and so the MICM.
He says Vatican Council II is a break with the past and so the MICM.
He does not know that he is using Apparition Theology, Marchetti's theology, which makes Vatican Council II a break with the past,and it seems neither do the MICM.-Lionel Andrades
Compartmentalise your thinking on the baptism of desire and blood with the dogma http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/compartmentalise-your-thinking-on.html
Can you look at this issue without the models used by the SSPX and the MICM ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/can-you-look-at-this-issue-without.html
CM,SSPX,MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/cmsspxmicm-deny-faith-to-please.html
CCC: " 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."
DeleteThis is the accurate Doctrine of the Faith. Always check the CCC rather than the personal opinions of others.
“….the CATECHISM has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)
Why don't they just adhere to the Doctrine of the Faith as stated in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition" of 1997.
ReplyDeleteIt would save a lot of travel time and expense.
CCC: " 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.
Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community.
Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
We must obey God rather than men.
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good;
but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. "