Edit: they’re shameless, but Bergoglio is their creature. I expect they will have more than just these initiatives to make him act right.
[Times of Israel] Rabbi Ratzon Arusi, the chair of the Chief Rabbinate’s Commission for Dialogue with the Holy See, has expressed concern over recent remarks by Pope Francis about Jewish law, Reuters report.
According to the report, Arusi sent a letter to the Vatican requesting clarification of comments the pope made to a general audience earlier this month.
On August 11, Francis spoke at the Vatican about the first five books of the Bible, known in Hebrew as the Torah. The pope referenced the biblical story of God giving the Torah to the Jewish people: “God offered them the Torah, the Law, so they could understand his will and live in justice. We have to think that at that time, a Law like this was necessary, it was a tremendous gift that God gave his people.”
AMDG
15 comments:
Former bar bouncer Bergoglio isn't looking so robust anymore since he go his double dose of the abortion tainted VAXX a few months ago.
please keep on mind, as an antiVaxxer, I also find "Jews" that are for it and against it. And atheist Jews are the only ones that involve themselves in senseless "Dialogue". To "Dialogue" means to give legitimacy to atheist and New Age Zionists and Masons.
Oh, ok, we’ll just forget about the Jewish legacy at being in the vanguard of progressive degeneracy of the West, because there are “good Jews” who form false opposition.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Former bar bouncer Bergoglio isn't looking so robust anymore since he go his double dose of the abortion tainted VAXX a few months ago."
I read on one Catholic site that they were informed by people close to the VAtican and Pope Francis that:
1). The operation will mitigate the effects of his new ailment for a time, not cure it. It is a severe and progressive process and will eventually cause weakness, loss of weight, etc.
2) The doctors at the Polyclinico Agostino Gemelli in Rome wanted Bergoglio to stay in the hospital longer, because he was not doing as well as expected. He was doing "satisfactory", which is different than "good". In hospital terms, a statement of "satisfactory", is about a 70 (on a scale of 1-100). Passing, but not great.
3).I read that there is a growing air of "end of the Pontificate" in the Vatican, and that many higher-up clerics, even cardinals, know it....and some are distancing themselves from Francis agenda so as not to be tainted by it at Conclave time.....hence the fact none save for PArolin and 1-2 others praised his brutal smack-down of Summorum Pontificum.
4). Francis actually apparently told more than one associate (who blabbed), that "there might well be a new Pope in the Vatican by Spring).
Don't wish him ill, but I would'nt be surprised if this time he's right.
Damian M. Malliapalli
DON PIETRO LEONE AND RORATE CAEILI INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II LIKE FR. JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY SJ : LUMEN GENTIUM 14(BAPTISM OF DESIRE) IS AN EXCEPTION TO TRADITION FOR THEM.
'The Council and The Eclipse of God' by Don Pietro Leone - Part XIV: The Church and The State’ on the weblog Rorate Caeili seems like the last death knell for the Lefebvrist and liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II which Bishop Athanasius Schneider corrected in his latest interview by Dr.Taylor Marshall.
Don Pietro Leone writing from his ivory tower built some 50 years back has interpreted the Council with Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) referring to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church since 1965.Then with this false premise, he rejects the traditional ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors(he cites UR 3 as an exception in a previous installment of this series). He rejects the teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church according to the Athanasius Creed and the traditional ecclesiocentrism as Mass in Greek during the first four centuries.This is there in black and white in earlier blog posts on Rorate Caeili.
His non traditional interpretation of the Council,with the false premise(visible baptism of desire etc), like the popes from Paul VI, supports Fr.John Courtney Murray and Cardinal Richard Cushing in the separation of Church and State.
The liberals still ask, « Why should there be the non separation of Church and State and why should we proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation, when non Catholics can be saved outside the Church ? ».Don Pietro Leone would agree with their reasoning. He is saying the same thing.
Pope Benedict also asked the same question. In an interview with the Italian daily Avvenire he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. There was a development with Vatican Council II. He also questioned the need for Mission. Since Vatican Council II says ( according to Pope Benedict and Don Pietro Leone) that there is salvation outside the Church.
He means with visible cases of the baptism of desire, of course.This is the salvation outside the Church he has always been supporting.
Rorate says:
In Chapter 4, Don Pietro turns to consider the Council’s teaching on the Church and State. He explains how the Church has a duty not only to Her members, but also to the entire world. Her role in regard to the State is to guide Kings and governors to promote the best interests of their citizens, i.e. in the final analysis the attainment of eternal life in Heaven, such as has been the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church. (Lionel : This cannot be done when Don Leone, Rorate Caeili and Pope Benedict interpret Lumen Gentium 14 with a false premise unlike Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall ). Readers will be amazed to learn that an entirely new political vision was to supplant this teaching, a vision which originates in Freemasonry and of which the most notable fruits are the Declarations of the French Revolution and the American Constitution, namely, the total separation of Church and State.(Lionel : It was made possible theologically with the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing) The genius behind this devastating work of destruction was the American Jesuit, Father John Courtney Murray, who, unbelievably, was the author of all the speeches of the five bishops calling for these changes. F.R.
Fr. Murray sj could do nothing if Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise. The Council would be traditional. So religious liberty, ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue would no longer be an issue.The Church would still proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King based upon the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades
BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER AND DR.TAYLOR MARSHALL SAY THERE ARE NO LITERAL CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE BUT THE GERMAN SYNODAL pATH IS BASED UPON THERE BEING LITERAL CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE(LG 14) BASED UPON THERE BEING LITERAL CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE(LG 14) IN THE PRESENT TIMES
Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall has said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in the present times(2021). So LG 14 ( Case of the Catechumen) would be a hypothetical and speculative case only. But for Cardinal Marx this is not his interpretation of Vatican Council II upon which is based the German Synodal Way.For him LG 14 and also LG 16, UR 3, NA2, GS 22, LG 16,LG 8 would refer to literal cases of non Catholics in the present times (1965-2021) saved without ‘faith and baptism’(AG 7), outside the Church. It is only in this way that he can avoid affirming Catholic Tradition (EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
If the Germans interpreted LG 14 like Bishop Athanasius Schneider there would be no theological bases for the German Synodal Breakaway.
In France, Bishop Roland Mitterand in Dijon, wrote his books on the Concordats and the theology of religious pluralism by interpreting LG 14 irrationally.The French Bishops’ Conference must be asked to clarify that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical, theoretical and invisible for us human beings.In principle, hypothetical cases of LG 14, LG 16 etc cannot be practical exceptions in 2021 to Tradition ( Catechism of Pope Pius X, Council of Trent etc).
Like the French, Cardinal Peter Erdo in Hungary and the Hungarian Bishops’ Conference, could also be confusing the “implicit baptism of desire” of St. Thomas Aquinas as being explicit in the present times.
In Poland, the National Catechetical Center is in schism with the past Magisterium, since with visible cases of the baptism of desire, a hermeneutic of rupture is created with the Athanasius Creed, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q).They need to issue a statement on this issue.
Their Episcopal Conference, like those all over the world, interpret the baptism of desire with a fake and not rational premise . So there is a fake break with Catholic Tradition.
The Schneider-Marshall video is really asking the U.S bishops to be ethical and honest.They are saying that the cardinals and bishops in Britain are also dishonest, when they project the baptism of desire as an exception to EENS according to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
The bishops in Switzerland had also been asking the Society of St. Pius X to interpret the baptism of desire with the irrationality mentioned by Bishop Schneider, and then to accept the non traditional conclusion.This is not Catholic.
Pope Benedict did not grant canonical recognition to the SSPX and said it was a doctrinal issue.Bishop Charles Morerod in Switzerland would not allow the SSPX to use the churches there, and said it was a doctrinal issue. They had to continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and accept the non traditional conclusion, like the liberals.
Pope Benedict needs to be honest.He needs to apologize to the SSPX.-Lionel Andrades
AUGUST 28, 2021
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that there are no known literal cases of the baptism of desire in our human reality but Cardinal Ratzinger wrote Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus with there being literally known cases of being saved with the baptism of desire
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-has-said_28.html
AUGUST 27, 2021
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall are telling Pope Francis that all the books on Vatican Council II are written with a false premise and in general they are obsolete
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and-dr.html
AUGUST 26, 2021
Bishop Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall directly oppose Pope Francis on the New Theology : Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition when the premise is rational
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/bishop-schneider-and-dr-taylor-marshall.html
AUGUST 25, 2021
Bishop Schneider is one step away from saying that Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition and the SSPX are no more in schism
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/bishop-schneider-is-one-step-away-from.html
AUGUST 25, 2021
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that we do not know of any literal case of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-has-said.html
AUGUST 31, 2021
POPE BENEDICT HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE GERMAN SYNOD WITH HIS IRRATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II.BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER AND DR. TAYLOR MARSHALL HAVE OVERTURNED THE INTERPRETATION.FOR THE GERMAN BISHOPS LUMEN GENTIUM 14 (BAPTISM OF DESIRE) IS AN EXCEPTION TO TRADITIONAL EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.FOR SCHNEIDER AND MARSHALL IT IS NOT.
All these years bishops supported the German pope’s political left interpretation of the Council.Now our pope emeritus can break away from his compatriot bishops.He has to issue a statement. He must announce that there are no literal cases in 2021 of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire(LG 14).This is something obvious. It is a given.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has exposed Pope Benedict. For the pope, Jews do not need to convert into the Catholic Church as members for salvation. Since the exception (LG 14 etc) is the rule.
But we know that the norm for salvation is Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation) and there really are no exceptions in LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc, to AG 7 or the strict interpretation of EENS. Vatican Council II is dogmatic. It supports EENS. The Council is Feeneyite and not Cushingite.
Yet so many German and European authors have published books based upon Cardinal Ratzinger’s New Theology. There is a new liberal culture in the Church. Many of these books, including manuals of theology, are useless. Since they carry the Ratzinger virus .He has also influenced the Americans. So much of Scott Hahn’s writings are now straw.
Pope Benedict has been a modernist pope and has blocked traditional Catholic mission. »Why have mission, » he asked, « when Vatican Council II says there is salvation outside the Church ? ».Vatican Council II says this only with his false premise which creates the new theology.
He does not proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in world politics ( Why ? LG 14 says for him, that outside the Church there is salvation).So now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. His and Schneiders.
He does not call for the non separation of Church and State(Why ? LG 16 is an exception to Feeneyite EENS).
He wrote the foreword for a book presented before the Italian leftist Senate. It supported the separation of Church and State. His priority was saving his life and the Vatican.
Pope Benedict must acknowledge his great contribution towards the German Synodal Path, also approved by Pope Francis.
The new moral theology with its permutations and possibilities is false. Cardinal Ratzinger let it pass at the universities.
Pope Benedict is the father of the Amoris Laetitia- moral theology. Who among us can judge general exceptions to the teaching on mortal sin, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church suggests, when interpreted irrationally ?.
He also approved seminarians being removed who did not accept Vatican Council II with the false premise.They instead affirmed EENS and got kicked out of the seminary( like me).We can see the results today in Germany and the rest of the world.
Pope Benedict must be asked to tell the German bishops that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with a rational premise and that he had made an objective mistake since 1965.
Also the SSPX in Germany must be allowed to interpret Vatican Council II with a rational premise and so affirm traditional ecclesiocentrism. His books on ecclesiology in Germany promote a false Profession of Faith, Oath Against Modernism and the Oath of Office of the Bishop. There are two interpretations now for the First Commandment, the Great Commission and Vatican Council II itself.- Lionel Andrades
MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2021
Pope Benedict needs to be honest and apologize to the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/pope-benedict-needs-to-be-honest-and_30.html
____________
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/08/pope-benedict-has-always-supported.html
DR.TAYLOR MARSHALL DID NOT ASK BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER IF THE PRESENT TWO POPES ARE IN SCHISM. SINCE THE BISHOP SAID THAT THE BAPTIS OF DESIRE DOES NOT REFER TO LITERAL CASES IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND THE POPES SINCE PIUS XII DIFFERED.
Dr.Taylor Marshall did not ask Bishop Athanasius Schneider if the present two popes, are in schism.Since Bishop Schneider said that the baptism of desire does not refer to literal cases.The popes since Pius XII stated the opposite.The popes interpret LG 14( baptism of desire) as a rupture with the Creeds, Catechisms,extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.If the popes interpreted Vatican Council II rationally then they would affirm these Magisterial documents and would not be in schism with the past Magisterium.
Pope Benedict in an interview with the daily Avvenire said that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.There was ‘a development’ with Vatican Council II.He meant Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 being literal cases in 1965-2021.So EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed were made obsolete.
But with LG 14 (baptism of desire) not being a literal case in 2021 for Schneider and Marshall, the game has changed. It is the popes are using the wrong interpretation of the Council.So they are choosing the hermeneutic of rupture with the past.
When in principle, hypothetical cases (LG 8,Lg 14,LG 16 ,UR 3 etc) are not literal and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times,then the popes and the SSPX, can affirm Vatican Council II ( with the rational premise) and also Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).They would not be in a rupture with the past Magisterium.They would be supporting Vatican Council II, Tradition and the past Magisterium.
Pope Francis is in schism since he rejects Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and rejects Tradition ( Catechism of Pope Pius X,24Q,27Q etc), with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.He produces the hermeneutic of rupture with the Early Christians, the early Catholics, the Fathers of the Church, the Medieval Fathers and the popes before Pius XII.
Now the entire College of Cardinals are in a factory-made, artificial schism with their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ( visible LG 14 cases).
The German Synodal Path is schismatic and the German cardinals and bishops have a rational and non schismatic alternative before them.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
Dr.Taylor Marshall could have asked, « Is Cardinal Marx in schism because of his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II ? ».
The “Ecclesia Dei” communities meeting, with Pope Francis this month, as reported on the website of Taylor Marshall, would be of no value for the traditionalists.They need to discuss Vatican Council II, interpreted with the rational premise( invisible cases of LG 14 in 2021 are always invisible).More important, affirm it before the pope.
The FSSP (Fraternity of St Peter), ICKSP (Institute of Christ the King), and IBP (Institute of the Good Shepherd),interpretation of Vatican Council II is as schismatic as that of Pope Francis. They all use the false premise which Bishop Schneider avoided.
These communities need to tell Pope Francis to interpret the Council rationally,come back to the Church and take the Catholic Church back to Tradition at all rites and liturgies.
They should mention that the SSPX-Vatican talks during the pontificate of Pope Benedict,were a waste of time.Since both sides were interpreting the Council with LG 14 ( baptism of desire) referring to literal and objective cases.Fr.Jean Marie Gleize and Fr.Luiz Ladaria sj are still at it .. –Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.
There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
02.09.2021
THE VATICAN PRESS OFFICE HAS NOT DENIED WHAT IS UNDENIABLE. POPE FRANCIS IS IN SCHISM AND HIS MASS IS NOT REGULAR SINCE HE USES A FALSE PREMISE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II(LG 14) WHICH IS CONTRADICTED BY BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER.
The Vatican Press Office has not denied it. It is undeniable. Pope Francis is in schism and his Mass is not regular, since he uses a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II(LG 14 etc) which is contradicted by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.With the false premise he changes the understanding of the Nicene and Apostles Creed and rejects the Athanasius Creed.His Profession of faith would be different from that of the popes over the centuries.Schism is a mortal sin.It is an impediment to offering Holy Mass.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Vatican Press Office agree with me. The pope does interpret Vatican Council II with a fake premise, fake inference and non traditional and schismatic conclusion.
The CDF also like the pope confuse LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as being examples of salvation outside the Church.So they become exceptions for the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed.We have a schismatic pope is the official line of the ecclesiastics.All the priests, and not only those of the SSPX and FSSP, have to follow him to be allowed to offer Holy Mass in the different rites.
When interviewed by TV 2000 and asked about the First Commandment, the pope could not say that there was true worship in only the Catholic Church.So for him there are other gods in other religions, through whom there is salvation.
We have a schismatic pope. It’s official and he refers to himself as the Magisterium.
At the Amazon Synod he interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise.
At Abu Dhabi he interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake premise.
In Traditionis Custode and other encyclicals and apostolic letters, he interpreted Vatican Council II with a fake premise to create a fake rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.
Without the fake premise there would be no New Theology.He would have to return to EENS of the Jesuits of the 16 century and would be accused by the Left, of being rigid, fundamentalist etc.
So our non rigid, non fundamentalist but schismatic pope offers Holy Mass in this ‘irregular condition’ and has prohibited the Latin Mass for priests/communities who do not schismatically interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents(Creeds,Catechisms etc).
With his liberalism,based upon the false premise, he is creating division in the Church.He is not allowing the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass to be offered by those who go back to Tradition while correctly putting aside the Council when it is interpreted schismatically a la papa.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
The Ecclesia Dei communties which will meet Pope Francis this month must tell him that they affirm Vatican Council II interpreted non schismatically and they expect him also to interpret the Council with the rational premise, before he offers Holy Mass.
They need to tell Pope Franics to affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics and political legislation,based upon the strict interpretation of EENS, supported by Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise).
They must tell him to affirm an Ecumenism of Return to the Catholic Church, for Christian communities and churches, since Unitatis Redintigratio 3 does not contradict the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology and interpretation of EENS.
Tell the pope to affirm Traditional Mission like the Jesuits of the 16th century, since the baptism of desire (Lumen Gentium 14) and invincible ignorance (Ad Gentes 7) are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to St.Ignatius of Loyola, St.Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.
Do not let him affirm Vatican Council II schismatically and expect you to do the same.The Council is no more an issue for the traditionalists.It is the liberals who may want to reject it.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.For him the Council is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.
There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
I affirm the Catholic Church's teachings on other religions and salvation
I affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church but I only interpret Church documents with the rational premise. So there is no rupture with the past Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.
1.I affirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is not contradicted by the second half for me.Since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only in 2021. They could not have been practical exceptions to Feenyite EENS in 1949. Pope Pius XII and the popes who followed made an objective mistake.The present popes continue with the mistake and expect all Catholics to follow them.So the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the College of Cardinals is also irrational and non Magisterial.
2.I affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 29 Q) on other religions.It is not contradicted by that same Catechism mentioning those who are saved in invincible ignorance. Similarly I affirm Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) which is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).LG 16 is always a hypothetical case.Only God can know if someone is saved in invincible ignorance.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are always hypothetical.So they do not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
3.Similarly the Vatican Council II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, is always hypothetical.So does not contradict the past ecumenism of return or the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
4.Similarly I affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.I do not know of any practical exception in the present times.
5.I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I accept hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I do not have to reject them.Since they can only be hypothetical, always.
6.I affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 Outside the Church No Savation) with Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism. I do not know of any exception.There is no exception mentioned in the phrase , ' all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church'.The priority is membership in the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell ( for salvation).We do not separate Jesus from His Mystical Body the Catholic Church.The norm for salvation is faith and baptism.
7.Similarly I know that 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water'(CCC 1257) and that there are no practical exceptions.Theoretically 'God is not limited to the Sacraments', and practically all need the baptism of water and Catholic faith,always, to avoid Hell.There are no practical exceptions for the norm for salvation.
8.In the Nicene Creed, we say 'one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. This refers to one baptism, the baptism of water, which is physically visible. I cannot administer the baptism of desire and it is not known to us human beings.So there is one baptism and not three or more known baptisms.There are no known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water.There is no literal baptism of desire, as says, Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the recent interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
9.So the Four Marks of the Church( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic) must include affirming all Church documents with the rational and not irrational premise.
10.In the Apostles Creed, we say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church".The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church even today, to say that outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.This would be interpreting the Apostles Creed with the rational premise.Otherwise the Creed would be saying outside the Church there is known salvation.
11.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and supports traditional EENS, with LG 8, LG 16 etc not being practical exceptions in the present times.
For Pope Paul VI, Vatican Council was pastoral and not dogmatic, since he used the false premise to create a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.If he had interpreted the Council with a rational premise then the Council would also be dogmatic in 1965.It would make Fr. John Courtney Murray sj, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Yves Congar op and Fr. Karl Rahner sj unable to theologicallysupport their liberalism.There would not be a New Theology.
12.Since the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are always hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only, they do not contradict the Church's traditional ecclesiocentrism.
These are the teachings of the Catholic Church which I affirm and the priests in the parish are unable to do the same.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, father of Catholic moral theology,says that if a priest is in public mortal sin, do not go up to receive the Eucharist. Since it would be a sin against faith and charity. He is on the way to Hell and you are telling him all is well.
The priest must end the scandal.(Teologia Moralis Bk.3, N.47)
In my parish, Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea Rome the priests have a problem with the Creeds, Catechisms and other Magisterial documents, just like Pope Francis.They are in public schism. So I do not go up to receive the Eucharist, at Holy Mass in Italian.
Pastorally, they allow this situation to continue. -Lionel Andrades
WHEN POPE BENEDICT REFUSED TO GIVE CANONICAL RECOGNITION TO THE SSPX UNLES THEY ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL SCHISMATICALLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE, IT WAS COERCION.EVEN TODAY THE TWO POPES DO NOT WANT THE WHOLE CHURCH TO INTERPRET MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS NON-SCISMATICALLY WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE.THEY WANT A HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE WITH THE PAST.
THEY WANT THE ECCLESIA DEI COMMUNITIES TO FOLLOW THE POPES SCHISMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNCIL FOR CANONICAL RECOGNITION AND PERMISSION TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS.
If Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be no liberalism.Ratzinger, Rahner,Cushing and Murray could do nothing.Now if Pope Francis interprets the Council with the rational premise the division, caused by liberalism, ends.It is the false premise which creates the liberal-conservative divide.Without the common fake premise there is no development of doctrine.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus today would be the same as the in the 16th century for Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and me.
With Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict hoped that the Society of St. Pius X would accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and also the non traditional, liberal conclusion.
It did not work out.
He announced that the SSPX problem was a doctrinal issue. They had to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, accept the non traditional conclusion and then they would not be in schism for rejecting Vatican Council II.
He did not tell them that he was in schism . Since there were two interpretations of the Council, one rational and the other irrational, if the SSPX would accept Vatican Council II with the rational premise there would be no break with the past Magisterium and Tradition.
If Pope Benedict does not confuse what is invisible as being physically visible in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, he would be Feeneyite on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He would be ecclesiocentric. Then much of his writings in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus , which are Christocentric only, would be non Magisterial.Since he used the false premise and so rejected the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.There was a New Theology created with the fake premise.
When Pope Benedict refused to give canonical recognition to the SSPX , unless they accepted Vatican Council II with the false premise,it was coercion.Even today the two popes and the Left do not want the SSPX , and the whole Church, to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise.
They want the Ecclesia Dei communities to follow the popes’ schismatic interpretation of the Council for canonical recognition and permission to offer the Latin Mass. This is the familiar coercion. .-Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment