Sunday, February 7, 2016

Ask Louie Verrecchio if it is true that hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II are hypothetical only

Read the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Then ask yourself where does Vatican Council II contradict this dogma defined by three Church Councils I mentioned in a previous post.1
Where in Vatican Council II is there a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , as taught by the saints and popes, with the exclusivist ecclesiology ?

We must remember that no where in Vatican Council II does the text say that we must interpret hypothetical cases as not being hypothetical.
There is no text which also says hypothetical cases are explicit, objectively seen and so are not hypothetical.

So when Louie Verrecchio, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, Catholic encyclopedias, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Cardinal Walter Kasper and numerous Catholics interpret hypothetical cases as being explicit in the present times, who has given them permission to do this Not Vatican Council II!
Being saved with elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) refers to a hypothetical case.
Being saved with seeds to the Word (AG 11) refers to a hypothetical case.

So they are not defacto, visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
AKA Catholic
So the text time Louie Verrecchio for example, writes on Vatican Council II being a break with Tradition ask him to be specific. I ask him to mention the passage where Vatican Council II can be interpreted as a break with Tradition.
When he does suggest a passage, show him that the passage refers to a hypothetical case. Tell him that a hypothetical case cannot be an exception to Tradition; to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
Tell him you cannot  meet any one in 2016 saved as such. So this case  can be accepted as a possibility, a theoretical possibility, a speculation but it cannot be an explicit exception to EENS.
Ask him to admit this .
Is it true that hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II are hypothetical only, ask him?
If he says yes,  then ask him if there can be an exception in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

1
Read the text of the dogma EENS on exclusive salvation in the Church. Then ask your self where does Vatican Council contradict the dogma?Then start educating and correcting just about every one

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/read-text-of-dogma-eens-on-exclusive.html

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Read the text of the dogma EENS on exclusive salvation in the Church. Then ask your self where does Vatican Council contradict the dogma?Then start educating and correcting just about every one

Read the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Then ask yourself where does Vatican Council II contradict this dogma defined by three Church Councils.
Where in Vatican Council II is there a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , as taught by the saints and popes, with the exclusivist ecclesiology ?
Not a single place. There is not a single exception to EENS in Vatican Council II. 
There is not a single exception in Vatican Council II to the Syllabus of Errors on other religions and Christian communities and salvation.Not a single exception.
Remember I have been writing on this same subject for years. I have been taking on questions on this issue.Not a single person could show me an exception in Vatican Council II to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441. No one could contradict St. Robert Bellarmine on EENS.Not a single one.
There are numerous Catholics who understand what I am saying and even agree with me but in public they will not say anything.They understand the consequences of the general mistake in the Church.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. This is the big secret they want to hide.
The Church ( magisterium) made a mistake.
There was a big mistake made on Vatican Council II.
We must remember that no where in Vatican Council II does the text say that we must interpret hypothetical cases as not being hypothetical.
There is no text which also says hypothetical cases are explicit, objectively seen and so are not hypothetical.
So when Louie Verrecchio, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci ,the Superior of the SSPX in Italy, Catholic encyclopedias, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Cardinal Walter Kasper and numerous other Catholics  interpret hypothetical cases as being explicit in the present times, who has given them permission to do this ? Not Vatican Council II!
Being saved with elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) refers to a hypothetical case.
Being saved with seeds to the Word (AG 11) refers to a hypothetical case.
Being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) refers to a speculative and hypothetical case.
Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) refers to a speculative case and not a personally known person, whom we can know by name.It is a zero case in our reality.
So they are not defacto, visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Similarly when Vatican Council II  or other magisterial documents refer to the baptism of desire and blood  it is a reference to a hypothetical case. No one has seen any one saved without the baptism of water.No one in the past or present could have seen a baptism of desire case in Heaven without the baptism of water.Humanly it is not possible.
Yet just about every one ( except me) is  projecting hypothetical cases as being objective. They are  projected as explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS and a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
The fault is there not with Vatican Council II but with the person who makes the inference.
Avoid the inference and the Council changes back to Tradition.
Any one can check this out.
Read the text of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. Then ask your self where does Council contradict the dogma?
Then start educating and correcting just about every one.
You will also help bring the Church, theologically, back to Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades


Padre Pio at St.Peter's Basilica

The body of a revered Roman Catholic monk said to have suffered from the stigmata phenomenon has been exhumed and is to be transported to the Vatican in a crystal coffin. 
Partially reconstructed with a life-like silicone mask and preserved in a temperature-controlled shrine, the mystic monk Padre Pio has officially begun his journey to St Peter's Basilica. 
Although he died in 1968, the popular Capuchin monk was declared a saint in 2002 and exhumed from his grave in 2008 to go on display in his hometown of San Giovanni.
The monk spent most of his life in the small, southeastern Italian town where yesterday his body was moved to San Lorenzo Basilica in Rome. Tomorrow, he will be taken to the Vatican.
Scroll down for video 
Padre Pio (pictured) was exhumed in 2008 and had his face partially reconstructed using a silicone mask. Here he is pictured at San Lorenzo Basilica in Rome, ahead of his journey to the Vatican tomorrow
Padre Pio (pictured) was exhumed in 2008 and had his face partially reconstructed using a silicone mask. Here he is pictured at San Lorenzo Basilica in Rome, ahead of his journey to the Vatican tomorrow
The monk, who died in 1968 and was made a saint in 2008, remains one of the Church's most popular figures
The monk, who died in 1968 and was made a saint in 2008, remains one of the Church's most popular figures
Pilgrims gather around the temperature-controlled shrine built to hold the revered 'mystic monk'
Pilgrims gather around the temperature-controlled shrine built to hold the revered 'mystic monk'
Tomorrow his body will be transported back to Rome inside the crystal coffin to be put on display in the Vatican
Tomorrow his body will be transported back to Rome inside the crystal coffin to be put on display in the Vatican
A group of pilgrims carry Padre Pio's body inside the hall in San Lorenzo Basilica as part of the Church's jubilee celebrations
A group of pilgrims carry Padre Pio's body inside the hall in San Lorenzo Basilica as part of the Church's jubilee celebrations
Padre Pio had been buried in San Giovanni Rotondo, the small, southeastern Italian town where he spent most of his life. Yesterday he was taken to Rome ahead of being displayed in the Vatican
Padre Pio had been buried in San Giovanni Rotondo, the small, southeastern Italian town where he spent most of his life. Yesterday he was taken to Rome ahead of being displayed in the Vatican
Two faithful touch the glass cabinet holding Padre Pio, who was said to suffer from the stigmata phenomenon
Two faithful touch the glass cabinet holding Padre Pio, who was said to suffer from the stigmata phenomenon
The Church claims he suffered from stigmata during his life - a phenomenon which sees those afflicted to bleed or feel ghost pains mimicking those Jesus suffered when he was crucified.
Pope Francis wanted the body of man who spent most of his life hearing confessions to be displayed.

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
1:07
Pause
Mute
Current Time1:07
/
Duration Time3:04
ExpandClose
However, not all the locals in his small town - whose economy revolves around the pilgrim trade - were happy that the saint was going on the road.
'Personally for me it is a sad day,' said Auro Mizza, one of the hundreds of people who turned out to see the coffin off, many of them with tears in their eyes.
'A saint doesn't go on pilgrimage, it is the others who go on pilgrimage to the saint.'
His shrine draws close to a million people yearly.
The body, along with that of another, less famous saint that is being transported to Rome from northern Italy, are being displayed in San Lorenzo Basilica before both are moved in procession to St. Peter's tomorrow. They will return to their regular locations later this month.
Many people said the brown-robed Padre Pio was able to predict events in their lives and knew what they were about to confess. There are thousands of 'Padre Pio Prayer Groups' around the world.
Padre Pio was dogged during his life and even after his death by allegations that he was a fake but Church investigators cleared him each time.
Pio of Pietrelcina, known as Padre Pio, was born in 1887 to deeply religious farmers in the small agricultural town of Pietrelcina, in Campania, Italy.
By the age of five he knew he wanted to dedicate his life to serving God and claimed to have inner battles with demons and moments of religious out of body experiences.
As an adult, he achieved fame for what he considered a spiritual closeness with God and his stigmata - a religious phenomenon that sees sufferers struck with pains mimicking those suffered by Jesus when he was crucified.
His condition was reported to have been visible, though the wounds never became infected and healed once but then reappeared.
After news of his stigmata spread and pilgrims flocked to witness the phenomenon, he was credited with miracles and was said to be able to perform superhuman feats such as levitation.
Many denied the wounds were authentic and he was accused of having purchased carbolic acid from a pharmacist, though the Church always denied the allegations.
However, some members of the institution remained skeptical and he was disciplined several times and investigated repeatedly throughout the first half of the century. 
In later years, he specialised in taking confessions, which many adherents claiming he was able to accurately predict what they were confessing before they had done so.
Since his death and burial in 1968 at his church in San Giovanni Rotondo, his popularity has grown and he is considered one of the Church's most popular saints.
Canonized in 2002 by Pope John Paul II, the shrine - which has now been temporarily moved to Rome - attracts thousands of pilgrims every year.
A group of men carry Padre Pio from a waiting vehicle during his arrival at San Lorenzo Basilica yesterday
A group of men carry Padre Pio from a waiting vehicle during his arrival at San Lorenzo Basilica yesterday
During his life, Padre Pio was said to suffer from stigmata, the phenomenon which causes sufferers to feel pains mimicking those Jesus Christ suffered during his crucifixtion
During his life, Padre Pio was said to suffer from stigmata, the phenomenon which causes sufferers to feel pains mimicking those Jesus Christ suffered during his crucifixtion
A woman touches the glass coffin containing the body of the popular Italian saint during his display in Rome
A woman touches the glass coffin containing the body of the popular Italian saint during his display in Rome
Monks open the hearse door to display the coffin after it arrived in Rome yesterday from San Giovanno, in southern Italy
Monks open the hearse door to display the coffin after it arrived in Rome yesterday from San Giovanno, in southern Italy
The remains of San Pio, better known as Padre Pio, arrived in Rome yesterday ahead of a series of Jubilee events
The remains of San Pio, better known as Padre Pio, arrived in Rome yesterday ahead of a series of Jubilee events
Pope Francis asked for his body to be displayed in the Vatican for the celebrations, which are based on the theme of mercy
Pope Francis asked for his body to be displayed in the Vatican for the celebrations, which are based on the theme of mercy

Pilgrims in San Lorenzo Basilica, Rome, gather around the body of Padre Pio, who took thousands of confessions during his lifetime
Pilgrims in San Lorenzo Basilica, Rome, gather around the body of Padre Pio, who took thousands of confessions during his lifetime
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3429917/Body-mystic-monk-crystal-coffin-goes-road-Holy-Year.html

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3429917/Body-mystic-monk-crystal-coffin-goes-road-Holy-Year.html#ixzz3zOtcwVBd 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The fault is there with Louie and his wrong inference. The Council does not say that he needs to assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical




For Louie Verrecchio the imprimatur 

would not be appropriate for the 

Council. Since Louie infers 

hypothetical references to 

salvation are explicit in

the present times.

The fault is there with Louie and his wrong 

inference. The Council does not say that

 he needs to assume hypothetical cases 

are not hypothetical



AKA Catholic

Does Vatican II qualify for 

an imprimatur?


In 2003 / 2004, the first of the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II study guides underwent a thorough evaluation by the censor librorum for the Archdiocese of Baltimore (an eminent theologian and professor at Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary) as part of the process of securing animprimatur.  He went through the text with a fine-tooth comb and made a couple of recommendations for rewording certain sentences, not because they were misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine, but because they weren’t sufficiently clear and could therefore invite an erroneous interpretation.
The obvious didn’t occur to me until many years later; if this very same standard was applied to the conciliar text, as the previous post indicates, it would not qualify for animprimatur.
The point is simply this:
It’s not enough for a given text, that purports to transmit the faith, to possess the merepossibility being interpreted in continuity with tradition; rather, it must transmit the doctrine of the faith whole and entire, with precision and clarity.
Surely this is not asking too much of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, is it?
____________________________________________
There is a mistake in Vatican Council II (AG 7) when it says 'Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...'.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
It is a mistake since we do not know and cannot know those men who 'though aware that God founded the Church as something necessary and who did not enter or persevere in it' and who have gone to Hell or are going to Hell. So these men are not relevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. They are not relevant or exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. They are not exceptions to Tradition.
Similarly we do not know or cannot know any one saved or not saved 'in inculpable ignorance of the Gospel'. This should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council.This was a mistake too. It is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is supeculative and not an exception to the old ecclesiology and the teachings of the Syllabus of Errors.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not and cannot know any one saved without faith and baptism and in inculpable ignorance. We do not know of any such case hypothetically in the past, or the present times.This is just speculation.
This form of false reasoning was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which speculated, that the baptism of desire was known in personal cases and so it was an 'explicit' exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the baptism of desire which is really irrelevant to the dogma EENS, is mentioned in Vatican Council. Something superflous is mentioned in the Council and this confuses Catholics.It suggests that these cases are explicit, they are personally known.
It was an error to mention the baptism of desire and blood (allegedly without the baptism of water) in Vatican Council II.
So can Vatican Council II be given the imprimatur?
Yes even with this error it could be given the imprimatur. Since speculative, hypothetical references to salvation are not explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation; all needing to be formal members of the Church with no exception, to avoid Hell.Vatican Council II is traditional. It affirms the old ecclesiolgy. The Council text does not state hypothetical cases should not be interpreted as being hypothetical.If someone makes this mistake it is his fault.
For Louie Verrecchio the imprimatur would not be appropriate for the Council. Since Louie infers hypothetical references to salvation are explicit in the present times.So for him these hypothetical cases ( saved in inculpable ignorance, elements of sanctification and truth, seeds of the Word etc) are a break with the old ecclesiology.
The fault is there with Louie and his wrong inference. The Council does not say that he needs to assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.-Lionel Andrades

Sheep starving

Imagine Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider announcing in public that all non Catholics need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/imagine-cardinal-raymond-burke-and.html

SSPX seminarians begin politically correct formation approved by the Vatican

SSPX: 45 New Seminarians Take Cassock
 Throughout the world in the SSPX's seminaries, a total of 45 seminarians have taken the cassock, or clerical habit, during the 2015-2016 academic year. We offer some news and images of this important event, a formative step towards the ultimate goal of the sacred priesthood. 
Some 45  SSPX seminarians will be taught that they have to accept the Leftist understanding of Vatican Council II and they must interpret the Council mixing up what is invisible as being visible.In this way the Council will be a break with Tradition. It will be a rupture with the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They will be told that Bishop A.Schneider whom the SSPX holds in high esteem, offers the Novus Ordo Mass and accepts the new ecclesiology which includes an interpretatation of  Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference. The false inference comes from the the factual error in the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of Holy Office 1949. The error has to be politically accepted not only because it is politically correct but because Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked it.
So his undestanding of Vatican Council II was confused.Now the seminarians are obligated to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past and so they will not affirm the Council in agreement with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past.
The seminarians will be told that they must not interpret Vatican Council II like me. I  assume that the references to salvation in Vatican Council II, are not of explicit cases, objectively seen. They refer to hypothetical cases. So they are not exceptions to the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So I can affirm the rigorist interpretation of EENS, as did St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Leonard Feeney and also affirm Vatican Council II, in harmony with this traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Bishop Schneider could also do  the same as me. But then he could lose his 'full communion' status, which the SSPX now seeks and possibly the seminarians too want the same thing.So the bishop  does not affirm the Catholic Faith by saying all Jews and other non Catholics, need to formally enter the Church ( with faith and baptism) to avoid the fires of Hell and there are no known exceptions in 2016 and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II. He has to go along with the Nostra Aetate pitch.
The bishop will  not say this in the many interviews he gives and neither will the SSPX bishops and priests do so. They  all remain politically correct with the Left. So there are no threats to their property and they can build new seminaries. As long as they interpret Vatican Council II with the invisible-visible mix up they will not be harassed with leftist laws. There will be no campaign against them,like the one received by Bishop Richard Williamson, Robert Sungenis...
So the 45 seminarians will know that their religious formation is the same as that of the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome, where they also interpret Vatican Council II with the same politically appropriate irrationality.
This is standard magisterial heresy, it is ecclesiastical heresy but it is has popular support within and outside the Church. The SSPX theologically is part of the same corrupt system. 
For the SSPX seminarians, like those in the seminaries in Rome, to come out in the open and affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church would mean the end of their hopes of being a Catholic priest. Since the truth is prohibited at SSPX seminaries as in two of the Catholic seminaries in Rome, where I was a seminarian.-Lionel Andrades