Sunday, October 22, 2017

Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him

Dr.Robert Fastiggi uses the schism-card in a debate with Bishop Donald Sanborn without addressing the theological issues raised by the bishop.He does the same in comments.He writes 'Mr. Ferrara is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This, though, is the very definition of schism found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089 and the 1983 CIC canon 751.' 1

When I initially e-mailed him some time back on the salvation issue, he told me that he affirms the teachings of the present magisterium and he rejects what I say.But unlike Sanborn and Ferrara I am affirming Vatican Council II.This is a completely different ball game.I am also affirming Vatican Council II( premise) free in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(premise-free), to make things worse for Dr.Fastiggi.Like the two popes he cannot affirm Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) without the irrational premise i.e invisible people are visible in the present times.
I am also saying that Pope Francis is my pope even though he is in first class heresy and in schism with the past popes and so is in mortal sin and automatically excommunicated.It is the same with Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.
For me Dr. Fastiggi is in schism with the past popes on EENS, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the ecumenism of return....
Tomorrow if the popes say that they will interpret all magisterial documents without the irrational premise, since they do not want to be dishonest,Dr. Fastiggi would have to do the same.Since for him affirming the truth and logic is not enough.It has to be magisterial too.
But the two popes have not done it yet.So at present he is in heresy; magisterial heresy and in schism with the magisterium of the past on the Nicene Creed, EENS, Syllabus of Errors  etc.
But this is not important for him but that he support the present magisterium.
So at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit he will teach the students that all Jews and Muslims in Michigan do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.Since  generally unknown cases for us, of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are personally known to Fastiggi for them to be an exception to traditional EENS and the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
This is a false premise in logic.
It is irrational philosophical reasoning.
It is the basis of an irrational new theology being taught at Detroit.
It is a rupture with the pre-Pius XII magisterium of the Catholic Church.
It is first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
But it is magisterial!
The word magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.How can the Holy Spirit teach all this mentioned above.
How can there be  a rupture with faith and reason with an innovation which says invisible people, now in Heaven, are visible exceptions on earth to EENS ? So all in Michigan do not need to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.
What if Bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pirvanus would say that they affirm invisible for us BOD,BOB and I.I ?.So there can only be an EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I not being an exception.And what if they announced that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc also refer to invisible and unknown people in 2017-Michigan? Would they still be in schism for Dr.Fastiggi since this is not the magisterial teaching of the Church even though it is rational and tradtional?
In the Sanborn-Fastiggi debate on Ecclesiology the bishop clearly said that he would reject  sedevacantism if someone showed him how Vatican Council II could be reconciled with the past ecclesiology. This can be seen on the Youtube video.
We now know that this is normal with Vatican Council II (premise-free).
But Fastiggi cannot recommend it to Bishop Sanborn- since it still is not magisterial!
For now Dr.Fastiggi and the present magisterium have chosen heresy and schism.
Dr.Fastiggi is limited by the magisterium. In the Ecclesiology debate Bishop Donald Sanborn spoke in terms of philosophy and theology. Fastiggi could not.
Bishop Sanborn bluntly said that in the past there was an ecumenism of return but now there isn't.Fastiggi had nothing to say.
How could he say that the present magisterium uses an irrational premise to reject the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church upon which depends the ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors ? If he affirms an ecumenism of return and the Syllabus of Errors he would lose his teaching job at Detroit.He  has a family to support.-Lionel Andrades



1
Remnant Newspaper
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3474-la-stampa-s-robert-fastiggi-replies-to-chris-ferrara



_______________________________________________




OCTOBER 21, 2017



Pope Benedict XVI interprets Vatican Council II, EENS, Nicene Creed, Catechisms and other magisterial documents with an irrational premise to produce a non traditional conclusion

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/pope-benedict-xvi-interprets-vatican.html


OCTOBER 21, 2017


Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/five-catholic-academics-accepted.html



OCTOBER 21, 2017

With one small false premise which Christine Niles accepts in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture for her

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/with-one-small-false-premise-which.html

 OCTOBER 21, 2017

Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/christine-niles-uses-false-premise-to.html





OCTOBER 20, 2017


Pope Francis and Bishop Nunzio fail the test on this 'chart' : first class heresy, automatic excommunication

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/pope-francis-and-bishop-nunzio-fail.html

OCTOBER 20, 2017


No denial from Archbishop Guido Pozzo : he uses an irrational premise to reject the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican Council II(premise-free)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/no-denial-from-archbishop-guido-pozzo.html


OCTOBER 20, 2017


SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/sspx-has-right-to-canonical-status-when.html

 OCTOBER 19, 2017

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 18, 2017

Maike Hickson could ask for a clarification from Cardinal Muller on the SSPX canonical status :objective error in interview with Pentin

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/maike-hickson-needs-clarification-from.html

_________________________________



Saturday, October 21, 2017

Pope Benedict XVI interprets Vatican Council II, EENS, Nicene Creed, Catechisms and other magisterial documents with an irrational premise to produce a non traditional conclusion

DECEMBER 22, 2016


Card.Ratzinger's error in the ITC papers is also there in Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/cardratzingers-error-in-itc-papers-is.html


Georg Ratzinger: "My Brother Is Mentally Fit”



Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, 93, the brother of Benedict XVI, 90, has just returned to Regensburg, Germany, after visiting the former pope in the Vatican.


Ratzinger told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, that his brother is doing fine. He has troubles walking and problems with his eyes but, "Mentally he is at his best."

#newsDlmjhcfuvm
https://gloria.tv/article/aPuwjFsBBDeb3qUuzAMNJefAH
__________________________________________________________

JULY 5, 2017

Image result for photos of cARDINAL rATZINGER WITH fR.rAHNER

To accomodate the error of visible baptism of desire Cardinal Ratzinger changed the Profession of Faith, Oath of Fidelity and Canon Law

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/to-accomodate-error-of-visible-baptism.html

JANUARY 14, 2017

For Cardinal Ratzinger there was no ecclesiocentrism in the past too, since he has used the irrational premise to re-interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/for-cardinal-ratzinger-there-was-no.html



Pope Benedict does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) quoted here.Since for him invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.He uses the irrational premise to interpret 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.)
http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
________________________________

He assumes assumes 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.If he did not use the false premise they would not be a rupture with traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Image result for Photos of Catechism of the Catholic church
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR POPE BENEDICT 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).
__________________________________

Image result for Photos of Vatican Council II
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI WHICH FOR HIM 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.
______________________________________

Image result for Photos of Letter of the Holy Office 1949
HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR  POPE BENEDICT  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.(it 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.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________

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.
Conclusion: 
Pope Benedict interprets Church documents with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
He uses the Irrational Premise.
He chooses the Baptism of Desire (with the false premise) and  Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise).
He irrationally also chooses Vatican Council II (with the premise).
It is the same with the  Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise).
In first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II he chooses the Nicene Creed ( with the premise).
It has always been Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise)and not according to the missionaries in the 16th century, premise-free.
He expects the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) to follow him in these errors for a doctrinal agreement.
With the irrational premise he interprets the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free).
The New Theology of Ecclesia Dei,the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Internationl Theologoal Commission was based on the irrational premise.
He can choose extra ecclesiam nulla salus premise-free but will not do so. He can choose to interpret Vatican Council II( premise-free) which will not be a rupture with EENS( premise-free) but he will not do so and not recommend it to the Society of St.Pius X.
The Nicene Creed without the premise is heresy and is used in the Profession of Faith for  religious when they accept  a new responsibility. 
This is the 'authentic magisterium' he wanted the SSPX to accept via the  doctrinal preamble, preceding canonical recognition by the Vatican.All other Catholic religious communities also use the false premise and so are granted canonical status.
The same mistakes are being made by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________________

DECEMBER 26, 2016

The difference between Cardinal Ratzinger and me : one of us is in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/the-difference-between-cardinal.html
DECEMBER 23, 2016
Cardinal Ratzinger made an objective mistake in Redemptoris Missio
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/cardinal-ratzinger-made-objective.html
DECEMBER 22, 2016
Cardinal Ratzinger 's work : a rupture between faith and reason
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/cardinal-ratzinger-s-work-rupture.html
Image result for photo of two popes
DECEMBER 21, 2016
Magisterium in rebellion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/magisterium-in-rebellion.html
 DECEMBER 17, 2016
Unprecedented!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/unprecedented.html