Saturday, September 3, 2011

CATTOLICA BISOGNA RIFLETTERE


Tradotto da CATHOLICS NEED TO REFLECT )





Seminaristi bisogna conosce un errore durante nuovo accademico anno 2011-2012. Questo errore può insegna preti e professori. Errori e : assumere che noi possiamo incontrario qualcuno a Roma che ricevuto  salvezza con il battesima di desidero o battisma di sangue  (martire). E assumere che noi conosciamo qualcuno in particolare a Vaticano che ricevuto salvezza con il battesimo di desiderio. Assumere che noi conosciamo una persona a Mogadishu, Africa o dove noi abitiamo , che ha ricevuto salvezza in invincibile ignoranza; una persona che non conosce Gesù, ne conosce il Vangelo senza colpa sua. Se noi visto questo sarebbe come vediamo un fantasma !

Noi ascoltiamo quando la Chiesa dichiarato che qualcuno e in Paradiso come un Santo o Martire, ma in generale noi non conosciamo un caso particolare. Solo Dio può giudicare un cuore, solo Dio conosce chi ha ricevuto salvezza implicitamente. Noi non conosciamo implicito battesimo di desiderio, esplicatamene.

L’errore e ‘assumere che noi esplicitamente conosciamo implicita salvezza. Questo può significa che Lumen Gentium 14 contraddice Lumen Gentium 15 e16. Anche altre teste Magistero apparire senza ragione. Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica N. 1257 di Papa Giovanni Paolo II diventa una contradizione.

Anche, per esempio, il Lettere di Santo Ufficio di Venerabile Papa Pio XII,  mandato ad Arcivescovo di Boston. Questa Lettera riferisce a parole 'il dogma’, ‘l’infallibile insegnamento'. Il 'dogma' Cantate Domino, Concilio di Firenze sul extra ecclesiam nulla salus indicare che tutti non Cattolici a Boston bisogna diventa una visibile, formale,esplicatamente  membro di Chiesa per salvezza.

Questa Lettera anche afferma che e possibile per un non Cattolico ricevere salvezza con il battesimo di desiderio 'in certe circostanze'. E un errore  quando noi Cattolici assumere il battesimo di desiderio ed esplicita e noi conosciamo alcuni persone  sulla terra. La Lettera diventa una contraddizione.Perche  Il dogma indicare che tutti esplicitamente bisogna entrare la Chiesa formale, e la Lettera  dire differente  che qualcun non bisogna entrare la Chiesa; non bisogna convertire. Loro sono che hanno salvezza con il battesimo di desiderio o in invincibile ignoranza e chi noi conosciamo esplicitamente non bisogna entrare.Chi noi conosciamo explicitamente?!

Il battesimo di desiderio e sempre implicitamente come e possibile contraddice il dogma?

La Lettera di Santo Ufficio non dire che Don Leonard Feeney di Boston era scomunicato per l’eresia, ma per disobbedienza. Puoi quando di errori di esplicitamente battesimo di desiderio e insegna, significa, che Don Leonard Feeney, i papi e santi erano  in l’eresia. Loro tengono i secoli insegnamento che tutti senza eccezione bisogna diventa visibili membri di Chiesa Cattolica per salvezza.Loro tutti erano in l'eresia? Non e possibile!

La Lettera di Santo Ufficio, Concilio Vaticano II e il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica non contraddice il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Lumen Gentium 16, Concilio Vaticano II riferisce a chi ricevere salvezza implicitamente in ‘invincibile ignoranza. Noi non conosciamo qualcuno in Roma che ha ricevuto salvezza con una buona coscienza, parziale comunione con la Chiesa or con il Verbo di Dio.

Gli errori di esplicatament-reale-implicita salvezza, che noi possiamo vede come il battesimo di acqua, creare un’interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II che e senza ragione.

Cattolici bisogna riflettici sul questo errore : noi non conosciamo,  un singolo caso, che ha riceve salvezza in invincibile ignoranza, gli errori di esplicitamente- implicita salvezza.

Lionel Andrades, Cattolico laico a Roma.
Blog: eucharistandmission
Youtube: LionelAndrades

THE BELLARMINE REPORT


Regarding the post Pope Accused of Anti Semitism in the Bellarmine Report I would like to say:

POPE BENEDICT XVI AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNICATED

Pope Benedict XVI and some of his Curia have stated in the public media that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. This is a rejection of Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) which indicates Catholic Faith and the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation (to avoid Hell).

Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is not the ordinary way of salvation and neither do we know of any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.

Pope Benedict also rejects an ex cathedra dogma, defined three times by three Church Councils, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, along with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, he excommunicated Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI for denying an ex cathedra dogma.

Pope Benedict rejects Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG14) and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and is automatically excommunicated according to the teaching of the Church for centuries, including the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

The pope is not to offer Mass until he receives absolution in the Confessional and makes public amends, removes the scandal.

Pope Benedict is my pope. When I commit a sin I go for Confession. I assume the Holy Father does the same.

-Lionel Andrades

DOES THE POPE REALLY SAY IN LIGHT OF THE WORLD THAT JEWS DO NOT HAVE TO CONVERT IN THE PRESENT TIMES ?

POPE SAYS REVISED GOOD FRIDAY PRAYER IS NOT FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS ? EARTHQUAKE SHIFT IN CATHOLIC TEACHING ?


IF TISSA BALASURIYA WAS EXCOMMUNICATED WHY NOT CARDINAL BERTONE, VATICAN SECRETARY OF STATE?

CARDINAL ANGELO BAGNASCO INDICATES HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI IS FALLIBLE AND IN HERESY

WHAT I BELIEVE AS A CATHOLIC AND WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II

__________________________________________


With reference to the post Michael Dimond: Fear Monger and Poor Exegete on the Bellarmine Report I would like to say :-

SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL

Council of Trent does not say if the Baptism of Desire is de facto or de jure known to us.

First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent, then the MHFM assumes it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.

For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).

The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they, affirm the baptism of desire. The sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.

However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.

Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume.

So Peter and Michael Dimond reject the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire while all over their website they are emphasizing Catholic Tradition. They then assume the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and then conclude that there are so many Catholics who are in heresy.

1) The MHFM do not make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, distinction.

2) They assume Vatican Council II on the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus contradicts Cantate Domino since for them invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is de facto and not in the de jure category.

This was the error made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston along with the Jesuits there. It was picked up by the secular media and supported by dissenters. The sedevacantists have also, perhaps, unknowingly, made the same false assumption. They are using the false propaganda.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been retracted by the Vatican. There is no Church document which makes this claim.

Since the baptism of desire is not de facto known to us there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.

Fr.Leonard Feeney held the same position as Cantate Domino so how could be excommunicated for heresy as the secular propaganda claims?

Since there is no baptism of desire that we know of Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).

The problem still exists of Catholics denying Cantate Domino by claiming that Vatican Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.

There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.

A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.

One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.

According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege and receive the Eucharist until he has gone for Confession..

COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not say if it is de facto or de jure known to us. Just about everyone, from the Most Holy Family Monastery to the Urbaniana, Angelicum, Gregorian and other Pontifical Universities in Rome assume, its is de facto known to us in the present times.


By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”-Council of Trent
 See the error of the Dimond brothers here.

Those who believe in this latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically excommunicated from the Church. One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.- page 167 Most Holy Family Monastery,NY
-Lionel Andrades

CATHOLICS NEED TO REFLECT

Seminarians need to be aware of an error being taught in the next academic year 2011-2012. The error could be held in ignorance by priests and professors. The error is to assume that we can meet someone in Rome saved with the baptism of desire or baptism of blood (martyrdom). It is to imply that we can know someone in particular at the Vatican saved with the baptism of desire. The error is to assume that we know a person saved in invincible ignorance; who has never heard the Gospel through no fault of his own in his hometown or Angola, Africa. This would be seeing a ghost!

We accept that a person is in Heaven when the Church declares someone a martyr or saint but in general we do not know particular cases. Only God can judge the heart of a person and who is saved in implicit salvation. Implicit baptism of desire can never be explicitly known to us.
 
The error is: ‘assuming implicit salvation is explicitly known to us’. This would mean Lumen Gentium 14 contradicts Lumen Gentium 15 and 16. Also other Magisterial texts appear irrational.
 
Pope John Paul II would contradict himself in that Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1257. Also, for example, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which Venerable Pope Pius XII issued to the Archbishop of Boston would be contradictory. This Letter mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The text of the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence indicates every non Catholic in Boston needs to be a visible, formal member of the Church for salvation. This Letter also mentions those who can be saved with a baptism of desire, ‘in certain circumstances’. Catholics make an error here and assume that the Baptism of Desire is explicitly known to us and it is the ordinary way of salvation. So they assume it contradicts ‘the dogma’ which indicates everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church with no exception.
 
The baptism of desire is always implicit and unknown to us so how can it contradict the dogma?
 
The Letter of the Holy Office does not say that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy but for disobedience. Yet when the error of explicitly known baptism of desire is taught, it would mean Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints were in heresy. So also was St. Thomas Aquinas? They held the centuries- old teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.
 
So Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus. Neither does it contradict the popes and saints. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those saved implicitly in invincible ignorance. We do not know anyone in Rome saved with a good conscience, partial communion with the Church or the Word of God.The error of an explicitly known implicit salvation would be an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 
Catholics need to reflect on this error: we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance, as, we can know of a person receiving the baptism of water or being taught Catholic prayers.
 
Seminarians- watch out for the explicitly known implicit salvation in the next academic year.

-Lionel Andrades