Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Vatican Council II does not contradict the Concordat of 1929

The Concordat of 1929  signed by Pope Pius XI (and the Italian government) made Catholicism the sole religion of the state (although other religions were tolerated), paid salaries to priests and bishops, recognized church marriages (previously couples had to have a civil ceremony), and brought religious instruction into the public schools. In turn, the bishops swore allegiance to the Italian state, which had a veto power over their selection.-Wikipedia
 
In 1965 Vatican Council II stated all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7) and those saved in invincible ignorance etc (LG 16), reason tells us,are  not known exceptions to AG 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II in doctrine and theology supported Pope Pius XI and Italy being a Catholic State.
Papst Pius XI. 1JS.jpg 
Pope Pius XI condemned, in his 1928 encyclical, Mortalium Animos, the idea that Christian unity could be attained by establishing a broad federation of many bodies holding varying doctrines (the widespread view among Protestant ecumenists); rather, the Catholic Church was the one true Church, all her teachings were objectively true, and Christian unity could only be by achieved by non-Catholic denominations rejoining the Catholic Church and accepting the doctrines they had rejected.-Wikipedia
 
  Vatican Council II( AG 7) says all need Catholic Faith for salvation. All include Christians. So Vatican Council II in doctrine and theology agrees with Pope Pius XI's concept of ecumenism.
 
Political parties in Italy need to acknowledge that Vatican Council II supports the traditional Catholic teaching on other religions and salvation. It mentions the necessity of all Christians, Orthodox Christians and Protestants, entering the Church for salvation, it affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it reinforces Primacy being there in only the Catholic Church. According to Vatican Council II (AG 7) there cannot be a Collegiality which suggests  non Catholic religions, or other Christians, are in religions which are paths to salvation.
 
Vatican Council II is traditional.
 
The Council is not traditional for the leftist media in Italy and abroad, since they confuse in principle statements mentioned in Vatican Council II as being defacto and known to us in the present times.They assume that what is mentioned as implicit, in principle and in theory are real and known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Catholic Tradition.
 
The leftist media also use this false premise, of assuming we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc, to criticize the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.They claim it is  no more  valid. So they  suggest that Vatican Council II contradicted the Concordat of 1929 which made Catholicism the State Religion.They interpert Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing Error.

Without the Richard Cushing Error Vatican Council II is as traditional as Pope Pius XI. Catholic political parties in Italy have still to acknowledge this.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
Benito Mussolini reads his credentials prior to signing the Lateran Treaty on behalf of King Victor Emmanuel III. Cardinal Gasparri (seated), signed on behalf of Pope Pius XI.
 

Faithful Answers ignores questions and comments on Catholic salvation

There is a new Catholic website, Faithful Answers, in which one of the apologists is Robert Sungenis. There have been articles on salvation posted by Lawrence Gonzaga, who assists Sungenis.
sungenis
Here are some posts on my blog relative to Robert Sungenis.They have been  posted as a comment on Faithful Answers. 
Where was the Answer on Faith Answers? Probably soon!
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.faithfulanswers.com/

Update: Faithful Answers has posted the two comments.Soon I expect there will be comments/answers from apologists Robert Sungenis and Lawrence Gonzaga.

Update 1(19.7.2013) : Faithful Answers has removed my posts again. Robert Sungenis could not answer them. He also did not want to respond to a post on Sedevacantism.As expected ! Also the other apologists  are probably exposed to something new.So they too do not want to comment - or ask questions!-L.A



May 20, 2013
Still no theological response from apologists Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/still-no-theological-response-from.html#links

 Robert Sungenis violates Aristotles Principle of Non Contradiction

We do not know of any remnant saved with invincible ignorance. We do not know if there is a single person this year or the last year saved in invincible ignorance.
Robert Sungenis' talks on salvation have become obsolete
Richard Cushing Error runs through Sungenis' talks
Robert Sungenis has an irrational, non traditional, liberal position position on other religions and ecumenism in Vatican Council II with reference to salvation

Traditionalist blogger assumes baptism of desire conflicts with dogma on exclusive salvation

from A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics
But what I wanted to discuss was Pope Eugene's seeming........rejection?......of baptism by desire (implicitly) or baptism by blood (explicitly).  My understanding had always been that salvation from baptism by desire and/or baptism by blood were probably quite rare, but definitely means of salvation for those outside the Church. I'm not sure how to reconcile these words from Pope Eugene with that....Doctrine?  I always thought they were Doctrines, anyways. I know Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Doctrine, a Dogma even, even though it has only rarely been well taught in this country. And we all likely know that these "hard" beliefs regarding "denial" of salvation to those outside the Faith have been essentially ignored, if not totally repudiated, by most int he Church since VII.  So, there is much confusion.
 
Lionel:
Pope Eugene and the other popes and Councils knew that the baptism of desire could only be a possibility and it could only be known to God.So it was not an exception to the defined dogma. It was irrelevant to the dogma.
 
If the baptism of desire was visible to us if we knew cases personally then they would be exceptions to the dogma as defined by Pope Eugene.
 
This was the mistake of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston.
They assumed that the baptism of desire which is accepted in principle was known in fact, in reality, to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades
 
Some key Magisterial pronouncements on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus…and a question July 16, 2013

At this point, shouldn’t the Jesuits be supressed?

from A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics


At this point, shouldn’t the Jesuits be supressed?
  
Perhaps I should say, suppressed, again?  They were once, in 1773, for controversial reasons. But I see little controversy today.  The Jesuits are so completely, totally far gone, I have to wonder, can they be reformed under their present constitution, and with their present membership? Or must they go away for several decades, perhaps a lifetime, and then, possibly, be reconstituted in saner times, under saner conditions?
I could easily write a book on the depradations of the Jesuits against the Faith (indeed, Malachi Martin did write such a book).  The Jesuits are probably the group more responsible, collectively, for souls leaving the Faith, than any other.  Teilhard de Chardin was hardly an outlier- his mentor George Tyrell was extremely popular in the Jesuits, and was possibly even more devastating in his modernism than de Chardin. And Tyrell was removed from the order almost 100 years ago, at papal insistence. That is how long the Jesuits have been lost, and I’m sure it goes back well before that.
I think it reasonable to ask: have the Jesuits, over time, made an idol of learning and reason?  Such have always been foundational aspects of the Jesuit charism, but as time went on that foundation has, seemingly, consumed the order, to where reason and study, now almost wholly subsumed in condemned modernism, have become the sole focus of the Jesuits existence, even when that “reason” leads so many Jesuits to reject Dogma.  The Jesuits have thus long been in the vanguard of the explosion of modernism in the Church, and played key roles in the revolution unleashed on the Church several decades ago, because their learning led them to accept so many “scientific” principles like evolution.  Modernism was, in essence, an attempt to reconcile the Catholic Faith with evolutionary theory.  The devastating results of this effort speak for themselves: there is no quicker path out of the Faith than accepting modernist presuppositions.  Jesuits baneful influence was perhaps most felt in women’s religious orders, where it is now almost a cliche to attribute the fall of this or that order of nuns to some Jesuit influence.
Of course, there have remained a few good Jesuits slogging away, but they have had no influence at all over the general direction of the order. Men like Fr. John Hardon and a few others were simply not numerous enough to affect the order overall.
A couple of minor recent examples. An 80 year old Jesuit has left the order and renounced the priesthood, laicizing himself, over the Church’s unwillingness to accept the sexular pagan zietgeist by ordaining women and condoning homosexual simulation of marriage. I guess we should not be surprised, that even though this man has long held heretical views, he has been teaching impressionable young minds at ostensibly Catholic Creighton University for the past 14 years. I wonder how many souls he’s driven from the Faith?  His neo-paganism is evident from his parting screed:
In his letter, he strongly argues that the Church should place a much greater focus on environmental concerns, even stating that the Church should turn its attention “from saving souls to saving the planet.”  [For the committed leftist/modernist, there are no personal sins, only collective, "structural" ones.  Like gerbal worming, and non-socialist economic systems.  I fear he will have a terrible shock at his personal judgment]  He goes so far as to write, “Biocide is even more devastating than genocide, because it also kills future inhabitants of our precious Earth.”
In 2011, he served his last mass as pastor of St. John’s parish on Creighton’s campus, according to the Creighton Jesuit Community website. He is still listed as a “faculty ally” of the Gender and Sexuality Alliance on the university’s website.
Another anecdote from Rod Dreher (amazing, I’ve quoted him now twice in the last month!), is indicative of the destructive influence Jesuits at large have had on young minds:
During my years as a Catholic, more than a few times I would meet someone who had left the faith, and would credit their Jesuit education for having opened their eyes. Just now, I heard the Muslim scholar Reza Aslan on Fresh Air, talking about his new book. Terry Gross mentioned that he (Aslan) had been born into Islam, but his parents fled with him from Iranian Revolution. In America, his father became atheist, but Aslan became an Evangelical Christian. His mother followed him into Christianity. But then, studying at the Jesuit-run Santa Clara University, Aslan encountered Jesuit priests who encouraged him to go deeper into Islam, the religion of his forefathers.
Aslan did, and subsequently renounced Christianity to return to Islam.
Now, this man was always far from the Faith, but perhaps he was on a path that could have seen him enter the Church, before he ran into this Jesuit.
I myself have seen how Jesuits frequently drive young souls from the Church.  A couple of years ago, I did a post on a young Catholic girl who couldn’t be bothered to offer much penance for Lent, but her Jesuit-run school thought she was a hero for joining in the Ramadan fast of a Muslim classmate.  It all too often seems that, for the Jesuit, any religion is acceptable, save for the Catholic religion.
I stand in awe of the immense works of suffering, piety, and conversion so many Jesuits engaged in when that order was young and vibrant. Men like Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, Aloysius Gonzaga, Isaac Jogues, and so many others brought millions of souls into the Faith and were hugely responsible for the conversion of many countries.  It is beyond tragic – it is an incalculable loss – that the spiritual sons of these Saints have so abandoned not only the mission their founder intended, but the very faith of the Church.
So I reiterate my wonder: is it time for the Jesuits to be supressed?  Would a Jesuit Pope perhaps be the ideal man to do so?
__________________________________________________
 

Vatican Council II supports the formation of a Catholic State should be in the manifesto of Forza Nuova, Militia Christi and other Catholic political parties

Without the Richard Cushing Error Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .This is the basis for a Catholic State.
With Vatican Council II mirroring the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus there is a moral necessity to proclaim ,there is only one true faith and all need to enter it visibly for salvation.So for a Catholic all areas of life must center on Jesus as known and taught in the Catholic Church.For a Catholic this must be the focus of all social and political legislation.Since, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church still teach the literal interpretation of the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.
This is the Catholic Faith expressed in faith and morals, social and political activity.There is no separation of one's faith and daily living in all its aspects.
The Jewish Left, Masons etc, interpret Vatican Council II mixing up in principle statements as being de facto and known to us .So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the past. It then contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Tradition in general.
 Vatican Council II,without the irrational premise mixing defacto and dejure statements, affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King .
 
So the media, like the  news agency Reuters, always interprets the Council as ' a revolution', a break with the past etc. Reuters also wants the SSPX to accept this interpretation of the Council using the false premise.
 
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that it is not contrary to Vatican Council to have a Catholic State in which the Government recognizes true worship and tolerates other religions and does not persecute them. It would be recognized that the majority of the people of that state are Catholic and they want to hand this Tradition to their grandchildren.So they also have some privileges regarding their religion. This is the rule of democracy where the people are in a majority.(31.44)


No Press Releases are issued by Forza Nuova, Militia Christi and Catholic political organisations in Italy, when the leftist media states that Vatican Council II is a break with the past on the issue of other religions.
 
It needs to be explained to the media that when in principle statements in Vatican Council II are assumed to be defacto and known to us in the present times, then Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the past.
 
Forza Nuova, Militia Christi etc should affirm Vatican Council II as a continuation with Tradition, especially the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It should be explained that Ad Gentes 7 affirms the traditional position of the Catholic Church on other religions and that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance etc) also is in agreement with AG 7, since it is implicit and not known to us.It is irelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as was known by the popes and Councils who defined the dogma.
 
Once they understand this concept they could regularly issue clarifications since Vatican Council II supports the formation of a Catholic State and this could be part of their political manifesto.
-Lionel Andrades