Saturday, October 12, 2013

Papa Francesco rompe con Veritatis Splendor di Giovanni Paolo II ?




Pope Pius XII Father of Liberal Theology in the Catholic Church?

For Pope Francis, Pope Pius XII must definitely be a liberal. Since he did not correct in the 1940's, Cardinal Richard Cushing's via eccezionale (exceptional way). The exceptional way to the ordinary means of salvation, a new doctrine, made in the USA.
 
The Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there gave us the concept of an exceptional way of salvation in the present times. Not just in theory but de facto. Not only in principle but visible in the flesh. People saved in Heaven whom you could see on earth.
Now even the SSPX (Italy) believes there is a via eccezionale.(See Fr.Jean Marie Gleize/SSPX).
 
Pope Francis has not got permission from the Jewish Left to canonize Pope Pius XII. Of course he would like to canonize the pope who permitted a breakthrough in liberal theology for the Catholic Church.Perhaps due to political reasons Pope Pius XII did not clarify that in the Boston Case it was the Archbishop of Boston who was in heresy for claiming there were known exceptions to the defined dogma. Perhaps he did want to say in public that all Jews need to convert into the Church visibly for salvation.Instead the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney was maintained for years.Politicaly it was expedient.
So the error spread in the Catholic Church. There were the dead who were saved who were exceptions to Tradition.
This premise was the basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.
If any one sought to correct it , there would be a reference to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades

The pope's empty citation

If a Catholic would meet Pope Francis, it could be asked: "Your Holiness, why are you contradicting the Catholic Church's teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church?"
The pope would answer,"It has been changed since Vatican Council II".
 
"Which text in Vatican Council II are you referring to for this change, Your Holiness?"
"Lumen Gentium 16, for example", the pope would say."Non Catholics can be saved in invincible ignorance. So every one does not have to convert into the Church any more in the present times".
"Do you know anyone who has been saved in invincible ignorance in 2013 ?"
"No. Of course I personally do not know of any case. These cases are known to only God."
"If we don't know of any such case in 2013 how can being saved in invincible ignorance be an exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation?"
 
There is a pause.
"Your Holiness is there any church document which says that invincible ignorance is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
"I don't know of any".
"Does Lumen Gentium 16 say this?"
 
"No".
______________________________
If you meet the pope ask him why is he issuing statements contrary to the traditional Church teachings. Ask him why does he use the premise of the dead-saved being visible as an exception to Tradition. He will keep citing text from Vatican Council II with this error.
 
Without the visible- dead- saved theory Pope Francis cannot say Jews do not have to convert in the present times, atheists are going to Heaven or that he can judge homosexuals who are not going to Hell.
 
Once this error is exposed he would have to be making  non traditional statements out of thin air. Since he then cannot refer to Vatican Council II. He cannot use the Council as a pretext.
 
Now instead he can refer to Vatican Council II since Catholics at large , including apologists, are ignorant of the dead man walking and visible theory being used to interpret the Council.
Pope Francis is interpreting magisterial documents with Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to the dogma extra  ecclesiam nulla salus.
He is mixing up in principle (de jure) and defacto ( in reality) cases.
He is confusing what is implicit  for us (salvation in Heaven) as being explicit for us ( visible on earth).
He is using an irrationality ( the ability to see the dead) to reject Tradition.
Most of the liberal theology today  is based on this specific error.
 
'Triumphalism' rejects the dogma on salvation because of allegedly known exceptions.
Atheism and homosexuality are not mortal sins in general, since there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching.
The basis for the error in the pope's statements is Cushingism.This has to be identified.
-Lionel Andrades

Questions the SSPX (Italy) will not respond to : how can there be an exceptional way of salvation in 2013 ?

It is about two weeks since I spoke to the SSPX Prior at Albano,Italy and over a year since I have e-mailed repeatedly the Dictrict Superior of the SSPX, Italy and received no answer.

Here are four basic questions for them.
1) Is there any magisterial document which says that the baptism of desire is visible to us in the present times ?
2) Is there any magisterial document which says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
3) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2013 ?

4) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Their  answers would lead to the following two question:
 
5) How can there be a via eccezionale (exceptional way  of salvation in 2013) to the ordinary means of salvation which is the baptism of water, given to adults with Catholic faith? Is there an error in the book by Fr.Jean Marie Gleize which is being sold at the SSPX chapel in Rome ?


6) When we do not know of any exceptions in 2013 how can there be an exceptional way of salvation? 
 

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities and not exceptions to anything since we do not know any such case in 2013.
 
The answers to these questions would indicate that Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.
 
The SSPX priests to whom I spoke to know this! However this means they would be contradicting the postion of Econe on this subject.It now seems an issue of internal politics.The SSPX (Italy) is being prudent and denying a teaching of the Catholic Faith. They also do not want to admit, like the sedevacantists, that they were in error all these years over the Letter of the Holy Office which can be interpreted with Cushingism( as they do so now) or with Feeneyism.
-Lionel Andrades
 
VaticanoII un dibattito aperto

Sedevacantists house of cards toppled

The sedevacantists , Most Holy Family Monastery,USA had built apologetics and theology over an error, a factual error. Now that it has been exposed they will not admit it- that they were wrong all along. They wrongly called people heretics.
 
They are acting as if it is business as usual, selling their books and videos- in which they indicate that they can see the dead on earth, saved with the baptism of desire ! So they reject this baptism of desire and also criticize the saints who accepted it.
 
They say they are sedevacantists since St.Thomas Aquinas said that a pope in heresy must not be followed but they reject St. Thomas Aquinas when he refers to the man in the forest who can be saved . They criticize even St.Alphonus Ligouri for affirming the baptism of desire.
The MHFM are in a soup since they do not make a distinction between implicit for us and explicit for us baptism of desire. For them the baptism of desire is also explicit for us.
It's very difficult for them to admit  that they were wrong and that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire.They will not discuss this issue and act, as if they do not understand this concept.They are quick at producing videos but will not cover two points. They are:-
 
1) Is there any magisterial document which says that the baptism of desire is visible to us in the present times ?
2) Is there any magisterial document which says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
I had a few years back also asked them two questions which they refused to answer. They were:
 
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2013 ?  
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
  
If they answer the two questions obviously it would mean Vatican Council II does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as they express the dogma.This is a fundamental error in their apologetics and theology.
 
The Council is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.
 
It also means that the MHFM is using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial texts. So it has to be a  break with Tradition for them.
  
So they can change their interpretation of the Council by not making the objective error of being able to see the dead person who are 'exceptions' to the dogma. We can accept the baptism of desire and also  extra ecclesiam nulla salus  and there is no contradiction.In a sense you can eat your cake and have it too. Implicit baptism of desire is compatible with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus.
 
 
They are correct in saying that the pope and the Vatican Curia are in error but this is because they are also making the same Cushing error as the MHFM.

 We see it just about every where , a whole edifice of theology has been built over a house of cards which must come crumbling down now that the truth is out.
  
It will require humility and continued prayers on their part to admit they overlooked something important.-Lionel Andrades