Saturday, August 22, 2015

Franciscans of the Immaculate Superiors expected to meet next month in Rome : ecclesiology

When the Superiors of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) meet next month in Rome they must be asked to recognise that the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture in Vatican Council II depends on the interpretation of LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc.Will they be interpreted  to be explicit or implicit  for us? Are they visible or invisible for the Commissioner of the F.I.? Does LG 16 etc refer to personally known  or hypothetical cases in 2015 for the three canonist priests overseeing the  fractured community.This decides the ecclesiology of the Mass in all Rites-is LG explicit like the blood you see on your finger when you cut it or is it implicit like the thoughts which race through the mind of people I watch walking on the street pavements.
Immagine correlata
Once this is decided and announced( that LG 16 is not explicit but implicit, not visible but invisible for us) then the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests , whether they offer the Novus Ordo or Traditional Latin Mass,  will affirm an exclusivist ecclesiology, when interpreting Vatican Council II and other Church documents.
Yes the Catechisms since 1808 mention being saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOD),and in invincible ignorance(I.I) but the F.I do not need to infer that these are known cases in 2015. They have an option.Explicit or implict.
These cases are always invisible for us.They cannot be anything else for the F.I. So the community does not have  to infer that invisible cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which say all need faith and baptism for salvation.
All need faith and baptism ( AG , LG 14) in 2015 and there are no known exceptions.There cannot be any known exception.This is sufficient to  go back to the old ecclesiology when offering Holy Mass.
So when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995), which all the F.I follow, refer to these invisible for us cases, they are obviously not an exception to the Feeneyite version of EENS, the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
 Fr.Sabibo Ardito SDB and and Pope Francis cannot say Vatican Council II has changed ecclesiology and according to the new ecclesiology there is salvation outside the Church. There is no known salvation outside the Church. This is a fact of life. No one can name any person who has been saved outside the Church in 2015. We do not know the name and surname of any one saved over the last 70 plus years, or more, without 'faith and baptism'.
So there is no practical evidence for the new ecclesiology or the rejection of the ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.
When the Holy Office(CDF) in 1949 believed Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong , it was an objective mistake.Objectively no one in 1949 knew of someone saved outside the Church without 'faith and baptism'.Personally no one knew of someone being saved with implicit desire or martyrdom and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So these non existent cases should not be the basis of a new ecclesiology which the Franciscans of the Immaculate must accept per force.
The Holy Office 1949 in the Boston Case made a factual error and used this error to create a theology/ecclesiology which was a break with the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin) and  the Athanasius Creed(whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.) It is also a  break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma EENs.This is magisterial heresy.
Immagine correlata
We have found the missing link as to what creates a hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. We do not need a new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II as Bishop Athansius Schneider once suggested.
We do not need a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II since we  have found the missing link which decides the hermeneutic of continuity and it is the same missing link needed to have a rational theology once again; the old ecclesiology with  the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass.
-Lionel Andrades

Canon Law violated by the Father Sabino Ardito SDB, Commissar for the Franciscans of the Immaculate

Implicit desire and martyrdom being baptisms and explicit like the baptism of water is an American theory which originated in Baltimore

Immagine correlata
That implicit desire and martrydom are baptisms  and that they are explicit is an American theory that originated in Baltimore and was completed fully in Boston. It was then placed in Vatican Council II.

That the baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood(BOB) are related to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) or is an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church is an American theory. It originated clearly in Baltimore . The ecclesiastics  placed this opinion in their Catechism (1808).

They then popularised it through their sources  and Pope Pius X  places this new beginning of modernism, in his Catechism, perhaps innocently.He di not realize that this opinion would be used to contradict the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgivesness of sins), with the replacement of more than one baptism ( I believe in three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins'. It would also contradict the dogma  EENS.
Immagine correlataImmagine correlataImmagine correlata
In 1965 the media used this irrational reasoning from Baltimore  to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS.Until today even the traditionalists use the Baltimore reasoning in accepting the 1949 Holy Office  decision against Fr.Leonard Feeney.
In 1808 Baltimore they said BOD and BOB were baptisms in 1949 Boston they infer that they were explicit baptisms and so contradicted the Feeneyite traditonal interpretation of EENS.
Fr.Leonard Feeney refused to accept being saved with implicit desire or in martyrdom  as being known to us humans. For him these were not cases of salvation outside the Church.Obviously there were no such cases.A theory or speculation  could not be a defacto  exception to all needing to convert into the Church as taught since the time of Jesus.
Yet in 1949 this error had become magisterial. The Magisterium went sour during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII when the pope did not correct this error.This was heresy. It was the beginning of a change in ecclesiology. Catholics would start offering the Novus Ordo Mass after Vatican Council II with this new ecclesiology.
Until today the SSPX criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass when the fault is with the ecclesiology and not the Mass.
 Cardinal Ratzinger accepted the irrational reasoning and made it magisterial in the Catechism.So now priests offer the Novus Ordo Mass assuming BOD, BOB and I.I are baptisms and they are explicit cases in 2015. So every one does not need to convert into the Church for salvation is their conclusion.This is what they confidently preach.
 Cardinal Ratzinger could  have interpreted BOD and BOB as a possibility known to God and then clarified that these cases  are not defacto, they are not objective in the present times.They are accepted de jure ( in principle) and will be followed by the baptism of water as St. Thomas Aquinas taught about the man in forest in invincible ignorance.
Cardinal Ratzinger makes the defacto-dejure distinction in Dominus Iesus but does not make it with the issue of BOD, BOB and EENs.
 He did not want to affirm the dogma EENS clearly similar to Pope Pius XII.
There was an alternative which he avoided.We still have that option today.
 We can affirm the strict interpretation of EENS along with implcit for us  BOD, BOB and invincible ignorance(I.I).We can accept BOD, BOB and I.I as only theoretical possibilities, since for us humans, they can only be theoretical possibilities and not defacto cases.
So we are back to the original ecclesiology of the Church if we avoid the Baltimore-Boston confusion.There is a  rational alternative. The present ecclesiology is based on being able to see persons in Heaven saved with BOD, BOB and I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is fantasy.
Immagine correlata
Without this irrational reasoning from Baltimore and the Boston Case (1949), we can interpret a Vatican Council II in which LG 16,LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc are not explicit and so do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney on EENS. 
Immagine correlata
The Novus Ordo Mass can be offered by priests who affirm the rigorist interpretation of EENS.The ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass even when offered by FSSP priests can have the old ecclesiology.
Immagine correlata
There is no change in the traditional teaching on other religions not being paths to salvation and their members needing Catholic Faith with the baptism of water to avoid Hell. Ecumenism is still one of return and based on this old ecclesiology we affirm the traditional teachings on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ over all political legislation.There is no separation of Church and State.
The magisterium is not likely to make these changes however we lay Catholics, with reason complementing faith, can hold on to the Truth and express it when possible.
-Lionel Andrades

E quando era ministro Maroni cosa ha fatto per fermare l'invasione che era già in atto? Assolutamente niente! -Roberto Fiore

  1. E quando era ministro cosa ha fatto per fermare l'invasione che era già in atto? Assolutamente niente!

Card.Bagnasco: diocesi Genova ospita circa 400 profughi. A disposizione anche il seminario

  ha ritwittato
Card. : diocesi Genova ospita circa 400 . A disposizione anche il seminario

Pakistan Muslim leader exhorted Muslims to kill Hindus


“During the interrogation following a lie-detector test, Naved told the National Investigation Agency (NIA) interrogators that Hafiz Saeed delivered motivational speeches to the recruits and exhorted them to kill Hindus in India.”

But remember: to oppose this incitement to murder would be “Islamophobic.”
“Hafiz Saeed visited training camps, motivated us to kill Hindus: Pak terrorist Naved,” India Today, August 20, 2015:
In a major revelation which is likely to strengthen India’s claim against Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed during the NSA-level talks with Pakistan, the arrested Pakistan terrorist Naved has confessed to his interrogators that the 26/11 attacks mastermind visited the Lashkar-e-Taiba camp twice while he was undergoing training there.
During the interrogation following a lie-detector test, Naved told the National Investigation Agency (NIA) interrogators that Hafiz Saeed delivered motivational speeches to the recruits and exhorted them to kill Hindus in India.
Naved, who was trained with other 25 others in the camp, told that besides physical training, all the recruits were shown videos about ‘military oppression’ against Kashmiris. Apart from Pakistanis, there were Afghan and Pashtoon youths in the training camps, he said.
According to Naved, who was captured alive after the Udhampur attack on August 5, Hafiz gave two motivational speeches to call for jihad against India. Naved was nabbed by villagers after he ambushed a BSF convoy in Udhampur along with an associate, he had killed two troopers and injured 11 others in the attack.
Naved, who is in his early 20s and hails from Faisalabad in Pakistan, is said to be the odd one in a typical middle-class family…