Thursday, January 14, 2016

Roberto de Matteo wrote a piece on the Pope's Video and heresy and he could not affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS nor could he state that the video contradicts the Feeneyite version of the dogma

Similarly New Catholic at Rorate Caeili to remain politically correct, like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris, interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS, assuming there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance who are there in Heaven without the baptism of water.
 
There is no baptism of desire without the baptism of water.Physically we cannot see or know such a case. So there was no one in Church history over the last 200 years who could physically see or know a baptism of desire case without the baptism of water.This is a magisterial heresy in the Church which has been accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope Pius XII and the popes upto Pope Francis.
This error of the baptism of desire being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla sulla, is the basis for the new theology. It is the Richard Cushing heresy in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.The Cushing error, of being able to personally know and see baptism of desire and blood cases is the foundation for Cardinal Luiz Ladaria's Theology of Religions.1
With the Cushing Error and the Theology of Religions Lutherans are considered saved without having to be formal members of the Catholic Church.This is the new theology.It is based on the baptism of desire excluding the baptism of water.
This theory is accepted by traditionalists ( Rorate Caeili, Roberto de Matteo, John Salza, Fr.Francois Laisney, Louie Verrecchio...) and the sedevacantists. The traditionalists say Lutherans need to convert for salvation and they also say that the baptism of desire exists without the baptism of water and it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They do not see the contradiction. They do not realize that this is double-speak, or speaking from both sides of the mouth. They do not see the connection between the Cushing error, the Cushing interpretation of EENS, which the traditionalists have accepted, and the magisterium saying Lutherans can be saved.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the mistake of interpreting EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushing-theology.So did the Magisterium which he opposed.
The 'SSPX group' of traditionalists make the same mistake.
Next year the Lutheran anniversary will be commemorated by Pope Francis who believes there is salvation outside the Church since this was what his community the Jesuits, told Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, before they expelled him.They expelled him for his traditional beliefs on salvation, which would be rejected also by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Now the traditionalists, still cannot get themself to say that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in accepting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pius XII. He also made the mistake of using Cushing's irrational reasoning, to interpret Vatican Council II.
Any one can check it out. Vatican Council II interpreted with the Feeneyite theology( i.e the baptism of desire is not explicit and visible for us ) gets a different conclusion. It is a traditional one.The Council is not a break with Tradition.
The traditionalists still cannot get themself to say in public that after every thing is said and done, after all the hair splitting, we know that in 2016 there is no known baptism of desire without the baptism of water. There is no known exception to the old ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.There is no visible case. There is no visible exception. This is common sense.
So there have been so many reports on 'the Pope's Video' and now the Lutheran anniversary with the traditionalists unable to proclaim the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and the Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II.
They need to affirm the traditional ecclesiology but instead, like the liberals, they will interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism, since Archbishop Lefebvre always did so.
Roberto de Matteo wrote a piece on the Pope's Video and heresy (Rorate Caeili) and he could not affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS nor could he state that the video contradicts the Feeneyite version of the dogma.He is unable to say this and one of the reasons could be, that at the Legionaries of Christ University in Rome where he teaches they all have to interpret the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism.This is politically correct with the Left.So to avoid being anti-Semitic, Roberto de Mattei and the pontifical universities choose the heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS.
Similarly New Catholic, editor,  at Rorate Caeili to remain politically correct, like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris, interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS, assuming there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance who are there in Heaven without the baptism of water. So they accept the false inference, which the contemporary magisterium is using to create a breach with traditional theology. They also protect their worldly interests. They do this by denying the truth.
The liberal magisterium teaches that there is salvation outside the Church, and so there can be a theology of religions, or a theology of Christian Religious Pluralism and may be even a future one world religion.It all begins from the baptism of desire being explicit.This was the innovation. It begins form the baptism of desire excluding the baptism of water. It begins by assuming there is known salvation outside the Church or that someone in the past could physically see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.
-Lionel Andrades
1
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria
BASED ON THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA FORMULATED A ‘THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS’
 
 
ST.THOMAS DID NOT REJECT “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”: HE KNEW IT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION, WHICH HE HELD http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/stthomas-did-not-reject-invincible.html

“The Pope Video” removed

BREAKING: “The Pope Video” removed


Screenshot_1Apparently, after more than 8,000 views, the masterminds of “The Pope Video” have decided that my rendition offering a more proper translation of the apostasy therein must be suppressed.
I just received the following notice from Vimeo:
“We removed your video because a third party claims that it infringes a copyright that the third party owns or has the right to enforce.”
It’s not clear whether this action was instigated by the Pope World Prayer Network – Apostleship of Prayer, (the Jesuit group that produced the wretched thing) or someone at the Holy See, but it would seem that these are the only possible claimants.
What is it about my version that unsettles them so?
I think we all know the answer. In any case, watch, share and download the video (now uploaded at Gloria.tv) before it meets the same fate.

https://akacatholic.com/breaking-the-pope-video-removed/

Life of PrincipleJanuary 14, 2016