Saturday, March 12, 2016

The Magisterium accepted the irrational reasoning in the second part of the Letter and then contradicted the centuries old magisterium of the Church. So at one time the magisterium had to be wrong.

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

Comments from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
Lionel. You substitute your personal opinion for the Magisterium.
That we human beings cannot physically see any one in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water is not a personal opinion. It is a fact of life.
You have not answered how could some one see or know St. Emerentiana was in Heaven without the baptism of water.

 Even when the Magisterium (such as the letter to Boston, signed by the great Roman, Ottaviano) explicates the doctrine of EENS
Lionel: It supports the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS in the first part while the second part of the letter contradicts the first part. The second part assumes that the baptism of desire etc refer to visible cases and so is relevant and an exception to traditional EENS supported in the first part of the Letter.
The Magisterium then accepted the irrational reasoning in the second part of the Letter and then contradicted the centuries old magisterium of the Church. So at one time the magisterium had to be wrong.

 you protest with your odd objection about this or that being visible or not visible but you never 
Lionel: It is when you say that St. Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of water that you infer that you or someone else in the Church could physically see persons in Heaven or on earth without the baptism of water. It is you who infer that a category of people in Heaven are visible to you. So I am compelled to make the visible-invisible distinction but you keep repeating the same error.

- despite being repeatedly asked to - post anything from any Magisterial Document teaching that one has to see an example of baptism of desire, baptism of blood.
Lionel: I affirm the traditional interpretation of EENS and also invisible for us; hypothetical baptism of desire. I am able to affirm the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus , with no exceptions. This is something you and the magisterium cannot do since the baptism of desire is explicit for you. It is an objectively seen exception to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times.This is rationality for you.

Now, you prolly think that St Emerentiana was baptised with water by an angel.
Lionel: There are only Catholics in Heaven and they are there with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14).

You, sir are a protestant and what you call breaks with tradition PRECEDED, (from a Doctor of the Church ;his is one of the four statutes on the Altar of the Chair of Peter inside St Peters but you think he is in error re Baptism of Desire) the definition you wildly misconstrue and do not understand.
Lionel: If any one infers that we can physically see and indentify people in Heaven without the baptism of water he is making an error.It is a factual error. It is an objective error which can be noted even by non Catholics.None of the Doctors of the Church made this error.St. Thomas and St. Augustine affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. If a pope or saint mentioned the desire of a catechuman to receive the baptism of water, but who dies before receiving it,that pope or saint ws still affirming the strict interpretation of EENS. Since this theoretical case of the catechuman is not relevant or an exception to EENS. Modern day liberal theologians wrongly made it relevant.

OK, well, it is Lent and so there's that.
To imply that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS ( even when you do not know of any ) is a lie, it is irrationality.It is heresy. It is a sin against the faith.Remember this in Lent. -Lionel Andrades

The magisteriuim is wrong to assume hypothetical cases( baptism of desire, invincible ignorance) are explicit and so are exceptions to EENS

Is not the theology taught by Dr.John Lamont in Australia approved by the Masons ?

No denial from Archbishop Pozzo : CDF/Ecclesia Dei will not interpret Vatican Council II with the Feeneyite theology

Abp.Guido Pozzo does not deny it : Ecclesia Dei/CDF use an irrationality and heresy to interpret Vatican Council II

Since we now know hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus re-read Vatican Council II without the old conditioning

Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower
It's not problematic in this case.Since we now know hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So we re-read Vatican Council II without the old conditioning.
The Councils comes out traditional and Feeneyite.

Tancred and the SBC ( Richmond N.H and Still River) are interpreting Vatican Council as the Masons would want them to do so.

Eleonore Villarrubia teaches Catholic school children to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and as a break with the dogma EENS ?

They are not announcing that LG 16 for example refers to an invisible and not a visible case.This is something but obvious but yet they will not comment on it.Tancred possibly has to ask Brother Andre Marie's permission before commenting on this.

This is something simple but they are avoiding it it.
Here are two questions which they will not answer.This maintains the problem.

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 2016 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?

The same problem is there with the FSSP and the SSPX.

No denial from FSSP

-Lionel Andrades

Eleonore Villarrubia teaches Catholic school children to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and as a break with the dogma EENS ?

Fond Musings of an Ancient Educator
By Eleonore Villarrubia

When I graduated starry-eyed from college back in the late Middle Ages (1960), little did I know that I would spend much of my life in Catholic education. I was more excited about the prospect of my upcoming engagement and marriage than an actual “career.” (How pre-historic of me!) Careers for ladies back then primarily meant being a wife and mother, and I was good with that, although my love for learning and books never waned. And, still today, it has not. Fifty-five plus years later, the marriage is still there, although these days it is “different” because my mate now has Alzheimer’s.
Looking back on my many happy years as a Catholic educator, I would no more trade them for a fancy high-powered job than I would my husband with all of his new challenges.
What makes being a part of educating children in a Catholic atmosphere so special? Having spent my first teaching year in a large public high school and another in a private, non-sectarian elementary school, I can unqualifiedly say there is an enormous and tangible difference.
While I believe that most teachers are loving, caring individuals who know they will never get rich at their chosen vocation, I positively KNOW that Catholic school teachers go into their schools knowing it isn’t for the money. (What’s a teachers’ union, anyway?) I retired from formal teaching years ago, but when I spend time with our IHM teachers and students at Mass, at Sunday brunches, at Christmas, Saint Patrick’s, Center anniversary programs and graduations, my heart knows that this very special place holds a huge part of it. I know and love the teachers because I see them give their all to their vocations. In the classroom and on the playground, they are one with their students. I know and love the children because they, both individually and collectively, represent the continuation of our Catholic heritage, steeped in the Faith in all aspects of their young lives. They are smiling, eager, enthusiastic to learn, little sponges ready to soak up the love and learning that the teachers offer so unselfishly. Their parents are giving and self-sacrificing, doing their best to raise young Catholics in a very hostile world. I hold them in great admiration.
At IHM School the Catholic Faith is a way of life, shared by the entire community - young and old. The Faith is passed on as it should be - in a living, organic way, not simply as an academic or theological study. The Saints are among us on a daily basis, from our morning Mass and throughout the day. Our religious Brothers and Sisters demonstrate the joy of their dedicated lives that envelope all of us in the love of the beautiful Traditional liturgy and the great gift that we share as willing partners in living the richness of the Faith together. What a priceless treasure we have!
    Immaculate Heart of Mary School
P.O. Box 627
Richmond, NH 03470

Traditionalists reviewed Dignitatis Humanae with the theology of irrational Cushingism : so they were wrong at the onset

from Rorate Caeli 
An Authoritative and Binding Magisterial Document Cannot Overthrow the Teaching of a Previous Document of the Same or Higher Authority
Lionel : How does Dignitatis Humanae (DH) overthrow the teaching on religious liberty?It does not do so for me.
We have to keep the stict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before us.We know there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS.
We also know, for those who have been following this blog, that the baptism of desire or blood or being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to EENs.
So affirm the dogma EENS and reason out that all political legislation must have as it's centre the Catholic Church since outside the Church there is no salvation.
There is nothing in DH which contradicts EENS and so we can work for a state in which there is no separation of Church and State since it is necessary for all to be Catholics to avoid Hell.
DH is referring to a state with a secular Constitution. In a Catholic state or a secular state we affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and base our political understanding of Church and State on the traditional dogmatic teaching which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II.
At this conference, the traditionalists reviewed DH based on the theology of Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office and the Baltimore Catechism.
Since there are 'known exceptions' for them, every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. So every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church for  Prof. Alan Finsiter and Thomas Pink and the monks at Norcia. Since their theology says there are explicit exceptions,since someone can be saved outside the Church. If there can be one known person saved outside the Church there can be many.
If there are many such persons then there can also be social and political systems which do not have to be directed to Jesus according to the Catholic Church according to them.
So it is with this confusion that they approach Vatican Council II and DH.
-Lionel Andrades
Participants at the Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium in Norcia (Photo Source)
At the blog of the Dialogos Institute, Prof. Alan Fimister gives an interesting account of a colloquium held last summer on Dignitatis Humanae in relation to previous magisterial teachings (about which we reported at the time). He notes that all participants held as a basic principle that no authoritative and binding document of the teaching office of the Church can overthrow the teaching of a previous document of the same or higher authority. There were, however, two approaches to showing how Dignitatis Humanae did not overthrow previous teaching on religious liberty. One was to argue that Dignitatis Humanae was of a lower grade of authority than the previous established teaching, and that its own teaching is therefore not binding and must rejected on the basis of the previous teaching. The other approach was to argue that Dignitatis Humanae, if interpreted properly does not in fact contradict previous magisterial teachings. Various ways of giving such a reading were proposed. Fimister himself seems to agree most with Thomas Pink’s proposal: “the Declaration refers only to the abstract competence of the state qua state and so does not touch upon the powers of the state as instrument of the Church.” But Fimister then somewhat modifies Pink’s thesis with the help of St. Augustine’s argument that a state is only really just (and therefore only really a state) when it worships the true God:
It is part of the essence of a true polity that it worship the one true God in the manner which He has appointed. Every state is thus obliged to discover the true religion and embrace it corporately. As it happens the true religion is Catholicism and part of the revelation upon which Catholicism is founded is the reservation of judgement in religious matters to the spiritual power. The state does indeed have of its own nature competence in religious maters but the only true polity without qualification is the City of God, the Catholic Church. It is through adherence to the Catholic Church that temporal polities receive their perfection as human societies. As Pink often emphasises, Leo XIII teaches that the proper relationship between Church and state is that of soul and body. It is the nature of the body to be united to the soul. Without the soul there is no human body. Thus it is part of the essence of the state to coerce in religious matters but in this order of providence it is also part of the essence of the state to exist within the Catholic Church; a civil power that is not united to the Church thus lacks de facto this right that belongs in the abstract to the state. As St Augustine says “there is no justice save in that commonwealth whose founder and ruler is Christ” and “kingdoms without justice are but criminal gangs”.