Saturday, May 28, 2016

Medjugorje - Amazing healing testimony! Fr. Pere Glas, Episode 68, Fruit of Medjugorje, MaryTV

Medjugorje - Miracle of the Sun - May 2010 (1)










A visit to Medjugorje - documentary by Natasha Beliaeva

Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism? - 2

Image result for photos of Edward PentinImage result for photos of Cardinal Muller

A fundamental difference between Archbishop Muller and me is the baptism of desire - is it explicit or implicit, objective or hypothetical?
Since Archbishop Muller affirms exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) he infers that there are known baptism of desire cases. He indicates that the baptism of desire and blood are explicit and exclude the baptism of water.So they are exceptions to the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The hypothetical case of the baptism of desire and blood, without the baptism of water,would have to be objective and real, known in particular cases,personal cases,otherwise it couldn't be an exception.Otherwise how could he say there are exceptions? So the inference he makes is irrational.There cannot be personally known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

For me there are no exceptions to EENS. There are no explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc. They are invisible for us human beings.So there could not be any such known case in the present times.
This was the understanding of the baptism of desire and blood during the time of the Papal States, when there was no separation of Church and State.
So during the rule of the Popes,Rome knew that non Catholics were free to live and follow their religion, but outside the Church there was no salvation.So all needed to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This was how Catholics understood the link between Church and State, before the Masons in different ways prohibited this teaching of the Church.

Based upon Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS I affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.There is no separation of Church and State.To have a secular Masonic Constituion is being pro-Satan, for me.I would support the separation of State and secularism.
So I am not against the right of non Catholics to live their life freely, in as much as the popes were not against it.

I would also be willing to affirm that there are 'good and holy' things in other religions , known only to God, even though the religion is not a path to salvation.Their members are all oriented to Hell unless they formally enter the Catholic Church, and live its teachings.
 Today we see mainstream Muslims ( Al Azhar University etc) affirming outside Islam there is no salvation.All need to accept Allah and Mohammad to avoid Hell.So they have world wide mission(dawah).
The SSPX too, like the popes of the past and present day Muslim clerics and political leaders, can affirm the right of non Catholics  to freely live their religion.They can do this while affirming outside the Church there is no salvation.
So the Constitution of all nation-states, ideally, need to be Catholic.This will ensure that most people get to Heaven. Catholics based on the teachings of Jesus(John 3:5, Mark 16:16,Matthew 7:13) expressed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, would politically oppose secular Constitutions.
Pope Francis raises the Eucharist as he celebrates Mass marking the feast of Corpus Christi outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome May 26. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Similarly during the time of the Papal States ,Rome allowed Protestants to live and follow their religion.Many Christian denominations existed.Their members were not killed or banished from the land.It was understood though that they were all going to Hell, since outside the Church there is no salvation.This is still the teaching of the Church today for me.Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS.
I avoid the explicit-implicit,objective-subjective,visible-invisible confusion.
Cardinal Muller uses this confusion,as do the Masons, to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS.
Just as religious liberty and ecumenism can now be interpreted traditionally, without rejecting Vatican Council II, so can the liturgy be affirmed with the old ecclesiology.Since Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS for me, the old ecclesiology is still magisterial and in place.The priest offers the Mass knowing all non Catholics are oriented to Hell according to the Council(AG 7, LG 14) and the dogma EENS ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
The SSPX too like me recognises the Novus Ordo Mass as being valid and being the Sacrifice of Jesus, the un-bloody Sacrifice, re-enacted.
It was only the theology of the Novus Ordo Mass which was a problem for them and me, since the theology was Cushingite.
The old theology was rejected in 1960-1965 since the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was still not lifted by Pope Paul VI.

Pope Francis holds a monstrance containing a Holy Host at the end of the Corpus Domini procession from St. John at the Lateran Basilica to St. Mary Major Basilica to mark the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, in Rome, Thursday, May 26, 2016 - AP
For me the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as it was for the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II is not an obstacle to accepting the old ecclesiology of St. Francis Xavier and St.Robert Bellarmine.

SUMMARY
I accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit for us baptism of desire.
The popes and cardinals accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with explicit for us baptism of desire.This is irrational and heretical for me.

I mention all this hoping that the SSPX too would accept Vatican Council II as I do.This will not be acceptable to Cardinal Muller.If they use my approach, which is traditional and rational, Cardinal Muller and the political Left, can no more say that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II.They say this now, only because of the ignorance of the SSPX leadership.

So when the Jewish Left  ADL and the Leftist,liberal hate group SPLC, for example, state, that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, the SSPX should respond saying, 'We affirm Vatican Council II in continuity with the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the 16th century missionaries.
'We affirm outside the Church there is no salvation and there are no known exceptions,as was stated in the General Chapter Statement 2012.
'We invite Cardinal Gerhard  Muller and the CDF cardinals and bishops, to also affirm Vatican Council II as we do.'
-Lionel Andrades



Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism? -1

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/edward-pentin-could-ask-cardinal-muller.html


http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/05/26/pope_francis_mass_and_corpus_domini_procession_/1232689
http://catholicphilly.com/2016/05/news/world-news/in-eucharist-find-strength-to-share-bread-faith-with-others-pope-says/

Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism?


Image result for photos of Edward PentinImage result for photos of Cardinal Muller
Edward Pentin could ask Cardinal Muller if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism?
I make the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and so Edward Pentin could mention this to Cardinal Gerhard Muller in his next interview.This could be a way out in the present SSPX -Vatican doctrinal issue.
Does Cardinal Muller and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)  consider this a possibility? For me, Cushingism says there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It says the baptism of desire and blood, which excludes the baptism of water, refers to objective cases, known to human beings.
Feeneyism says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS , there are no objective cases of the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water.So humanly speaking there are no physically visible exceptions to traditional EENS.
He could tell the CDF Prefect that the distinction between Cushingism and Feeneyism is made on the blog Eucharist and Mission (Lionel's blog)  and the blog owner(L.A) interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism as a philosophical reasoning and theology. He rejects Cushingism.Is he still a Catholic for the CDF ?
He also rejects the Cushingite reasoning used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So he accepts the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  which is Feeneyite and the rejects the second part of the Letter(1949) which is Cushingite. 
He(Lionel) interprets Vatican Council II  and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with Feeneyism i.e hypothetical cases cannot be objectively seen, to be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The first part of the Letter(1949) supports Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He could mention that Lionel is aware of the passages in Vatican Council II ( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc)  which are there because of the Cushingite interpretation of the Council Fathers.These passages should not have been placed in Vatican Council. They are there because of the error in the 1949 magisterial reasoning in Boston and Rome.1
For the blog  eucharistandmission hypothetical references can only be known to God if they exist in reality.So they are not relevant or exceptions, to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
Cushingites assume that these hypothetical references are objective.They assume what is subjective for us is really objective.They confuse what is implicit as being explicit.The same confusion is there in Pope Francis' exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
So can Cardinal Muller accept a Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949?
The Feeneyite interpretation is rational and traditional while the Cushingite interpretation is irrational, non traditional and heretical.This can be plainly seen.
Edward Pentin has never spoken to Cardinal Muller about a Feeneyite and Cushingite  interpretation of magisterial documents.Neither has any one in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,over the last few years commented on this issue, even though there are thousands of posts on line on this topic.
 Pentin could say that Lionel  considers himself a Catholic, who accepts Vatican Council II and the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, with the black and white concept, there being no known exceptions, no subjectivism.
 Pentin could also ask Bishop Bernard Fellay or an SSPX theologian  about this distinction. There is confusion among the SSPX priests. Since Archbishop Lefebvre was a Cushingite but the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 is  Feeneyite.-Lionel Andrades

1.











Pope Benedict wrongly assumed Robert Kennedy, Richard Cushing and the Vatican ( Holy Office'49) were objectively correct and Fr.Leonard Feeney made a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/pope-benedict-assumed-robert-kennedy.html





_____________________________

Daniel Ibáñez/Catholic News Agency


The SSPX could interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as I do and reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 since it is irrational and non traditional

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/the-sspx-could-interpret-dogma-extra.html

Pope Francis celebrates the Corpus Domini after a procession from St. John at the Lateran Basilica to St. Mary Major Basilica to mark the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, on May 26, 2016 in Rome


From my perspective it is Cardinal Muller and the SSPX who do not accept Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/from-my-perspective-it-is-cardinal.html


Fidelity logos


I accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit for us baptism of desire: I affirm the centuries old dogma and do not deny hypothetical and invisible for us baptism of desire and blood.: The Letter made an objective mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/i-accept-dogma-extra-ecclesiam-nulla.html




Image result for Photo of SSPX General Chapter Statement

SSPX contradicts the General Chapter Statement to reach an agreement with the Vatican

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/sspx-contradicts-general-chapter.html