Thursday, October 13, 2016

VERBUM PANIS - Minist. Amor e Adoração - Canção Nova.wmv

La catechesi è iniziata nella parrocchia in Italia

La catechesi è iniziata nella parrocchia.Giovane cattolici si insegna nuove dottrine e falsità, che però sono politicamente corretto.
1.Loro  non verrà insegnato che il Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7, LG 14) indica tutti i cristiani non cattolici sono sulla strada per l'inferno, senza fede cattolica, che comprende i Sacramenti e la fede tradizionale e gli insegnamenti morali della Chiesa.
2.Loro  non sarà insegnato che tutti i non cattolici, ebrei e musulmani inclusi, sono sulla strada per l'inferno nel 2016 dal momento che moriranno senza 'fede e il battesimo' che e necessario per la  salvezza di tutti (Ad Gentes 7).
3.Ne saranno insegnato che i cattolici sono il nuovo popolo, il nuovo popolo eletto (Nostra Aetate 4).
4.Non sarà insegnato che la maggior parte delle persone sono sulla strada per l'inferno nel 2016 dal momento che muoiono senza la fede e il battesimo.
5.Non saranno insegnato che non ci sono casi noti di battesimo di desiderio e di essere salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile nel 2016 che potrebbe essere eccezioni per l'interpretazione Feeneyite del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; il dogma come era conosciuto ai missionari 16 ° secolo come non avere eccezioni.
6.Loro non verrà insegnato che il Concilio Vaticano II non contraddice gli insegnamenti tradizionali della Church.It non è in conflitto con il Catechismo di Pio X, il Sillabo, il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

An error was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and much of the Vatican Council II theology is based on this error.This is what I know


I have been studying and discussing this subject with people for over 20 years and never have I ever seen anyone so stuck in an endless, nonsensical loop as you are in. Please do not bring up the argument
again about "no known exceptions in 2016" - it shows you're not thinking clearly. I have already addressed that completely and I will no longer discuss such an absurd argument.
Lionel:
You agree that there are no known exceptions now or in the past to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation,since they cannot be physically known, and yet you have a website on the baptism of desire which suggests just this!
______________________________________

You have agreed it is possible to be saved without the baptism of water in certain conditions. As a Catholic that's all you need to believe on this subject, so we are done discussing that.
Lionel:
Only when it is said that God is not limited.
The ordinary means of salvation is baptism in the Catholic Church.This is the norm. The norm is not the baptism of desire.
___________________________________


The Church teaches that we must believe that which is de fide.
Lionel:
The three Church Council  defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as de fide and did not mention any baptism of desire ( visible or invisble) as an exception to the dogma EENS.So you should close down your website.
In your mind, the baptism of desire is still visible and known in personal cases.This is how you interpret the popes and saints.
__________________________________

 The First Vatican Council states that what is de fide includes 1)solemn declarations made by the Church, and 2) what the Fathers and theologians have held unanimously (ordinary magisterium). On my website I have examples of both: 1) the Council of Trent and 2) all
other quotes on the website.
Lionel:
However you are interpreting them as being practical exceptions to EENS here is where the problem arises.
Please put a disclaimer saying that the references to the baptism of desire on your website are to hypothetical cases known only to God and in no way do you consider them exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Since you have agreed with me that there are no known exceptions to EENs, there cannot be any physically known case of the baptism of desire in 2016.
____________________________________

 BOTH are de fide according to Vatican I and Canon law. If any of the theologians were in error, we have to guarantee from Scripture that the Holy Ghost would see to it that they were condemned. You are completely ignoring this which is destroying your credibility.
Lionel:
If the theologians,and you, assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS, then you infer that the BOD refers to a known case in 2016, for it to be an exception to EENS. So I have to keep reminding you that you have said that there are no known exceptions to EENS in 2016.
___________________________________

Baptism was not solemnly defined until the 13th century, so there was no "dogma" for the first 13 centuries of Catholicism. So what did Catholics use in the first 13 centuries as de fide teaching on the subject of baptism? They used teachings from the Fathers and theologians.
Lionel:
Jesus refers to the necessity of the baptism of water in John 3:5.
_____________________________________


So you need not keep talking about "the dogma", because it did not exist for the first 13 centuries of the Church.
Lionel:
The dogma reflects a teaching of the Holy Spirit.It reflects Jesus' teaching in the Scripture. It is not made out of the blue.It is based on Scripture,Tradition and the past magisterium.
____________________________________


When the Church has taught baptism of desire, it means the person has died and was still saved WITHOUT water. As for the requirement of baptism of water occurring after baptism of desire, NOWHERE does the Church teach this.
Lionel:
The Church has always taught the necessity of the baptism of water for all with no exception.Now when liberal theologians, and you, interpret the baptism of desire as referring to an exception to the dogma EENS; as being without the baptism of water, as if you could know of every such case, then I say,'O.K.There is a baptism of desire and it will be followed by the baptism of water'.
___________________________________

This is a fabricated belief created by the Feeneyites. You will not find this in a single Catholic book so you shouldn't be preaching it to people - it has never been a Catholic belief, ever.
Lionel:
For me it is a reaction to the irrationaity of assuming there is a known case of a catechumen who was saved with the desire for the baptism of water and died without visbly receiving the baptism of water. There is no known case presently or in the past.I am only accomodating your error by still affirming the necessity of the baptism of water with no known exceptions in the present times.
_________________________________

The fact that you admit that Vatican II has errors in it and at the same time you still believe it is valid shows you do not understand your faith.
Lionel:
These are not the errors listed by the the SSPX and the traditionalists.For me mentioning the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to orthodox passages which support the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) was an error.
However even though an error was made in mentioning them at Vatican Council II, we can interpret BOD and I.I as referring to hypothetical cases, which they are, and so they are not exceptions or relevant to the orthdox passages (all need faith and baptism-AG 7).Neither are they exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS; as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
___________________________________

 All true General Councils are guaranteed infallible by the Church -do you not believe this? All Catholic books say it. If there is an error in a General Council, it is guaranteed not from the Church.
Lionel:
An error was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and much of the Vatican Council II theology is based on this error.This is what I know.
-Lionel Andrades

Since your website suggests that the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS, it would be you who would run into many difficulties in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.This was the error of Archishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX and sedevacantist bishops who have had their religious formation under him.

Lionel,
You said: "O.K hypothetically it is possible to be saved without the baptism of water in certain conditions."
Lionel:
Yes I have also mentioned that it is possible to be saved with the baptism of water.If someone says hypothetically, God can even do this...I will not object.
____________________________________

This is a correct statement and means you are no longer a Feeneyite.
Lionel:
You said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016. So in this sense would you also be a Feeneyite?
I do not assume hypothetical cases are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.
_____________________________________

 You should be leaving the subject at this and not be digging into it any further. You are creating discrepancies where there are none. Hold onto the above statement and leave everything else alone, and you will be free from the obsession that plagues you with this subject.
Lionel:
You have agreed with me that every one in general needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no known exceptions in 2016. This is what I am saying. This is Feeneyism for me.
______________________________________

You also said: "the baptism of desire is not a de fide teaching of the Church"
Lionel:
 The dogma is a de fide teachings. The dogma says all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It does not mention the baptism of desire etc.
The popes and saints could also be answering questions, as part of a campaign by the secret societies to eliminate the dogma.Obviously they were referring to hypotheticalc cases, since for you they could not have known of any practical exceptions to the dogma EENS, there were and are  no known cases of the baptism of desire.
______________________________________
This is incorrect. A doctrine doesn't need to be solemnly defined for it to be de fide.
Lionel: The dogma EENS is de fide, it has been defined and you are suggesting that a negation of the dogma EENS is also a doctrine of the Church? And too even though there are no known cases in our reality past and present?
__________________________________________

If we look in Canon law, Canon 1323 states: "d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."
Baptism of desire has been taught since the Church Fathers and I quote one third of all Doctors of the Church on my website as teaching it. It is de fide according to Canon law.
Lionel: So is your website referring to defacto or dejure( in principle), physically visible or physically invisible baptism of desire?
Which of the two is defide?
De fide for means that teaching of the faith which it is obligatory for us to believe in.
_________________________________________________

You also said: "if God is God and can do what he wants then he can also save a person with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water in a manner kinown to him."

You don't seem to understand the doctrine properly. Once someone receives baptism of water, they are baptized and cannot be baptized again by water, desire or martyrdom. A person cannot be baptized twice. Baptism of desire or blood can only occur when baptism of water is an impossibility.
Lionel: I said for me the baptism of desire would always included the baptism of water.However if it is said God can make exceptions then you also accept an exception; a baptism of desire followed by a baptism of water.
___________________________________________________

 The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it well:


Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): Baptism: Substitutes for the Sacrament: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”
Lionel:
The Catholic Encylopedia represents the liberals. They were wrong about Fr. Leonard Feeney. The baptism of desire was not an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
You agree that there are no known cases in 1949 or 2016 to be an exception to the dogma EENS.

____________________________________________________


As for Vatican II, it plainly taught ecumenism, which is condemned in Scripture and by previous popes.
Lionel:
As long as it is an ecumenism of return, it is O.K.
The Council does not contradict the dogma EENS since there are no known exceptions in 2016. So those who are saved 'in imprefect communion with the Church'(UR 3) refers to a hypothetical case. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old Feeneyite ecclesiology.
_____________________________________________________

 It is also taught by the Church (derived from Scripture), that General Councils are infallible. The fact that Vatican II taught something condemned in Scripture and by previous popes automatically means it is not infallible and cannot be a legitimate Council.
Lionel:
Since your website suggests that the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS, it would be you who would run into many difficulties in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
This was the error of Archishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX and sedevacantist bishops who have had their religious formation under him.
_________________________________________________________


 As long as you continue to believe it is valid, you will run into endless contradictions trying to make it lineup with previous Church teaching.
Lionel:
There are errors in it.However it still is a valid and traditional Council for me. I am aware that I do not interpret the Council like you, and the other sedvacantists .You'll strengthen the liberals in their error.
___________________________________________________________

    Attached is a diagram of the history of General Councils. Notice the large number of illegitimate Councils in the red boxes. They have been very common in the history of the Church, so you should not rule out that Vatican II is just another in the list.
Lionel:
It does not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Church as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.So it is acceptable for me.
-Lionel Andrades