Friday, October 21, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II: Guimaraes, Atila S.I read the book In the Murky Waters if Vatican Council II by Atila S. Guimarães  a long time back. I was impressed.
Now though I realize that Guimarães had been wrong all long.
He did not know of the  irrationality in the new theology.He used it to interpret Vatican Council II.He did not know the source of the error.So he was unaware of how he was using the same irrational theology to interpret Vatican Council II.It was the same theology used by the liberal theologians whom he criticizes in the book.
He did he know that could avoid the irrationality.Then  he would have to revert to the old theology to interpret the Council.The conclusion, of course,  would be traditional.
It is the same Council text before him and me .I am aware of the mistake of the magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and how the Masons and the ecclesiastics consolidated that mistake in Vatican Council II.This was amid confusion in the Church with the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney still not lifted.
Unlike Atila S. Guimarães I do not assume hypothetical cases are physically visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and if they are not physically seen and known then where are the exceptions? There are none.
 So for me, Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 and 16, when they mention being saved in invincible ignorance or the catechumen with the desire for the baptism of water, refer to a hypothetical case. So they are not exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.
I do not mix up what is invisible as being visible.Atila S. Guimarães  does just this.
I do not consider what is subjective and implict as being objective.It is with this error that Atila S. Guimarães,the author, looks at Lumen Gentium 16 etc.
So with an irrational premise ( visible cases of the baptism of desire) the interpretation of Vatican Council II will produce an irrational conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, it is a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
This is false.
The Council is not a  rupture with Tradition.It is the theology and the irrational philosophical reasoning, which makes the Council a rupture with Tradition.
For me Vatican Council II presents no exceptions to the old ecclesiology.The Council II  is traditional.
Though there is a mistake in Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 14 suggests only those 'who know' need to enter the Church and not all people. This error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter assumes that there are known cases of people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.So being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma EENS for some of the Council Fathers.So they mentioned it.
It was an exception for Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, who had placed restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.He was active at Vatican Council II with the U.S Jesuits.
Inspite of this error( mentioning being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation) Lumen Gentium 14 still refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS or the Syllabus of Errors.
Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book.Of course he was correct, Vatican Council II interpreted with the Cushingite irrationality is a rupture with Tradition and this version of Vatican Council II has to be rejected.
-Lionel Andrades

Atila S. Guimarães made a mistake in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus : with the same irrational reasoning Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition for him 

Atila S. Guimarães made a mistake in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus : with the same irrational reasoning Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition for him

  I believe that this exchange says it as well as anything concerning Baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Both of them( bob ad bod ) MUST accompanied by the will of those to be baptized with water if at all possible whereas in fact that is not possible while the person is alive as death itself prevents the water by baptism which all are expected to receive while they are alive
O.K but is BOD and BOB without the baptism of water physically visible or not in 2016. Since if it was not objectively seen then it could not be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
You may speculate as much as you want on BOD and BOB but I assume you are mentioning it with reference to Feeeyite EENS.

 Rev. Fr. J.F.C.,
 I thank you for your consideration in sending, for the second time, your question/objection to TIA, requesting texts from the Magisterium that prove baptism of blood is common Catholic doctrine.

It is accepted Catholic doctrine due to a campaign to make it such however the issue is : does it refer to a physically visible case in the present tme?

1. On baptism of blood it seems to me that the description of Fr. Alban Butler posted by TIA on our website is in perfect agreement with the Catechism of St. Pius X. In Part IV on the Sacraments, Chapter II on Baptism (§ 4), it states:

Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire (Original online here).
Fine theoretically.However irrelevant to the dogma EENS?

2. It appears that the baptism of blood is an extreme case of the baptism of desire. Indeed, that person who is offering his life actually is doing so because he has the desire to enter the Catholic Church. Thus, I believe that you may be interested also in knowing the doctrine of the Magisterium on baptism of desire, which applies as well to the baptism of blood. In this supposition, I transcribe some texts for your perusal.
O.K Speculation. It is not an issue relative to EENS as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.

About the baptism of desire accepted as an exception to the rule that everyone should be baptized with water, please read the Encyclical Quanto conficiamur. In it Pius IX states that those outside of the Church may be exceptionally saved through baptism of desire. In case you do not have an easy access to this encyclical, I am transcribing the excerpt that pertains to the topic:
Yes in a theoretical sense. These documents do not refer to an explicit for us BOD or BOB.

Here too, our beloved sons and Venerable Brethren, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error that is unfortunately entrapping some Catholics who profess that it is possible for men to arrive at eternal salvation although they live in error and are alienated from the true Faith and Catholic unity. Such opinion is absolutely opposed to Catholic teaching.
This passage supports Feeneyite EENS.

We know and you know that there are those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy Religion. Uprightly observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme goodness and clemency do not permit those who are not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment.
O.K in general this is what he believes.
He is still referring to a hypothetical case, an imaginary case.If it existed it would be known only to God.

Also well known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who with contumacy oppose the authority and definitions of the same Church, as well as with contumacy oppose her unity and the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom ‘the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior’ (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon)’ (Recueil des allocutions, nn. 7-8, pp. 480-481).
He is supporting the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS here.

3. As for more ancient teachings on the same topic, a letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:

We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life” (Denzinger n. 388).
Again this is speculation.There was no way he could know this for sure.It is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. Also a case in the past cannot be cited as an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation in 2016.

That Pope also quotes St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teaching the same.

4. Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 states:

You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith (Denzinger n. 413).
Speculation with hope and goodwill. He is still referring to a hypothetical case which must not be projected as being explicitly known to human beings.

5. A brief but important mention to the baptism of desire is also made by Pope Paul III along with the Council of Trent. As a matter of fact, in the official Decree on Justification of that Council, chapter IV, it is affirmed:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is given, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation, however, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (Denzinger, n. 796).
The laver of regeneration refers to the baptism of water. So this is support for the Feeneyite position of EENS. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire which are an exception.
The desire thereof refers to a theoretical case.For us humans it cannot be explicit.

6. You may find further documentation of the official Magisterium of the Church in Denzinger-Schonmetzer (nn. 3866-3973), in which is transcribed a Decree of the Holy Office (August 8, 1949) specifically analyzing the errors of those who make a strict interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesia nulla salus without admitting any exception.
This is a reference to the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which it was assumed hypothetical cases were objectively known and visible and they were de facto exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.From this error the new theology of Ratzinger-Rahner was born, even Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed the false premse and the new theology.It is the norm among the FSSP priests and sedevacantists.

7. Not of the official Magisterium of the Church but with the greatest authority below it, St. Thomas Aquinas also teaches the same regarding the possibility of salvation outside of the Church in exceptional cases:
A possibility is a possibility.It is not an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS according to St Thomas Aquinas, St. Augsutine, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.

It falls to Divine Providence to provide all men with the means necessary for salvation, so long as they do not place obstacles in the way. In effect, if someone raised in the wilds or among savage animals is led by natural reason to follow the appetite for good and to flee evil, it should be considered most certain that God will reveal to him by internal inspiration the things necessary to believe, or that He would command some preacher of the Faith to go to him, as he sent St. Peter to Cornelius (Act 10) (De veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1).
Yes God would send a preacher of the faith. Everyone who is in Heaven is there with faith and baptism. There are only Catholics in Heaven.

These are some documents I have at hand without having the leisure of time for a more precise research. I hope they will help you to clarify your doubts.
He is interpreting these documents with the Cushingite error. He assumes invisible cases are visible and then infers that they are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is the new theology.
It can be avoided and the conclusion is then traditional.

 Since TIA has about 3,000 e-mails of our readers asking us serious questions and they are previous to yours, I had to open an exception to answer you now. In eventual e-mails, I hope you will not take it as a lack of courtesy or good will that neither I nor TIA can respond to you with the speed that you and we would like to have.

Asking your prayers,

In Jesu et Maria,

Atila S. Guimarães

-Lionel Andrades
 D_001_Signers.jpg - 37495 Bytes

743 Christian Refugees Have Been the Victims of Assaults in German Asylum Centers -- Open Doors Report

743 Christian Refugees Have Been the Victims of Assaults in German Asylum Centers -- Open Doors Report

Open Doors makes refugee report.  Within 743 attacks are
reported against Christian refugees in German asylum centers.
The majority have been victims of Muslim "fellow refugees".
(Berlin) The Fund for persecuted Christians Open Doors Germany put together with other aid and human rights organizations report the refugee " Lack of protection of religious minorities in Germany " before. This religiously motivated attacks on 743 Christian refugees are documented and analyzed in German refugee centers.
The report quoted German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière with the words: "We have underestimated the importance of religion." The Minister was moved to these words in retrospect on the events of recent months.
The  consequences of these findings is reflected "especially in the German refugee centers,"  says Open Doors.  Through the concealment of these facts, has led to many "wrong conclusions" about the reasons there are many attacks directed especially against Christians, which has led to the "neglect in refugee centers" which fails in the  protection of non-Muslim religious minorities from Muslims.
Last May, various aid and human rights organizations have come together, "to draw attention to the clustering of attacks against Christians and other religious minorities in German refugee camps and to demand effective protection measures for them."  The aid and human rights organizations include the Action for Persecuted Christians and Needy (AVC), the International Society for Human Rights (IGFM), Kirche in Not , Open Doors and the Central Committee for Oriental Christians in Germany .
At a press conference on May 9 in Berlin, reports of 231 refugees were submitted reporting "of the massive discrimination,  death threats and violent attacks, which refugees in Germany suffer because of their Christian faith."
This first collection was continued by the participating organizations. The result has now been submitted to "significantly extended data base". "The documented cases demonstrate the continuing unacceptable situation of Christian refugees who are discriminated against, beaten and threatened with death in the German refugee centers as a minority, by Muslim refugees and partly Muslim employees (security guards, interpreters, assistants). Even ten refugees of the Yezidi faith participated in the survey. Their information has been evaluated separately in this report."
Among the 231 Christian refugees whose negative experiences were documented, 512 more cases were added in the months from May to September. In 743 cases there were religiously motivated attacks against Christians, in ten cases against Yazidis. All attacks were carried out in asylum facilities in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The distribution of those affected  shows Berlin with 146 assaults at the top of the negative scale, while in Saxony no assault was revealed.
Of those, there were 314 reported death threats, 44 of sexual assault, 416 of bodily injury. In addition, 615 cases of "other persecution". 83 percent of these affected indicated that "several times" there were assaults.
The Christian refugees  are  "used to being treated as second-class citizens" in majority Muslim homelands. Now they see that they too can find in Germany no effective protection and reporting the violence and death threats to the police have no consequences for the perpetrators, since the Muslim perpetrators are in the majority, and often make counter charges."
In homes and refugee centers in many cases it is not the perpetrators but the victims who are perceived and accused of being "troublemakers". "Lately we are seeing it more and more that Christian asylum seekers are concerned with house bans, because they interfere with the supposedly good coexistence in the homes."
A majority of the surveyed Christian and Yezidi refugees, therefore, are hoping for  "separate accommodation".  Several also asked for  "no Muslim security personnel".
The overall impression:  Muslims are more welcome than Christians or members of other religious minorities in the "Refugee Welcome"-- apparatus.

How St. Teresa of Avila Saw a Priest Attacked by Demons During Mass

by  - 

Public Domain, Wikipedia / ChurchPOP
St. Teresa of Avila was a 16th century Spanish mystic and is honored today as a Doctor of the Church for her incredible insight into the spiritual life. And in her prayers and meditations, she regularly came in contact with the demonic.
“An abominable form,” she writes of how the devil appeared to her, “his mouth was horrible. Out of his body there seemed to be coming a great flame, which cast no shadow.”
Most incredibly, she once saw a priest attacked by demons while he was saying Mass: “with the eyes of the soul [she saw] two devils of hideous aspect who seemed to have their horns around a priest’s throat while he celebrated Mass.
Yet, even for her, these visual manifestations were relatively rare. “I have seldom seen him in bodily shape,” she writes, “but I have often seen him without any form, as in the kind of vision I have described, in which no form is seen but the object is known to be there.”
Her weapons against these evil forces? Prayer, humility, and – interestingly enough – holy water, which she claimed from experience was a particularly effective spiritual weapon.