Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Così, per il cardinale Burke Concilio Vaticano II sarebbe anche non essere magisteriale?



 My position is that Amoris Laetitia is not Magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.
INTERVIEW with Card. Burke about their plea to Pope Francis “Seeking Clarity”
  
Sì c'è un errore nel Amoris Laetitia tuttavia il Concilio Vaticano II anche ha degli errori e quindi non poteva essere considerata magisteriale.E un errore oggettiva nel Concilio Vaticano II e questo non può essere l'opera dello Spirito Santo.
Amoris Laetitia rifiuta la tradizionale teologia morale con soggettivismo. Si presuppone ciò che è soggettivamente noto solo a Dio è anche noto per l'uomini. Si assume per esempio, che siamo in grado di giudicare quando una coppia in peccato mortale obiettivo non è in peccato mortale. Così l'Eucaristia potrebbe essere dato a loro. Si rifiuta Veritatis Splendor e la morale cattolica, come è stato insegnato da Papa Giovanni Paolo e papi precedenti, basata sulla Bibbia.
Allo stesso modo la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio nel 1949 per l'arcivescovo di Boston ha anche respinto la teologia salvezza tradizionale con soggettivismo e questo errore è stato messo nel Concilio Vaticano II.La Lettera 1949 in principio accettato che i casi ipotetici del battesimo di desiderio ecc erano oggettivamente visibile nei tempi presenti. Poi, con questa premessa irrazionale ha concluso che vi sono noti eccezioni al dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Concilio Vaticano II suggerisce anche in principio che i casi ipotetici sono una rottura con la Tradizione, in particolare il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) e il Syllabi.Allora non solo del battesimo di desiderio e di essere salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile (LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) suggerire ad eccezioni a extra ecclesiam nulla salus ma anche 'essere salvato in comunione imperfetta con la Chiesa (UR 3), semi di Parola (AG 11), le cose buone e sante in altre religioni NA 2),elementi di santificazione e di verità(LG 8), conosciuto casi di salvezza al di fuori del corpo visibile della Chiesa con il' subsistit è 'nuova teologia (LG 8), ecc
Questo è male filosofia. Si mescolato chi e invisibile ad essere visibile, ciò che è soggettivo ad essere di fatto noto, ciò che è ipotetica oggettivamente visto.
Si tratta di un errore di fatto e oggettivo nel Concilio Vaticano II, con riferimento il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Non possiamo vedere persone che vengono ora salvati in Cielo con il battesimo di desiderio, ecc. Allora perché sono citati con riferimento alla extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Accetto loro come ipotetica casi.C'e un scelta.Concilio Vatican II ha scelto l'opzione irrazionale.
Con cattiva filosofia, cattiva teologia è stato creato e accettata nel Concilio Vaticano II. E stato approvato dal magistero. Il magistero non avessi già corretto l'errore nel Lettera di 1949.Il arcivescovo di Boston non supportava Don Leonard Feeney.Don Leonard Feneey stava dicendo non ci sono casi noti di battesimo di desiderio ecc e quindi non poteva essere salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa.
Alcuni dei Padri della Chiesa al Concilio Vaticano II ha accolto questo errore e inseriti nel testo in quanto credevano che il battesimo di desiderio ecc riferito ai casi noti nei tempi presenti. Il cardinale Richard Cushing era attiva al Concilio Vaticano II e non si era ancora alzato la scomunica di p Leonard Feeney.
Questo è tutto un errore.Non può essere l'opera dello Spirito Santo. Questo non è sicuramente Magistrale in quanto contraddice i secoli interpretazione del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.E 'in contraddizione con il magistero passato
Anche fa tutto questo con l'uso di una premessa irrazionale per creare un conclusione non tradizionale.This non tradizionali nuova teologia si basa su una premessa irrazionale.
Così, per il cardinale Burke Consiglio Vaticano II sarebbe anche non essere magisteriale?


TRANSLATION
Yes there is an error in Amoris Laetitia however Vatican Council II also has error  and so  could not be considered magisterial.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God is also known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them. It rejects Veritatis Splendor and Catholic morality as was taught by Pope John Paul and previous popes, based on the Bible.
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston also has rejected traditional salvation theology with subjectivismand this error has been placed in Vatican Council II.The Letter 1949 in principle accepted that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were objectively visible in the present times. Then with this irrational premise it concluded that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II also suggests in principle that hypothetical cases are a rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.So not only the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) refer to exceptions to EENS but also ' being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8),known cases of salvation outside the visible body of the Church with the 'subsistit it' new theology(LG 8) etc.
This is bad philosophy. It has mixed up with is invisible as being visible, what is subjective as being defacto known, what is hypothetical as being objectively seen.
This is a factual and objective error in Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma EENS.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc. So why are they mentioned with reference to EENS? I accept them as hypothetical cases.So there is a choice.Vatican Council II chose the irrtional option.
With bad philosophy bad theology was created and accepted by the Council Fathers.The magisteriuam had already not corrected the error in the 1949 Letter.The Archbishop of Boston did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney. He was saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc and so there could not be salvation outside the Church.
Some of the Church Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted this error and inserted it in the text since they believed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in the present times. Cardinal Richard Cushing was active at Vatican Council II and had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
This is all an objective error.It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely not magisterial since it contradicts the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS by the past magisterium.It also does all this with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.This new theology is based on an irrational premise.
So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ?

So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ?

My position is that Amoris Laetitia is not Magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.
INTERVIEW with Card. Burke about their plea to Pope Francis “Seeking Clarity”
Yes there is an error in Amoris Laetitia however Vatican Council II also has error  and so  could not be considered magisterial.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God is also known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them. It rejects Veritatis Splendor and Catholic morality as was taught by Pope John Paul and previous popes, based on the Bible.
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston also has rejected traditional salvation theology with subjectivism and this error has been placed in Vatican Council II.The Letter 1949 in principle accepted that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were objectively visible in the present times. Then with this irrational premise it concluded that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II also suggests in principle that hypothetical cases are a rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.So not only the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) refer to exceptions to EENS but also ' being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8),known cases of salvation outside the visible body of the Church with the 'subsistit it' new theology(LG 8) etc.
This is bad philosophy. It has mixed up with is invisible as being visible, what is subjective as being defacto known, what is hypothetical as being objectively seen.
This is a factual and objective error in Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma EENS.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc. So why are they mentioned with reference to EENS? I accept them as hypothetical cases.So there is a choice.Vatican Council II chose the irrtional option.
With bad philosophy bad theology was created and accepted by the Council Fathers.The magisteriuam had already not corrected the error in the 1949 Letter.The Archbishop of Boston did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney. He was saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc and so there could not be salvation outside the Church.
Some of the Church Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted this error and inserted it in the text since they believed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in the present times. Cardinal Richard Cushing was active at Vatican Council II and had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
This is all an objective error.It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely not magisterial since it contradicts the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS by the past magisterium.It also does all this with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.This new theology is based on an irrational premise.
So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ?
-Lionel Andrades

l'Isola di Maria - Nostra Signora di Giampilieri 11/04/2015

38:26
Da il giardinodimaria youtube