Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Invece i quattro cardinali a precisare ai due papi che non c'è nessun caso visibile del battesimo di desire.Non è alcun cambiamento nella teologia della salvezza: nessun precedente per Amoris Laetitia

Image result for photo of the four cardinals
Invece i quattro cardinali a precisare ai due papi che non c'è nessun caso visibile del battesimo di desire.Non è alcun cambiamento nella teologia della salvezza: nessun precedente per Amoris Laetitia
Il cardinale Raymond Burke correggerà formalmente il papa
1
E allora? Papa Francesco potrebbe dire che 'come ecclesiologia è cambiato, il vecchio ecclesiologia è stato sostituito, con il Concilio Vaticano II.E tu e gli altri cardinali e tradizionalisti lo hanno accettato.Così ora come il cambiamento nella teologia della salvezza, stiamo cambiando la teologia morale della Chiesa cattolica '.
In realtà il Cardinale Kasper ha già detto questo.Image result for photo of Cardinal Kasper
Cardinale Walter Kaspar ha detto in un'intervista che come la Chiesa potrebbe cambiare i suoi insegnamenti sulla ecclesiologia allora perché non può farlo anche sul dare l'Eucaristia ai cattolici divorziati e sposati.
Vuol dire che tutta la Chiesa, tradizionalisti inclusi, hanno accettato l'errore di Cardinale Francesco S.Marchetti ,nella Lettera di Sant Ufficio 1949.Ha creato una nuova teologia.E fa parte dei documenti magisteriali e menzionato nel Concilio Vaticano II.
Image result for photo of Fr.Feeney st Benedict center
Feeneyismo che era magistrale secondo il pre-1949 Chiesa è stato sostituito con Cushingismo (ci sono noti eccezioni al dogma).Questa è la teologia liberale, che è irrazionale, non tradizionale e accettato dal Magistero contemporaneo, tra cui i due papi e il cardinale Raymond Burke.
Papa Francesco è già accennato, in una risposta ad una domanda sulla dubbia, che il cambiamento è venuto dal Concilio Vaticano II.Lui riferisce allo 'spirito' o di una teologia del Concilio Vaticano II.
Nessuno dei cardinali hanno risposto al Papa Francesco con riferimento a questo punto. Dal momento che tutti interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con Cushingismo invece di Feeneyismo.Loro utilizzare una premessa irrazionale per creare una conclusione non tradizionale. Quindi la loro conclusione è che anche il Concilio Vaticano II è una rottura con il vecchio ecclesiologia. E una rottura con la Tradizione.
Quindi avrebbero dovuto essere d'accordo con il Papa Francesco e il cardinale Kasper che il Concilio Vaticano II, con casi ipotetici non essere ipotetica, è una rottura con il vecchio ecclesiologia.
Avrebbero dovuto ammettere che ecclesiologia è stato modificato, relativo il Lumen Gentium 16, che referisci ai casi visibili e non invisibili.
Dal momento che permettono ai due papi a cambiare ecclesiologia, con la nuova teologia basata su casi visibili del battesimo di desiderio, i due papi e il cardinale Kasper stanno chiedendo di cambiare anche teologia morale. Vuole cambiare teologia morale con Amoris Laetitia, come la teologia di salvezza è stata scartata e non che alcuni opposizione da parte della tradizionalisti.
Allora da punto di vista di Papa Francesco,e che cosa e  speciale nella dubbia dei quattro cardinali, quando in principio hanno accettato un cambiamento nella salvezza teologia e dell'ecclesiologia ? La Chiesa è ora cristologica. Essa non ha più una ecclesiologia esclusivista come al tempo dei missionari 16 ° secolo.

PIANO DI AZIONE
1. Invece i quattro cardinali bisogna precisare ai due papi che non c'è nessun caso visibile del battesimo di desiderio. Quindi non ci può essere alcuna eccezione per l'interpretazione Feeneyite del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Così il Sant'Uffizio 1949 e l'Arcidiocesi di Boston fatto un errore oggettivo.
2. Non ci sono eccezioni note nel Concilio Vaticano II per l'interpretazione Feeneyite del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Quindi non è alcun cambiamento nella vecchia ecclesiologia con il Concilio Vaticano II.
Non è alcun cambiamento nella teologia della salvezza nella Chiesa cattolica, prima e dopo il Concilio Vaticano II a meno che non si sta usando una premessa irrazionale.
3.Concilio Vaticano II è tradizionale su extra ecclesiam nulla salus e così il Concilio  non dovrebbe essere citato come un precedente per modifiche teologia morale nella Chiesa, attraverso Amoris Laetitia.
Concilio Vaticano II non contraddice il Catechismo di Pio X o la Sillabo di Pio IX.
-Lionel Andrades



DECEMBER 20, 2016

Instead the four cardinals should point out to the two popes that there is no visible case of the baptism of desire.So there is no change in salvation theology : no precedent for Amoris Laetitia

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/12/instead-four-cardinals-should-point-out.html

The Vortex—It’s All About Hell

Don Alessandro M.Minutella è ancora proiettando la necessità di credere in Gesù per la salvezza, senza appartenenza alla Chiesa cattolica. Questa è la falsa teologia viene insegnato nelle università Pontificia a Roma

"I guasti della falsa teologia". Omelia di don Alessandro Maria Minutella

35:00
Pubblicato il 18 dic 2016 Il Pozzo di Sichem. "I guasti della falsa teologia". Omelia di don Alessandro Maria Minutella del 18 dicembre 2016

Don Alessandro M.Minutella è ancora proiettando la necessità di credere in Gesù per la salvezza, senza appartenenza alla Chiesa cattolica. Questa è la falsa teologia viene insegnato nelle università Pontificia a Roma, dove ha avuto la sua formazione religiosa.
Ha bisogno di affermare il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus come era conosciuto nel 16 ° secoli.Questa 'interpretazione rigorista' del dogma è in armonia con il Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7, LG 14).
Lui deve anche notare che il cardinale Ratzinger stava usando la falsa teologia, la nuova teologia basata sul visibile battesimo di desiderio.Per lui il battesimo di desiderio referisci a casi visibili e noti di non cattolici salvato senza il battesimo di acqua nella Chiesa cattolica. Così per Cardinale Ratzinger e p.Karl Rahner S.J ci era noto salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa. Per loro c'e salvezza sapeva al di fuori della Chiesa.Non c'era più una ecclesiologia esclusivista nella Chiesa cattolica.
Quindi questa è una rottura tra fede e ragione, fede è stato cambiato con un falsa premessa, una false ragionamento.Con questa irrazionalità lui ha scritto Redemptoris Missio e Domininus Iesus.E contrassegnato con questa falsa teologia basata sulla cattiva filosofia.

Fr.Minutella is still projecting the necessity of believing in Jesus for salvation without membership in the Catholic Church. This is the false theology being taught at pontifica universities in Rome, where he has had his religious formation.
He needs to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the 16th century.This 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma is in harmony with Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
He should also note that Cardinal Ratzinger was using the false theology, the new theology based.For him the baptism of desire referred to visible and known cases of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So for him and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J there was known salvation outside the Church. Since there was known salvation outside the Church there was no more an exclusivist ecclesiology in the Catholic Church.
So this is a rupture between faith and reason, the old faith has been changed with an irrational premise.It is with this irrationality that he wrote Redemptoris Missio and Domininus Iesus which is marked with this false theology based on bad philosophy.
-Lionel Andrades

Instead the four cardinals should point out to the two popes that there is no visible case of the baptism of desire.So there is no change in salvation theology : no precedent for Amoris Laetitia

Image result for photo of the four cardinals
Cardinal Raymond Burke is to formally correct the pope.1
So what ? Pope Francis could say that 'just as ecclesiology has changed, the old ecclesiology has been replaced, with Vatican Council II and you and the other cardinals and traditionalists have accepted it, so now like the change in salvation theology, we are changing the moral theology of the Catholic Church'.
Image result for photo of Cardinal Kasper
In fact Cardinal Kasper has already said this.
Cardinal Walter Kaspar has said in an interview that if the Church could change its teachings on ecclesiology then why cannot it do so also on giving the Eucharist to married and divorced Catholics.
He means that the whole Church, traditionalists included, have accepted the Marchetti Error, which gave birth to the new theology.It is part of magisterial documents and is mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Image result for photo of Fr.Feeney st Benedict center
Feeneyism which was magisterial according to the pre-1949 Church was replaced with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma).This is the liberal theology  which is irrational, non traditional and accepted by the contemporary Magisterium, including the two popes and Cardinal Raymond Burke.
Pope Francis has already alluded, in a response to a question on the dubbia, that the change has come from Vatican Council II.He is referring to the spirit or a theology of Vatican Council II.
None of the cardinals have responded to Pope Francis with reference to  this point. Since they all interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.They use an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion. So their conclusion too is that Vatican Council II is a break with the old ecclesiology. It is rupture with Tradition.
So they would have to agree with Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper that Vatican Council II, with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical, is a break with the old ecclesiology.
They would have to admit that ecclesiology has been changed, with Lumen Gentium 16 referring to visible and not invisible cases.
Since they permit the two popes to change ecclesiology, with the new theology based on visible cases of the baptism of desire, the two popes and Cardinal Kasper are asking them to change moral theology too.They want a change in moral theology with Amoris Laetitia, just like salvation theology in the Church has been discarded and there is no opposition from the traditionalists.So from Pope Francis' perspective what's so special about the dubbia of the four cardinals when in principle they have accepted a change in salvation theology and ecclesiology. The Church is now Christological. It no more has an exclusivist ecclesiology like at the time of the 16th century missionaries.
1. Instead the four cardinals should point out to the two popes that there is no visible case of the baptism of desire. So there can be no exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So the Holy Office 1949 and the Archdiocese of Boston made an objective mistake.
2. There are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there is no change in the old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II.
There is no change in salvation theology in the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II unless one is using an irrational premise.
3.Vatican Council II is traditional on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so the Council should not be cited as a precedent to make changes in moral theology in the Church through Amoris Laetitia.Vatican Council II does not contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-text-cardinal-burke-discusses-formal-correction-of-pope-how-to-respond

______________________________________________


 OCTOBER 26, 2015


Cardinal Kaspar changed ecclesiology assuming B is an exception to A : he used an irrational model to interpret Vatican Council IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/cardinal-walter-kasper-said-in.html


NOVEMBER 12, 2014


The ecclesiology of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar is based on the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-ecclesiology-of-pope-francis-and.html



JUNE 16, 2013


Cardinal Walter Kaspar has drawn upon the Richard Cushing Confusion

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/cardinal-walter-kaspar-has-drawn-upon.html

JUNE 6, 2013


THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN VATICAN COUNCIL II ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE: THE COUNCIL IS TRADITIONAL OTHERWISE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/there-is-ambiguity-in-vatican-council.html


 JUNE 4, 2013


Kaspar desperatehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/kaspar-desperate.html

APRIL 19, 2013


Full of deception

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/04/full-of-deception.html

APRIL 21, 2013


SSPX (USA) falls for the Cardinal Kaspar canard

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/04/sspx-usa-falls-for-cardinal-kaspar.html

MAY 9, 2013


Robert Sungenis violates Aristotles Principle of Non Contradictionhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/robert-sungenis-violates-aristotles.html








Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.John Hardon and Robert Hickson were interpreting the Catechism and Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology
http://eucharistandmission.blo...



You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-can-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html

MAY 27, 2015


Jesuit theologians were present at the Synod preliminary meeting : ominoushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/jesuit-theologians-were-present-at.html



JUNE 11, 2016


Apologists Mons. Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr. John Hardon considered implicit cases as being explicit: traditionalists agree any one who does this is wrong http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/apologists-mons-clifford-fenton.html




MAY 18, 2016


If Bishop Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism he will be considered anti-Semitic.Instead he is willing to reach an agreement with Rome in which Vatican Council II will continue to be interpreted with an irrational premise to produce a non traditional conclusion.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/if-bishop-fellay-interprets-vatican.html


MARCH 22, 2016


Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with the new theology of Rahner-Ratzinger.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/archbishop-lefebvre-interpreted-vatican.html


 JANUARY 6, 2016


If Salza-Siscoe admit something obvious like the baptism of desire case is not visible in 2016 then it would mean Abp.Lefebvre and Bp.Fellay made a factual error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/if-salza-siscoe-admit-something-obvious.html

 SEPTEMBER 11, 2014

April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPXhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/april-23-sept112014-still-no.html


AUGUST 22, 2014

How is Bishop Fellay going to announce that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/how-is-bishop-fellay-going-to-announce.html
JUNE 13, 2014
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay have used the irrational column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-and-bishop.html


Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.John Hardon and Robert Hickson were interpreting the Catechism and Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology
http://eucharistandmission.blo...

You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-can-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html
MAY 27, 2015
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/jesuit-theologians-were-present-at.html

So it is easy to talk about the exceptions in Amoris Laeititia for the scholars and the cardinals but it seems impossible for them to see the same error in salvation theology- since that will hit the purse.

Image result for Photo empty pocketImage result for Photo empty pocketCannoli:
Welcome back.The last of many times you disappeared was when I asked you for your references for what you believe as a Catholic.
I cited Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 for my rigorist and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
You and your liberal friends at Catholic Answers and EWTN say there are exceptions. So I asked you, before you escaped, cite the exceptions in Vatican Council II or other magisterial texts and be rational and consistent.
The being rational and consistent is still the problem part for you as it is for the cardinals and the two popes.
You could cite Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) but wanted me to assume that it was a visible and known case in 2016. So only in this way you could get an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
For me LG 16 is not visible or relevant to the dogma EENS. So Vatican Council II cannot be a rupture with Tradition.I do not use subterfuge like the cardinals who have created a new theology based on LG 16 being visible.
So I repeat that my position on Vatican Council II is traditional and magisterial ( Vatican Council II, EENS, Catechism of Pope Pius X) while your position and that of Rahner, Kung, Ratzinger and Kasper, is non traditional and irrational. It is heresy and a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th Church.
This is an issue of the Catholic Church and not Mormon or Muslim doctrine.
However the implications are that Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc) is saying all Muslims and Jews are on the way to Hell and there are no known exceptions. This is terribly difficult for you to say. It is also difficult for John Henry Weston at LifeSites.com. Since they will come for his bank balance.
It is difficult for Michael Voris since they will accuse him of being Anti-Semitic.
It is difficult for you too. It is much easy to give positive waves and say not everyone this December needs to enter the Church. This is exactly what ecclesiastic Masonry has been telling us since 1949.
So it is easy to talk about the exceptions in Amoris Laeititia for the scholars and the cardinals but it seems impossible for them to see the same error in salvation theology- since that will hit the purse.-Lionel Andrades