Saturday, February 11, 2017

Sacriligous communion : Fr. John Zuhlsdorf could do his part and affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Image result for Photo of Fr.John ZuhlsdorfImage result for Photo of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf

A clear and present danger to Catholic doctrine, practice, identity

Cardinal Kasper:
If you have a family or couple, “you can not divide them at the altar,” said the chairman emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.
That couple should not be there at the altar since they are living in adultery.An inter-faith marriage has been adultery in the Church and remains so.It is not a Sacrament.It is ecclesiastical Masonry which grants dispensations easily.
Cardinal Kasper has said in an interview with the magazine 30Giorni, after he was made a cardinal, that he does not believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Even Fr. John Zuhlsdorf does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and supports interfaith marriages. He does not consider the couple to be in mortal sin since he does not believe in extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Vatican Council II like the Masons.So he has their approval.Here on this blog post he is writing on Church doctrine.
He assumes there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc which exclude the baptism of water and so the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was corrrect and Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.This inference is obvious when he considers the baptism of desire etc an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
Then with the same reasoning he assumes LG 16( invincible ignorance) and L G 14(catechist who dies with the desire for the baptism of water) are known cases, objectively seen, and so they are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. So Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. It is a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the old ecclesiology.So he is a liberal on this issue. He always has been one. He has rejected traditional doctrine on exclusive salvation in the Church, changed the teaching on marriage, accepted the new ecumenism based on his new understanding of salvation and accepted a new version of the Nicene Creed....

There are cases in which the diocesan bishop is able to grant admission to the Eucharist by a non-Catholic.  However, it is the diocesan bishop who makes that determination.  What Kasper intimates is that the bishop has no role.  Instead, non-Catholics should simply receive if they want to.  That’s what the cant about “conscience” means.  He also had told the newspaper of the Italian bishops conference Avvenire that inter-communion is only a matter of time.   
 Cardinal Kasper has said clearly in an interview before the Synod that if the Church could change its ecclesiology then why not  a change in giving the Eucharist to the divorced and re-married.Now he wants the Eucharist to be given to all.Our Lady in her apparitions and locutions has warned us about the coming of this time.This is the Mason's agenda which Pope Francis is implementing.
So the change in ecclesiology has been accepted by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf. Fr.Kasper is correct. There are known, seen in the flesh exceptions to the dogma EENS for Cardinal Kasper and Fr. Z.
Fr. Leonard Feeney and the 16th century missionaries were wrong for both of them.
For Cardinal Kasper and Fr.Z there were 'personally known cases' of people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is an innovation. It is a new philosohy. So they conclude that  'there is salvation outside the Church'.This is what Fr.Zuhlsdorf, Cardinal Kasper and the two popes and the libs have been saying.
Doctrine has been changed in general in the Church. There is a change in faith and morals. Some of the teachings changed are defined dogmas. This has been part of the religious formation also of Fr. Zuhlsdorf.

Some will now leap to point out that Kasper said, “In some cases” and “they share the same faith”, etc.   Sure.   That, however, avoids the problem of how that is discerned.  In fact, Canon Law can. 843 provides for these situations: the diocesan bishop makes the determination.
Sure, it could happen that the diocesan bishop is squishy, permissive, and negligent.  Still, the buck still stops on his desk.  He will answer to the Lord for his decision.  At least there is a way to verify, however thinly, that the non-Catholic in question “shares the same faith” in the Eucharist as the Church (and not the same faith as her hubby, who might himself have only a vague notion of what Communion means).   Instead, the “conscience” of the individual becomes the ultimate arbiter and lawgiver.  And we all know about human nature, don’t we.   What starts as “in some cases” will turn into religious indifferentism...
What to do?
Most of us can do nothing about this, in the activist sense.  In worldly terms we are pretty much helpless in the face of the juggernaut.  Right now, the great lib carriage is crushing opposition beneath its wheels.
However, we can nevertheless do our part..
Lionel: Yes Fr.John Zuhlsdorf could do his part and affirm the traditional faith on outside the Church there is no salvation.This is the basis for Kasper's sacrilege.Since the dogma EENS has been rejected as it was known to the Jesuit missionaries in the Middle Ages, annulments and dispensations are given liberally.They now give the Eucharist assuming there is salvation outside the Church.
Muslims, Jews and Christians must know that they are outside the Church and so are not to receive the Eucharist. They are unworthy yet.This is the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II. If they die they are on the way to Hell.Receiving the Eucharist will not bring them a blessing but instead...Remember what St.Paul says about those who receive the Eucharist in sin.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf could make a beginning and say  this on his blog.I have reminded him  about this many times.
Secondly, he can start to interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.He needs to re-interpret Vatican Council II.Then there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kasper attributed the change in ecclesiology to Vatican Council II.Last March Pope Benedict called it 'a development'(Avvenire).The two of them like the liberals interpret LG 16 and LG 14 etc as referring to concrete, known exceptions to the dogma EENS when really these are invisible- for- us cases.They are non existing people. They are hypothetical cases always. So they never were exceptions to EENs( Feeneyite) in the first place.This was the liberal-Masonic ruse.It was supported by Fr.Hans Kung S.J and Fr.Karl Rahner S.j.Pope Paul VI overlooked it. They got away with it.Fr.Z and so many priests did not know about this or they chose to keep silent.They are still keeping silent.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. If Pope Pius XII saw the Letter and approved it then he too made an objective error.It was the magisterium which was in heresy for changing a defined dogma of the Church by inferring invisible cases are visible and then placing the error in Vatican Council II.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf could interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS rationally and traditionally and then the other Church teachings ( Nicene Creed etc) will right itself.Now when there is a Renewal of Baptism of Vows during Mass it is meaningless.Since some believe there is known salvation outside the Church and others believe there is no salvation outside the Church.Both groups cite Vatican Council II as their reference. The liberals infer hypothetical cases(LG 26, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc) are not hypothetical but explicit. I assume hypothetical and invisible cases(seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc, cannot be objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.We are all at the same Novus Ordo Mass but with a different understanding of Church doctrine. Our theology is also different.

When Fr.Zuhlsdorf corrects this error then it will help Catholics to know the Faith.It will be a simple catechesis.Then when a Jew,Muslim or Protestant goes up to receive the Eucharist it will be generally known among the congregation that the person is outside the Church and on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II, the dogma EENS, the Nicene Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Catechism of the Catholic Church(n.1257,845,846 etc).The person is committing a sacrilege. It will bring not a blessing but a curse upon him or her.
Now however it generally is assumed that all this is the old teaching of the traditionalists and that this is not the teaching of the Church any more after Vatican Council II(Cushingite) and Fr.Zuhlsdorf is making an important contribution towards this ignorance.-Lionel Andrades

No comments: