Monday, January 9, 2017

Cardinal Muller for ideological reasons has changed doctrine with an irrational theology to create magisterial heresy

JAN 6th 2017 By Deacon Nick Donnelly Holy See
Xl arch. gerhard muller now cardinal elect with pope benedict xvi
Cardinal Müller has warned that ideological efforts to change doctrine since Vatican II were deeply misguided because they attempted to subject the Word of God to the pride and prejudice of individuals.
Catholic salvation doctrine has been changed.It is now approved by the political Left.The change was made by assuming hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to explicit and non hypothetical cases. The change was first made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Then this irrational reasoning was included in Vatican Council II( AG 7, LG 14 etc)by a lobby.Since then there is no ecclesiocentrism in the Catholic Church. There is a vague Christology since the magisterium assumes there is known salvation outside the Church.The Letter (1949) says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member while the Catechism of Pope Pius X and Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 says the opposite.
So we have the present magisterium in opposition to the past magisterium and salvation doctrine in the Catholic Church now is acceptable to the Jewish Left rabbis. It is supported by Cardinal Muller and the two liberal popes.
Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made his remarks in an address at the presentation of the latest volume of Joseph Ratzinger’s complete works at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome.
At the Gregorian University, Rome they have a new department which is part of 'Missiology' and it is called the Department of the Theology of Religions.In one of the International Theological Commission papers, a Theology of Religions is clearly approved.This is based on their being allegedly known salvation outside the Church.So the exclusivist ecclesiocentrism of the past has been replaced with a theology of religions. Pope John Paul II opposed the theology of religions which was supported by Cardinal Ratzinger in the International Theological Commission papers.
In the light of Vatican II Cardinal Müller explained the differences between ideologies being imposed on the Church and genuine theology:
“Ideology is always a proud attempt to subject the Word of God and the doctrine of the Church to the prejudice of one’s own thoughts, with the aim to obtain a manipulative power over the faithful and their lives. Theology is the humble reflection on faith that rises up from listening to the Word of God. Any fear that the Council might provoke a breach with the tradition of the Church is not only heretical: it would dismantle the meaning of supernatural mediation.”
Lionel: The present magisterium of Cardinal Muller is teaching heresy.It has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to an interview of Cardinal Muller by Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register.Cardinal Muller assumes invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So he has rejected the dogma EENS whose text does not mention any exceptions when it was defined by three Church Councils. This is heresy.It is also magisterial and ideological.
Then by assuming Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( catechumen saved with the desire for the baptism of water) refer to visible and practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.So Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition.This is heresy.He is rejecting the Council.
If he assumes LG 16 and LG 14 refers to invisible cases and so are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS, then Vatican Council II supports Tradition.However since he is ideological like the two popes, he does not do this. They all promote the heretical and ideological version of Vatican Council II.Now they expect the SSPX to also accept this heretical, irrational and non traditional version of the Council to receive a personal prelature or to at least ignore this heresy of the magisterium.
Cardinal Müller characterized the period following the Second Vatican Council as a "conflict between theology and ideology":
"The expected Pentecostal renewal was replaced by the perspective of a ‘Babylonic’ confession of faith and by the attempt to contradict the thought of the theological school. All of this was not a work of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit always listens to the Church in love and truth. Defecting from faith and counterfeiting faith, and the division from the Church that follows, are fruits of another spirit that is not the Spirit of God."
When Cardinal Muller and the popes infer that the baptism of desire refers to a visible instead of an invisible case - this is an objective error. It is a factual error. Since we cannot see or know any baptism of desire case.If there was any such case the person would be in Heaven.Also we are unable to say that any particular person will be saved without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire.
Then to create a new theology based on this error cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
If it was done intentionally it could be the work of Satan.
Cardinal Müller went on to reflect on the importance of Pope Benedict XVII's reference to the "hermeneutic of continuity" to interpret the faith:
"Without a hermeneutic of continuity and of reform, the Church would secularize itself and would turn into something more similar to a humanitarian organization. If this would happen there would be no reason to be part of the Church. The hermeneutic of reform and continuity is nothing more than the hermeneutic of faith as it is testified by the Holy Scripture, that lives in the apostolic tradition interpreted in the authentic way of the magisterium. Certainly, the Church is founded on revelation, and not on the magisterium.”
For me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refers to invsible cases.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc also refer to invisible cases. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
Cardinal Muller cannot say the same thing, for ideological reasons.For him there must be a hermeneutic of rupture with the past and he has to pretend this is a hermeneutic of continuity.Or there will be an uproar from the Jewish Left and their supporters within the Church.
In opposition to this hermeneutic of continuity, the history of the 20th century shows that "ideology is nothing more that the claim of some human being to dominate the moral conscience of other people". The use of secular terms such as "renewal" and "mainstream" are "signs of ideological strongholds raised against the consciousness of God." Cardinal Cardinal Müller traces their philosophical roots back to "the Enlightenment, idealism and materialism, that is, in the ideological turn Europe lived through in the last centuries.”
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded that these ideologies fall short because, “The question is whether man can really find his foundation and his self-fulfillment without recognizing his constitutive bond with the sovereign Creator and Reconciler."
There are so many reports on line which refer to magisterial heresy.The reports are specific and precise. Cardinal Muller has never responded to them.
Also at the 2012 General Chapter Statement of the SSPX the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was affirmed with no exceptions. There was no comment  from the CDF.It had to be rejected of course for ideological reasons and in the name of Vatican Council II (Cushingite-known cases of the baptism of desire etc).
Cardinal Müller has previously warned that the danger of ideological imposition in the wake of Vatican II comes from both the "left" and the "right", going on to highlight the importance of upholding divine Revelation to safeguard the Church:
"We also have the problem of groups — of the right and the left, as is usually said — which take up much of our time and our attention. Here the danger easily arises of losing sight of our main task, which is to proclaim the Gospel and to explain concretely the doctrine of the Church.
Lionel: With the new theology based on personally known cases of the baptism of desire which are allegedly explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS, salvation doctrine has been changed. In Redemptoris Missio, Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the ecclesiocentrism of the past. While in March 2016  as Pope Benedict XVI, he stated that EENS is no more like it was in the 16th century. So this is official.Ecclesiology is no more like in the past. There is a change in salvation doctrine.The change has been made by using an irrational premise to create a new and non traditional theology of salvation. It  is magisterial and accepted by Cardinal Muller.
Jesus' teaching on the necessity of the baptism of water for all has been changed with invisible cases being considered to be known exceptions.So now every one in 2017 does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member to avoid Hell.
These are new doctrines.
We are convinced that there is no alternative to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Revelation responds to the great questions of men of all times. What is the meaning of my life? How can I face suffering? Is there hope that goes beyond death, given that life is brief and difficult?"
Lionel: Revelation has been changed for idelogical reasons. It was done by using a false premise to create a new and non traditional conclusion. It is break with traditional Scriptural interpretations in the Church.The result is heresy. There is confusion in the Nicene Creed and yesterday in the Renewal of the Baptism Vows there were two interpretations to choose from.-Lionel Andrades

Image result for Photo Feast of the Baptism of our lord

January 8, 2017

Magisterial heresy on the feast of the Baptism of Our Lord

January 7, 2017

Bishop Schneider wants the SSPX to overlook this theological and doctrinal error in the Church and accept a personal prelature without 'Rome coming back to the faith'.

January 5, 2017

With the new model for their websites the traditionalists and sedevacantists would be affirming the Social Reign of Christ the King and the old ecumenism based on the old ecclesiology without rejecting Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995)

January 4, 2017

Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantist seminary in Florida, USA need to remove obsolete information on Vatican Council II and Feeneyism from their website

January 4, 2017

Professors of Philosophy at the pontifical universities in Rome are still refusing to answer simple philosophical questions