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

Juggernaut
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.
Lionel:
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.
INTER FAITH ADULTERY
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.   
Lionel:
 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.

MAKE A BEGINNING
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
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/a-clear-and-present-danger-to-catholic-doctrine-practice-identity/

Ora ci ritroviamo con i Vescovi Faure, Aquino e Williamson. Possono dire ciò che è non-dicibile?

La massoneria ecclesiastica eliminato il vecchio ecclesiologia basata sul dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e ha creato una nuova ecclesiologia basata su Gesù è il Salvatore, senza la necessità di appartenenza alla Chiesa. Questo supporta il nuovo ecumenismo e la nuova concezione della Chiesa pronta a far parte di un una religione mondiale e l'avvento del Anti Cristo.
Così Daniela Saeta, una laica, ha espresso questa nuova teologia nei suoi colloqui come fanno gli altri oratori della comunità laica Fraternita della Communita Magnificat, ho scritto ieri.
Le sarebbe stato influenzato da questo errore in Dominus Iesus e Redemptoris Missio, che cita 'l'unicità e universale salvicita di Gesù Cristo', che potrebbe anche essere là tra i Luterani o Cristiani Ortodossi ed esclude di essere un membro della Chiesa cattolica per la salvezza.
Questo errore, questa nuova teologia, si esprime nella catechesi dei cattolici di tutto il mondo.
Questo è stato inviato insieme con il video su Gloria TV.Ma non c'e alcuna risposta da catechisti. Questo è tipico nella Chiesa cattolica.
Questo sarebbe anche non-risposta da tradizionalisti.Loro non mi può accusare di non accettare il Concilio Vaticano II o di essere un sedevacantista.Loro non sanno cosa fanno.Allora, non rispondono.
Ho accennato nella blogpost sul Daniela Saetta che la questione è complicata. Dal momento i tradizionalisti come la Fraternità San Pio X(SSPX) e le sedevacantisti supporre che il vecchio ecclesiologia ha eccezioni. Questo è stato accettato da Archvescovo Marcel Lefebvre al Concilio Vaticano II.Questa e la fondazione di nuova teologia che è promossa dai tradizionalisti, liberali e catechisti laici italiani come Saeta.
Così, quando Daniela Saeta presenta la salvezza senza accettare Gesù Cristo nella Chiesa cattolica si sta esprimendo un'eresia magisterale supportata da tradizionalisti e laici cattolici.
Come possono Daniela Saeta e la sua comunità ammettere che c'e una eresia di magistero della Chiesa quando loro hanno bisogno del sostegno del parroco ?.Anche lui bisogna sostenare questa eresia ufficiale e rimanere nella sua posizione. Il vescovo ha anche a mantenere questa irrationalita.Lui non può confutare la errore ufficiale di papi.
PRETE ITALIANO
Poi, in un altro rapporto ieri ho detto che un prete italiano su Gloria TV critica la falsa chiesa e falsa teologia nella Chiesa cattolica e dice che la Chiesa cattolica è attualmente in una coma diabetico.Ma lui stesso non affermare gli insegnamenti tradizionali con la teologia tradizionale,in sintonia con il Concilio Vaticano II, Feeneyite, in quanto egli perderà la sua posizione nella 'falsa chiesa'.
Lui non direi che tutti hanno bisogno di entrare formalmente nella Chiesa Cattolica per la salvezza in quanto questo sarebbe il vecchio teologia e vecchio ecclesiologia della Chiesa. Per rimanere un prete in Sicilia, deve affermare la nuova ecclesiologia in una Chiesa falso che egli critica.Lui ufficialmente sostiene il Concilio Vaticano II (Cushingite).La falsa teologia in una false chiesa dientro la Chiesa Cattolica.
Ho postato questo rapporto su Gloria TV.
Come previsto non c'è alcuna risposta da Fr.Alessandro M. Minutella.Lui non detto che il Concilio Vaticano II indica Mohammad e tutti i musulmani sono sulla strada per l'inferno da quando muoiono senza 'fede e il battesimo' nella Chiesa cattolica)Ad Gentes 7).Mohammad conosciuto Gesù e la Chiesa, il Corano mostra, e tuttavia non ha entrato.Secondo il Concilio Vaticano II lui è perduto per sempre (LG 14).Il sacerdote non affermare o negare questo punto quando ha chiesto su Gloria TV.
A differenza di Daniela Saeta e che Fr.Alessandro Minutella sa che il Concilio Vaticano II può essere interpretato con LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 ecc riferendosi a casi invisibili e non visibili in 2017.Lui può interpretare razionalmente come casi invisibile per noi.Ma lui non lo farà.
Dal momento lui deve mantenere l'eresia magistrale a 'mantenere il suo lavoro', per mantenere 'la sua carriera'.
Il Vaticano chiede ora le Suore Francescane dell'Immacolata di interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II come una rottura con Tradizione(EENS ecc).In altre parole, loro devono assumere, come i due papi, che i casi ipotetici (LG 16, ecc) non sono ipotetici. In questo modo LG 16 ecc, apparire come i casi espliciti e oggettivi nel 2017.Cosi sono diventa una eccezione per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite), e non tutti bisogna entrare nella Chiesa Cattolica per salvezza.Don Alessandro non risponde a questo punto quando ha chiesto a lui sul Gloria TV.
Si parlerà in generale sul una falsa chiesa e una falsa teologia, e lui è corretta, mentre si utilizza una falsa premessa in teologia, proprio come il Papa e il cardinale Francesco Braz de Avez. Lui critica i Lefebvriani e il 'integralisti' che non accetta il Concilio Vaticano II (Cushingite) come lui. Lui affermare una falsa interpretazione di Concilio Vaticano II che Lefevriani critica, e dopo lui critica i Lefebvriani.
Lui non spiega a loro che il Concilio Vaticano II può essere interpretato anche senza il falso premesso.Cosi non c'è nessun vescovo o sacerdote in Italia per spiegare a Daniela Saeta che ci può essere una ecclesiologia concentrati solo su Gesù come Salvatore senza la necessità di diventa un membro della Chiesa per salvezza.E anche c'e la tradizionale esclusivista ecclesiologia.Una e basata sul una falsa premessa e adesso e la ufficiale concetto della Chesa.
Qualcuno deve spiegare questo a lei.
Ma chi sta per fare questo? Ognuno ha bisogno di proteggere la loro carriera.
La Fraternità San Pio X è rimasto in silenzio e ha approvato tale errore nei due papi e la Curia Vaticana. L'attuale magistero interpreta il Concilio Vaticano II, con la premessa irrazionale e la Fraternità non si oppone. Né Vescovo Fellay interpreta il Concilio Vaticano II, senza la premessa.Lui ha le sue ragioni e interessi suppongo.
Ora ci ritroviamo con i Vescovi Faure, Aquino e Williamson.Loro almeno non devono proteggere 'una carriera' nella Chiesa.Possono dire ciò che è non-dicibile per la maggior parte dei cattolici?
-Lionel Andrades





FEBRUARY 10, 2017

Image result for Photo Don Alessandro M.Minutella

Prete italiano critica la falsa chiesa e la teologia, ma non affermare la dottrina e teologia tradizionale : non vuole perso la sua posizione nella falsa chiesa http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/prete-italiano-critica-la-falsa-chiesa.html


FEBRUARY 10, 2017


Daniela Saetta e catechisti a Fraternita di Cortona Italia influenzati da errore ecclesiologico nel Concilio Vaticano II: Gesù separata dalla Chiesa cattolica http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/daniela-saetta-e-catechisti-fraternita.html

Our Life

There is a wrong inference as a theme in Vatican Council II , and the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate have to accept it : Catholic media silent http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/there-is-wrong-inference-as-theme-in.html

There are objective errors in Vatican Council II and Card.Avez wants the Franciscans to accept them

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/there-are-objective-errors-in-vatican.html

Now we are left with Bishops Faure, Aquinas and Williamson.Can they say what is un-sayable?


Ecclesiastical Masonry eliminated the old ecclesiology based on the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and created a new ecclesiology based on Jesus being the Saviour without the need for membership in the Church. This supports the new ecumenism and the new understanding of the Church ready to be part of a one world religion and the coming of the Anti Christ.
So Daniela Saeta, a lay woman, expressed this new theology in her talks as do the other speakers of the lay community Fraternita della Communita Magnificat, I wrote yesterday.
She would have been influenced by this error in Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio which mentions 'the unicity and universal salvicity of Jesus Christ', which could also be there among the Lutherans or Orthodox Christians and excludes being a member of the Catholic Church.
This error, this new theology, is expressed in the catechesis of Catholics all over the world.
This was posted along with her video on Gloria TV.There is no response from any of the catechists. This is typical in the Catholic Church.
This would also be the no-response from traditionalists.They cannot accuse me of not accepting Vatican Council II or being a sedevacantist.They do not know what to do.So they do not respond.
I mentioned in the report on Daniela Saetta that the issue is complicated. Since the traditionalists like the SSPX and the sedevacantists assume that the old ecclesiology has exceptions. This was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre at Vatican Council II. It is the basis of the new theology which is promoted by the traditionalists, liberals and Italian lay catechists like Saeta.
So when Daniela Saeta presents salvation without accepting Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church she is expressing a magisterial heresy supported by traditionalist and lay Catholics.
How can Daniela Saeta and her community admit to magisterial heresy when they need the support of the Parish Priest, who himself has to support this magisterial heresy to remain in his position. The bishop too has to maintain the magisterial irrationality.He cannot refute the official truth.
Then in another report yesterday I mentioned that an Italian priest on Gloria TV criticizes the false church and false theology in the Catholic Church and says that the Catholic Church is presently in a diabetic coma but he himself will not affirm the traditional teachings with the traditional theology (in harmony with Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)) since he will lose his position in the 'false church'.
He will not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation since this would be the old theology and old ecclesiology of the Church. To remain a priest in Sicily he has to affirm the new ecclesiology in a false Church which he criticizes.So officially he supports Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
I posted this report on Gloria TV.
As expected there is no response from Fr.Alessandro M. Minutella.He will not say that Vatican Council II indicates Mohammad and all Muslims are on the way to Hell since they die without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) in the Catholic Church. Mohammad knew about Jesus and the Church, the Quran shows, and yet he did not enter.According to Vatican Council II he is lost(LG 14).The priest will not  affirm or deny this point when asked on Gloria TV.

Unlike Daniela Saeta, Fr.Alessandro Minutella knows that  Vatican Council II can be interpreted with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc referring to invisible or visible cases in 2017.He can interpret them rationally as invisible for us cases.However he will not do so.

Since he has to maintain the magisterial heresy to 'keep his job', to maintain 'his career'.

The Vatican is now asking the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate to  interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.In other words they have to assume like the two popes, that hypothetical cases(LG 16 etc) are not hypothetical. In this way it will appear that LG 16 etc,being explicit and objective cases in 2017,contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite).Fr.Alessandro will not highlight this point when asked to,on Gloria TV.

He will speak in general of a false church and a false theology, and he is correct,  while he himself uses a false premise in theology just like Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez. He criticizes the Lefebvrists and the 'integralists' since they will not accept Vatican Council II (Cushingite) like him, in the false church with a new and false theology.He himself will affirm Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which they criticize and then criticize the Lefebvrists.
He does not explain to them that Vatican Council II can be interpreted also without the false premise.Similarly there is no bishop or priest in Italy to explain to Daniela Saeta that there can be an ecclesiology focused only on Jesus as the Saviour without the necessity of the Church and there can be one in which membership in the Church is necessary for salvation.
But who is going to do this? Every one needs to protect their career.
The SSPX has remained silent and has condoned this error in the two popes and the Vatican Curia. The present magisterium is interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and the SSPX does not object. Neither does Bishop Fellay interpret Vatican Council II without the premise.He has his reasons and interests I suppose.
Now we are left with Bishops Faure, Aquinas and Williamson.They at least do not have to protect ' a career' in the Church.Can they say what is un-sayable for most Catholics?
-Lionel Andrades



Bp. Faure, Bishop Thomas Aquinas & Bishop Williamson
https://ghyheart.wordpress.com/



February 10, 2017




Image result for Photo Don Alessandro M.Minutella

An Italian priest criticizes the false church and theology but will not affirm the traditional doctrine and theology since he could lose his position in the 'false church'

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/an-italian-priest-criticizes-false.html






Daniela Saetta and catechists at Fraternita di Cortona Italy influenced by ecclesiological error in Vatican Council II: separate Jesus from the Catholic Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/daniela-saetta-and-catechists-at.html





Our Life





There is a wrong inference as a theme in Vatican Council II , and the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate have to accept it : Catholic media silent

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/there-is-wrong-inference-as-theme-in.html







There are objective errors in Vatican Council II and Card.Avez wants the Franciscans to accept them


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/there-are-objective-errors-in-vatican.html