Wednesday, November 1, 2017

While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different : they may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy.

While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different.I differ from the liberals and the traditionalists.No one can correct me or tell me that I have made a mistake.They may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy.
Image result for Photo of Fastiggi and Sanborn debate Novus Ordo
In the ecclesiology debate which can be see on YouTube Dr.Robert Fastiggi told Bishop Donald Sanborn that he was in heresy for not affirming Vatican Council II while the bishop suggested Fastiggi was in heresy for not affirming the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation with reference to the Jews and an ecumenism of return with reference to the Protestants and Orthodox Christians.He was in a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church like the popes.Now here am I endorsing Vatican Council II(unlike the bishop) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and an ecumenism of return( unlike the professor of theology) and neither can either of the two say that I am in heresy.
Fastiggi and Sanborn were interpreting Vatican Council II when one accepted the non traditional conclusion and the other rejected it.Both inferred invisible people were visible.
Fastiggi and Sanborn are critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney. They don't know that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case decides how they interpret Vatican Council II.
For me the Holy Office was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.So Vatican Council II does not become a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.For Fastiggi,Sanborn and the two popes, it is the opposite.
I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and affirm 'the past ecclesiology of the Church with an ecumenism of return' since Vatican Council II (with Fr.Leonard Feeney being correct) is not a rupture.While the two popes also attend the Novus Ordo Mass and reject the past ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. The  baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to known exceptions,visible people saved outside the Church or they would not be exceptions.
Immagine del profilo di Louie Verrecchio, Nessun testo alternativo automatico disponibile.
Among the traditionalists Louie Verrecchio criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass and is not a Feeneyite on EENS.For him BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.The Holy Office was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was 'condemned'.This is the official SSPX website explanation which is the opposite of the 2012 General Chapter Statement on EENS.
This invisible people are visible reasoning is  the foundation for the new ecclesiology.So Verrecchio attends the Tridentine Rite Mass affirming the new ecclesiology.He has also received a dispensation at a Novus Ordo Mass to marry a non Christian.This was possible with the new ecclesiology based on salvation outside the Church.There was known salvation outside the Church for the bishop and he decided his wife did not need to convert into the Church.
Now he criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass and attends the Latin Mass with an ecclesiology which is supported by the two popes, and which is a rupture with the Latin Mass in the 16th century, for example.
Since for Louie Verrecchio there is known salvation outside the Church( with visible BOD, BOB and I.I), LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church. He may say that he does not know any such person but this is what he infers with his New Theology which is magisterial and was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre.So he rejects Feeneyite EENS and also puts aside the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.He does this unknowingly.It comes with the new ecclesiology.
Then when he reads the old encyclicals the pendulum once again swings towards the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.Once again he says outside the Church there is no  salvation but still understands LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) as being an exception.This is the confusion of many Catholics.It is built into the new ecclesiology.
Image result for Photo of David Domet Vox Cantoris
It is the same with the traditionalist blogger David Domet.He will state that he believes in outside the Church there is no salvation and also being saved in invincible ignorance as if the two are connected.Being saved in invincible ignorance is relevant to the dogma EENS as an exception or he would not have mentioned it.This is how he also interprets the statements of popes on this issue, even when the popes,in the text, do  not state that they refer to known people saved as such.
Image result for Photo of Mother Angelica
It reminds me of Mother Angelica citing the popes on outside the Church there is no salvation and then the local bishop in the EWTN diocese calls attention to the new ecclesiology based on known exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I.So there was a new policy at EWTN on salvation.
Mother Angelica had to remove those quotations from the popes since the  new ecclesiology based on the irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 replaced it.
Image result for Photo of Ann Barnhardt
It is the same with traditionalist Ann Barnhardt who says she affirms outside the Church there is no salvation but is not a Feeneyite.
With the traditionalists and liberals accepting known salvation outside the Church and this being part of the Declarations with the Orthodox Christians and Lutherans for Pope Benedict, Pope Francis has issued a moto proprio which will name future saints who are not Catholics.This will be done theologically with the new ecclesiology.The 'unknown- known people' saved outside the Church.The premise is important.Even if it is false.
Image result for Photo of Bishop Bruno Forte
Remember Bishop Bruno Forte when he quipped that Pope Francis is a real Jesuit.He believes that if we can change the premise we can change the conclusion and no one will know.
So like Louie Verrecchio and David Domet the two popes believe there is known salvation outside the Church( this is their false premise), possibilities are real people for them( premise again ) and so there can be a new way of looking at Vatican Council II, the past ecclesiology, ecumenism,EENS etc- all with a new conclusion.
But how can possibilities be real people?
Where are the real people saved outside the Catholic Church in November 2017?
There are none. But this is how the liberals and traditionalists reason.
So now the two popes affirm magisterial documents and their conclusion is different from mine since their premises are different.We are all in the same Catholic Church of 2017.
-Lionel Andrades


My man St. Max... now that is how a man dies!


https://www.gloria.tv/language/S2mQ8XjTcSwL3q8noxk8XEbJo

Two popes and many cardinals and bishops are automatically excommunicated : refuse to affirm magisterial documents without the use of an irrational premise

Image result for photo two popes
The two popes and many cardinals and bishops are automatically excommunicated, being in mortal sin, since they have approved the Balamand Declaration and the Declaration Justification, with the Orthodox and Lutheran Christians, by changing  the interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the use of a false premise, to make it a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of  Errors.
This is magisterial heresy being supported by rectors, superiors and founders of religious communities in violation of Canon Law, since they are expected to affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church without irrational innovations,which create heresy.But there is confusion among them since the false teachings are being enforced with the 1984 Code of Canon Law.
The Balamand Declaration which can be read on the Vatican website states:

30. To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. -Balamand Declaration
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html



This  innovative break with Tradition is affirmed by the two popes, cardinals and bishops, rectors, superiors and living founders of religious communities and movements.
It is a rejection of Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise.So now LG 16, UR 3 etc refer to visible and known people saved outside the Catholic Church.
It is a rejection of the Nicene Creed which can be interpreted without the irrational premise.Now it becomes 'I believe in not one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins but three known baptisms, they are desire,blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
It is a rejection of the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994), the Catechism of Pius X , the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other catechisms, with hypothetical cases ( i.e.invincible ignorance) being interpreted as being objective examples of people saved outside the Church.In reality there are no such people known.If such people existed they would only be known to God.Possibilities cannot be known exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present.A possibility in the past is not a known case.
It is a rejection of the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and salvation for non Christians, with the use of the same irrational premise.So Jews do not have to convert according to the two popes.
It is a rejection of the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church by using the irrational premise to create a new non traditional conclusion,which is now the new ecclesiology.It is not something permanent.It can be changed but the error has the support of the two popes and the cardinals and bishops.
According to even the faulty 1983 Code of Canon Law,which enforces this error in the Church, a juridical person must be a Catholic i.e a religious superior , rector or parish priest must be a Catholic, he must believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church to hold his office.
Here we see above that the teachings of the Church have been changed and every one is expected to follow these false teachings.So when a priest in Rome who offers the Traditional Latin Mass said that he knew of no one in Rome saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, he was called up by the Rome Vicariate.Since the irrational premise i.e we know of such people in real life, has to be affirmed according to Canon Law.
Other priests have clearly said that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma EENS.They never were exceptions.
Juridical persons have to follow the teachings of the Church which have been changed on faith and morals. In faith the exclusivist ecclesiology on salvation, has been changed with the use of a false premise.Without the premise we can return to the old ecclesiology but this is not being done by the  popes,cardinals and bishops.If they accept that we do not know of any exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation, we return to the past theology of the Church on salvation.The popes would have to say that all non Catholics need to be members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and there are no known exceptions for us human beings.They are not doing this and instead are supporting heresy and a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church, which is a kind of schism.
Similarly in morals they assume that we can know of Catholics living in manifest mortal sin who are exceptions to the general teaching and will not be going to Hell.They can also be given the Eucharist.This was approved in moral theology at Catholic and secular universities, with the approval of the present magisterium.Now the error has been made official in  Amoris Laeititia and is even being supported by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.He did not point out the error in the Balamand Declaration, the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification and other magisterial documents (Redemptoris Missio,Christianity and the World Religions by the International Theological Commission etc) .
No one is asking the two popes to return to the past ecclesiology of the Church by avoiding the false premise and conclusion in philosophy and theology.-Lionel Andrades


NOVEMBER 1, 2017

Balamand Declaration with Orthodox Christians and Declaration on Justification with Lutherans null and void : wrongly interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/balamand-declaration-with-ortodox.html


Balamand Declaration with Orthodox Christians and Declaration on Justification with Lutherans null and void : wrongly interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors

The Joint Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans and the Balamand Declaration1 with the Orthodox Christians are null and void since Pope Benedict rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).If it was not a ruse but a simple error, then the error was made by assuming there were known cases of non Catholic saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and in invincible ignorance (in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case) and that there are known cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 in the present times saved outside the Church.There would have to be known cases for there to be an exception to EENS.Invisible people cannot be exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation. So by mixing up what is invisible as being visible,what cannot be known as being known,  the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1441) was rejected blatantly by Pope Benedict.It was his contribution to the emerging One World Religion being supported by the Jewish Left.

30. To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. -Balamand Declaration
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

So for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict the Orthodox Christians, Lutherans and Methodists do not need convert into the Catholic Church as members for salvation.Since there is known salvation outside the Church. There are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS for them, even though they cannot name any particular person seen in Heaven without the baptism of water.They have rejected the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium of the Church on extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching'( Letter of the Holy Office 1949-First part).
Image result for Balamand Declaration with Pope Benedict PhotosImage result for Balamand Declaration with Pope Benedict Photos
The two living popes have also rejected the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Vatican Council II with hypothotical cases being non- hypothetical.They are  alleged living examples, known cases, of Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Lutherans and Methodists being saved outside the Church.This is objectively false. It also contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction.
It is different with me.
Image result for Photo One world Religion catholic church
I affirm Vatican Council II and 'the strict interpretation' of the dogma EENS since I do not use an irrational premise to interpret these magisterial documents.Invisible people are invisible for me.The baptism of desire for example refers to an invisible case in 2017.
Image result for Photo One world Religion catholic church
So for me the Balamand Declaration is as null and void theologically and doctrinally for me as is the Declaration on Justification with the Lutherans,who are outside the Church and are on the way to Hell where Martin Luther presently is, according to Padre Pio.
Image result for Photo Padre Pio
I affirm the Syllabus of Errors since Vatican Council II ( with LG 16 referring to hypothetical cases only) is not a rupture.
I affirm an ecumenism of return since this is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church supported by the dogma EENS which is not contradicted by Vatican Council II ( premise-free).
Image result for Photo One world Religion catholic church
To reject the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II is a mortal sin of faith.So the two popes and the cardinals are in manifest mortal sin. They sin even after being informed.
Similarly to change the Nicene Creed into ' I believe in three or more known baptisms, examples of salvation outside the Church and they are the baptisms of desire, blood and invincible ignorance, all of which exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church' is a first class heresy.
Image result for Photo One world Religion catholic church
The two popes and all the cardinals presently interpret the Nicene Creed, the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II with a false premise and so reject the 'outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church' as the Balamand Decalaration officially states.It is reported on the Vatican website.
According to Canon Law a Catholic must affirm the Nicene Creed, the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents ( Syllabus of Errors etc) in harmony with the past magisterium of the Church and Sacred Tradition. No innovations can be made by using an irrational premise, to change the centuries old interpretation.
-Lionel Andrades


1

Balamand declaration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion, also known as the Balamand declaration and the Balamand document, is a 1993 report written by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during its 7th plenary session at Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon.[1][a] The report discusses ecclesiological principles and suggests practical rules for both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to implement about improving relations by reciprocally avoiding interfering in each other's Churches and not using history in a polemical manner.[1][2] According to Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the report contains three principles: that individuals have the freedom to follow their conscience, that Eastern Catholic Churches have the right to exist, that uniatism is not the current method of full communion.

_________________________________________

OCTOBER 31, 2017


Vatican-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification was null since the Catholic side rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and wrongly re-interpreted Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/balamand-declaration-with-ortodox.html