Friday, November 3, 2017

Excellent Traditional Catholic Sermon – Latin Mass – Purgatory, Hell, Heaven




https://ghyheart.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/excellent-traditional-catholic-sermon-latin-mass-purgatory-hell-heaven/

So that Catholics are not going to know about the deception of the Magisteriuim ?

In a parting shot Strynkowski admonishes Weinandy for going public, but the irony is breathtaking:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that dissent from ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to church authority—see “Donum Veritatis” (No. 30). In a world and even an ecclesial environment of sound bites and facile partisanship, that becomes even wiser advice. https://hughosb.com/2017/11/03/laffaire-weinandy-a-watershed/

Lionel:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that dissent from ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to church authority.Was this to protect the errors of Cardinal Ratzinger?
Now may be some one can remind him privately about what I have been writing on this blog for the last fews years.
I repeat:How we interpret the Fr. Leonard Feeney case decides how we are going to interpret Vatican Council II.Since they are both related.They are related with a  faulty reasoning, which we can avoid.So if it is wrongly assumed that invisible for us cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS there will be one conclusion. If we assume that these are just invisible for us cases in the present times there will be another conclusion.Since the premise is different the conclusion will also be different.
The false reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He also repeated this error in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission.
So the with the same reasoning he assumed that LG 16( invincible ignorance),UR 3( imperfect communion with the Church)  and other hypothetical and invisible cases were visible examples of salvation outside the Church.He then put away the dogma EENS, which was defined by the popes in the extra ordinary an ordinary magisterium.
For me this is calculated dissent by Cardinal Ratzinger.
I interpret  BOD, BOB and I.I as being hypothetical and theoretical cases so they cannot be exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Similarly I interpret LG 16, UR 3, LG 8, GS 22, etc as referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases and so Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church on an ecumenism of return.
So there is a big difference in our interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS.
Should Catholics continue to remain silent about this? There probably was a conspiracy and it is being hidden ?
The Balamand Declaration and the Joint Declaration of Justification was based on this error of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that dissent from ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to church authority—see “Donum Veritatis” (No. 30). In a world and even an ecclesial environment of sound bites and facile partisanship, that becomes even wiser advice
Why? So that Catholics are not going to know about the deception of the Magisteriuim ?
-Lionel Andrades

Bishop Fellay is the biggest impediment for the SSPX receiving canonical status

Image result for Photo Nicole WinfieldNone of the signatories of the new letter is a cardinal, and the highest-ranking churchman listed is actually someone whose organization has no legal standing in the Catholic Church: Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the breakaway Society of St. Pius X. Several other signatories are well-known admirers of the old Latin Mass which Fellay's followers celebrate..-Nicole Winfield, Associated Press
https://apnews.com/feb3193a715d44cb852f853b907b65e0
In Sept.2017 Nicole Winfield of AP said the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX ) had no standing in the Catholic Church.The writer will not state that if Catholic religious communities including the SSPX would choose to interpret Vatican Council II based on a rational interpretation of the Fr. Leonard Feeney case, then the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes and the SSPX can ask for canonical status.
Nicole Winfield can continue with the leftist propanda since ,' the Bishop Fellay group interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and considers the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) visible and known examples of salvation outside the Church and so exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.'1
''  Bishop Fellay does not know that with the Fr.Leonard Feeney case there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. The Boston Heresy Case is linked to the interpretation of Vatican Council II. If for you Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. If for you the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office 1949 were heresy, then Vatican Council II emerges in harmony with EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century. There is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.
So choose
Bishop Fellay like the present popes and magisterium have chosen to accept that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was correct. So with the irrational premise of the 1949 Letter (visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I) they interpret Vatican Council II (visible cases of LG 16,UR 3,NA 2 etc) as a rupture with Tradition.It becomes a rupture with Feeneyite EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.So there is no more the past ecclesiology with an ecumenism of return. Since now there are exceptions to the old ecclesiology.'
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". - Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 2
We can clearly see that Bishop Fellay like Archbishop Lefebvre is affirming the Letter of the Holy Office. So for both of them Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition. Even for Pope Benedict, cardinals Muller and Ladaria and Archbishops Pozzo and Di Noia, Vatican Council II is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and so the 150 anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors was not celebrated.
'May be if there is new Superior General of the SSPX,who does not make the doctrinal mistake of Bishop Fellay, there can be a reconciliation with the Vatican.The SSPX could demand canonical status.Since Vatican Council II would no more be a rupture with Tradition.'
Presently Nicole Winfield can write what she writes about the traditionalists since they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and do not know about the rational choice.She knows that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the premise but she is not going to write about it.Why would she inform the SSPX about it? It is the same with Crux and the National Catholic Reporter.The conclusion of Vatican Council II( premise-free) is traditional. It supports what Pope Benedict refers to as the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades

1.
November 2, 2017
Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) is divided on theology and doctrine.There are two groups http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/society-of-stpius-x-sspx-is-divided-on.html

2

http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/


Ousted Fr. Weinandy Explains Why He Wrote the Pope

Ousted Fr. Weinandy Explains Why He Wrote the Pope


Print Friendly and PDF
by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D. • ChurchMilitant.com • November 2, 2017                                     

"I considered it an apostolic mandate"

 

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) - Ousted priest Fr. Thomas Weinandy, who was asked by the U.S. bishops to resign from the International Theological Commission for his letter criticizing Pope Francis (reproduced in full below), has offered an explanation for his actions.
Wednesday, James Rogers, Chief Communications Officer for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), issued a statement announcing Weinandy's resignation:
After speaking with the General Secretary of the Conference today, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., has resigned, effective immediately, from his position as consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine. The work of the Committee is done in support of, and in affective collegiality with, the Holy Father and the Church in the United States. Our prayers go with Father Weinandy as his service to the Committee comes to a close.
Since the announcement, thousands of Catholics have expressed outrage over what they see as the strongarming of a faithful priest for expressing respectful disagreement with the Holy Father. The vast majority of tweets posted in response to the USCCB are negative.








Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute reports that although the USCCB was swift to penalize Weinandy, it has done nothing about a public promoter of Planned Parenthood, Jessica Garrels, who remains on its payroll to this day.
Father Weinandy himself has explained his inspiration for writing the letter to the Holy Father. Published Wednesday in L'Espresso under Vaticanista Sandro Magister's column, the ousted Franciscan began: "Last May I was in Rome for an International Theological Commission meeting," going further to explain that he had been "praying about the present state of the Church and the anxieties I had about the present Pontificate."
"I was beseeching Jesus and Mary, St. Peter and all of the saintly popes who are buried there to do something to rectify the confusion and turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused," he continued. "I was also pondering whether or not I should write and publish something expressing my concerns and anxiety."
He awoke the following night at 1:15 in the morning and went for a brief walk outside. On returning, he prayed to God:
If you want me to write something, you have to give me a clear sign. This is what the sign must be. Tomorrow morning I am going to Saint Mary Major's to pray and then I am going to Saint John Lateran. After that I am coming back to Saint Peter's to have lunch with a seminary friend of mine. During that interval, I must meet someone that I know but have not seen in a very long time and would never expect to see in Rome at this time. That person cannot be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain. Moreover, that person has to say to me in the course of our conversation, "Keep up the good writing."
He did all of the above the next day, and then met up with a seminarian friend for lunch. By that time he was no longer thinking about his prayer from the night before.
However, towards the end of the meal an archbishop appeared between two parked cars right in front of our table (we were sitting outside). I had not seen him for over twenty years, long before he became an archbishop. We recognized one another immediately. What made his appearance even more unusual was that, because of his recent personal circumstances, I would never have expected to see him in Rome or anywhere else, other than in his own archdiocese. (He was from none of the above mentioned countries.) We spoke about his coming to Rome and caught up on what we were doing. I then introduced him to my seminarian friend. He said to my friend that we had met a long time ago and that he had, at that time, just finished reading my book on the immutability of God and the Incarnation. He told my friend that it was an excellent book, that it helped him sort out the issue, and that my friend should read the book. Then he turned to me and said: “Keep up the good writing.”
In spite of his shock over the clear sign, he knew what he must do. "But there was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something," Weinandy wrote. "I also think it significant that it was an Archbishop that Jesus used. I considered it an apostolic mandate."
Father Weinandy's letter appears in full here:
Continued
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/ousted-fr.-weinandy-explains-why-he-wrote-the-pope