Friday, August 24, 2018

Bishops Pivarunas and Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada and the other sedevacantists interpret the Catechisms of Pope X and the Council of Trent as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors

Sedevacantists Bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas and Fr. Anthony Cekada make the same mistake as Peter and Michael Dimond. They interpret the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

So the Catechisms mentioned on the website Whispers of Restoration would be out of step with the Syllabus of Errors.
Peter and Michael Dimond are telling people to become traditionalist Catholics and they want them to affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of Trent which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance I mentioned in the previous blog post.However for Peter and Michael the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to known people saved outside the Church. These are examples, of salvation outside the Church,for them, and so they are rejected.

On the other hand the sedevacantist bishops Pivarunas and Sanborn and Fr, Anthony Cekada accept BOD, BOB and I.I but like Peter and Michael Dimond assume they refer to known people saved outside the Catholic Church. With this false premise the non traditional conclusion which must emerge would be unacceptable,of course.

This means however that the Catechism of Pope Pius X for example, becomes a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.This Catechism would be saying for them that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church ( which they reject) and so these non Catholics could be objective exceptions to the traditional teaching on an ecumenism of return(Syllabus of Errors).

It would mean being saved in invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, is also an exception to the Council of Trent which supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.

However for all these sedevacantists this case of the catechumen is a known person saved outside the Church.Only because it is a known person they have rejected the baptism of desire as being an exception to EENS. Someone would have to be known and physically visible at some time, to be an exception to EENS. An invisible person cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church as a member, for example, in 2018.

So the Council of Trent ( baptism of desire) would be a rupture with the old ecclesiology, for the sedevcantists, which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.The Council of Trent would also be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors which supports the past ecclesiology.

They still see the case of the catechumen and the theoretical case of the non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, as objective people. If they were not objective they would not be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

So since they are objective, the Catechism of Pius X contradicts the Syllabus of Errors while the Catechism of the Council of Trent contradicts the past teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all needing to be members for salvation.

As I mentioned in the previous blog post for me BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible and hypothetical cases,theoretical speculation with good will and so they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. So BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechisms( Pius X, Trent etc) do not contradictthe Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return and neither no salvation outside the Church in other religions.

For the sedevancantists and many traditionalists too ( Robert dei Mattei, Michael Matt etc) LG 14( case of the catechumen) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would be explicit and so are exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of errors. So they reject Vatican Council II.

I do not have to reject Vatican Council II since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases only. Always.

So for me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).All. While the references to hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are not practical exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or EENS.They can only be hypothetical.In reality they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS since they do not exist in our reality.

Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Catechisms of Pope Pius X, the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Quanta Cura).-Lionel Andrades

Peter and Michael Dimond are interpreting the Catechisms of Pope X and the Council of Trent as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX

Sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond are telling people to become traditionalist Catholics and they want them to affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of Trent which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

However for Peter and Michael the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to known people saved outside the Church. These are examples, of salvation outside the Church,for them, and so they are rejected.Peter and Michael are Feeneyites on outside the Church there is no salvation.

The Dimond Brothers at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA hold on to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and BOD. BOB and I.I are not relevant.

BOD,BOB adn I.I are not relevant since they are assumed to be known people saved outside the Church and this is unacceptable for the two young men who choose sedevacantism.

This means however that the Catechism of Pope Pius X for example, is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.This Catechism would be saying for them that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church ( which they reject) and so these non Catholics could be objective exceptions to the traditional teaching on an ecumenism of return(Syllabus of Errors).

It would mean being saved in invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, is also an exception to the Council of Trent which supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.

Then the Council of Trent refers to the case of the catechumen saved with the desire for the baptism of water.The Council of Trent does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church.It can only be a hypothetical case for us humans.However for Peter and Michael, this case of the catechumen is a known person saved outside the Church and so they have rejected the baptism of desire as being an exception to EENS.

So the Council of Trent ( baptism of desire) would be a rupture with the old ecclesiology which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.The Council of Trent would also be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors which supports the past ecclesiology.

For me BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible and hypothetical cases,theoretical speculation with good will and so they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. So BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechisms( Pius X, Trent etc) do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return and neither no salvation outside the Church in other religions.

For Peter and Michael, LG 14( case of the catechumen) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would be explicit and so are exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of errors. So they reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism.

I do not have to reject Vatican Council II since LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases only.Always.

So for me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). All. While the references to hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are not practical exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or EENS.They can only be hypothetical.In reality they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS since they do not exist in our reality.

Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Catechisms of Pope Pius X, the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Quanta Cura).

-Lionel Andrades

FAST FACTS : The Media Report.com

FAST FACTS

IT'S NOT ABOUT CATHOLIC PRIESTS

FACT: Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.

THE GRAND CONSPIRACY THAT WASN'T

FACT: You would never know it from the media's lurid and obsessive coverage, but the vast bulk of reported cases of abuse stem only from a historical anomaly, as most allegations occurred during only a small sliver of time during the Sexual Revolution from the 1960s to the early 1980s. And despite media suggestions of dark conspiracies and cover-ups, the Church – like every other institution at the time – simply followed the then-prevailing view of experts in the field that offenders could be successfully rehabilitated and sent accused priests off for treatment.

THE REAL NEWS: CURRENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CATHOLIC PRIESTS ARE EXTREMELY RARE

FACT: Almost all accusations against Catholic priests date from many decades ago, and indeed nearly half of all abuse accusations concern priests who are already long dead. In a body of 77 million people, contemporaneous accusations of abuse against Catholic clergy in the United States are very rare, recently averaging only 7 allegations deemed "substantiated" by review boards each year.

THE STORY THE MEDIA WON'T REPORT: THE EPIDEMIC OF ABUSE AND COVER-UPS GOING ON TODAY IN OUR OWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FACT: The incidence of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools today has been estimated to be "more than 100 times" that by Catholic priests, and there is alarming evidence of school officials covering up abuse and failing to report suspected cases to authorities. Yet the mainstream media has largely ignored this shocking story while still rehashing decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY: A MODEL FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

FACT: The Catholic Church is likely the safest environment for children today.

http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/

Pennsylvania PR stunt is shameful, one-sided, and illegal

Comment from

SPECIAL PA. JURY REPORT ANALYSIS PART I: Pushing Aside Media Hysteria: We Uncover Pennsylvania’s Dishonest Grand Jury Report

Fr. Gordon MacRae says:

August 19, 2018 at 5:46 pm

Maybe only someone who has been falsely accused and wrongfully convicked can fully comprehend the tyranny of using the guilt of someone else as evidence against oneself.

What the PA Attorney General has done is an unconstitutional abuse of the Grand Jury system. The Grand Jury is convened for the purpose of formulating charges for criminal prosecution. We have to read the small prints to see that the Grand Jury concludes that none of the accused can be charged due to the statute of limitations. It should have ended there. Instead, these government agents in Pennsylvania are using the Grand Jury to try a case in the press that they can not try in a court of law. They allow no defense, no cross examination, no witness except those who support the prosecution, and no due process for the accused many who are dead, while those living have been denied any opportunity to testify. This is not how the American Justice system works in the 21st century. It is how it worked in 1692 in Salem Massachusetts. We can bluster all day about eliminating the statute of limitations but the Supreme Court has ruled that revised criminal statutes cannot be applied retroactively. This PA PR stunt is shameful, one-sided, and illegal.

http://www.themediareport.com/2018/08/18/rebuttal-grand-jury-report-pennsylvania/

Pushing Aside Media Hysteria: We Uncover Pennsylvania’s Dishonest Grand Jury Report

SPECIAL PA. JURY REPORT ANALYSIS PART I: Pushing Aside Media Hysteria: We Uncover Pennsylvania’s Dishonest Grand Jury Report

http://www.themediareport.com/2018/08/18/rebuttal-grand-jury-report-pennsylvania/

AUGUST 18, 2018 BY THEMEDIAREPORT.COM 22 COMMENTS

Dear media: Cardinal Donald Wuerl (l) is telling the truth, Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro (r) is not.

This is Part I of a special TheMediaReport.com analysis of the Pennsylvania grand jury report.

Click here for Part II.

A priest washed out the mouth of a young sex assault victim with holy water? Another priest sodomized a boy with a crucifix? Another priest assaulted another kid multiple times on an airplane? 300 "predator priests"? The Church "did nothing"?

Are these sickening stories all true? No, they're not, and we will show you explicitly in this special, two-part report.

Where does one begin to get at the truth of the recently released Pennsylvania grand jury report that has wrought breathless headlines across the globe? Here are two essential starting points:

1. The most important point to know is that a "grand jury report" is not really written by any jury members. As any lawyer will tell you, the report is actually written by government attorneys with a predetermined outcome. The folks in the "jury" are merely a formality, window dressing to make the matter legal. Jurors sit in a room eating hoagies and reading the newspaper while "listening" to the proceedings. There is no fact-checking, no cross-examinations, and no due process. Those cited in the report have almost no recourse to defend themselves. Accusations are assessed less on evidence and more on the desire for them to be true.

When the time comes, a jury member simply slaps his signature on the finished attorneys' report to make everything official. Press conferences ensue, and hysteria follows. [Highly recommended: "If it's not a runaway, it's not a real grand jury" by Roger Roots.]

In theory, a grand jury is supposed examine evidence to determine whether a crime took place and should be prosecuted. This was clearly not the intention of Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro. In an 800+-page screed, Shapiro's report (and yes, it's really Shapiro's report, not a "grand jury report") does not recommend a single criminal charge, because almost all of the accusations are many decades old. The fact that countless tax dollars and unlimited government resources were expended on this escapade – while giving far-more-recent abuse in public schools, the Boy Scouts, and other organizations a complete pass – should raise serious questions about Shapiro's true motives.

2. Countless headlines have trumpeted that the report identified over 300 "predator priests." In truth, that is the number of those merely accused; and the listed men are not just priests but include lay people, deacons, and seminarians. Many, if not the majority, of the priests in the report are long dead and no longer around to defend themselves. This caper examined allegations dating back to the 1930s, some eight decades ago. (One of the priests named in the report was born in 1892, about the same time that light bulbs became popular.) Several men in the report vehemently deny the accusations against them, and some claims in the report are outright false. (Much more on this in Part II.) [HT: Catholic League.]

Unpacking a Shapiro whopper

Countless news stories have faithfully regurgitated one berserk line in particular from the report, a line which Shapiro clearly tailored for the media to seize upon:

"Priests were raping little boys and girls and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing: they hid it all."

There is no other way to put it except to say that this is a flat-out lie by Shapiro. Even a cursory look at the report debunks this absurd claim.

Take the case in the report of Rev. Joseph Mueller: In 1986, a man went to the Diocese of Pittsburgh to claim that Mueller abused him years earlier as a teenager. Then-Bishop Donald Wuerl immediately removed him from ministry and shipped him off to St. Luke's treatment facility. Based on its evaluation of the guy, St. Luke's advised that Mueller "not work with children or adolescents." A diocesan memo also declared Mueller "unassignable." So what did Wuerl do? He stripped Mueller of his faculties, and the dude never worked as a priest again. Sayonara.

That, dear readers, is not "doing nothing," as Shapiro claims, and he knows it.

In fact, if one takes the time to actually read the report, one will see that the first action by a diocese, even many decades ago, was almost always to immediately remove the accused priest from his assignment. In a bunch of cases, priestly faculties were stripped. Therapy was often provided to victims.

Josh Shapiro's claim that the Church showed "complete disdain" for victims is nothing but an ugly smear. "I met with every victim. Anyone that would come forward, I met with them and I'd have to say more than once shared a tear with them as they or their parents told the story," Cardinal Wuerl has told.

Sent off to treatment?

There are those who will want to castigate the Church for sending priests off to treatment, but, as regular readers of this site already know, that was exactly what so-called psychological experts advised bishops to do in a 1985 report. And even the Boston Globe (yes, the Boston Globe!) was trumpeting therapy treatment for child sex offenders as recently as 1992.

"From the 1950's to the 1980's, these treatment-based interventions for sexual criminals were not only enormously prevalent in the United States, but surveys of ordinary citizens showed that they were enormously popular …

"[T]he science of human sexuality and sexual offending is extraordinarily young. Virtually all of the information we utilize today regarding the treatment and supervision of sexual offenders has been discovered since 1985."

– Dr. Monica Applewhite, Ph.D.

Yet in almost every media account, the media has failed to provide this important historical context that the Church was following the then-reigning advice of experts in the field to send accused priests to treatment.

"No one would hold a brain surgeon to today's standard of care for professional decisions he made in 1970. Yet the decisions made in 1970 by Catholic bishops, who routinely consulted with mental health professionals about sick priests, are being judged by today's standards. Today, the confidence of the mental health community about the likelihood of curing sexual disorders is far less than it was in 1970."

– L. Martin Nussbaum, "Changing the Rules" (America magazine, 2006)

Just plain wrong reporting

It would be no surprise to regular readers of this site that the media's reporting on the Pennsylvania report has been atrocious, not only just lacking context and uncritically repeating the claims of the report, but also getting important facts flat-out wrong.

Unfortunately, even reputable Christian writers have been irresponsible in their reporting. Our favorite Methodist-turned-Catholic-turned-Eastern-Orthodox writer claimed in a post about the report:

"[I]n 1991, Bishop Wuerl approved pedophile Pittsburgh priest Father [Ernest C.] Paone's assignment in the Diocese of Reno-Las Vegas. That priest continued to work there — without Pittsburgh telling them that they knew he was a pedophile — until the Boston scandal broke in 2002."

In truth, when then-Bishop Wuerl wrote his 1991 letter, he was completely unaware of any accusations against Paone. It was not until 1994, three years later, that a woman approached the Diocese of Pittsburgh to claim that her brother had been molested by Paone some three decades earlier. Upon receiving this news, Wuerl immediately fired off a letter (pdf) to the Diocese of Reno-Las Vegas in which he wrote:

"Very recently, an allegation was made by a woman who claims that more than 30 years ago her brother was molested by Father Paone …

"Had I been aware of this allegation in Father Paone's past, I would not have supported his request for a priestly assignment in your diocese. Nor would I have written to you indicating that he was a priest in good standing."

In other words, this popular writer completely misinformed his audience. As soon as Wuerl had information on Paone's past, he immediately spread the word. He also urgently recalled Paone back to Pittsburgh to address the claims against him and send him off to St. Luke's.

Moving on

So what do we make of the alarming stories in Shapiro's report that have been blared loudly in the media about a priest washing out the mouth of a child after a sexual assault? What about the other one claiming a priest sodomized a boy with a crucifix?

Let's go to PART II of our exclusive analysis (click here).

http://www.themediareport.com/2018/08/18/rebuttal-grand-jury-report-pennsylvania/

eucharistandmission

Friday, August 24, 2018

Bishops Pivarunas and Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada and the other sedevacantists interpret the Catechisms of Pope X and the Council of Trent as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors