Saturday, August 18, 2018

Catholics can start saying that the Church teaches Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was correct and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949 was wrong. The Church still teaches the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people in 2018. By the Church they are referring to the magisterial documents interpreted without the false premise.


See the timing at 28:53 on this video. Cardinal Ladaria in answer to a question cites LG 8 as an exception to EENS.This is an objective error and it comes from the mistake the Church made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
At 17:11 he presents Christology without the traditional ecclesiocentrism ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
_____________________________________________________

The doctrinal situation is a real mess with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) promoting an Arian-like heresy in the Church which is approved by the Left which represents Satan.
If you can understand the mechanics of what was happening at the Placuet Deo Press Conference ( March 1, 2018) you can see how the CDF  for some reason, is supporting Gnosticism throughout the Church. They are doing this in a defacto and official way.

The secular media says that the Church no more supports the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the CDF approves of this error officially.In other words invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.This is the false reasoning used by the ecclesiastics to support the error in the secular media and the Internet.
But for me the Church, according to BOD, BOB and I.I and the dogma EENS says outside the Church there is no known salvation. So Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct according to magisterial documents interpreted without the irrational premise of the ecclesiastics. Fr.Leonard Feeney is still magisterial for me.
So for me the Church, according to the text of Vatican Council II supports the traditional 'strict' interpretation of the dogma EENS when LG 8 etc are interpreted as referring to hypothetical cases only in the present times.Vatican Council II does not contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston. The Council support Feeneyite EENS, when the false premise is avoided in the interpretation.So Vatican Council II and EENS, without the premise, is magisterial for me.It is what 'the Church' teaches for me.

But for the CDF, at the Placuet Deo Press Conference , the Church was saying LG 8 refers to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church.This is the inference when LG 8 is put forward as an exception to the past ecclesiology of the Church which was exclusive.
So the inference of the CDF is false.How can there be physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church who could be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS? BOD,BOB and I.I are always invisible, for us, always.
Yet this is how the traditionalists and the whole Church interpret doctrine on salvation guided by the CDF.
A few days back the website Rorate Caili was criticizing Vatican Council II and the popes John XXII, Paul VI and John Paul II.But Rorate could also criticize Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Cardinals Ottaviano and Siri and Pope Pius XII.They have all been assuming hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.It was a sincere mistake.Yet they were all interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition and discerning liberals must have been laughing up their sleeve.
Image result for Photo John Martignoni
Now a correction can be made.
Catholics can start saying that the Church teaches Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was correct and the Holy Office (CDF) in 1949 was wrong.
They can start saying that the Church still teaches the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma EENS since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people in 2018. There no examples of salvation outside the Church which are known to us or can be known to us.
They can start saying that Vatican Council II is in harmony with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16th century. 
So there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II, according to 'the Church'.
Of course by the Church they are referring to the magisterial documents interpreted without the false premise. By ' the Church' they are not referring to the CDF and the two popes in this case.-Lionel Andrades


_____________________
_____________________








AUGUST 18, 2018


Placuit Deo promotes an ecumenical Jesus and not Jesus according to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church,which did not separate Jesus from faith and baptism in the Church for salvation : Sandro Magister and Edward Pentin did not know
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/placuit-deo-promotes-ecumenical-jesus.html



AUGUST 17, 2018

Obligated to the Masons and the Left Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morani did not want to affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. They did not truthfully interpret the Council without hypothetical cases being assumed to be objective people in the present times
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/obligated-to-masons-and-left-pope.html




AUGUST 15, 2018

Related image




The CDF needs to apologize for the error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.It has a direct bearing on how we interpret Vatican Council II. The Council becomes a rupture or continuity with the past

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-cdf-needs-to-apologize-for-error-in.html




_______________________________
________________________________






















‘Nonsense’: Cardinal Burke rebukes Fr. Rosica for saying Francis is above Scripture


Featured Image


August 16, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke rebuked Vatican advisor Fr. Thomas Rosica on EWTN's The World Over Thursday night.
The controversial Basilian priest claimed in a recent article that under Pope Francis, the Church “is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.”
“This is nonsense,” Cardinal Burke, the former head of the Apostolic Signatura, essentially the Vatican Supreme Court, told host Raymond Arroyo.
“Our Church has indeed entered a new phase,” Rosica wrote. “With the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.”
However, Burke responded:
Jesus Christ is the head of the mystical body of the Church and Jesus Christ comes to us through the Holy Scriptures, through the Church’s tradition. We love the Scriptures. We love the truth as it’s taught to us in the Church’s magisterium because we love Jesus Christ and he speaks to us in this way.
“The head of the Church is never a person other than someone who is acting in the name of Jesus Christ and in fidelity to the tradition,” the cardinal explained. “This has always been understood about the Roman Pontiff, that...he has the fullness of power to safeguard and to promote the transmission of the truths of the faith, the beauty of the sacred liturgy, the goodness of her discipline, but not to govern the Church as some kind of self-made autocrat.”
Burke said describing the pope this way is “a great disservice to [the pope’s] office.”
Rosica, who runs Salt and Light TV, is a Vatican communications advisor. He has a history of making questionable statements.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-nonsense-for-fr.-rosica-to-say-church-is-ruled-by-individual

Argentina pro-lifer reveals strategy behind country rejecting legal abortion

Featured Image

August 17, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) –Last week, the senate of Argentina rejected the legalization of abortion by a mere handful of votes, sending shockwaves through the abortion movement and triggering wild celebrations from Argentinian pro-lifers who took to the streets by the thousands, waving the blue kerchiefs that had become the symbol of their movement. The outraged abortion activists responded with violence, chucking homemade fire-bombs and smashing everything in sight. Riot police with water cannons were forced to respond.
Since then, I’ve managed to connect with several Argentinian pro-life activists on the ground to get a sense of how they managed to effectively keep abortion out of their country and mobilize so many people—at one point, they had three million people take to the streets right across Argentina. 
The following interview is my exchange with lawyer and teacher María Amelia Moscoso Cardoso, Memé, who is also the Bethlehem Portal Coordinator (a home for mothers in need) and a member of the Federal Executive Board of the Federal Family Network of Argentina. She was kind enough to answer my questions and paint a vivid picture of Argentina’s vibrant pro-life movement and the battles they have been fighting—and continue to fight.
How was the pro-life movement mobilized in Argentina before the crucial vote?
In the month of February, from the moment our nation’s president announced that the legalization of abortion would be taken up in Congress, we began a path of resistance and unity that grew day by day, with two distinct stages—one prior to the decision in the Chamber of Deputies in which a lesser number of us were involved because many believed the legalization effort would fail in the Chamber, and a second stage following the approval of the bill in the Chamber that involved a much greater number of people and a stronger effort leading up to the final rejection of the bill in the Senate of the Nation on August 9th
Pro-life organizations have existed in Argentina for many years. Portal de Belén (Bethlehem’s Portal), for example, has existed since 1991. The imminence of the consideration of the law made us wake up in our country, far and wide. Many new groups began in a spontaneous way not only to publicly voice their opposition to abortion, but also to work together to make it clear to the legislators that they wanted the people’s opposition to the bill to be reflected in a vote of rejection to the bill by the legislators.  
Thus, organizations as well as individuals and families began to participate in the public space, with cartelazos (crossing with posters at traffic lights), ruidazos(meetings in public spaces to make noise), pañuelazos (in our country the use of identity handkerchiefs showed your position on the issue, on the one hand the green handkerchief that begun to be used several years ago to ask for the legalization of free abortion and then, this year the blue handkerchief which was used in sign of resistance to abortion), prayer chains…around one million signatures were collected addressed to Congress, asking for the rejection of the law, in contrast to less than seventy thousand in favor of abortion, among many other activities.
In Congress, various speakers were received to be heard by the deputies and senators. More than eight hundred of us contributed to the discussion. We brought to our Congress a perspective that takes care of all human lives, and in addition to sharing this view with the deputies and senators, our ideas were spread in all social networks and even the mainstream media began to give us some time.
Furthermore, despite the fact that for more than fifteen years we have celebrated the Day of the Child to be Born, this year's mobilization on Sunday, March 25, was the first major mobilization that demonstrated that the country was moved by the issue and willing to work for the rejection of abortion. On May 20, in the midst of the debate, there was a new invitation to take to the streets on June 10—[the] Sunday before the vote of deputies. The mobilization was in the interior of the country (not in Buenos Aires) with really amazing numbers. Even so, with very few votes’ difference (having achieved the last in the morning of the vote), we lost the vote--we felt that it was stolen from us--and now it was onto the Senate for the final discussion. We coordinated at the national level so that on August 5 we mobilized in the provinces and on the 8th, we were all in Buenos Aires at the door of Congress to show that Argentina is pro-life and is willing to reject the idea of legalizing abortion…the whole country in the capital with a single objective, to say No to abortion.
We were able to coin a slogan representative of our view on the issue of abortion: "Save the 2 Lives." This way we could show that to be against abortion is to be in favor of the life of the unborn children and also in favor of the woman.
What is the pro-life movement like in Argentina?
I think it is very difficult to define. The national pro-life movement is very varied, with intergenerational charisms, and made up of youth and adults of all ages. With joy I have been able to see even teenagers speak with knowledge and eloquence and assume effective leadership in public. Undoubtedly, what has been [the] most exciting thing during this time is to have seen that the cause of the defense of life has no owners, and even more, is rooted in the depths of the Argentine person.
For more than twenty years we have participated in the National Women's Meetings (pro-abortion feminists) to bring the pro-life voice, and with that to ensure that the conclusions are not unanimous so that they cannot use them to request the legalization of abortion. Since 2010, we have already worked in a collaboration with several organizations in the Federal Family Network, and also with others that are not part of the network but whom we know and with whom we coordinate actions throughout the country. This year, at the request of an organization in Buenos Aires, a platform called Unidad Provida (“Pro-Life Unity”) was also designed with the aim of unifying the campaign against legalization where new efforts were added.
We all take on in some way, the task of welcoming many who "woke up" to the call of the pro-life cause at this crucial moment so that we can to walk together--with much effort--and "resist" for our country (and also for Latin America). The pro-life movement has a new opportunity to be a daily reality in our country and that is good news.
Is Argentina still a largely pro-life country?
I believe that my country has deep pro-life roots. This has been especially evident in the mobilizations that were a true celebration. There were entire families, groups of young people, all singing with joy for the cause of LIFE, asking legislators to work to avoid abortions and not to legalize them. Defending true Human Rights, asking for support for vulnerable motherhood, and denouncing the shortcomings of the health system because women die more for not having adequate medical attention in pregnancy and childbirth than from clandestine abortions.
We have also seen with pain the advance of the culture of death, luring young people into adhering to the acceptance of abortion. The goal is also to bring the truth closer to those who think differently. We were also able to become aware as a country of the rulers and representatives that we have, that many had not spoken on the abortion issue, that they had remained silent. Now the people were telling them that they would never vote for them again if they voted in favor of abortion. That is also a challenge for the next elections.
Is the push for abortion in Argentina largely domestic push, or is it financed by foreign supporters of abortion?
During this time, it has become clear that the main organizations promoting legal abortion in Argentina were financed internationally…the links of IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation), with Casa Fusa, Fundación Huésped, Amnesty International, Catholics for Choice, etc. Undoubtedly, the international pressure has played a big role in the debate. In addition to that, the mainstream media has played a dominant role.
There was also in the country the spread of repeated lies that influenced the opinion of everyday people, especially the notion that it was urgent to legalize abortion because of the amount of clandestine abortions. The numbers were greatly exaggerated, as they were in the United States during the push to legalize abortion. The claim was made that there were half a million annual abortions in Argentina--impossible to prove, and impossible to believe due to the number of births and total population. It was said to be the main cause of maternal mortality, when in reality it ranks number 40 on the list of causes.
The lies were exposed, although the media did not echo it. Only the social networks and the pro-life speakers at Congress were the spokespersons for that. Even the "celebrities" who joined in defense of the pro-life cause did not have spaces of respect in the media. They were many times ignored or mistreated for thinking and saying that abortion is not a solution.
How will the pro-life movement fight against the next big push for abortion?
We have no time to rest. Since the National Senate rejected the project, immediately the intention was announced to amend the penal code, incorporating decriminalization for the woman who aborts. Thus, meetings have been initiated on this issue, although the project that was discussed spoke of decriminalization and legalization of abortion, and in principle the same issue cannot be taken up again in the legislature until 2019. It is evident that the President is interested in legalizing abortion (hopefully not because of international organizations from whom he is asking for money).
We will continue working in at least three ways: 1. Strengthening the organizations that accompany women and children. It is key that we reach as many people as possible, that we help avoid abortions, save children and women from abortion, that we can help to achieve rights that have been postponed or violated, especially for women and children. 2. Trying to generate awareness of what abortion really is, and getting society to know the truth about abortion and to respect life from conception, rejecting any instance of legalization and decriminalization of abortion. And 3., Participating in direct and indirect political spaces so that the legalization of abortion is not achieved in our country.
We are clear that the battle is cultural, beyond the laws. This is a historical resistance --unique in the world--but even if at some point we lose it, our struggle continues against every abortion, against the culture of death.
Continued
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/argentina-pro-lifer-reveals-strategy-behind-country-rejecting-legal-abortio
What should the pro-life in 

Mastercard pressures crowdfunding site to boot jihad critic Robert Spencer



SHERMAN OAKS, California, August 17, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Prominent Islam scholar and critic Robert Spencer is the latest right-of-center voice to be banned from ostensibly-neutral online services under ambiguous pretenses.
Spencer detailed the situation at his website Jihad Watch on August 15, explaining that the day before, just a few weeks after setting up a Patreon account, through which he hoped to finance the renovation of a TV studio for producing video content, he received an email from a member of Patreon’s Trust & Safety team notifying him that it was “remov[ing] your account from Patreon, effective immediately” and returning the remainder of his account balance.
“Mastercard has a stricter set of rules and regulations than Patreon, and they reserve the right to not offer their services to accounts of their choosing,” Patreon’s April wrote. “This is in line with their terms of service, which means it’s something we have to comply by.”
Spencer writes that he had received no warning, and could not review his content (which consisted solely of an announcement video and a notification about an upcoming livestream) for potential offenses because his account had been disabled. His reply email seeking an explanation went unanswered, but Patreon commented on a number of tweets publicizing the incident:
"This was plainly disingenuous. They had not ‘been emailing’ with me, never explained why MasterCard objected to my account or why they had to comply with MasterCard’s wishes, and didn’t answer my request for an explanation,” Spencer wrote. “I don’t have a MasterCard and didn’t have one attached to my Patreon account, so MasterCard really wasn’t involved — unless it owns Patreon, which is apparently the case.”
Spencer surmised that Mastercard was cracking down on individuals and organizations targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the left-wing organization that has falsely labeled numerous mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups,” worked to get conservative groups banned from other online services,  and was forced to pay a $3.4 million defamation settlement to the British-based Quilliam Foundation for labeling it “anti-Muslim extremists.” Spencer lists a variety of SPLC’s attacks on himself in his article.
Mastercard responded with a statement to Breitbart explaining that “we share information about websites that may have illegal content with the acquirer – or merchant’s bank – that connects them to our network to accept card payments,” and in this case “the acquirer advised us that they decided to terminate acceptance.”
Spencer responded by reiterating that he “did not have a MasterCard attached to the Patreon account, and [does not] have a MasterCard at all,” asking for the company to identify the “illegal content” to which it referred, and to clarify whether the “website” in question was Patreon or Jihad Watch.
“I’ll be doing what I can to find out,” Spencer promised.
Spencer’s experience follows similar bannings and restrictions to hit right-of-center content on social media, from various Republican officials to various conservativeChristian, and pro-life material. Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and Spotify all bannedconspiracy theorist Alex Jones from their services recently, in a move many conservatives warned sets a precedent threatening more mainstream figures, as well.
The spread of such crackdowns from content platforms to services such as credit card companies dovetails with warnings raised by observers such as Breitbarttechnology expert Allum Bokhari, who wrote that the ability to even create competing platforms was at stake.
“Want to raise money for a conservative cause online? Sorry, Patreon and GoFundMe won’t let you,” he wrote. “Want to build a free-speech friendly alternative to Patreon and GoFundMe? Sorry, PayPal and Stripe won’t process your customers’ payments. Want to build a competitor to PayPal and Stripe? You still need Visa and MasterCard to play ball.”
Facebook, YouTube, Patreon, Mastercard, and others are “indeed private companies, but they have a virtual monopoly today over the means of communication,” Spencer said. “Once they start banning people because they don’t like what they say, they’ve set a precedent that is inimical to the survival of a free society.”
Continued
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mastercard-pressures-crowdfunding-site-to-boot-jihad-critic-robert-spencer