Italian Mayor Buys 385 Crucifixes for City Schools
Monday, September 2, 2019
Italian Mayor Buys 385 Crucifixes for City Schools
Alan
Fabbri, the mayor of Ferrara, Italy, who belongs to Matteo Salvini’s
Lega, has ordered 385 crucifixes for the beginning of the school year.
The total cost for a 'basic model' with wooden cross and silver metal alloy body was 1,703 euros.
Fabbri who is not practicing the Faith, told a local newspaper, “We believe that the crucifix is not only a religious symbol, but also a symbol of historical and cultural identity, of peace and love, open to all and linked to our Christian roots and to the respect for traditions."
Since 1945 until Fabbri's election in June 2019, Ferrara was a stronghold of Communism. Now, the city's last Communists and Church-haters are bunked together in the archbishop's house.
The total cost for a 'basic model' with wooden cross and silver metal alloy body was 1,703 euros.
Fabbri who is not practicing the Faith, told a local newspaper, “We believe that the crucifix is not only a religious symbol, but also a symbol of historical and cultural identity, of peace and love, open to all and linked to our Christian roots and to the respect for traditions."
Since 1945 until Fabbri's election in June 2019, Ferrara was a stronghold of Communism. Now, the city's last Communists and Church-haters are bunked together in the archbishop's house.
https://gloria.tv/article/yDkYDsnzF7UN1tEWSk7hAqcRE
Am I anti-Semitic ?
In reality, no.
But legally when I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I), not being exceptions to the past exclusive salvation and ecclesiology, I could be mistaken by the Jewish Left, as being anti-Semitic.
I do not hate any one because of their religion, ethnicity etc, or whatever else,but if I have to affirm Vatican Council with a false premise, only not to be anti Semitic; or a hater, then I would refuse to deny my Catholic faith. I affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise, even if legally, it means I am anti-Semitic.
For the Vatican and the Jewish Left, I may not legally be a Catholic,since I interpret all magisterial documents without the false premise . So there cannot be a rupture with Catholic Tradition for me.
So am I anti Semitic?
Not in my heart.
But legally, if it means I have to affirm Vatican Council II, the Catechisms, Creeds and the dogma EENS with a false premise to create an artificial rupture with Tradition, then I refuse to do so - even if I am threatened with anti-Semitic laws.
To change the meaning of the Creeds would be a mortal sin of faith.
To reject the dogma EENS or to change it, would be a mortal sin of faith.
To interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechisms irrationally to create a superficial rupture with Tradition ( Creeds, EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) is a mortal sin of faith.
There are some teachings which are de fide and every Catholics needs to accept and believe in them, states Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II.
So with a good conscience I affirm the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, along with Vatican Council , interpreted rationally.
Mortal sins of faith lead to the fires of Hell, 24-hours, forever.
I do not consider myself anti-Semitic however the laws are vague, broad, not defined, ideological and sectarian. They can be manipulated and misused unjustly.-Lionel Andrades
January 11, 2019
The Badge
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/repost-badge.html
Repeatedly there are references made to Vatican Council II in the mainstream media and there is no correction or clarification made by the correspondents of LifeSiteNews in their Catholic Edition.
Repeatedly there are references made to Vatican Council II in the mainstream media and there is no correction or clarification made by the correspondents of LifeSiteNews in their Catholic Edition.
The media refers to Vatican Council II Cushingite and not Vatican Council II Feeneyite. They interpret the Council with the false premise instead of without it.They mix up what is invisible as being visible.
Here are some examples.
1.
Reuters
Fifty years on, Catholics still debate the meaning of Vatican Council II
SEPTEMBER 1, 2019
Now if any Catholic interprets Vatican Council II without this irrationality they are threathened with Anti Semitic Laws.This report on Reuters is part of the Leftist propaganda on Vatican Council II
2.
AUGUST 29, 2019
Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich organised a meeting on Vatican Council II in Rome. The participants interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise. So there was a rupture with the old ecumenism of return and EENS
3.
AUGUST 27, 2019
Pope Paul VI and the popes upto Francis have interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. Pope Paul VI had a choice.He chose the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition : New York Times on Vatican Council II
4.
AUGUST 27, 2019
LifeSitesNews could explain to Michael Sean Winters how doctrinally and theologically they are not in schism : they affirm Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents without the false premise
Michael Sean Winters political correspondent 1 of the National Catholic Reporter has accused LifeSitesNews(LSN) of being in schism and there is no doctrinal or theological response from LSN - are they afraid of the charge of being Anti Semitic ?
The Catholics at LifeSitesNews could inform the dissenting National Catholic Reporter(NCR) that they affirm Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents without the false premise. 2So there is no rupture with the Church Fathers and popes of the Middle Ages on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and an ecumenism of return.With the false premise, used by the NCR, there would be heresy.3
So doctrinally there is no rupture with Tradition.
Theologically there is no innovation with irrational Cushingite theology.
So they are not in schism.
They affirm all magisterial documents but interpret them without a rupture with traditonal Catholic philosophy and theology.They are also saying that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not visible and so are not exceptions to EENS while the NCR has to say that they refer to physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church, for them to be exceptions to EENS.
LOHO HERETICAL
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) was made magisterial by the liberal theologians. LOHO was only an inter office communication among bishops, which the Archdiocese of Boston kept secret for three years.The second part of LOHO has an objective error and this creates a rupture with Tradition.It's conclusion is heretical.Yet it was referenced in Vatican Council II and also placed in the Denzinger by the same liberal theologians, Fr. Karl Rahner s.j etc.
It's Cushingite reasoning( invisible non Catholics are objective examples of salvation outside the Church) creates a rupture with Vatican Council and the Catechisms(invincible ignorance etc, is considered objective in personal cases) and makes Vatican Council II heretical.So it cannot be accepted.
Michael Sean Winters accepts LOHO like the popes from Paul VI- and also Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests.So they reject the Athanasius Creed, which says outside the Church there is no salvation.Since for them, like it was for LOHO, unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to 16th century EENS. They also reject the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils in the extrordinary Magisterium. These Councils did not mention BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions.
So Michael Sean Winters and the SSPX are in schism with the popes before Pius XII who affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS with hypothetical BOD, BOB and I.I.
The SSPX does not know that BOD, BOB and I.I can only be hypothetical and theoretical.This is common sense. So the popes did not have to make a special announcement on this over the centuries.
So when the popes, the SSPX and Michael Sean Winters reject the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS, re-interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, it is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II. It is the same for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.However this first class heresy is supported by the Jewish Left.The liberal rabbis and the ADL have been telling the Catholic Church in public, what they are allowed to believe and what is prohibited.
Catholics who do not affirm this Leftist schism within the Church, would be labelled Anti Semitic, by the Jewish Left, ADL,SPLC etc.This is why Winters refers to Anti Semitism often, even on un-related subjects.He insinuates and uses the charge like a weapon.
The editors of LifeSiteNews need to clarify that they affirm all magisterial documents without the false premise.They also affirm Vatican Council II without an irrationality.So they are not in schism with the past popes before Pius XII.At least get this point across. Get this point clear.
POPES FROM PAUL VI TO FRANCIS IN SCHISM
POPES FROM PAUL VI TO FRANCIS IN SCHISM
It was the popes from Paul VI who were in schism.They they interpreted magisterial documents with a false premise. Only in this way they could create a rupture with Tradition pleasing to the Jewish Left.
So John Henry Weston can affirm Vatican Council II without the error of the popes from Paul VI.LifeSitesNews would be in a rupture with the popes from Paul VI, who were in schism with the popes over the centuries.They uses the false premise and LifeSites would be avoiding it.
Pope Paul VI followed the Cushingite error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.For Fr. Leonard Feeney there was no literal case of the baptism of desire etc.No practical exception to EENS.For Archbishop Cushing there were literal cases of BOD,BOB and I.I.Otherwise how could he say there were exceptions to EENS.So for Winters Lumen Gentium 8 etc has refer to literal cases in the present times.Otherwise he cannot cite Vatican Council II.
For John Henry Weston too there are no literal cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.They could only hypothetical.So he rejects the false interpretation of the popes since Paul VI including Francis and Benedict.This is something obvious. It is a fact that there are no BOD,BOB and I.I cases visible and known to him in Canada.
So John Henry Weston and Patrick Crane can comfortably announce that they accept Vatican Council II, interpreted without the false premise. It is not a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, interpreted without the false premise. They affirm all magisterial documents interpreted rationally. They affirm the first part of the LOHO which is traditional and reject the second part which contradicts the first part and the popes over the centuries on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I.
They do not reject Vatican Council II and as before, deny being Anti Semitic.So they are not in schism doctrinally or theologically.This is their doctrinal response to Michael Sean Winters.-Lionel Andrades
1
2
Their false premise is:-
1. Invisible people are visible.
2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.
3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.
4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.
5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).
7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking who are saved outside the Church.
8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.
9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.
10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.
3.
With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed etc :-
1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.
2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.
3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.
6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.
7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
