PADRE LIVIO AL TELEFONO CON MARIJA PER IL MESSAGGIO DELLA REGINA DELLA PACE

"Non c'è futuro per il mondo senza Dio": Intervista alla veggente Marija

Il 2 febbraio 1995, una statua raffigurante la Madonna di Medjugorje si mise a lacrimare sangue

President Sergio Mattarella's Oath of Office was as a Catholic but how can he be a Catholic when he interprets Vatican Council II with a False Premise and not the Rational Premise ? How can a Catholic interpret all Church Documents with a Fake Premise as he does ?

 

President Sergio Mattarella's Oath of Office was as a Catholic but how can he be a Catholic when he interprets Vatican Council II with a False Premise and not the Rational Premise ? How can a Catholic interpret all Church Documents with a Fake Premise as he does? It is a false Oath of Office also for members of Parliament unless they interpret Vatican Council II rationally.

A Catholic is a person who has the traditional Catholic Faith, is baptized with water and follows the teachings of the Catholic Church. How can someone be a Catholic who interprets Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc with a Fake Premise to produce an irrational, non traditional and non Catholic conclusion, as does Mattarella.

For him Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) refers to a visible person in 1965-2022 and so is a practical exception for the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church ( with faith and baptism) for salvation. For me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible and hypothetical person in the present times and so is not a practical exception for the Athanasius Creed.

For Mattarella, Lumen Gentium 14 (being saved with the baptism of desire) refers to a known non Catholic saved outside the Church without faith and the baptism of water. So he rejects the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc. For me Lumen Gentium 14 refers to an unknown person and so is not an exception for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc.

So for President Mattarella the Athanasius Creed, the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are obsolete and for me they are not obsolete.

How can he claim to be a Catholic when he rejects Magisterial Documents by using a False Premise (invisible people are visible)?

There are certain conditions when an election could be disqualified or a candidate elected or about to be elected is found in a moral or criminal state which disqualifies him. How can Mattarella be a Catholic, when he is not? How can he unethically interpret Church Documents and suggest that there is a break with Tradition, a Tradition which he rejects.

We have an Italian President who changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed and rejects the Athanasius Creed be given the Eucharist at Holy Mass? Silvio Berlusconi and Matteo Salvini who are divorced cannot receive the Eucharist at Holy Mass.

Without the False Premise he would have to say as a Catholic that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Vatican Council II (Rational) says extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

President Mattarella interpret Vatican Council II schismatically, heretically and irrational and support the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc. In his Oath of Office this would not be ethical or coherent even by secular ethical standards.

He needs to affirm Magisterial Documents with a Rational Premise and then there would not be a rejection of Tradition as a Catholic.-Lionel Andrades

Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre were heretical, schismatic and irrational : the False Premise created the problem

Father Feeey was wrong when he and his followers taught that a person could or would not be saved by baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. I DID NOT believe in BOB, BOD OR II the first fifty plus years of my life due to the stance of Father Feeney on these issues.

Father Feeney said on page 25 of his book '' The Bread of Life '', it is now BAPTISM OF WATER , or damnation. If you do not desire(sic) you cannot be justified and if YOU DO NOT GET(sic) YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

THIS statement was and is heresy by FATHER FEENEY.

Lionel : It is important to make the explicit-implicit, known-unknown and objective-subjective distinction.

'', it is now
BAPTISM OF WATER, or damnation. If you do not desire you cannot be justified.
And if YOU DO NOT GET YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

 

Explicitly, in real life, practically, objectively all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water and there are no objective cases of the baptism of desire etc.

The norm for salvation is faith and the baptism of water. This is the explicit norm, the objective norm. We can teach someone the faith and check it. We can give someone the baptism of water and view it.

The baptism of desire is always implicit, unknown and subjective. We cannot know of any explicit case. This is something obvious and it was known to the Church Fathers and popes and saints of the Middle Ages.

So there is no confusion here. Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it projected unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being objective and known examples of salvation outside the Church. Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and Pope Pius XII made a mistake. There could not be any known practical exception for Feeneyite EENS, or EENS of the Jesuits of the Middle Ages.

If someone is saved with the baptism of desire it is known only to God and is not relevant to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It would be unknown to us.

So the dogma EENS-stands. It is either faith and the baptism of water or damnation.

The Athanasius Creed says the same and does not mention any exceptions.

So we can affirm the strict dogmatic interpretation of EENS and also hypothetical-only, cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. We do not have to reject either of the two. However the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was heretical, schismatic and non traditional. It was rejecting the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura etc with an irrational interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I.The False Premise in the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I creates heresy and schism and the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.With the False Premise i.e visible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible it was either BOD, BOB and I.I or EENS.

The liberals,Lefebvrists,Thucs and others cannot say that it is either faith and the baptism of water or damnation, since there are alleged visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for them.-Lionel Andrades