Ann Barnhardt lays out the whole problem with Joseph Ratzinger's resignation in a logical and methodical way.
Is she right?
Discuss.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/11/21/new-barnhardt-video-presentation-the-bergoglian-antipapacy/
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 Intro and acknowledgments
01:42 Why make this video?
03:25 If anything in this presentation is illogical, irrational or detached from reality, let me know
05:03 THE False Premise: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.
06:48 WHY isn’t Bergoglio the Pope? What happened?
08:16 The principle of Reversion to the Status Quo
11:37 Canon 188 – the text of the law
16:09 The plain sense of the law is the last line of defense against tyranny
18:04 SUBSTANTIAL ERROR: the key criterion
19:51 Pope Benedict XVI in his own words: “Always and forever…I remain in the enclosure of St. Peter.”
23:24 Essential precision: Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the arbiter of reality, nor does his substantial error change the ontological reality of his status as Pope.
25:47 We know from logic that a Pope can commit substantial error in the context of an attempted resignation and still retain his office
27:18 Archbishop Georg Ganswein’s approved remarks from 20 May ARSH 2016 in his address at the Gregorianum in Rome
35:02 There cannot be a “Pope Emeritus”. Either a man occupied the Petrine See, or he does not.
36:37 Yes, Popes absolutely CAN resign. The issue here is the VALIDITY of the attempted partial resignation in February ARSH 2013
37:44 +Ganswein. Who is this omnipresent guy that is playing both sides?
38:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “But both Pope Benedict and +Ganswein are sub-verbal and don’t understand the words they are saying!”
40:10 The most intelligent people (and angels) make the biggest mistakes
41:13 The second invalidating criterion: FEAR
43:00 Just vs. Unjust Fear
45:28 Never underestimate the viciousness and violence of the sodomite.
46:32 Satanism is real and its global nexus today is inside the Vatican
48:41 Archbishop ViganĂ² is in hiding for fear of his life.
49:03 The Southern Italian Mafia: longtime mercenaries of the Freemasons and sodomites
50:26 Fear of blackmail by the sodomite mafia using PAID false witnesses
53:05 “Pray for me, that I may not FLEE for FEAR of the WOLVES.”
54:22 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “The fact that Pope Benedict resigned is proof that he wasn’t coerced!”
55:57 MASSIVE BODY OF VISUAL EVIDENCE, the conscious retention of visible signs of the Papacy by Pope Benedict XVI after 28 February ARSH 2013
01:02:50 Prophecies: Apostasy from the Top
01:05:17 Pope Benedict XVI, worst Pope ever, notorious for quitting. The 300 page dossier on the sodomite/satanist infiltration of the Church, delivered to him on 11 December ARSH 2012
01:07:15 Pope Benedict’s warped metaphysics of “meaning”, not “being”
01:08:26 Pope Celestine V in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI
01:09:12 Pope Benedict’s mind is NOT the source nor arbiter of reality. He needs to be told this, not asked.
01:09:54 VALID YET ILLICIT – an essential precision
01:11:11 What anyone WANTS is not germane to the question. Binary objective reality.
01:13:35 Charity should immediately cause us to ask, “Holy Father, what did they do to you?”
01:14:55 What if Pope Benedict VALIDLY resigned tomorrow? It would confirm that the February ARSH 2013 attempt was invalid
01:16:58 STUPID TROPE ALERT “We can’t know who the Pope really is, and it doesn’t matter anyway!”
01:18:09 Why won’t people even discuss this? EFFEMICACY and SLOTH
01:25:20 The Sedevacantism Red Herring
01:30:00 “But what if Pope Benedict dies…?” Binary Objective Reality.
01:31:58 “What is Bergoglio dies or goes away somehow?” Any “conclave” called while Pope Benedict is still alive and occupies the See will be invalid, just as the March ARSH 2013 conclave was invalid
01:33:27 We MUST get thi 100% right. Half-right won’t cut it. The Parable of the seven demons.
01:35:00 Jorge Bergoglio
01:36:33 Electioneering of ARSH 2013 “conclave” is completely irrelevant because THERE WAS NO CONCALVE IN ARSH 2013. The only relevance the faux-concalve of ARSH 2013 served was to expose the corruption and criminality in the College of Cardinals and Curia
01:38:43 Jorge Bergoglio: arch-heretic. Informative but not germane to Bergoglio’s status as antipope. Only a confirming corollary.
01:40:35 STUPID TROPE ALERT “There have been heretic Popes before!”
01:44:17 Ann misspeaks – John the XXII, not John XXIII
01:44:34 Bellarmine and Suarez believed that the Petrine Promise precluded a heretic or man who had lost the Catholic faith to be the Pope.
01:46:27 Having faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and His promises is being viciously attacked on a daily basis by “conservative” and even “Trad Catholic” “thought leaders” as “papolatry”. The only way to hold the false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope is to ruthlessly attack the Papacy, and thus the Virtue of Faith itself.
01:48:20 Papolatry has NOTHING to do with the global cult of Bergoglio. It is 100% ideological tribalism driven by the fact that Antipope Bergoglio RATIFIED PEOPLE IN THEIR SINS AND APOSTASY
01:52:07 Attributes and characteristics of the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist
01:53:30 MORE visible confirmations that Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope
01:57:07 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “Papal Infallibility only applies to those things the Pope says that are true!”
01:58:05 It is precisely the AUTHENTIC authority of the Papacy that will be needed to fix this mess – and everyday “conservative” and “Trad” Catholic “thought leaders” attack the Papacy in order to continue to hold their false premise that Bergoglio is the Pope.
02:00:10 The concept of “Popular Acceptance”is NOT in play because the See was never vacant in ARSH 2013. The Mob/Vox Populi can not change ontological reality.
02:03:15 STUPID TROPE ALERT: “We believe that Novus Ordoism is a completely different religion to whose authority we MUST SUBMIT!”
02:04:42 The mystery of how “even the Elect would be deceived…” We are living it. Right now. The Elect are being deceived.
02:09:32 The greatest act of violence against the Papacy is to call a man who is not Peter, “Peter”.
02:10:12 Antipope Bergoglio has ZERO AUTHORITY. What will you do, Father, is Antipope Bergoglio tries to abrogate the Mass of the Ages?
02:12:21 What to do? Speak up. Man up. Defend Pope Benedict! Fast and pray – Matthew 17:20 Initiative
02:13:45 Deepen your relationship with Jesus Christ. “Jesus, I know that you love me.”
02:14:57 Conclusion. Please mirror, copy and spread this video. Closing prayer.
52 comments:
Ann Barnhardt is intense, high explosive dynamite. Pure dynamite.
Ann refers to a false premise.
But she also holds a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents justs like Pope Francis.
If Pope Francis corrects the false premise the entire Church goes back to the old ecclesiology and understanding of Church.This irrespective of who is the pope.
-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 23, 2018
Pope Francis simply has to interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I as not being exceptions to EENS : heresy and sacrilege end (Graphics )
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/pope-francis-sumply-has-to-interpret.html
I like Ann Barnhardt, she is a spirited and engaging lady, we cannot fault her knowledge and sincerity. Having said that I haven't seen the whole video right through.
Perhaps we should look upon the Bergoglian Papacy as an instance of divine mercy, in that all the egregious errors within the Vat II documents are now becoming apparent and the endemic corruption within the Vatican is now also clearly visible. We cannot avert our eyes and say everything is ok. So like the people of Nineveh we are all being called to repentance.
She is not a canon lawyer.
Dr. Peters is and he says claims like hers are vacuous
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded/
and Mundabor is in sync with Dr Peters and is clear that the putative ideas about a split papacy were not his
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/archbishops-dont-make-doctrine-in-press-conferences/
I think Ann is right. Everything about Bergoglio smells of fraud.
I shared this with several people yesterday. Three people I really wanted to hear back from haven't responded and they may just have written me off as a nut. What Ann is saying makes complete sense. In her Cut the Crap post she says Benedict is a heretic but I have to research where she thinks he's been heretical, unless she's referring to his attempt to change the nature of the papacy. It's a good video and I intend to share it with more people but only to select friends, since a lot of people aren't ready to hear this.
Well, I think this ignores the fact that numerous men who were supposed to be Popes promulgated heresy with Vatican II. Some bad guy in Italy just said: Hey, get rid of the TLM, we abrogated that already. Well, he wasn’t lying. I’m a cradle Catholic that went to Mass all my life and my first TLM was post Jorge. You going to tell me that the Pope abrogated the Mass. I call bs on that, no way the Pope gets rid of the Mass and replaces it with the New Order, come on. How does anybody believe that?
If I can judge it correctly, archbishop Lenga from Kazakhstan says the same thing Ann is saying. The video interviews are in Polish, with no subtitles, unfortunately.
Please forgive me this personal note. I really want to share this with someone: Archbishop Lenga speaks in a dialect (he worked many years in Kazakhstan, and for his strong and simple faith was retired and send to Lichen in Poland) reminding me of my Grandparents. His words are as clear and simple and theirs were. A yes means yes, and a no means no. I truly think that God gives us an ability to see truth, when we hate and uncompromisingly reject all deception.
When I heard the Archbishop explain why he calls the man in Rome not pope, but simply Bergoglio, I experienced a great peace at my decision long ago to do the same. It just came to me - he is no pope, and no holy father. He is not even catholic. When the Archbishop says the Mass, he prays for the pope, Benedict XVI.
As much as I respect Michael Matt from "The Remnant", his insistence on calling the fake pope a holy father, out of respect for the office, smells of an ability to be insincere.
We Catholics do not compromise with the world for the sake of our love of the Church. This is exactly what Bergoglio does.
Yes Melanie, there are many so called trad catholics who insist that we accept as fact that a true Pope issued heretical documents and taught us contradictions to the true Catholic Faith. They destroy the whole essence of the Papal Office. Who needs a Pope or an hiearchy in their view?
The partial abdication of Pope Benedict XVI is similar to all recent changes in doctrinal praxis in this way: they insist the words and Chirch teaching remain the same, but what the words mean is now different, updated for the times.
Example: Eucharistic communion. Not a jot or tittle of doctrine has been changed. Except sodomites, re-marrieds are now receiving. Objective state of Grace no longer a limitation to receiving Jesus our Lord.
Example: Pope Benedict fully and freely resigned. Except he is still residing as His Holiness Pope Benedict, clothed in white, living within the Vatican, forever within the enclosure of St. Peter, with the contemplative munus between Pope and God still fully his.
They may say he fully abdicated. My eyes see that he did not. If he did, then Joseph Ratzinger would be living in Bavaria and the reigning Pope would himself be governing the Church in contemplation of Almighty God who directs his every step. This is obviously *not* true with this bifurcated Pope.
The whole video is well worth watching. She clearly explains why Benedict is still pope and why Papal infallibility is still in place. Msgr. Nicola Bux seems to back up her claim that Benedict is still Pope and Bergolio is an anti-pope. She clearly deconstructs many so-called theologians with clear logic.
I like both of them however I don't find either of their augments persuasive. I prefer to believe my eyes, ears and my good Catholic common sense.
It was one of the best two and a half hours I have spent just listening to a video.
Yes, Ann is right.
Mamma Mia! 2 hours!
Theres also the obvious solution that neither the heretic bergolio is pope nor is the heretic ratzinger pope.
Why would anyone comment on Ann's video if they had not watched it all the way through? Why would anyone pose the argument that Ann has been or is wrong about other things in order to refute what she says in the video? Whether she has been wrong about other things does not detract from the clear logic of this particular video. It does not matter one whit if she is not a canon lawyer. She is speaking about a particular reality and her logic flows clearly and logically. It is Mundabor who dismissed her stand by saying that her whole point falls apart if Pope Benedict XV1 dies. How would it afflict her logic if Benedict dies?. Mundabor assert that those who believe that Benedict is pope would be sedevacanists if Benedict dies. Why would that be? When ANY POPE dies, believers in the pope are not sedevacanists, but rather Catholics waiting for the next valid conclave to elect a new pope.
The argument that Ann does not possess the knowledge needed to arrive at her conclusion because she is not an authority betrays the illogic of those who cannot accept reality of what we are living through. It is very revealing to see the so-called super smart bloggers reveal their inability to stay with a particular issue and judge it on its merits alone.
Antonio Socci in his blog: Lo Straniero is advertising his new book in Italian: "The Secret of Benedict XVI. Why he is the Pope" which gives more credence to Ann Barnhart.
Threats? It`s nothing new, Gregory XVII was elected (White smoke) and dismissed (Black smoke) in 1958.
As Ann says in the video, for those who bothered to watch it, canon laws are meant to be clear and understood by all. According to Canon 188, Bergoglio is not the Pope due to the illegal abdication by Benedict. Everything points to this. WAKE UP, CATHOLICS.
I have not yet watched the full video. I will in a few days when time permits, but....I have heard her argument before and she has, in a more concise way, spelled out her argument. She is thoroughly convinced that Bergoglio is an imposter. I will watch and comment further when I've had time to sit down and watch. Two hours is a long time when your busy to flesh out for her, and I don't want to watch when I'm already exhausted and can't process fully. I will comment further after viewing, but.....she is not the only one who has come out with this theory....that I can say. On the surface there seems to be too many indications that point to her theory being spot on. You can go back to the saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck."
I've got family visiting, so I won't be able to listen to this for a few days, but I think I know where this will land for me personally.
We stopped listening to the man some weeks after his election. Since that time, it became obvious he is determined to dismantle Catholicism, the church, the faith, traditions, and to torment the faithful as often as he could. Whatever the truth is, it cannot mean follow an evil man. We already know what we need to know.
A lie does as well as the truth to godless minions who hold all the power.
We are holding on and waiting expectantly for the day when the Lord brings an end to this terrible time.
Come, Lord Jesus. Your sheep are scattered.
All those who dismiss Ann because she is not a cannon lawyer, rather than proving her arguments wrong, are part of the problem.
We are Christians, followers of Christ, proponents of clarity and simplicity, not worldly Pharisees playing linguistic programming.
Since when can't a person be right (to us Christians), because the world has not bestowed honors upon her? Wouldn't it be a reasoning along the lines of those who crucified Jesus? Doesn't Bergoglio sit in the place of the highest honor on earth, defiling it every hour?
Ann, a very intelligent, clear-minded and courageous Christian woman, is much superior to any and every Bergoglian. Speech more mellow and roundabout than hers - in style and reasoning - is inappropriate for a time of war, with our leadership in the sleazy little limp-wristed hands of the enemy.
If one is offended by her or finds her wrong for a reason he can't exactly specify, he needs to examine his commitment to Truth.
Ann's video is a good run-down.
I'm open to the possibility, but until someone confronts Benedict openly and publicly on the exact details of what he meant by all his diarchy nonsense and his reasons for maintaining the visible signs of the Papacy, and where he contradicts himself several times, we can't know for certain.
It is something so very simple to do, to sit Benedict in front of a camera and just ask him. But these fags won't do it. And the mainstream Catholic Press is too scared to broach it.
All of this is highly suspicious. If something so simple can be cleared up and all Benedict would have to do is say before a camera "Oh! You know me! I was just waxing poetic about that stuff! If it's too confusion, please just ignore the whole spiel I made. Ha ha! How about another mug of beer?" then this would all be a non-issue.
But they don't do it.
---------------------------
As for Mundabor's opinion. Look fellas, I like Mundabor for the Donkey and kitten pictures as much as the next guy...
But... Mundabor is hardly a critical thinker, and he/she pretty much exposed as much by stating they don't give a fig about anything the Church Fathers have ever said about doctrine where it touches upon scientific issues, because for Mundabor, as well and numerous classical Sedevacantists, including many here, Mundabor and the lot put Charles Darwin and Nicolai Copernicus, and Galileo (though Galileo recanted), and Albert Einstein as judges over Holy Scripture and the list of Popes spanning the 1600s-1800s and rulings under canonical trials. And as a whole the Sede's reject the authoritative teaching that the Earth does not move through space. A teaching, not even the Novus Ordo Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI revoked, instead appealing to the consensus on Relativity to have it both ways.
So as far as beginning with the "wrong premise" goes, I'm afraid, nobody today can stand alone, not even the SSPX sadly, given their backing of the heresies of Fr. Robinson. Because if we want to play the tit for tat game of what Pope left the faith when, we can find it as far back as the late 1800s to early 1900s when Popes departed from the established teaching of Geocentrism, one of the most HEAVILY ENFORCED mandates and STRONGLY WORDED denunciations in the entire history of the Church. Which as late as the 2000s has been vindicated by recent scientific findings which even makes staunch atheists like Laurence Krauss and Hawking and more admit under their breath that things are pointing towards the possibility a central Earth within the entire cosmos. For which the escape hatch would then resort to being a multi-universe, which would then logically mean many gods, many trinities, many Christs, many popes, etc. which got Giordano Bruno rightly killed as a heretic and subversive revolutionary.
----------
Thus we are left with the necessity that for the Pope to cease being a valid Pope, we need to establish formal obstinate heresy. And Vatican II was operating under the errors of heliocentrism tolerated and allowed to fester by Popes that preceded the council for 100 years prior. Ratzinger knew this and stated as much that the Galileo Affair forced their mindset for the Council to get with the world, and from Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin comes all the modernist horseshit of Chardin and company where the Church, Doctrine and God are all evolving and changing just like the cosmos and our monkey ancestors, and that 'Original Sin' must now be redefined and explained by something other than what the Book of Genesis plainly tells us and how the Fathers and entire Church was taught since 33 A.D. and extending that all the way back to Moses.
Contd>
contd >
----------------------------------
Thus if anyone is prepared to toss out John XXIII, Paul VI, JP I, JP II, and Benedict XVI over Vatican II, they'll logically have to cast out every Pope going back to the late 1800s. And that my friends, means the Church has been without a Vicar and valid clergy for a very long time. Because the Novus Ordo was simply building upon all that came before, ever since as even further back as 1741, Benedict XIV has the Holy Office grant imprimaturs to works about Galileo so long as they used the modernist tongue of speaking vaguely and hypothetically with regards to geokinetic language (our first taste of deceptively talking around established doctrine and Scripture for the sake of mathematics), and by the 1800s, Canon Settele was granted free reign based on precisely false premise (LIE) that the condemnations of Galileo and Copernicus had to do with the shapes used in their orbits, all while access to the original files of the Inquisition was confiscated by the French Revolutionaries and held by Napoleon. Yet even then - the Pope and Hierarchy KNEW they were venturing into unsafe speculative territory as even their advisories from the Holy Office regarding Settle's imprimatur noted -
"Their Eminences have decreed that, for the time being, now and in future, a license is not to be refused to the Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace for the printing and publication of works dealing with the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme Holy Office of 1820.553"
Thus all the same machinations of Vatican II with it's opening up to heretics of every stripe to reinterpret everything was put in practice a long time ago and from which practices Vatican II took its blueprints. And all error was allowed to fester unchecked under the guidance of vague dubious language that sprinkled a little incense back towards maintaining the Tradition while simultaneously allowing for its undermining.
So those who say Vatican II didn't just spring out of the ground are correct, but underestimated how far back the roots of modernism go, and how far back these roots were undermining the Papacy itself.
contd>
contd>
--------------------
So getting back to this topic -
- No we cannot say with any certainty that the Novus Ordo Papacies from John XXIII-Benedict XVI were invalid without alos logically applying this consistently to all those Popes preceding them to the point where we are left with God breaking His promises to the Church nigh 200 years ago. Which is absurd.
- Formal Heresy must be established with absolute certainty. Which can still be possible for the Novus Ordo VII Popes, but the only one still alive is Benedict XVI, and unless some clearer revelations come to light about the others we cannot know.
- Formal Heresy is easier to establish with Francis, because unlike John XXIII-Benedict XVI, whose heresies are undoubtedly affected by the difficulty of reconciling modernist science they believed to be factually true with long-standing Tradition over complex matters spanning 200 years. Francis openly celebrates the fact that he is breaking matters of clear moral certainty and Church Teachings that are nothing to do with complicated matters of science above the level of average laypeople. And even allows idiots like Rosica to proclaim this openly and says that he is willingly do it himself to change the Church irrevocably to the point of risking her utter destruction.
- So is Francis Pope? Or was he ever Pope? That's what needs to be ascertained, of which Benedict's lousy 'expanding Papacy' idea is one factor. If Benedict intended precisely that, then the possibility of grave error in his resignation invalidates it. Heck, it might even make of Benedict a heretic if he insists that he can transform the office as such and make his resignation valid, and thus Benedict himself would've ceased to be Pope by being a heretic and we'd be in a state of sedevacantism with possibly two Anti-Popes - Benedict and Francis.
- All this can be cleared up with simple questions to Benedict in a public forum, by which he is OBLIGATED to do for the sake of preventing confusion and rupture in the Church. But they won't do it. And that, my friends, is suspicious, or they are so dumb as to think that pretending to ignore it, like the sex abuse, will work in the long term and they don't have to subject themselves to the possible fallout, which in itself only betrays the fact that the hierarchy itself is deadly afraid of what Benedict would say and the fact that 'schism' is in the air. The Russian and Ukranian Orthodox are already experiencing it within their own ranks. We're likely not too far behind.
St.Alphonsus Liguori says that if a priest is in mortal sin do not go up to receive the Eucharist from him - but what about a pope ?
Pope Francis has rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with alleged hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) being objective, seen in the flesh exceptions.This is irrational and non traditional.
The popes and saints in the past accepted BOD,BOB and I.I but did not interpret them as being exceptions.They obviously are not visible cases for them to be exceptions. They can only be speculative and theoretical for us human beings.
So St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and BOD,BOB and I.I were not exceptions.He did not say that he personally knew the man in the forest living in ignorance. Instead he said that God would send a preacher to him since he was to be saved and he knew that this was a hypothetical case.
But they are not hypothetical cases, only, for Pope Francis.They are exceptions to EENS. He is not a Feeneyite.
When there are exceptions to EENS and he does not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, he implies that there are known and objective non Catholics saved outside the Church.This is irrational. Where are there such people on earth?
This is also heresy. He has changed the traditional interpetation of the dogma EENS with this irrational innovation.
It is schism with the popes of the past. It is a sacrilege for him to offer Holy Mass in this condition of public mortal sin. Pope Francis needs absolution in the Confessional and then publically needs to remove the scandal.Then all will be well.
According to Canon Law a religious cannot hold office if he rejects the teachings of the Church which are obligatory to believe in.This would also apply to cardinals, bishops and the pope.
Since BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to the dogma EENS for Pope Francis he has changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed. This is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II. The pope is automatically excommunicated.
Since BOD,BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church the pope implies there is known salvation outside the Church and so all do not need to be members to avoid Hell. This contradicts the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation. Again this is heresy.It is a sin of faith.A Catholic Creed is being put aside by a pope.
Since BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS Pope Francis implies that the dogma EENS is now obsolete.However it also means that he interprets all the Catechisms( BOD, BOB and I.I) with the irrational premise to create a rupture with
the Syllabus of Errors(ecumenism of return), past ecclesiocentric exclusive ecclesiology and Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
This is a sacrilege.
So Pope Francis offers the Sacraments while being in a state of public sacrilege.
Catholics are expected to receive the Sacraments from him when he is in this state?.
I affirm Vatican Council II without the irrationality.BOD,BOB and I.I like LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are only hypothetical. So Vatican Council II for me is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.But the pope does not affirm this rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.He wants a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the Jesuit missionaries and the Magisterium in the 16th century.
-Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/stalphonsus-liguori-says-that-if-priest.html
Johnno, do you ever speak of these things with family and friends? Can they take it?
I have always been bothered by my ignorance. All the things about the universe we have been taught... I knew I could not fully understand. It seemed that I took most of it on faith, no matter how hard I strained my mind to make it my own conviction. I was very apprehensive to accept Darwin's theory. It was not hard to comprehend the mechanisms he presented, but I could not see how the process of random mutation could work with very complex designs, even over millions of years.
I also new that no one in my surroundings understood things any better. Our shared reality and proven scientific knowledge are all taken on faith by most.
A satanist just laughed at silly me for being too ignorant not to know what he knows with absolute certainty, because it was scientifically proven - apparently Jesus never existed.
The fact is there are two men in white using the title Pope and Holy Father.There can be only one Pope .If a Pope resigns he needs to remove himself from the Vatican ,and not cause confusion among the faithful.Benedict uses the title "Pope Emeritus",Mundabor claims its quite common for retired Professors to use the title Emeritus,and since Benedict spent a good many years in Italy he simply adopted that title.The problem is there are thousands of Professors , there's only one Pope. Never before in the history of the Church has this situation existed,We have a man who refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome ,who refuses to bless the faithful ,in case someone in the crowd is offended ,and another man who uses the title Pope Emeritus.Who is the Bishop in white in the vision of Fatima ,is the city he walks through in ruins the Catholic Church.?
The fact is there are two men in white using the title Pope and Holy Father.There can be only one Pope .If a Pope resigns he needs to remove himself from the Vatican ,and not cause confusion among the faithful.Benedict uses the title "Pope Emeritus",Mundabor claims its quite common for retired Professors to use the title Emeritus,and since Benedict spent a good many years in Italy he simply adopted that title.The problem is there are thousands of Professors , there's only one Pope. Never before in the history of the Church has this situation existed,We have a man who refers to himself as the Bishop of Rome ,who refuses to bless the faithful ,in case someone in the crowd is offended ,and another man who uses the title Pope Emeritus. Who is the Bishop in white in the vision of Fatima ,is the city he walks through in ruins the Catholic Church.?
Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas
- Yes indeed I have.
Oddly enough, they are more ready to accept critiques of Darwin/Copernicus etc. and I've also bought the documentary 'The Principle' for all of them.
They also have no problem seeing that there is something really really wrong with Francis. And also have no problem accepting that he's possibly an anti-pope.
Funnily enough, the most difficulty I have, is getting them to come to terms with the Traditional Latin Mass. For some reason they are too attached to the Novus Ordo. I don't know if this is just over a matter of convenience versus going elsewhere for the Mass. But it is over the Mass that I've encountered the most opposition.
I suspect it's because unlike the other topics, the issue of what Mass to attend demands the most practical changes to their personal lifestyle.
The other topic of difficulty is also the fact that Hell exists. Which they'll admit it does, but prefer not seriously thinking about, and how fine the criteria really is for us going there - which by and large has to do with how much we really gave a damn to reform our lives while still alive.
The added complication is that some are married to non-Catholics, and feel uncomfortable with my telling them that they are obligated to convert that person and all the difficulties that entails. Of course it's not going to be easy, but it's something they have to face. It's as if they just somehow hope things will work out, even if there is no formal conversion...
It is upon those 3 things that I have the most trouble theologically speaking. Alongside some usual moral topics - like contraception.
The focusing on only the 'Pope-Emeritus' title is a red herring.
Mundabor for some reason has latched on to that as if that is the be-all-end-all argument people are making and that's simply false.
If anything is to be said about the emeritus title it's that it is indeed a novelty introduced by Benedict himself, to the complete shock of everyone who just expected him to go back to being a Cardinal, and because it brings in confusion into a system that must deal with absolute certainty, and Benedict muddied the waters all the way through both with his title, his BS excuse that there were no black cassocks for him, so he keeps the white, wears teh ring, retains teh court of arms etc. and tied this in with his words that he somehow magically remained within the enclave of Peter.
Thus Mundabor seems to only want to zoom on on that distinction within considering it as one part of a number of visible signs taken together with Benedict's diarchal verbiage.
I believe even Francis criticized Benedict anonymously for being someone who knew how to leave 'half-way'... wish I could remember the quote and source, and add to that all the other oddities of the Blood of St. Janurius half-liquefying in his hand. And that Francis is always taking his new red hats to be Benedict for an additional 'blessing.'
Benedict, if he seriously want to say he absolutely has no part in the Papacy, must for the good of the Church, set aside his pride, recant his novelties, get rid of court of arms, emeritus-title, white clothes and absolutely everything else, go back to Cardinal and vacate the Vatican, just as Celestine did. Let him humble himself and do it and go back to writing books of whatever in Bavaria. Which is another strange thing as to just why the hell he insists on being locked up in the Vatican. I know Celestine was locked up by his successor, but that was against his will, and undoubtedly his successor took such a measure because he wanted to avoid any bullshit about who was actually the Pope, and thus made Celestine as invisible as possible.
So unless Francis is as draconian, though that would fit him, it's bloody odd why Benedict is so inaccessible to the same extent as Sr. Lucia, where we can only hear from him through Ganswein or Francis or whoever speaking on his behalf, while also releasing unsigned press releases attributed to Benedict such as they did over 1P5's story on Benedict's friend repeating his testimony that Ratzinger himself told him that the 3rd Secret of Fatima concerned a Bad Mass and a Bad Council, while also releasing supposed book reviews from Benedict that sound favourable, while the other half page where he states he didn't read it is photoshopped out.
All again, which I will point out, is suspiciously akin to the treatment of Sr. Lucia and the 3rd Secret of Fatima.
Something is up. And anyone just hand-waving all this away, is obviously held prisoner to cognitive dissonance.
Our heriarchial friends just want to go to their retirements and pensions peacefully and certainly don't want to have to deal with a schismatic anti-Pope shitstorm in their waning years. Aside from the guilty conspirators, the remainder just want to pass the buck.
Don says
The Catholic Lady makes a very compelling argument. I will be praying on how I should behave as a Confirmed Catholic man now that I have been introduced to this argument.
Johnno,
you are probably aware that very serious criminal accusations against pope Benedict XVI have been circulating for years. There have been witness accounts, whose validity I can not judge. It has been claimed that his life would be in danger as soon as he stepped out of Vatican City.
I hope there is no truth to any of it. But were it to be true, it would explain why pope Benedict has thanked Bergoglio for keeping him safe.
Vox,
Would you agree ?
NOVEMBER 24, 2018
Traditional Latin Mass is valid even when the priest offering it is in manifest mortal sin : Guido Pozzo in scandal
ARCHBISHOP GUIDO POZZO OFFERS THE LATIN MASS ASSUMING BOD, BOB AND I.I 1 ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (EENS). HE IMPLIES THERE ARE PHYSICALLY VISIBLE AND PERSONALLY KNOWN PEOPLE IN 2018 SAVED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.SO THE DOGMA EENS AS IT WAS INTERPRETED BY THE MISSIONARIES IN THE 16TH CENTURY DURING HOLY MASS, HAS BECOME OBSOLETE FOR HIM. EENS HAS TO BE INTERPRETED WITH BOD,BOB AND I.I BEING EXCEPTIONS.
FOR THERE TO BE EXCEPTIONS, AN EXCEPTION MUST EXIST.SO SINCE THERE EXISTS CASES OF NON CATHOLICS SAVED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH FOR HIM, HE HAS CHANGED THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NICENE CREED AND THE ATHANASIUS CREED. THE APOSTLES CREED CAN ALSO BE INTERPRETED BY HIM WITH THE IRRATIONAL REASONING.
CDF, ECCLESIA DEI SUPPORT HERESY AND SACRILEGE
Common sense tells us that there are no known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I. We can accept that a St.Emerentiana is in Heaven but no one can say that she is there without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Similarly St. Ambrose did not see the Emperor Valentianian in Heaven without the baptism of water but he speculated and hoped that this was the case.
Pozzo, a Consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) does not know of any one saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) outside the Church.So he overlooked the mistake made by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj,Prefect, of the CDF at the Placuet Deo Press Conference(March 1, 2018).
THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II HERETICALLY
As Secretary of Ecclesia Dei he interprets LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions and a visible rupture with EENS, as it was interpreted by the Magisterium in the 16th century.
So he offers the Latin Mass with an irrational and innovative interpretation of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed, EENS, Vatican Council II etc, which is public heresy.This is a scandal.
The Latin Mass however is valid even though it is a sacrilege for him.
CONTINUED
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/traditional-latin-mass-is-valid-even.html
____________________________
So do you think that Holy Mass of Pope Francis is a sacrilege as it is for Archbishop Guido Pozzo ?
-Lionel Andrades
A priest in mortal sin does not change the validity of the sacraments, to think otherwise is the heresy of Donatism. Now, if a heretic, he ceases to be Catholic but that does not change the indelible mark and ability to consecrate, etc. It might be illicit but not invalid. Further, this would need to be a public declaration, no?
The rest is above my pay grade.
A priest in mortal sin does not change the validity of the sacraments, to think otherwise is the heresy of Donatism. Now, if a heretic, he ceases to be Catholic but that does not change the indelible mark and ability to consecrate, etc. It might be illicit but not invalid. Further, this would need to be a public declaration, no?
Lionel:
Yes I have said in the report that the Mass is valid even if the priest is in manifest mortal sin.
1.But if BOD(baptism of desire),BOB(baptism of blood) and I.I ( invincible ignorance) are exceptions to EENS then the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance ) would contradict the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.It would mean there are known people saved outside the Church for there to be an exception. Personally known people saved in invincible ignorance for example.
So the Syllabus only supports an ecumenism of return and no known salvation outside the Church and invincible ignorance, is an exception to EENS.
How can the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict the Syllabus ? Did they make a mistake at that time or are we interpreting something wrong?
2.For me BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people saved outside the Church in 2018. There can be no known such people also for you in the present times. So the Catechism of Pius X does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors, at least for me.
But this is not the way Pope Francis and Archbishop Pozzo interpret the Catechism of Pius X or the Syllabus.
Invincible ignorance is an exception. They can see people saved outside the Church is their false premise.
Are they in heresy?
With the same irrationality they change the meaning of EENS, it is now EENS with exceptions.
They change the meaning of the Nicene Creed. It is ' I believe in not one but three known baptisms, desire, blood and ignorance and all three exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Is this rational?
-Lionel
As I emailed Ann, just maybe, just maybe this is Benedict's great sacrifice to save the papacy according to Christ's promise. Benedict was the most hated man in the papacy during his time, narrowly beating Bergoglio. The St. Galen Mafia hated him. His life must have been in danger many times. Did he wish to bumped off like JP1 was most definitely by the ecclesial freemasons? Did God allow this to happen to in order to lance the boil. Oh the devil and his minions jumped in and put their anti-pope on the throne to destroy Holy Mother. Surely to any six year-old it is evident the current so-called occupant of the Sea of Peter has no guiding graces afforded to true popes by the Holy Ghost. We are living in the End Times and the great battle between Christ and Antichrist. In the book In Sinu Jesu, a dialogue between Our Blessed Lord and a Benedictine Irish priest, our Lord remarks on the sacrifice that Benedict is making, quite early on in his papacy. The book goes up until 2016 and there is no word from Our Eucharistic Lord about Francis. The silence is deafening. So maybe, just maybe this is a brilliant ploy to bring out into the open what the satanists are doing, but by preserving the papacy from them. This I hold onto.
We know that Ratzinger has a brilliant mind. Surely he knows what is happening. Surely he has placed his life in Our Lord's hands. When I pray for the pope, I pray for him. He didn't flee from the wolves, he is still there surrounded by them. This is a battle between Christ and Antichrist, it is way above our comprehension and desires. All we can do is pray for Benedict XVI
Ok... the logic of her demostration its clear: benedict did not renounce because his intention was to make a PARTIAL resignation, just to leave the ACTIVE PART, and "be" (him) the "passive" part...
So, as this is an error, there were not abdication.
So, benedict IT IS "the pope" and bergolgio its a guy in disguise... so far so well...
but, for this mere act (to "split" the Papacy) ratzinger commit a HERESY, so, he is not the Pope either!
Vox,
To understand me you must understand that the baptism of desire(BOD) , baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS for Archbishop Lefenvre and they still are for the SSPX bishops and priests.
This has to be clear.
Since if BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS you are implying that they refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.They would have to be known and seen. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS for example in 2018.
Similarly possibilities of salvation outside the Church are only theoretical for us. No one could have seen a St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.Possibilities are not real people and we need real people for there to be exceptions.
Thirdly, the ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism. It is not BOD, BOB and I.I.
So Archbiship Lefebvre and Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
The same mistake was repeated by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II. They should not have mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I. Also they should not have mentioned LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc along with orthodox passages on salvation.They put them both together. Since LG 8 etc are hypothetical only.They cannot be relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican COuncil II which support traditional EENS.
Once this is clear in your mind you will realize that Pope Francis and Archibishop Guido Pozzo and numerous others, interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the error. They assume hypothetical and unknown people are objective exceptions to EENS. They also wrongly assume that LG 8 etc are exceptions to traditional EENS and the past ecclesiology.
So their whole theology is de- railed because of the philosophical mistake( invisible people are visible).
So they are interpreting the Creeds with this irrationality. They misinterpret the Catechisms as a rupture with Tradition. They interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors etc.
The Mass is valid but the priest is in known heresy and so the Mass is a sacrilege for him.
-Lionel Andrades
German bishops are ripe for schism
The German bishops are openly rejecting the Church's teaching on mortal sin and the Eucharist and are giving the Eucharist to Protestants and the divorced and remarried.
For them there are exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation , based on the their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II .
If you would tell them Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist they would tell you , like Pope Benedict, that there is salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II( UR 3 etc).So if ecclesiology can be changed says the German Cardinal Walter Kasper then why not mortal theology. Everything us open to change theologically.
The German Pope Benedict confirmed this in 2016 when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Pope Benedict also cited Vatican Council II as being responsible for this change.The German bishops think the same.
Now the new Superior General of the SSPX seems to realize that there is a precise mistake in Vatican Council II.It was unknown to Bishop Bernard Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre.There are literally thousands of reports on the Internet on this subject.The reports says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.Catholics have been mis-reading Vatican Council II.The German bishops too have been mis-reading the Council.A rational reading of the Council support the past ecclesiology of the Church and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So now when the German bishops can no more cite UR 3 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS then what do they do they do?
Where are the citations in Vatican Council II to reject EENS and the past ecclesiology?
There are none . There were none.
What will be their reaction when the rank and file German Catholic points this out to them?
How can they say they were wrong about Vatican Council these 50 years? How can they say Protestants are outside the Church according to Vatican Council II since they don't have Catholic faith with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( AG 7, LG 14)?
So when this is told to them by the media in Germany will they revert to the old irrational interpretation of the Council ?
Will they excommunicate those Catholics who endorse Vatican Council II but interpret it rationally?
Where will Cardinal Ladaria be in all this? Will he convert the German bishops or will he continue to support the error as he does presently ?
Will Archbishop Guido Pozzo offer Mass in Germany with the obsolete interpretation of Vatican Council II, since it is politically correct?
Will the two popes agree theological or will the German bishops just quit the Church in a schism, supported by the Left ? -Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/german-bishops-are-ripe-for-schism.html
Steve Skojec has weighed in on Ann Barnhardt's video and shows himself to be as overly-cautious--without doing the research needed--that he so often is. The Church will be buried and forgotten by most and he will still be laboring for 'proof'. about who is Pope and who is not. So many words to say nothing; really it is wearying to read.
Your point about the baptism by desire, baptism by blood and invincible ignorance, Lionel? How are they relevant to the discussion at hand? Also, the German bishops have been ripe for schism - I dare say they are already - for a while now. Not sure what this has to do with Ann Barnhardt, either.
Barbara - The truth is hard to swallow. Mr. Skojec must have a hard time with it. In his defense, he has come around to some hard truths recently - it may take him some time with this one.
Right after bergoglio was elected Pope I was having a conversation with an atheist relative who was talking about how much she likes him. I didn't have anything clear about why I didn't like him, I just said there's something wrong with him. She kept saying how much she liked him and then I knew what was wrong with him. I said "when the atheists and the secularists love the pope, there's something wrong with the Pope."
Deciding whether or not he is the Pope can affect your Eternal Soul, do not go into this lightly
I don't know what the big deal is if Benedict is still "Pope" or not. Both Ratzinger and Bergolio are both heretical modernists bent on promoting a modernist religion and not the Catholic Faith. The mere fact that there are now two "Popes" should alert everyone paying attention that this is not the Catholic Church anymore.
Benedict or Francis... Who's THE Pope? https://youtu.be/NJ3qg2iKEQc
Irenaeus said...
Your point about the baptism by desire, baptism by blood and invincible ignorance, Lionel? How are they relevant to the discussion at hand? Also, the German bishops have been ripe for schism - I dare say they are already - for a while now. Not sure what this has to do with Ann Barnhardt, either.
Lionel:
In many ways.
Both the present popes interpret BOD,BOB and I.I as referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church. While for me they refer to invisible and hypothetical cases only.
So they interpret EENS with this irrationality. This is a mortal sin of faith.It is heresy. They are automatically excommunicated.A pope cannot reject de fide doctrines and a dogma and still be a pope.Canon Law would not permit this for a cardinal, bishop or priest.
But I do not expect you and Ann to admit this since this is the same irrationality used by the both of you and also Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.
We have popes in heresy but so also traditionalist bloggers and they are unable to explain themselves in writing.
As I have mentioned in the initial comment on this thread that Ann refers to a false premise in her talks. Yet she uses the false premise to interpret BOD,BOB and I.I to create a rupture with Tradition.
Secondly if Pope Benedict says that he is not the pope and for him Pope Francis is the pope what more is there to say?
Thirdly, when the present popes or the new SSPX Superior General says that BOD BOB and I.I refer to invisible and hypothetical cases, it means the German bishops have to choose schism. Since they will not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ?
What about the two popes will they oppose each other?-Lionel Andrades
If Irenaus, Ann, Steve Skojec, David and others in an organised way announce that BOD,BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases only and they are not visible non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2018 then other Catholics would agree with them. They would repeat the obvious. We cannot physically see any exceptions to the strict interpetation of the dogma EENS.
Then the SSPX and FSSP priests could also agree that there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2018 or over the last 50 years for us human beings.
Then Ecclesia Dei would also have to repeat what is common sense.There are no BOD, BOB and I.I cases in our reality.
This would mean Cardinal Ladaria would also have to admit that he personally does not know any man or woman saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I. Neither does he know of anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8).
Then when the bloggers, the SPX and FSSP and other traditionalists and the CDF agree that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in our reality and neither do they know of any any one saved outside the Church mentioned in Vatican Council II and that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions to EENS, then the two popes would also have to agree on the obvious.
BOD,BOB and I.I are 'zero cases' says the apologist John Martignoni. Many priests here in Rome agree with him.
Then the German bishops would also soon be told by Catholics in Germany that there are no physically visible exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II and that it is obvious BOD, BOB and I.I are not objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake and the mistake was repeated in Vatican Council II.
So then what will the German, British, American, Maltese and Swiss bishops do ? Are they going to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS?
Will the German bishops choose schism?
Will the two popes agree with each other and Cardinal Ladaria?
What will be the position of Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller on this issue?
Can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and he will not accept Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the past ecclesiology - still be a pope ?-Lionel Andrades
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
So can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and not an exception, be a pope ? If he rejects Vatican Council II as being a continuity with the traditional interpretation of EENS and an ecumenism of return - can he still be a pope ?
Can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and he will not accept Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the past ecclesiology - still be a pope ?
Can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and he will not accept Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the past ecclesiology - still be a pope ? This is the sensational question the sedevacantists will not answer and are all at sea.
The sedes and trads like the liberals have always assumed that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) referred to exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so they really were explicit and objective non Catholics saved outside the Church. Fr. Feeney was wrong and Pope Pius XII was correct.
But what if BOD, BOB and I.I refer to only invisible and hypothetical ?
Then Fr. Feeney was correct and Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre were wrong.
It means hypothetical cases can obviously not be practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2018.We cannot name or see someone saved outside the Church. So the popes made a mistake here.
But it gets worse for them.
If hypotheticals are not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of EENS then Vatican Council II , LG 8 etc, does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Whoops! This is big trouble.
It means the Council does not contradict the past ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return.It is back to no salvation outside the Church for the popes, cardinals and bishops.
This is a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS but how can they use it, how can they say, they may ask themselves, that all Jews and Muslism in 2018 are oriented to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14) ? LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions.
So it means all Protantants, Pentecostals and Orthodox Christians are are on the way to Hell since outside the Church there is no salvation and they do not have Catholic faith with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
This is a rational and traditional interpretation of de fide teaches of the Church, including those in the Creeds.
The German bishops will rebel.
Will one pope say there are no known exceptions in Vatican Councl II to EENS and the other pope say that this is un-acceptable ?
Will the CDF and the SSPX admit they made a mistake on Catholic doctrine, over the last 50 and more years?
Will some cardinals affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS and say that not to do so would violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Can a pope or cardinal who rejects this teaching be accused of being in heresy and so not eligibile to be pope ?
Who is going to say that according to Vatican Council II and EENS all non Catholics are oriented to Hell and so Mohammad was lost as are all Muslims today ? This is how I interpret the Council and EENS.
But Cardinal Koch,Cardinal Kasper and Pope Benedict believe all Jews do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.They can no more cite Vatican Council II.
So can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and not an exception, be a pope ? If he rejects Vatican Council II as being a continuity with the traditional interpretation of EENS and an ecumenism of return - can he still be a pope ?
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel,
Respectfully, I don't think Ann, Steve Skojec, David and I spend as much time thinking about baptism of blood, baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as you do.
I note this is not the first time you have used David's - and others - blog to push this, to be frank, incessant repetition. Each time you post on here, it comes back to this topic in some fashion. It's wearying.
Ann, Steve Skojec and David clearly think there are more pressing matters than baptisms and invincible ignorance. Look at what they write and speak about. I am no blogger but I am the same way. The Church is in a horrible mess and your topic ranks as very minor on the list of important matters.
I apologize for coming at you like this, but you decided to address me personally and accuse me of interpreting EENS irrationally. I do not take to that sort of accusation well. Not only was that sort of comment uncharitable, I know perfectly well what EENS is, and what it means in the wider scheme of salvation. I may not have been raised on Church doctrine, but that has been rectified.
If I may make a suggestion or two ... it is Advent. David has put up some nice music in the sidebar. Perhaps listen to it. I have been doing so here and there and I find it soothing. It might also be a good time to turn over a new leaf with what you write about - it being a new year liturgically, after all.
Best of luck and best of wishes,
Irenaeus
Schism with the past popes is the norm in the Church and the traditionalists like the present popes are a part of it.It requires courage and sacrifice not to be in schism and they do not have it.
It is non-schismatic with the past popes to say Vatican Council II is II is in harmony with EENS.
But the schismatic norm today is to say that the Council is break with the past.
It is not schismatic to say that the Catechisms when they mention the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.But it is schismatic and common today to say that the Catechisms contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
This was the norm for Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the popes and traditionalists since those pre Vatican Council II times.
Today to be non schismatic, a Catholic has to say that he affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and also hypothetical and invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
Instead Steve Skojec at the blog 1Peter5 and Hilary White will reject the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and support visible- for- them BOD,BOB and I.I. It is the same with Ann Barnhardt and Louie Verrecchio.
Bro. Andre Marie MICM and Bro. Thomas Augustine MICM along with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary communities interpret Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II as being an exception to Feeneyite EENS. This is schism.
Pope Benedict has said that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.This too is schism.He is saying in public that EENS today is a rupture with the past Magisterium and he supports it.This is also public heresy.
Michael and Peter Dimond like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference to create a schismatic version of the Council. Then they wrongly blame the Council.
So for traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals the new philosophy is that invisible non Catholics are physically visible. Their new theology is that these visible on earth non Catholics are examples of known salvation outside the Church.There are known non Catholics saved outside the Church and in their religion. So traditional EENS is discarded.On the salvation issue they are in schism with the past popes.
We don't read Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and Roberto Mattei saying non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no exceptiions,today .Why not? Since there are exceptions for them.Practical exceptions.
If Patrick Archbold wrote the truth it would be schismatic for the political Left, who defacto maintain Catholics in schism.
So for Pope Benedict and Pope Francis not to be in schism, they would have to say that BOD,BOB and I.I do not contradict EENS. Neither does LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc contradict EENS.So the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King is still intact after Vatican Council II.But the popes choose schism.
When John Salza and Robert Siscoe like Bishop Fellay support Pope Francis, they are schismatic.
I choose not to be in schism with the past popes and so for me Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and neither does BOD,BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So for me Fr. Leonard Feeney was rational and traditional on EENS while the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 was in heresy and schism.It is the same with the CDF today.It is schismatic on EENS and Vatican Council II.
No one can accuse me of being in heresy since I am affirming all Magisterial documents but in a non schismatic way. John Lament, Thomas Pink, John Rao and Joseph Shaw also affirm all magisterial documents but with an irrational premise and inference to produce a schismatic conclusion.
Fr.Davide Pagliarani, the new Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) should use my approach in the second round of doctrinal talks with the CDF.
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel,
It seems not what the point of the post is but you always dominate the comments with EENS.
I'm asking you from henceforth, Brother; stick to the topic or post once on the matter with why rationale or I will be forced to limit you as I have done in the past.
Please.
(This is a better copy of what I want to say. Pl. ignore the last one and replace it with this post.Thanks.)
Vox
Thank you for allowing the posts.
The issue is not just EENS and neither is it the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance.
The issue here is the two popes.
The issue is are they in heresy and do they have the right to be popes.
Is pope Benedict still the pope when he is in manifest heresy, doctrinally and no one contests it?
Can we say that Pope Francis is not the pope because he is in heresy and sacrilege when the traditionalists including Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Magisterial documents contradicting each other and re-interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II irrationally and no traditionalist has a comment on this subject?
How can a pope interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference and then still be a pope ?
Should not Canon Law apply also to the CDF Prefect since on March 1 he irrationally interpreted LG 8 as a rupture with EENS and Ad Gentes 7 at the Placuet Deo Press Conference.n.
Is there not even one traditionalists blogger who can comment theologically and doctrinally on what I write ?
Why should Catholics follow the Leftist interpretation of Vatican Council II just because the popes and Archbishop Lefebvre did so ? What about mortal sins of faith ?....
-Lionel Andrades
Much of the arguments here on whether Benedict's resignation was valid can be clarified by reading Ann Barnhardt's post entitied "Thermonuclear."
In it she quotes the entirety of Ratzinger's own essay on his belief desirability for a multi-person papacy - he prefers three people. The essay alternated one paragraph in the original German with one paragraph of the English translation.
This is no longer the Barnhardt hypothesis. It is the Ratzinger hypothesis. He was part of an extensive network of mostly German, and a few American, theologians in the 1960's and 1970's who wanted to reconstruct the papacy, or eliminate it entirely. Ratzinger edited the book of essagys which contains his own in 1978. He was considered a conservative because he did not want to eliminate the papcy.
Much of the discussion between these theologians concerned the difference between the munus (office), and the ministerium (ministry) of the papacy, and how these could be separated. This was the exact language of Benedict's resignation. He resigned the ministerium, not the munus. As this was the lingustic focus of Ratzinger and his fellow theologians, it can no longer be considered a fussy nuance by unhappy traditional Catholics. It is his own language.
When Benedict was asked if he had resigned freely, he empatically said that he had, he had resigned the ministerium freely.
An example: when President Reagan was shot, he retained the office of President, but the "ministry" or official duties of the presidency were performed by the Vice President until Reagan recovered, and resumed the ministry. The Vice President never held the office of the president during that time, only the duties.
Post a Comment