Friday, December 18, 2015
"I HATE GOD...” - DEMON Of LUST Confesses!!!
THE MOST POWERFUL PRAYER YOU MAY EVER WATCH...
SHOCKING: Baby Born INSTANTLY In Church!!!
Ann Barnhardt interprets magisterial documents with Cushingism
If I find myself in a situation where I am being killed together with an unbaptized person, I would beg them to tell God that they desired to be baptized. (Let all the Feeneyite heads explode now! Saint Emeretiana, pray for us!) -Ann Barnhardt http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/12/17/boston-speech-transcript/
Lionel:
Why mention the baptism of desire with reference to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Where is the connection?
If someone died with the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) Ann Barnhardt would not know of it. It would only be known to God. So the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS, since physically she could not know of any case.Assuming there was a case in the past, it would not be an exception to the dogma in 2015. So why mention it?
Does she assume that these cases are physically known and visible in December 2015 or does she infer that a case in the past is explicit today ?
In both cases she is wrong. She has used a false premise and a false inference.It is an error in reasoning.
This was the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It was an objective mistake. A factual mistake. Objectively we cannot see or a know a baptism of desire case. It is a fact of life that persons in Heaven are not visible and known on earth, in a personal way, the way we see and know each other.
Similarly when Ann assumes that all the natives in the Americas, who were born before the missionaries went there were saved,she is using Cushingism as a theology.
So she would be interpreting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Cushingism. She has a choice, which is Feeneyism but is unaware of it.
If she used Feeneyism ( LG 16 refers to an invisible and not a visible case) then Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) would affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite version) and LG 16 etc would not be explicit and so would not be exceptions to the dogma.It would mean Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims in Boston and the rest of the world need 'faith and baptism' to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.It would mean Catholics are the new people of God. Vatican Council II (Nostra Aetate 4) says 'the church is the new people of God.'
Ann believes outside the Church there is no salvation and that all non Catholics need to convert into the Church in 2015 to go to Heaven and avoid Hell but there is confusion when she uses Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology.May be she is not aware of it.
-Lionel Andrades
Who saw St.Emerentiana or St. Victor of St. XYZ in Heaven without the baptism of water? Is this a dogmatic teaching? Do we have to believe that St. Emerentians is in Heaven since someone had first hand knowledge that she went was not baptised before or after, she died?
So where are the exceptions today ? Those who do not need to be card carrying members of the Church for salvation? Who today can go to Heaven without having his name on the Parish Baptism Register ?
There is not a single person known, past or present who is in Heaven without the baptism of water and whose case was seen and known on earth. Not a single person.
Does any one know if the Good Thief was not baptised before he died ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/popes-since-time-of-pius-xii-have-been.html
The traditional teaching was that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation;to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Now it is being said only those who know, as if we can know who is in invincible ignorance and will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It is as if some one in the past knew who knew and did not know and was going to be saved outside the Church.
Those who know or do not know and will be saved or not saved is known only to God. So it has nothing to do with the strict interpretation of the dogma. So why was it mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Catechisms? This was an error. It was overlooked by the popes.
With Feeneyism, the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they are not known cases and they would be followed with the baptism of water as the dogma teaches. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II, for me, to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.The saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were Feeneyites.The saints who mentioned the baptism of desire were Feeneyites.
I affirm the baptism of desire along with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I reject explicit- for- us baptism of desire and accept implicit- for -us- baptism of desire.
I reject visible- for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance and accept invisible -for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance which of course would be followed with the baptism of water.
I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. I reject Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions and which allegedly is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors. etc.
I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Church, all the dogmas and doctrines and also Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with Feeneyism as a theology.
I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office which is traditional and supports Feeneyism and I reject the second part of the Letter which contradicts the first part ,and the pre 1949 Magisterium.
I affirm the baptism of desire along with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I reject explicit- for- us baptism of desire and accept implicit- for -us- baptism of desire.
I reject visible- for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance and accept invisible -for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance which of course would be followed with the baptism of water.
I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. I reject Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions and which allegedly is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors. etc.
I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Church, all the dogmas and doctrines and also Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with Feeneyism as a theology.
I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office which is traditional and supports Feeneyism and I reject the second part of the Letter which contradicts the first part ,and the pre 1949 Magisterium.
So it is the same Vatican Council II but I am interpretating it different from the popes. I am rational and they are irrational with their Cushingism theology.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/popes-since-time-of-pius-xii-have-in.html
Popes since the time of Pius XII have in public used irrational, non traditional and heretical Cushingism as a theology - 2
Popes since the time of Pius XII have in public used irrational, non traditional and heretical Cushingism as a theology. Here are some examples.
Pope Pius XII
LETTER OF THE THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by
which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of
Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar,
through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely
established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds
obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be
saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end,
not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained
in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.Letter of the Holy Office 1949
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she
is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal
salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church
actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by
desire and longing.Letter of the Holy Office 1949
_____________________________
Pope Paul VI
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching,
and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is
His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of
faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the
necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus
Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter
into it, or to persevere in it."- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic
faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the
Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ,
present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the
unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of
faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church,
for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever,
therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would
refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be
incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With
love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
__________________________________
1257 The Lord himself
affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands
his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize
them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the
Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this
sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism
that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to
neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be
baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the
sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always
held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith
without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ.
This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about
the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
Pope Benedict XVI
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
_________________________
Pope Francis
1259 For catechumens
who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together
with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that
they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
___________________________________
___________________________________
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
_________________________
Pope Francis
For Pope Francis too the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invcincible ignorance refer to explicit cases who are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He has not affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma and considers it triumphalism.
He says every one must follow his conscience and that conscience is supreme. In other words there is no objective reality. This is a form of Cushingism too. It means all the natives in America before the missionaries went there or all the natives in Goa , before St. Francis Xavier went there, were on the way to Heaven since they were in ignorance and following their conscience. There was no objective reality, according to the Catholic Faith, which says they were all oriented to Hell without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
He says every one must follow his conscience and that conscience is supreme. In other words there is no objective reality. This is a form of Cushingism too. It means all the natives in America before the missionaries went there or all the natives in Goa , before St. Francis Xavier went there, were on the way to Heaven since they were in ignorance and following their conscience. There was no objective reality, according to the Catholic Faith, which says they were all oriented to Hell without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Summary:
There should have been no references to the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, in these magisterial documents. Since these hypothetical cases do not exist in our reality, they are not real cases for us.So they have no link to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology. They are not exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and salvation. They do not contradict traditional ecumenism.
The traditional teaching was that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation;to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Now it is being said only those who know, as if we can know who is in invincible ignorance and will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It is as if some one in the past knew who knew and did not know and was going to be saved outside the Church.
Those who know or do not know and will be saved or not saved is known only to God. So it has nothing to do with the strict interpretation of the dogma. So why was it mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Catechisms? This was an error. It was overlooked by the popes.
With Feeneyism, the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they are not known cases and they would be followed with the baptism of water as the dogma teaches. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II, for me, to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.The saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were Feeneyites.The saints who mentioned the baptism of desire were Feeneyites.
I affirm the baptism of desire along with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I reject explicit- for- us baptism of desire and accept implicit- for -us- baptism of desire.
I reject visible- for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance and accept invisible -for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance which of course would be followed with the baptism of water.
I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. I reject Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions and which allegedly is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors. etc.
I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Church, all the dogmas and doctrines and also Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with Feeneyism as a theology.
I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office which is traditional and supports Feeneyism and I reject the second part of the Letter which contradicts the first part ,and the pre 1949 Magisterium.
I affirm the baptism of desire along with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I reject explicit- for- us baptism of desire and accept implicit- for -us- baptism of desire.
I reject visible- for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance and accept invisible -for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance which of course would be followed with the baptism of water.
I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. I reject Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions and which allegedly is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors. etc.
I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Church, all the dogmas and doctrines and also Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with Feeneyism as a theology.
I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office which is traditional and supports Feeneyism and I reject the second part of the Letter which contradicts the first part ,and the pre 1949 Magisterium.
So it is the same Vatican Council II but I am interpretating it different from the popes. I am rational and they are irrational with their Cushingism theology.
-Lionel Andrades
Popes since the time of Pius XII have in public used irrational, non traditional and heretical Cushingism as a theology - 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)