@Thomas Seiler
Herzlichen Dank!
Das ist so wichtig, dass ich es nochmals poste

"Wenn jemand behauptet, der eine wahre Gott, unser Schöpfer und Herr, könne aus den Geschöpfen durch das Licht der menschlichen Vernunft nicht mit Sicherheit erkannt werden, so sei er im Banne (Vatikanum I, Derevelatione, can. 1).”

Ja, man kann Gott beweisen.

Sowohl die Heilige Schrift (Weisheit 13, Röm 1) als auch das Lehramt der Kirche bezeugen, dass die Existenz Gottes aus der Natur beweisbar ist:

"Wenn jemand behauptet, der eine wahre Gott, unser Schöpfer und Herr, könne aus den Geschöpfen durch das Licht der menschlichen Vernunft nicht mit Sicherheit erkannt werden, so sei er im Banne (Vatikanum I, Derevelatione, can. 1).”

Einige dieser Beweise befinden sich in dem PDF-Dokument auf www.katholische-schoepfungslehre.de .

Philosophischer Satz:
Wir können Gott nur in dem Maße beweisen,
wie Er uns selbst entgegenkommt, um sich
zu erkennen zu geben.

Und das tut Er auf verschiedene Weise:
1.) Naturgesetz (Im Gewissen des Menschen spricht Er selbst zu uns (hl. Augustinus nennt es "Vox Dei im Menschen") und die restliche Natur der Schöpfung lässt mit Sicherheit auf Ihn schließen, weil wir ein natürliches
Licht der Vernunft haben, wie wir gehört haben und
die Kirche lehrt)
2.) Offenbarungsgesetz am Sinai: die 10 Gebote Gottes ! (Schema Israel !!!)
3.) Gnadengesetz /Evangelisches Gesetz Christi : Leben, Leiden und Auferstehung des Sohnes Gottes. Dazu gehört auch Seine Geistausgießung, die
ebenso biblisch bezeugt ist und das übernatürliche Licht der Vernunft in Fülle schenkt.
4.) Unzählige Glaubensbeweise in weiteren anerkannten mystischen Schriften von Heiligen / heiligmäßigen Menschen.
5.) Die kleinen (oder größeren) täglichen, oft sogar unmerklichen, aber dennoch unendlich vielfältigen Beweise der liebenden Vorsehung Gottes: Wie oft erlebt man, dass etwas doch noch gut ausgeht, obwohl man ganz schön in der Patsche saß.
Etc.)

Dies sind die Beweise Gottes des Vaters, des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes an uns Menschen. Diese Beweise haben wir.

Damit diese Beweise einem Ungläubigen im Innern evident
erscheinen (Aha-Effekt !), muss er sie erst mal demütig
betrachten wollen. Er muss sie annehmen wollen.
Der Wille ist entscheidend.
Die Einsicht folgt dann nach.

Der Herrgott (Dominus Deus) kann uns
beweisen, dass wir gegen Ihn nichts
ausrichten können, wenn Er Seine
Allmacht und Gerechtigkeit demnächst
"loslassen" wird.
Also lohnt es sich, die Köpfe vorher noch
zu beugen.
Wem das jetzt nicht reicht, dem gilt das hier:
Wer nicht hören will, muss fühlen.

(Nun, das wird manchen wieder wie
Drohung vorkommen, aber diese Päda-
gogik ist der chronologischen Anwendung
nach nicht Drohung, sondern unendlich
geduldige, liebende und
zuvorkommende Güte, wie Jesus zur
Sr. Faustyna sagte: Wer nicht durch die
Pforten der Barmherzigkeit eingehen will,
muss durch die Pforten der Gerechtigkeit.
Und das ist weitaus schwieriger. Jeder
ist also frei. Die Wahl hat jedoch Konse-
quenzen.)

Gute Wahl !

@Viandonta Klar und in der Heiligen Schrift stehen Lügen, also kann man ja auch einfach so dir nichts, auch die 10 Gebote nach menschlichen Gutdünken umdeuten, so wie das eben seit dem Unseligen VK II geschieht. Götzendienste so wie in Assisi, der Massenmord an ungeborenen Kindern, Ehebruch und die himmelschreiende Sünde der Sodomie alles halb so schlimm und Sünde nur mehr dann wenn es das eigene Gewissen betrifft, weil der Mensch angeblich über den Gesetzen Gottes unseres Herrn steht, und Gott der Herr soll sich gefälligst an weltliche Gesetze halten.
Aber das ist eben nur Atheistisches Gedankengut und eben keines von einen gläubigen Katholiken.

Gottes und Mariens Segen auf allen Wegen

Wir sind Schüler des Instituts Sancta Maria in Wangs, einer katholischen Schule in der Schweiz, und wir behandeln im Religions- und Philosophieunterricht Fragen, von denen wir meinen, dass sie auch für viele andere interessant und wichtig wären.

DECEMBER 11, 2016

Priest confirms philosophical error : Lefebvre excommunication a mistake.

I showed a priest this report 1.For over an hour late, yesterday evening, we discussed this issue in the sacristy.it was after evening Mass in Italian.He studies at a Pontifical University in Rome.
IT'S HYPOTHETICAL!
With reference to the first question in the report he agreed that the baptism of desire is hypothetical.If anyone suggests that a baptism of desire case is objectively visible in 2016 it is irrational.He agreed here too.Similarly in the past no one could have physically seen a baptism of desire case.He agreed. So it cannot be inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception or relevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The magisterium made a mistake.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake. It inferred that the baptism of desire was relevant and an exception to the dogma EENS.It inferred that there were known cases of the baptism of desire.
This mistake from 1949 was then incorporated into the text of Vatican Council II.The Council should not have mentioned the anonymous case of someone being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) or the unknown catechumen who has not yet received the baptism of water but had an intended to join the Church(before he died).
ERRORS IN THE TEXT OF LUMEN GENTIUM
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II

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.-Lumen Gentium 14 ( emphasis added)

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.
These passages are irrelevant to Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all ' need 'faith and baptism'for 'salvation' as does the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
So when we accept Lumen Gentium 16 and Lumen Gentium 14 (above) as referring to a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.It is not a rupture with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.
ECCLESIOLOGY THE SAME AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II
This mean the ecclesology of the Church has not changed with Vatican Council II.There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the interpretation of EENS according to St.Robert Bellarming and St.Francis Xavier.
Invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc cannot be exceptions to the dogma, which says all need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.So there is no text in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology.
FOR ME VATICAN COUNCIL II CONTRADICTS THE LETTER 1949
Vatican Council II really contradicts the new ecclesiology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Based on the new ecclesiology, Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Karl Rahner said there is salvation outside the Church. So there could be the Anonymous Christian and all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846).

The old ecclesiology supported an ecumenism of return.There is no text in Vatican Council II to contradict an ecumenism of return for the Orthodox Christians, Protestants etc.
An ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II could only be contradicted in the text of Vatican Council II if, for example, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3( imperfect communion with the Church) is interpreted as being visible. There would be a rupture with the old ecumenism only if UR 3 referred to a visible instead of an invisible case in 2016.This would mean there is someone personally known who is saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith.

CDF STILL SLEEPING
But the text of the Council does not say this.It is the inference which has caused the trouble and there was no clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Until today the CDF is unaware of the false premise and conclusion.
So with Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14(catechumen) referring to hypothetical cases, Vatican Council II is only saying, without any ambiguity, that all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other non Christians need faith and baptism for salvation.
ZERO CASES
Nostra Aetate does not mention any known exception to Ad Gentes 7.Nor is Nostra Aetate 2 an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.Since it refers to 'a zero case' as the apologist John Martignoni would put it.
The priest confirmed the obvious yesterday, that, hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS.
However in spite of writing about all this over the last fews years the Vatican Curia and the CDF/Ecclesia Dei will not comment.They interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being objective exceptions to EENS. This seems like a political position.

DID THEY KNOW? MAY BE NOT
It makes me ask myself if this information was known at the time of the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.Was it known to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( with the irrational premise) was a rupture with the dogma EENS and Tradition.But he did not know the specific cause.
The specific reason was: hypothetical cases were assumed to be objectively visible in the present times.Then it was inferred that these 'visible' cases were objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation, the traditional interpretation, of the dogma EENS.So with an irrational premise and a non traditional conclusion, there emerged a new theology, which made Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not know all this?
Pope John Paul II did not know this?
May be it was simple ignorance. Something overlooked.They were not trying to please any lobby.
Vatican Council II being a break with Tradition was the principal reason Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops and then was excommunicated.
CDF RESPONSIBILITY
Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it was his responsibility to clarify that Vatican Council II was not a break with the old ecclesiology and that the magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office.Instead he approved the excommunication and accepted Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition. He probably was in ignorance.

POPE BENEDICT SAYS THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT
A few months back in an interview with Avvenire Pope Benedict said EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.There was 'a development' with Vatican Council II. He really meant hypothetical cases were assumed to be objectively visible in 2016.This was the development.
Is he still uninformed, even though there are thousands of blog posts on this subject on the Internet today? Or is he for some reason, like the CDF/Ecclesia Dei, ignoring this issue?
He still does not issue a clarification, something which should have been done before the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the new bishops.
SSPX BISHOPS AND PRIESTS IN THE DARK
We cannot only put the blame on Cardinal Ratzinger.Since even the SSPX bishops and priests did not mention the issue of hypothetical cases not being explicit.This was bad philosophy which was ignored even by the traditionalists.They were conditioned into thinking hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire were not hypothetical.
TRADITIONALIST BLOGGERS SILENT
Even today traditionalist bloggers do not understand what I am saying.Or if they do understand, they do not want to admit that all of them were wrong in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Council is not ambiguous but traditional.
This young priest with whom I spoke to yesterday confirmed for me that a major philosophical mistake has been made by the teaching authority of the Church, the magisterium ( 1949-2016).
He was personally against excommunications. He thought the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston was a mistake.Since Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying the same thing as the 16th century missionaries.
It was the Archdiocese of Boston, the Holy Office and the Jesuits in the USA which had brought in an innovation with in the dogma EENS.They made the philosophical error and then incorporated it into Vatican Council II.Archbishop Lefebvre opposed the rupture with Tradition and he was excommunicated.It was the magisterium which was in heresy with their irrational, non traditional and heretical interpretation of EENS ( as having known exceptions). Then it was the magisterium (1965) which was in heresy for interpreting Vatican Council II with this false premise ( visible baptism of desire) to create a heretical conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS).
They are in heresy even today ( 2016) since they will not interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and conclusion, and so accept a Vatican Council II which is in harmony with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries.

It is this heretical version of Vatican Council II, which the magisterium wants the Society of St. Pius X and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to approve when they offer the Traditional Latin Mass.Vatican Council II with a new ecclesiology based on visible for us baptism of desire is a priority for receiving canonical status, a priest being incardinated or a Catholic organization remaining 'in good standing in the Church'.
-Lionel Andrades

1

DECEMBER 10, 2016

The present magisterium has made a major philosophical mistake

Ask these four questions and the entire philosophical and theological house of cards being supported by the contemporary magisterium comes down.
1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it.This is a hypothetical case for us?

My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.
2.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.
3.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?
My answer Yes.
Since it is being assumed that something invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and known, someone who is not concrete and tangible it is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.
4.Similarly this case of a catechumen in the past too would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases?
My answer is YES.
No could have physically seen this catechumen saved, in Heaven or on earth.

FINAL TWO QUESTIONS
So here are the final two questions which show that magisterium's bad theology is based on bad philosophy.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?
My answer is that they we cannot see them. They are not physically visible and personally known in our time and space.

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . They were never exceptions in the first place. Rome made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________

@Franzl und ihr Kommentar drückt wohl keinen Hochmut aus??

Gottes und Mariens Segen auf allen Wegen

@Franzl
"An einen Gott, der so klein ist, das er sich beweisen läßt, würde ich nicht mehr glauben wollen"

Ziemlich dumme Aussage!
Wenn Gott sich - egal nach welchen Bedingungen und wie - beweisen ließe, wäre er trotzdem Gott! Und an Gott, den man sogar beweisen kann, wollen Sie dann nicht glauben? Müssten Sie dann auch nicht, er wäre bewiesen. Und wenn er dann bewiesen wäre, wollen Sie ihn verwerfen? Völlig unlogisch. Die Größe Göttes hängt nicht davon ab, ob er bewiesen werden kann, da Gott Gott ist - so oder so!

@Franzl : Die Existenz Gottes unseres Herrn ist doch schon längst bewiesen, daher, sie kann aus den geschaffenen Dingen durch das natürliche Licht der Vernunft mit Sicherheit erkannt werden. Die Beweise die für die Existenz Gottes unseres Herrn sprechen, will der Mensch einfach nicht mehr sehen, weil er ja dann auch zugeben müsste das er Wider Gott dem Herrn wirkt und lebt.

Gottes und Mariens Segen auf allen Wegen

Unter den Nichtglaubenden ist es so:
1.) Die einen glauben nicht, weil sie nicht können:
Ihnen fehlt der Aha-Effekt. Sie brauchen also gute
Argumente und Gnade.
2.) Die andern glauben nicht, weil sie nicht wollen:
Sie haben die Wahrheit vielleicht sogar schon erkannt,
wollen aber nicht glauben oder etwas anderes glauben.
Denen helfen die besten Argumente nicht. Man kann
ihnen nur ein Angebot machen und es gut vorleben.

Wie wollte eigentlich Jesus überzeugen ?
Indem Er sein Leben für Seine Freunde hingibt.
Indem Er Liebe vorlebt.
Indem Er Weisheit predigt.
Er sagt es ganz einfach: Ewiges Leben gibt's im Himmel.
Unendliche Pein in der Hölle.
Wer sich für die Liebe entscheidet, die Jesus Christus ist,
bekommt ewige Liebe im Himmel.
Wer die Liebe nicht will, bekommt sie nicht.

Darauf kommt's an: Will man ewige Liebe haben ?
Nur Jesus ist die Liebe.
Und Er ist Gott, der Sohn Gottes.