We have to wait patiently

Don,

We have got to help them.

We just can't leave them in their ignorance.

You and I understand the mistake they are making.

Gradually it will ' sink in' with them. We have to work at it patiently.

Since what we are saying is not a new theology or theory or a personal view.It is observing that we all share a universal understanding, that in general, the dead cannot be seen with the visible eye.

Many people have realized this now and did not know this before.

I think of the small group of Mother Teresa Sisters in Rome who confronted the professors at the Gregorian University, Rome on this issue.They will have helped those Catholic professors think about this.

Similarly it is not the fault of Bob to think the way he does about the exceptions to the dogma. I made the same mistake once upon a time and now I have corrected myself.-Lionel Andrades http://eens.forumotion.com/t37p15-robert-sungenis#390

To Be A Nun (video) : The Ear of the Heart: An Actress' Journey from Hollywood to Holy Vows

To Be a Nun : The Ear of the Heart: An Actress' Journey from Hollywood to Holy Vows 
http://youtu.be/rxBB-HzW8gI

Notice, he has no apologetics but is calling for prayers

Notice he is careful not to get into apologetics, since he doesn't know how to handle this one.(1)

 

What can he say to the comment 'we cannot see the dead?'.Nothing! There is no apologetics.

I told Robert Sungenis in our correspondence, which was not private, that I am no authority on this issue ( and neither is any one else with their common place error) but of one thing I am dead- sure, it is, we cannot see dead.

That we cannot see the dead is not a personal view it is a universal understanding.

So how can he respond if the issue is not theology.It is a mistaken ' fact' which influences his theology.

 

When he admits we cannot see the dead his theology will be rational.

If Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis were asked if they can see the dead they would respond, "No".

Then the follow up question for them is : how can they say that being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation?

Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are dead for us.They cannot be seen.

Then Fr.Harrison and Sungenis would say/imply that the Church made a mistake ( this is what the Church teaches!).

But where is the text in which the Church says that the dead are visible for us ?

This has to be implied-wrongly!

 

I would say that he has no apologetics and is calling for prayers.Appropriately.-Lionel Andrades

 

 

(1)

 

Monday, May 20, 2013

Robert Sungenis responds : but still without any apologetics.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/robert-sungenis-responds-but-still.html#links

Sacrilege at the basilica of St.Mary Majors ?

Yesterday evening at the Salus Popoli Romani altar of the Basilica of St.Mary Majors, Rome the priest gave the Eucharist to a tall, young lady in a short dress exposing her thighs.An elderly woman went up to the woman and protested at the way she was dressed.The woman went ahead and received the Eucharist while the priest watched it all.

If I would ask that priest after Mass why did he give the Eucharist to her he could give me some reason.A priest at a church in Cornelia, Rome said it was a sin,immodesty was a sin for him but he had to give the Eucharist.Possibly he was pleasing his superiors.Another priest, at the Church of St.Camillio de Lellis(St.Mary Magdalene) had given the Eucharist to a man in short pants. The priest told me that "these people have got these ideas in their head"' and we just have to bear all this.He said he knew it was wrong for that person to receive the Eucharist like that.Another priest at a church also in Cornelia, Rome told me that I should not judge.He had given the Eucharist to a young woman vulgarly dressed. (see photo below) 

Just think what could happen to any of these priests if they refused the Eucharist to someone dressed vulgar. There could be protests and his superiors not wanting any controversy, would target these priests for doing the right thing- refusing the Eucharist to those who are vulgarly dressed.

Similarly to protect himself a priest cannot say that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation(to avoid Hell).

 

Meanwhile Catholic churches here are being used by the Orthodox Christian priests for congregations which probably include Catholic converts to the Orthodox Church. They have the political support of Putin and the one-world -religion lobby.There are new Russian Orthodox Churches being opened in Rome while the Catholic Church cannot ask for its Church property back in Russia.

The Orthodox Churches are particular about modesty. I noticed this yesterday at the Parish of St.Nicola Taumarturgo,Via Palestro,Rome, under the Patriarch of Moscow.

 

Immodesty in clothes has always been a mortal sin in the Catholic Church. In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul's  encyclical on moral theology, this teaching is reaffirmed.Pope John Paul II said a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the outward action indicates the inner intention. I repeat: he was saying that from the outward action we can judge the inner motive and intention.

 

That woman yesterday who received the Eucharist was in sin.The priest should not have given the Eucharist to her since the sin was before his very eyes.The priest could not say, in this case, that 'we cannot judge if someone is in mortal sin'.In the case of immodesty you can see it. It can be judged.

The political left is changing Catholic culture in Rome so that sin may not be considered sin.Their programming is: immodesty is not a sin, denying the dogma on salvation is not a sin...and they want all this implemented in the Catholic Church or there could be political consequences and controversies.

-Lionel Andrades

 

Here are some photos of Catholics who have received the Eucharist at Mass in Rome's churches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Church in Cornelia, Rome where the priest said we cannot judge.

 

Today Avignon-tomorrow Rome: Religious Priest Attacked in "Arab-Islamic Zone" of Avignon -- Archbishop Denounces Increasing Violence

Religious Priest Attacked in "Arab-Islamic Zone" of Avignon -- Archbishop Denounces Increasing Violence http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2013/05/religious-priest-attacked-in-arab.html

Let us pray also for Cardinal Koch: that almighty God may remove the veil from his heart; so that he too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.- Louie Verrecchio

Let us pray also for Cardinal Koch: that almighty God may remove the veil from his heart; so that he too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.- Louie Verrecchio http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/koch/

 

The heresy of the ecumenists   

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/the-heresy-of-the-ecumenists/#comments

 

Louie Verrecchio has a very revealing post on Cardinal Kurt Koch, Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews – thus, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist. Cardinal Koch routinely makes statements that would have unquestionably been viewed as heresy just a few short years ago. And since Church Doctrine can never change………..(I add emphasis and comments):

 

If the most recent Holy Roman Pontiff to have been canonized, Pope St. Pius X, could suddenly be placed in the Holy See of today, like a frog dropped in a pot of boiling water, he would leap into action, the anathemas and condemnations flying from his mighty pen so fast it would make even Cardinal Burke’s head spin. [As much as I love Cardinal Burke, I think Pope St. Pius X might have more than a bit of concern about him. And yet he is as good a Cardinal as the Church has at present. That shows where we are at.]

 

As it is, the majority of Catholic prelates are doing backstrokes as the souls in their care perish from lack of a shepherd.
Enter Cardinal Kurt Koch.
According to a report in the Tablet, Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, on a recent visit to Jerusalem, stressed “no conversion for the Jews,” saying:

“We Christians must not bear witness in relation to the Jews to a path of salvation which is completely foreign to them, as we do with other religions. This is because the New Testament is built up totally on the basis of the Old Testament. The Catholic Church therefore does not have an organized Jewish mission, as certain Evangelical groups do.”

In light of Aquinas’ definition of heresy as “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas,” this would make Cardinal Koch a material heretic.
In speaking of “a path of salvation which is completely foreign” to the Jews, clearly His Eminence is referring to none other than Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way to everlasting life
Both of these preceding statements are objectively true. Cardinal Koch is one of the most troubling prelates in the Church. Little surprise, then, that he is German (well,, German Swiss).]
How is it even remotely possible for anyone who holds the Catholic faith, much less a Prince of the Church (a title that means less with every passing day) [Ouch, but so true. That hits them where they hurt] to refer to Jesus Christ, Son of David and long-awaited Messiah, as “completely foreign” to the Jews? If a candidate for Confirmation said this, the bishop would be duty bound to deny him the sacrament!
And while it is true from the standpoint of formal structure that the Church does not have “an organized Jewish mission,” it is to the everlasting shame of all of her members that this is the case, especially those in the hierarchy who, like Cardinal Koch, place diplomacy and warm sentiments above the mission that Jesus Christ gave to His Church…….. [And that is exactly, precisely right. Koch, Dolan, Mahony, Ravasi, O'Brien,Tagle, Daneels, the list goes on and on, almost every single prince of the Church has either publicly declared heresy at some recent point, engaged in hideous scandal, failed to defend the Faith, or all three. It's a triple crown of massive fails!]
………in suggesting that the Jews stand in no need of conversion, Cardinal Koch is guilty of precisely the indifferentism condemned by Pope Pius VII, wherein “truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish faithlessness” (Post Tam Diurturnas)
[We must remind......] our fellow Catholics that the Church has been praying for the conversion of the Jews for many centuries, and for one simple reason. In the words of the Council of Florence:

The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock… (Council of Florence, Dz 714).

Given the fact that Cardinal Koch no longer believes as much, I would suggest in all charity that we must pray for his conversion, that he might one day return to the Catholic faith. [I agree.]
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/the-heresy-of-the-ecumenists/#comments
  

Technically most of the apologists at EWTN would have to resign-if they are going to be honest and say there are no known exceptions to the dogma

There are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus so technically most of the apologists at EWTN would have to resign. They do not meet EWTN's liberal  standards on the Catholic Faith.This is if they are going to be honest and say that there are no known exceptions to the dogma in the present times. In 2013 we personally do not know any one who is an exception.

I don't know about Scott Hahn.

But the rest of the apologists have been assuming that we can see the dead who are living exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.For the apologists, the 'rigorous interpretation' of the dogma was outdated  since they assumed there were known exceptions.For the apologists those saved in invincible ignorance or implicit desire were living exceptions to the old, traditional interpretation of the dogma. This suited EWTN.

Now we know that in no Catholic Magisterial document is it  mentioned that there are known or unknown exceptions to the dogma.So the apologists and EWTN's present position is not the teaching of the Catholic Church but the interpretation of the leftist media.It was one major con operation.Since the 1940's the media has been feeding us the lie.

There are only possibilities mentioned in Magisterial texts, the possibilities of non Catholics saved with implicit desire or inculpable ignorance - but these are not exceptions. If they are not known, they are not exceptions for us, known or unknown.In their very nature they cannot be exceptions.Since they are explict for God and always implicit for us.

So, are the apologists on EWTN going to affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church,as did Mother Angelica ?

Or are they still going to pretend that this is all a bad dream which will go away ?

-Lionel Andrades