Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Medugorje and Authority

I once was cautioned by a traditionalist to reject Medugorje since Our Lady said all religions are equal and that the holiest person in Medugorje was a Muslim. I asked this lady, who  maintains a traditionalist blog in Scotland to give me the reference.When did Our Lady say this I asked her?

So she said she would come back with the reference. She called up Daphne Mcleod in London. Daphne is critical of Medugorje because Michael Davis was critical of Medugorje.She said she could not find the reference!.Michael Davis did not mention it?

I have been to Medugorje twice.

I asked Fr.Slavko Barbaric OFM, the Spiritual Director of the seers, when did Our Lady make these two statements. He said that she did not!
I first read about them in a book by a Protestant lady in England who converted to the Catholic Church after her experiences in Medugorje.
E.Michael Jones and Michael Voris, also traditionalists, have used these quotes.
Secondly ' the Authority' is now saying all religions are equal. They have approved a new department for the Theology of Religions at the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome. This is also being taught at the Urbaniana and Angelicum University.
-Lionel Andrades


Apparition of February 2nd, 2014 of our Lady in Medjugorje



Silvio Berlusconi protested the reading of the Koran in Florence it was announced on local television about a month back and then the report was pulled down.Instead there were on line reports about him saying that the Western civilisation was superior to the Islamic one. He then met with representatives of Muslim countries to clarify his statement.
Berlusconi had  praised Pope Benedict's Regensburg address and said 'At last we have a great pope'.What he has not said is that the Koran originates from Mohammad, whom the Catholic Church considers as being lost in Hell. Vatican Council (Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church tell us that all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.This is  taught by Jesus (Mk.16:16, Jn.3:5). Mohammad had neither.
He knew about the Church, according to the Koran but did not enter. He formed a new religion.
According to Vatican Council II(Lumen Gentium 14) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) Mohammad could not be saved.Since he knew and yet did not enter.Whether one knows or does not know is implicit for us and explicit only for God.It is hypothetical for us. It is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
According to Vatican Council II (AG 7) the majority of people on earth, are oriented to Hell at the time of death, since they did not convert with 'faith and baptism'. Faith and baptism are the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55), the only means.
It is the only means since we do not know any exception in 2014. Neither does the Church state in Vatican Council II that there are known exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation.
Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation. They are irrelevant to it. They are probabilities known only to God.
So Silvio Berlusconi could have clarified this for Catholics in Italy. Islam is not a path to salvation, since its members do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Berlusconi had once said that as a young man he was taught by the Redemptorist  Fathers that outside the Church there is no salvation.The Redemptorist Fathers do not any more teach this any more. Since they assume like the Vatican Curia which guides them, that  invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Berlusconi, a divorcee, could have proclaimed the Catholic Faith for them- if he only knew it!
We could then have the Vatican saying that the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same on exclusive salvation.
Islamic tradition(hadees) also  teaches exclusive salvation being there in only the religion of Mohammad.The Koran is critical of the Catholic Church and Christian beliefs. Christians and Christianity are referred to many times in the Koran.
 In Rome, Muslims who believe a Catholic should be killed or punished for criticizing Mohammad or the Koran  are employed in secular and Catholic organisations. They support the Blasphemy Laws in Islamic countries under which Christians face the dead penalty.
 Muslims in Italy are supported by the leftist/Communist government in Italy created by the Communist president Giorgio Napolitano, who refers to the Catholic Church as 'our culture'.He approves the Jewish Left conditions for the existence of the Catholic Church in its present form.
So a discussion of the Catholic Faith between Berlusconi and his bishop, would be a political discussion.When the Chief Rabbinate of Israel threathened  the Vatican over the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews, the Vatican announced that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.This was a contradiction of the Bible, the Magisterium and Tradition, for political reasons.
 In a 'political discussion' Berlusconi could ask his bishop (who correctly refuses to give the ex-Prime Minister the Eucharist at Holy Mass) if there are any physically visible exceptions to the Redemptorist understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If Berlusconi's bishop would reply saying there are those saved in their religion who are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846),Berlusconi could respond,"We do not know any such case in 2014. You cannot name any such person". So they are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism).
His bishop could say Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Berlusconi must respond,"If this is true Pope Pius XII made an objective error. We cannot see the dead-saved in invincible ignorance etc for them to be an exception to the old Redemptorist understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus".
His bishop could say Vatican Council II mentions exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Berlusconi could reply,"Then Vatican Council II made an objective, factual error".How can the dead be exceptions?
His bishop could say there is a 'development of doctrine'. Berlusconi must ask," Where is the Church text in Vatican Council II which supports this development of doctrine? Where does Vatican Council II say there is known salvation outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church?" LG 16, LG 8,UR 3 etc refer to invisible for us cases.
There is no salvation outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it mentioned 'the dogma', the 'infalllible teaching'. The text of the dogma does not mention exceptions.
Who is going to educate Berlusconi?-Lionel Andrades
  • They have tried to hang me on an isolated word, taken out of context from my whole speech ... I did not say anything against the Islamic civilization... It's the work of some people in the Italian leftist press who wanted to tarnish my image and destroy my long-standing relations with Arabs and Muslims.

St. Alphonsus on humility



St. Alphonsus on humility

by tantamergo

The great St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori on humility, from his book Preparation for Death, Ascetical Works Vol. 1. You will probably find this reading hard. The practice of true humility requires a tremendous degree of self-abnegation. But it is perhaps a good spiritual meditation for this season of Septuagesima in preparation for Lent.
No one can please God without being humble, for he cannot bear the proud. He has promised to hear those who pray to him; but if a proud man prays to him, the Lord hears him not; to the humble, on the contrary, He dispenses His Graces: God resisteth the proud, and giveth Grace to alphonsuscross.jpgthe humble (Jm IV:6). Humility is of two kinds: humility of affection, and humility of will. The former consists in the conviction we have of our own wretchedness, so that we can neither know nor do anything but what is evil. All that we have and do that is good comes from God. Let us come now to the practice of humility. With regard, then, to the humility of the affections, first, we must put no confidence in our own strength, nor in our own resolutions; but we must be always diffident and fearful of ourselves. With fear and trembling work out your salvation (Phil II:12). St. Phillip Neri said: "He who fears not is sure to fail."
Secondly, we must not glory in things that belong to us, as in our natural abilities, in our actions, in our birth, in our relatives and the like. It is therefore never well to speak of our actions, except to point out where we have been wrong. And it is better not to speak of ourselves at all, either, for good or bad; because even when we blame ourselves, it is often an occasion of vain-glory by making us think that we shall be praised, or, at least be considered humble, and thus humility becomes pride. Thirdly, let us not be angry with ourselves after we have failed. That would not be humility, but pride; and it is even a device of the devil to take away all our confidence, and make us leave off following a good life. When we see that we have fallen, we should say with St. Catherine of Genoa: "Lord, these are the fruits of my own garden." Then let us humble ourselves, and rise up immediately from the fault we have committed by an act of love and contrition, resolving not to fall into the same fault again, and trusting in the help of God. And if we unhappily do fall again, we must always do the same. Fourthly, when we see others fall, we are not to wonder; rather let us compassionate them; and let us thank God, praying Him to keep His Hand over us; otherwise, the Lord will punish us by permitting us to fall into the same sins, and perhaps worse [One quick note: there is a huge difference between someone striving to be pious and failing, and those huge masses of people who deliberately, consciously reject aspects of the Faith. Those who publicly proclaim error must be rebuked.] Fifthly, we must always consider ourselves as the greatest sinners in the world; even when we know that others have sinned more than we; because our sins having been committed after we had received so many graces, will be more displeasing to God than the faults of others, though they may be more numerous. St. Teresa writes that we must not think we have made any progress in the way of perfection if we do not esteem ourselves worse than every one else, and desire to be considered the last of all. [Teresian-Carmelite spirituality is hard. St. Therese of Lisieux viewed it somewhat differently, with a more child-like trust in God while maintaining a proper sense of unworthiness.]

The humility of the will consists in being pleased when we are despised by others. Anyone who has deserved hell, deserves to be trodden under foot by the devils, forever. Jesus Christ desires that we should learn of Him to be meek and humble of heart (Matt XI:29). Many are humble in word, but not in heart. They say: "I am worse than all: I deserve a thousand hells." But when anyone reproves them, or says a word that displeases them, they immediately take umbrage. [This is completely natural, especially in our culture with its permissiveness and prominent idea that no one should ever have to feel bad, ever. So it's easy to fall into this trap, to bristle when corrected. I fall into it. Try to accept the criticism, even if you think it wrong, in an open, loving way, without getting angry at the accuser/correcter] They are like hedgehogs, which put out their bristles as soon as they are touched. But how is it - you say you are worse than all, and yet you cannot bear a word? "He who is truly humble," says St. Bernard, " esteems himself good for nothing, and desires to be considered good for nothing by others as well."
In the first place, then, if you wish to be truly humble, when you receive an admonition, receive Sant_Alfonso_Maria_de_Liguori_Eit in a good heart, and thank the person who admonishes you. St. Chrysostom says, "When the just man is corrected, he is sorry for the error he has committed; but the proud man is sorry that the error should be known." The Saints, when they are accused, even wrongfully, do not justify themselves, except when to defend themselves is necessary to avoid giving scandal; otherwise, they are silent and offer all to God.
In the second place, when you receive any affront, suffer it patiently, and increase in love towards the person who has ill-treated you. [This is also contrary to nature, and very difficult.] This is the touchstone by which you may know whether a person is humble and holy. If he resents an injury, even though he may work miracles, you may say that he is an empty reed. Father Balthazar Alvarez said that the time of humiliation is the time to gain treasures and merits. You will gain more by peaceably suffering contempt, than you could do by fasting ten days on bread and water. Humiliations which we inflict on ourselves are good; but those which we accept from the hands of others are worth much more, because in these last there is less of self and more of God; therefore, when we know how to bear them the merit is greater. But what can a Christian pretend to do if he cannot bear to be despised for the sake of God? How much contempt did Jesus suffer for us! Ah, if we loved Jesus Christ, not only should we not show resentment for injuries, but we should rejoice at seeing ourselves despised as Jesus Christ was despised.
----------End Quote-----------
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'm far from certain blogging is conducive to humility. I need to be very, very careful, more careful than I have been for the past year or so. I need to accept criticism better. I also need to be more careful in what I say.
None of the above is easy stuff. True practice of humility generally comes at a pretty advanced stage in the interior life. There are many who claim to be humble, who are not. As St. Alphonsus highlights above, it is virtually an oxymoron for someone to proclaim their own humility. Such types are generally very lost in pride, which consideration perhaps ought to give us pause and direct our prayers to a very, very important person in the Church.
I have had a sudden flurry of readings and sermons I've been exposed to that lead me to believe they are not coincidental, but providential. I believe Our Blessed Lord is telling me to work on my humility, which has been lacking.
Pray for me!


The pope mistakenly assumed there were known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to the traditionalists.

 Vatican Council II is wrongly interpreted. It is assumed the dead-saved are visible in the flesh.

 The SSPX has been using 'the non traditional interpretation of Pope Pius XII'.

 Daphne McLeod is aware of this factual error in the writings of Michael Davis.It is a fact of life that she cannot see the dead, now existing in Heaven or Hell.We now know that Archbishop Lefebvre's 'hindu saved in his religion in Tibet'  is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Michael Davis did not know that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Davis, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, assumed that implicit for us salvation is explicit. They mistook what is invisible for us as being visible. He assumed that the dead now saved in Heaven are personally known to us. They are visible in the flesh. They became exceptions to Tradition.So he criticized Vatican Council II. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and the SSPX District Superiors have made this mistake.

 The error comes from their interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

According to Michael Davis, Archbishop Lefebvre, Daphne McLeod and the SSPX Pope Pius XII assumed there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since he believed invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
For them Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office, when he mistook implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to people still alive on earth.It is an objective fact that the dead cannot be seen on earth.
When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Pope Pius XII could be misunderstood by the liberals and traditionalists. Since the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office refers to the dogma and so supports Fr.Leonard Feeney. The second part of the Letter criticizes the priest for disobedience. He did not go to Rome to defend himself. The Letter was originally an inter office communication, from one cardinal to another. It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner and was supported by the liberal media.

No pope, cardinal or bishop made the correction or affirmed the dogma as it was known traditionally.The misunderstanding was carried over into Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) according to the liberals  contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and and also the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. It was never corrected by the SSPX.The SSPX never stated that these cases were implicit and not explicit. They were accepted as possibilities but could not be exceptions.

The traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center, USA, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, were criticized by the SSPX for still affirming the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Though they too assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades


AP and Reuters imply Pope Pius XII could see the dead



The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing was in heresy and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed to him.

Same error in SSPX books repeated by Opus Dei university


Pope Pius XII Father of Liberal Theology in the Catholic Church?
Invincible ignorance etc were never relevant or an issue with extra ecclesiam nulla salus: the Americanists made it one




 Did Michael Davis know ?
Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise being used by them in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

Book on Vatican Council II ignores the false premise