Friday, May 16, 2014

Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela Desecrated by Shinto and Buddhist Rites

Thursday, May 15, 2014


Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela Desecrated by Shinto and Buddhist Rites


(Madrid) The famous cathedral of Santiago de Compostela was desecrated by Buddhist and Shinto rites The Catholic Church prohibits in their churches every act of worship of another religion. Through the implementation of a strange rite a Catholic church is profaned, and requires a special rite to fix this desecration.
Nevertheless, it came as part of an event organized by the local tourist association "Japanese Week in Santiago", the desecration of the world famous place of pilgrimage cathedral by Buddhist monks and Shinto priests, who presented ritual songs and dances.

Tourism Association Organized "Japanese Week" and Allowed Buddhist and Shinto Dance in Cathedral

From the 9th to the 13th of May, Japan was presented in Santiago with a variety of events all year. It featured Japanese art, music and cuisine. On May 13th, the last day of the theme week, the event took place in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela called "The Spirit of Japan". The program announced the event as "Songs and Dances of Buddhist monks and Shinto priests of the prefecture of Wakayama."
But how is it possible that the cathedral of the Archbishop could permit the Tourist Office to make it available, ​​moreover even for ritual acts of foreign religions? This is what Catholics are currently asking. For the tourist office Santiago de Compostela all religions are equal, so for that reason religious programs can take place in a religious context, specifically Buddhist and Shinto rites in a Catholic church.

Holy Mass in a Side Chapel - Idolatry Before the High Altar


While Holy Mass was celebrated in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel of the Cathedral, the main nave of the church in front of the main altar was opened to Buddhist monks and Shinto priests for their rites.
The even was not mentioned on the website of the cathedral church, but without the consent of those responsible, the event could not have taken place. There is also no indication that the procedure required by the Church after a profanation, that is a purification rite, will be performed with a new consecration.
Are really all religions equal and a church is only a syncretic container dedicated to fit in all religions? What does Archbishop Julián Barrio of Santiago de Compostela mean by this?
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2014/05/cathedral-of-santiago-de-compostela.html
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/meanwhile-at-compostela-pagan-rites-at-the-main-altar-holy-mass-at-the-side-altar/
 

Who am I ? (Updated)










I affirm the thrice defined dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I affirm them in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries.
I accept the popes. Pope Francis is my pope and Pope John Paul II is my favourite pope. When Pope Francis seems to contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church I affirm Pope John Paul II and the traditional teachings.
I am not a sedevacantist.
Neither am I a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II.
I accept invisible for us baptism of desire. I reject explicit for us in 2014 baptism of desire.
I accept Vatican Council II without the inference of being able to see the dead. I reject of course the common interpretation of Vatican Council II with 'the inference'.
I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church in accord with the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
For me there is a hermeneutic of continuity in the interpretation of all magisterial documents when 'the inference' is not used.I avoid it.
I reject the hermeneutic of rupture used by the Vatican Curia in the interpretation of magisterial texts with 'the inference'.There is no hermeneutic of continuity even though they claim there is .
I accept the sedevacantist  Most Holy Family Monastery,USA's interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I reject their inference of the baptism of desire being explicit for us. I reject their interpretation of Vatican Council II ( with the false premise).
I accept the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,USA interpretation of the dogma extra eccleisam nulla salus and accept their theological position of the baptism of desire being  followed by the baptism of water.I reject their interpretation of Vatican Council II.They use 'the grand inference', common in the Catholic Church. For them Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. For me it is not.
I reject  Bruno Gherardini and the SSPX bishops and priests inferring that Nostra Aetate 2 ( a ray of the Truth) is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I assume that those who are saved with a ray of theTruth are implicit for us and known only to God.So these cases cannot be relevant to the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A possibility is not a known reality and so cannot be an  exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist.
I have no problem with those Catholics who say that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water. Either way it is invisible for us and not an exception to the traditional interpretation of the Catholic dogma on salvation.
I affirm the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 in which they upheld extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. I reject Fr.Francois Laisney, Fr.Joseph Pfieffer (SSPX-SOS) and Fr.Peter Scott of the SSPX inferring that the baptism of desire is explicit for us and so an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
I accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney on the dogma when it referred to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.If the Holy Office 1949 assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions; if they inferred that they could see the dead saved with the baptism of desire who are exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, then I reject it.It is irrational and not part of the Deposit of the Faith.
I affirm Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and which is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation (CCC 846).Vatican Council II is saying in Ad Gentes 7 that all non Catholics need to enter the Church visibly (with faith and baptism) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
I interpret magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church notably without the inference of the dead man visible on earth theory. I understand that it will differ with other Catholics, in their interpretation of the Magisterium, since they use the dead-saved and visible on earth theory .So for them Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition; the dogma on exclusive salvation, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Syllabus of Errors, the Church Fathers and the Bible.
For me the teachings of the Catholic Church before and after  Vatican Council II(without the inference) are the same.
For me the teachings of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II (with the  inference) are a break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades