Friday, May 30, 2014

Joseph Shaw says the issue is complex : it is because he uses a false premise

Joseph Shaw says that this 'issue is complex'. 1 It is so because he uses a false premise. He assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit for us and so are an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
It is with this false premise
(1.Invisible cases are visible.
2.So all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church.)
that he begins to interpret Vatican Council II.
 
This is Cushingism. Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston inferred that there were known exceptions  to the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was supported by the Jesuits in Boston.
 
They then were active at Vatican Council II.
 
Joseph Shaw assumes that those saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II ) refers to visible cases on earth. So NA 2 contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are exceptions.It is the same with UR 3, LG8 , AG 11 what is acceptable as being invisible and hypothetically possible is considered to be visible in our reality.
 
Many people who assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong to reject the baptism of desire (explicit/visible for them) reason rationally, but with a wrong premise.
 
Change the premise and Fr.Leonard Feeney is in perfect agreement with Vatican Council II including NA 2.
 
If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII  assumed that the baptism of desire (implicit desire) was an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney,  then that cardinal made an objective mistake.His premise was wrong.
 
It is the same false premise which Gavin D'Costa  uses on the video seen on the websites of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the University of Bristol,England.
 
It is with the false premise that there are exceptions to Tradition.Without the false premise there are no exceptions to the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors on other religions, Protestant communities and salvation.
 
It is when the false premise is used that this issue becomes complicated and complex. It becomes a theological minefield.With a rational premise the issue is simplified.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
 
 I am going to start deleting your comments. They are irrelevant to the posts they are attached to - they are essentially spam. They are also incomprehensible, and for that reason boring. They are, finally, rude. You have no idea what the various people who have not responded to your spamming think about these complex issues.-Joseph Shaw


Joseph Shaw responds but only about being rude,boring and spam http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/joseph-shaw-responds-but-only-about.html#links


 
 
 
 
 

Video : Garabandal

Padre Pio recommends Garabandal.
Padre Pio speaks to Joey Joey Lomangino,in perfect English telling him about the specific sins he committed.
The visionaries are now adults living in the USA.There is an interesting segment at the end of this video of an interview with one of the visionaries.
-L.A

The Catholic Church maintains that you have to be Catholic to be saved

Anonymous 2 said...
Catholic Mission:

As I am sure Pater Ignotus and Father McDonald can well explain to us, the Catholic Church does not maintain that you have to be a Catholic to be saved.

But to get you started please read the Catechism sections 839-848 and mediate on the following passage in section quoted in section 847:

“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.”

But of course all are saved only through Jesus Christ.
As I am sure Pater Ignotus and Father McDonald can well explain to us, the Catholic Church does not maintain that you have to be a Catholic to be saved.

Lionel:
Yes it does in Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
This is the same message of Dominus Iesus 20.
Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the title Outside the Church No Salvation.

But to get you started please read the Catechism sections 839-848 and mediate on the following passage in section quoted in section 847:

“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.”

Lionel:
The above passage does not state that these cases are visible to us, seen in the flesh. So these cases, are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7.

De facto in reality, objectively, all need 'faith and baptism' to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

De jure ( in principle) hypothetically, in theory, a person can be saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire, as known to God.This is probability, a possibility but not a known exception in 2014.

If you are inferring that a possibility is a known case in 2014 it is irrational. We cannot see the dead and neither does any magisterial text ( Vatican Council II etc) make this claim.

But of course all are saved only through Jesus Christ.

Lionel:
Yes all are saved in Jesus Christ those who are saved with 'faith and baptism' and those with implicit desire etc.

Those persons who are saved with implicit desire ( baptism of desire) are not visible for us but invisible. So they are irrelevant to the traditional teaching which says all need to be Catholic,( with faith and the baptism of water,which is visible) for salvation.

All adults need faith and baptism for salvation in 2014 and you and I do not know a single exception.

-Lionel Andrades

The person who marries a non Catholic and lives with him is living in adultery. It is a mortal sin.Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.

15 comments: from the blog southern orders

 
Catholic Missionsaid...
Winter for the Catholic Faith in England

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/winter-for-catholic-faith-in-england.html#links
Anonymous said...
I don't think that there were any "mortal sins" involved in any of what you describe by anybody. Do you really think that your just and merciful God would send your brother to burn in hell for eternity for marrying the woman he loved?

The only one who screwed up was your dear old Dad. Too bad he never was able to realize or admit it.
Fr. Allan J. McDonaldsaid...
You are either ignorant or being silly or not Catholic or nominally so, mortal sin leads to hell as well as a corrupt life that spits at God's laws!
Desiree said...
Enabling is never helpful to anyone involved. I've told my children already that they are to marry a Catholic in a Catholic Church. I will not go to their "wedding" if they don't do this. I take Confession seriously and teach them to do the same. I believe taking Confession seriously is the root to living godly. The examination of conscience covers mortal sins and Church's teachings well, so a person knows them and is aware of their actions.

Sometimes a person can look mean or harsh to others by following God's rules, but His rules/plan make our lives easier. They are given to us out of love.
Anonymous said...
Being the child of a professional military man can be hard. I have known (well) a number of military dads and their children.

Has anybody seen "The Great Santini"?

I have also helped my wife raise (successfully) seven children. Sometimes the very thing that you tell them that they must do or not do is the thing that they don't do or do do.
Pater Ignotus said...
Desiree - If your child marries a Baptized non-Catholic in a non-Catholic church with the necessary permission, that is, then, a sacramental wedding recognized as such by the Catholic Church.

There is no sin whatsoever in marrying a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic setting.
Desiree said...
Hmmm. That's a new change I'm assuming. There is a problem when you marry outside the Catholic faith. There is confusion and disagreements. It is happening in my family.
Catholicism is the true faith, so why mess around? I'm fairly Traditional.
Catholic Missionsaid...
The person who marries a non Catholic and lives with him is living in adultery. It is a mortal sin.
Outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.
The non Catholic is oriented to Hell unless he enters the Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II)
Desiree said...
Thank you, Catholic Mission!
WSquared said...
Excellent post, Fr. McDonald.

A man and a woman can be absolutely right for each other, and free to marry, and yet be absolutely wrong in the way in which they go about their marriage. The issue isn't that they "shouldn't love each other," but that what they are doing is actually unloving, being contrary to Love, Himself. What the Church wants to give any couple is a good, solid foundation. There is so much that can and will test any and all marriages, and God will not hold back His grace from those who trust in Him.

Maybe my father took seriously that following Jesus sometimes brings division to the family...

Good for your dad. A false peace is no peace at all.

Michael Coren wrote something along these lines and how well his own father handled it. His father was Jewish, while Coren is a convert to Catholicism. Coren married in the Catholic Church. His father said, "sorry, this is wrong, and I can't attend your wedding." It hurt Coren for his dad not to be there, but the latter did give the couple furniture to help them set up their home. So, one can hold firm on not enabling mortal sin, but still help the couple. And when this kind of situation arises, the operative word here isn't "won't," but "can't."

Also, I think we enable them to love, which means never enabling that which is contrary to love. As a hypothetical example, we would not condone a relative shouting at a couple marrying outside the Church and saying that they're going to Hell. But neither would we condone another relative telling them that what they're doing is okay. In a nutshell, we're looking at the extremes of despair and presumption.

My father eventually reconciled with my brother but never apologized for not going to his wedding. He should not have had to do that.

He had nothing to apologize for in terms of his position. If he was more impatient or insensitive than he should've been, then his approach could've used work, but that's all.

I was wrong in going to my brother's wedding not only because it went against my father's wishes, but it went against my Father in heaven wishes too.

Not to be disrespectful at all, but your father's wishes qua his wishes aren't the issue. It's what Our Father in Heaven commands, and what it means to be contrary to the good of all involved-- you, your father, your brother, and beyond. It's not who's right, but what's right-- important for moving beyond "what I want" versus "what Dad/Mom wants."

Also, given your very last paragraph, far more interesting is where any parent will lean either (too) strict or (too) lax and why, because it's all about priorities: a parent, for example, may consider themselves absolutely "liberal" and "cool" when it comes to what the Church teaches, but then be rigid in other highly destructive ways-- like insisting on achievement but not excellence.

I have already been in the position that your father was in, and I'm not yet a parent. What I took from it was this: I can accede to reasonable requests as charity demands and enables, but I am under no moral obligation to accede to unreasonable and sinful ones. I may have to be patient and forgiving with such requests, but I don't have to find them acceptable or right.

Never did I say that I was "shunning" those in mortal sin and that they were "going to Hell." But there were those who thought that I was indeed "shunning" them or being "unloving." Somebody dropped the usual "don't impose your religion on others" cliche, but the imposition in question most certainly wasn't mine: I didn't say, "marry in the Catholic Church, or I won't come to your wedding." Rather, I said that it was good of them to invite me and that I thought they are well matched. But that I can't celebrate mortal sin.
Anonymous said...
Catholic Mission:

I think you're a tad off the mark - there was a well-known Catholic woman who was married to an honest to to goodness pagan, but who turned out alright. Ever hear of St. Monica and her son, St. Augustine?

Also, two of my aunts were married to non-Catholics, in church and by a priest (though there was not a Mass). Both of my uncles eventually converted to Catholicism, so I'd say that worked out well all around.

Oh - and in case you think this was one of those unfortunate consequences of Vatican II, these marriages were in 1938 and 1939, respectively. Hardly the hey-day of hippy dippy Catholicism.
Anonymous 2 said...
Father McDonald and Readers: Please ignore or delete my comments on this thread. They were posted to the wrong thread by accident. It is late and I am tired!! My apologies.
Catholic Missionsaid...


Anonymous:
I think you're a tad off the mark - there was a well-known Catholic woman who was married to an honest to to goodness pagan, but who turned out alright. Ever hear of St. Monica and her son, St. Augustine?

Lionel:
I hope St.Monica's husband made it to Heaven.

Also, two of my aunts were married to non-Catholics, in church and by a priest (though there was not a Mass).

Lionel:Those non Catholics ( your uncles) were oriented to Hell according to the Catholic Church (AG 7, CCC 846, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc).
Your aunts were living in adultery.

Both of my uncles eventually converted to Catholicism, so I'd say that worked out well all around.
Lionel: I hope they all went for Confession.

Oh - and in case you think this was one of those unfortunate consequences of Vatican II, these marriages were in 1938 and 1939, respectively. Hardly the hey-day of hippy dippy Catholicism.

Lionel:
Before and after Vatican Council II the Church has not changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
Anonymous said...
Catholic Mission / Lionel:

I also hope St. Monica's husband was saved (though I believe he died unconverted so that's up in the air at best). The issue, of course, is St. Monica herself, who the African church (and later the whole Latin church) did not believe to be "living in adultery."

More to the point, here's what the

Catechism of the Catholic Faith
has to say
(note that my aunts' marriages were "mixed marriages;" both of my uncles were baptized Protestants. I excised "disparity of cult" text, but marked the locations by *doc* so you can look it up):

Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. *doc*

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. the spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. *doc*

1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.

(permission my aunts had)

So your charges of "adultery" on the part of my aunts (and by extension, St. Monica) are contradicted by the very Catechism you tried to use to buttress your case. For shame.
Catholic Missionsaid...
Anonymous:
I also hope St. Monica's husband was saved (though I believe he died unconverted so that's up in the air at best). The issue, of course, is St. Monica herself, who the African church (and later the whole Latin church) did not believe to be "living in adultery."

Lionel:
She was a Catholic.If her husband did not convert he is lost to Hell.
I am referring here to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus supported by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846).

Anonymous:
More to the point, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Faith has to say (note that my aunts' marriages were "mixed marriages;" both of my uncles were baptized Protestants. I excised "disparity of cult" text, but marked the locations by *doc* so you can look it up):

Lionel:
According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Council of Florence 1441) Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. They need the spiritual help of the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church to avoid mortal sin and live with Sanctificying Grace.

Anonymous:
Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. *doc*

Lionel:
Often, or always, the couple and the pastors do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Anonymous:
1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage,
Lionel:
Not if the non Catholic decides to convert and have the children raised as Catholics.

Anonymous:
when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ.

Lionel:
They can only be faithful to Christ by converting into the Catholic Church.

Anonymous:
But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. the spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. *doc*

Lionel:
True. Also there is eternal damnation for both. They are living in adultery and without the Sacrament of marriage.

Anonymous:
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.

Lionel:
True.
It would be sad if this permission is given for couples to live in adultery as it could be given for couples who have divorced and remarried or those who support sodomy and same sex marriages as in England.

Anonymous:
(permission my aunts had)
So your charges of "adultery" on the part of my aunts (and by extension, St. Monica) are contradicted by the very Catechism you tried to use to buttress your case. For shame.

Lionel:
Outside the Church there is no salvation is a defined dogma approved by three Councils and supported by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Protestants are outside the Church. They are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
This is a de fide teaching.
It cannot be over ruled by any administrartion or disciplinary action in some part of the Church.
If your aunts were living with a Protestant,a Jew or Muslim it would be adultery for them and their husbands.Since their husbands were unbelievers, the marriage in whatever form it was conducted, could not be a Sacrament for them.
 
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican,Cardinal Vince Nicols, Bishop Michael Campbell, University of Bristol, FIUV misinforming the public : malafide legally?

They have been informed. Yet they do not deny it. Instead they infer that there are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This should be denied. It is irrational. Instead they infer that the deceased saved with ' a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2,Vatican Council II ) are visible to us on earth.They also suggest that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II when there is no such text in the Council to support this irrationality.Upon this irrationality they base their 'new theology'.

They misrepresent Vatican Council II and the Catholic Church and provide false information; factually incorrect information, about the teachings of the Church.
Even after being informed they allege that this irrationality ( visible dead theory) is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
Whatever be their motivations, to intentionally misrepresent facts, is irresponsible.
 
They represent legal institutions who claim that my religion teaches that those saved with 'a ray of the Truth', 'seeds of the Word' , who are now  deceased persons living in Heaven, can be  seen on the streets of England. They would have to be seen to be exceptions to the traditional teaching which says all need to enter the Church for salvation.
 
This is irrational. It is a falsehood and misrepresents my religion. The teachings of the Catholic Church have been constant since the time of Jesus up to  the present times.
I have informed the 'accused' so many times through e-mails of posts on this blog. Yet the Prefects of the Pontifical Councils and Congregations do not issue a clarification.

Cardinal Vince Nicols, President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England Wales  acts as if he can change Catholic teaching, by claiming that we Catholics can see ghosts in real life. As a 'defendent', I would defend my Catholic Faith against what could be malafide propaganda.It is malafide in the sense that there is silent acquiescence to error, false misrepresentation etc even after they (cardinals at the Vatican,Cardinal Vince Nicols,Bishop Michael Campbell,Bishop of Lancaster,England, the University of Bristol,Federation International Una Voce etc) have been informed.
 
I think many other Catholics , like me, are offended and would demand that a simple statement be issued, clarifying, ' there are no known exceptions in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ( AG 7 says -all need faith and baptism for salvation.'All' signifies no exceptions).Catholics cannot see the deceased on earth.'
 
This statement in different forms (answer to TWO QUESTIONS etc) has been made by an Archbishop, a Catholic lay apologist,a  Dean of Theology and a Dean of Philosophy in Rome's universities and many Catholic priests in Rome.There statements have been posted on this blog.This is the teaching of Catholic magisterial documents and not just my personal opinion.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Joseph Shaw responds but only about being rude,boring and spam  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/joseph-shaw-responds-but-only-about.html#links

Cardinal Nicols and FIUV are telling a falsehood. Why do rank and file Catholics have to accept it? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-nicols-and-fiuv-are-telling.html#links

Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce official has nothing to say

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/foederatio-internationalis-una-voce.html#links

Winter for the Catholic Faith in England

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/winter-for-catholic-faith-in-england.html#links

Traditionalists do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Another wasted conference in England today.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/traditionalists-do-not-want-to-affirm.html#links

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Engand : two questions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-athanasius-schneider-and-priests.html 

Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue,Vatican rejects Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) : all need faith and baptism for salvation

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/pontifical-council-for-interreligious.html

 
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY INDICATES POPES, SAINTS IN HERESY

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity claims Pope Pius XII condemned the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus :suggests those in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us and so contradicts the dogma
 
 
 

G-8 CARDINALS,CARDINALS BRAZ AND KOCH, USCCB, FR.FIDENZIO VOLPI MUST SET AN EXAMPLE FOR THE SSPX AND ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT CLAIMS OF BEING ABLE TO SEE THE DEAD

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/g-8-cardinalscardinals-braz-and-koch.html#links 


Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-and-pope.html#links

Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster closes Protect the Pope news service and forum http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/bishop-michael-campbell-of-lancaster.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/deacon-nick-donnelllys-ccrs-course.html#links

If Lancaster Diocese did not use this irrationality Bishop Michael Campbell would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with the Catechism (1993) and Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/if-lancaster-did-not-use-this.html#links 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/bishop-michael-campbell-and-lancaster.html#links

 
Vatican website for clergy promotes 'theology of religions', Kung and Knitter : claims Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for the same interpretation of the dogma as the popes and saints
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
October 16, 2013
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
 

 Friday, October 7, 2011
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links 

 
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
 

JOHN MARTIGIONI SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS: WHEN WILL THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN CURIA ACKNOWLEDGE IT?

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni


_________________________________________________________

Apparition of Our Lady in Rome

The love and mercy of the Blessed Virgin Mary are endless, of course through the goodness of Almighty God, who is the source of all grace.
Today, I visited the Grotta Della Madonna Della Tre Fontane (The Grott of Our Lady of the Three Fountains). This is such a beautiful and simple place. I visited here at the recommendation of St. Emanuella who I posted about yesterday.
There was a man by the name of Bruno Cornacchiola. Bruno was raised Catholic, but like many of our contemporaries, he left the faith. And, not only did he leave the Catholic Church, but he grew an intense hatred for it and the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom he often attacked and blasphemed.
Bruno pledged that he would do everything in his power to destroy the Catholic Church. He also made a vow to kill Pope Pius XII. Bruno was violent to his wife and children because they practiced the Catholic faith. He demanded that his wife leave the Church and become a Protestant and eventually an Adventist minister.
On a beautiful day, 12 April 1947, Bruno took his children to at little park across from the Trappist Monastery at Tre Fontane. Children loved to go there, since their parents would often purchase chocolate made by the Trappists. (I can attest to the goodness of the chocolate. Could have eaten the whole store!)
During their visit to the park, one of the children lost the ball they were playing with. The children began to search in the woods and when they came upon the grotto, they saw a beautiful woman and kept repeating the words: “Beautiful woman.” In fear that his children would be garment, Bruno went to see what was taking place and to remove them. However, without all his strength, Bruno could not move his children from the spots where they knelt. Suddenly, the Virgin Mary appeared to and spoke to Bruno.
Like St. Paul, the scales fell from the eyes of Bruno and his life was change forever. He was directed by Our Lady to seek the guidance of a priest (she promised that it would be confirmed by a sign) and she wanted him to meet with the Pope. Bruno and his family converted back to the Catholic Church. On 9 December 1949, just 2 – 1/2 years later, Bruno was able to talk with Pope Pius XII and ask his forgiveness. Bruno was used by Our Lady to confirm the Holy Father’s desire to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary giving the Pope Our Lady’s message: “My body could not decay and did not decay, I was taken to heaven by my Son and His angels’.”
If you get to Rome, be sure you don’t miss this holy sanctuary!
Sanctuary of Our Lady of Divine Revelation
- See more at: http://www.ipadre.net/2014/05/apparition-of-our-lady-in-rome/#sthash.PZk83v4t.dpuf

http://www.ipadre.net/2014/05/apparition-of-our-lady-in-rome/

Joseph Shaw responds but only about being rude,boring and spam

Comments from Joseph Shaw's blog LMS Chairman
 
 
Lionel:
Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce official has nothing to say
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/foederatio-internationalis-una-voce.html#links
 
 
  1. Lionel:
    May 29, 2014
    Cardinal Nicols and FIUV are telling a falsehood. Why do rank and file Catholics have to accept it?
    Cardinal Vince Nicols the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) and the officials of the Federation International Una Voce (FIUV) are telling a lie for political or personal reasons. Why do the rank and file Catholics have to accept it ? They have to accept a factual error because they have not learnt theology ?

    James Bogle, the President and Joseph Shaw, theTreasurer of the FIUV are British.It is a falsehood for the FIUV and Cardinal Nicols to suggest that there are known, visible- in- the- flesh persons in 2014 , saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II ) and ' seeds of the Word'(Ad Gentes 7).

    On the CBCEW website there is a video which states all do not need to convert into the Catholic Church , according to Vatican Council II. No text in Vatican Council II states this !

    Joseph Shaw, the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales abets in this falsehood.He is not willing to say that every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times to avoid Hell and there are no known exceptions.He is a lecturer at Oxford and this would put him at odds with his colleagues and of course the Cardinal-president of the CBCEW.
    So like Gavin D'Costa on the CBCEW video, for Joseph Shaw, Vatican Council II, Nostra Aeate 2 refers to the deceased in Heaven, visible on earth.The deceased-saved would have to be visible for them to be exceptions to all needing to convert in 2014.

    For political reasons Cardinal Vincent Nicols recently permitted Catholic politicians who support same sex marriages to receive the Eucharist at Holy Mass in England.This is Sacrilegious Communion.He also expects lay Catholics to accept nonsense about the baptism of desire etc being exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus- as if these cases were visible to him on earth to be exceptions.How can they be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston, when we cannot see any of these cases in the flesh ?

    According to the CBCEW website Catholics are told to leave this 'theologial issue' to the 'experts' in inter religious dialogue. Gavin D'Costa a Catholic professor of theology at the University of Bristol, who claims he can see the deceased in England, is considered an 'expert'.He is a consultant with the CBCEW.

    Traditionalists in England, including Joseph Shaw, who lectures on philosophical and other subjects , are going along with this misinformation.FIUV supports this misinformation about the Catholic Church. Lay Catholics who do not know theology have to swallow this objective error since the cardinal at Westminister wants them to do so. -Lionel Andrades

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-nicols-and-fiuv-are-telling.html#links
    1. Dear 'Catholic Mission',

      I am going to start deleting your comments. They are irrelevant to the posts they are attached to - they are essentially spam. They are also incomprehensible, and for that reason boring. They are, finally, rude. You have no idea what the various people who have not responded to your spamming think about these complex issues.

      You have been warned.

      Joseph
      _______________________________________________
    2.  
    Lionel:
    1. Joseph,
      I have been saying the same things on my blog and the blog Catholic and Loving it!. You have participated in the discussion there on other issues. I have to write so often since I never get an answer from you on a subject related to Catholic Philosophy and Theology. You are a lecturer on this subject. You are also a practising Catholic.

      Instead of a response on the specific religious subject you only mention spam, being rude and boring.

      This is a very serious issue in the Catholic Church.Catholics have been martyred on this subject.They did not deny the Faith.

      I asked you two simple questions about the Catholic Faith, which you are not willing to affirm in public.Neither will you comment on the factual error of Gavin D'Costa.It is still there on a video shown on the websites of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the University of Bristol. In other words for you, LMS and FIUV being saved with ' a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) is an explicit exception in 2014 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation. 'All' refers to NO EXCEPTIONS).
      Without referring to this issue related to Vatican Council II the LMS had a conference on Vatican Council II and evangelisation.
      Even after last Saturday's conference no of the speakers will comment on this issue.Neither are you willing to discuss your views on the blog Catholic and Loving it!, where you comment on other subjects?

      As a Catholic I have affirmed the answer to those TWO QUESTIONS. For me Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus without any known exception.The Catholic Church's teachings on other religions and salvation has not changed.This is the simple opinion of a lay man and you cannot as a Catholic,criticize or support it.Neither can you even discuss it ?

      I am sorry that you consider what I have written as being rude. I am dealing with a difficult subject ( millions going to Hell where there is fire).I have restricted myself to doctrine.In none of my posts have I commented on your personality or charachter. I wouldn't dare do that, even if we had met.

      Whatever be your motivations, if Gavin D'Costa is factually wrong and you are silent about it, even after being informed, then you are supporting a falsehood about Vatican Council II and the Catholic Church ? There is no text in the Council to support D'Costa's factual error .
      In Christ.
      Lionel       
       
      -Lionel Andrades