Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Editor refuses to define her terms.Infers that the baptism of desire is not invisible but visible for us.SSPX has made a mistake.

The Editor refuses to define her terms. She, like Athanasius, infers that the baptism of desire is not invisible but visible for us.
I have asked her to clarify her terms but she will not. Perhaps she realizes already that the SSPX has made a mistake.
She has pulled down posts related to the issue.Here are some of them.
 
This ‘theoretical’ case can be saved.Once again I am asking you to please clarify your terms http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/this-theoretical-case-can-be-savedonce.html#links
 
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/can-hold-traditional-interpretation-of.html#links    
The Good Thief is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-good-thief-is-not-exception-to-all.html#links
   
Hundreds of saints have used what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/hundreds-of-saints-have-used-what.html#links

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not accept Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.He was correct. The Holy Spirit cannot teach error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-did-not.html
   
At one of the two times, the magisterium has to be wrong
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/at-one-of-two-times-magisterium-has-to.html
-Lionel Andrades

http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/14/bishop-schneider-schism-looming/

In Catechesis in Catholic families the right hand column is used in the intepretation of magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II

Lionel Andrades said...

Would you agree that in all catechesis in Catholic families, they are using the right hand column in the intepretation of magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II ?

All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or RIGHT HAND COLUMN
implicit                                   or    explicit for us.
hypothetical                          or    known in reality.
invisible                                 or    visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)            or    defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                             or    objective.

So families, parents, cathechists,can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts itself. LG 16 ( invincible ignorance is an exception to all needing to convert) is contradicted by Ad Gentes 7, which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict itself. LG 16 does not contradict AG 7 and LG 14.

Most Catholic families interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
 

There are Catholic religious and lay persons who use the the left hand side column in the interpretation of magisterial text
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/there-are-catholic-religious-and-lay.html#links
 
 
Roman Forum Summer Conference this month will use the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/roman-forum-summer-conference-this.html#links

_______________________________________________


Lionel Andrades said...

In family catechesis the irrational concept of VISIBLE exceptions is used in general.
Why do you use the words 'visible' and 'invisible' ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them
Why do you use the words 'visible' and 'invisible' I am asked.

I refer to invisible and visible cases since most people are unaware. They are using the concept 'visible' when talking about Catholic salvation. It is they who first use the irrationality of visible exceptions. So I explain the difference between visible and invisible exceptions.

They tell me that all do not need to enter the Catholic Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church. In other words those who know and do not know are VISIBLE to us on earth. We know these cases in real life.

Then they say that every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. In other words these cases are VISIBLE to us in real life. We know cases in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire etc . So they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Then they say every one does not need to enter the Church and all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. What has all who are saved, are saved through Jesus and the Church, have to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Again it is inferred subtly that there are known cases saved without the baptism of water in other religions. They are VISIBLE to us . So all do not need to enter the Church for salvation.

Whenever someone says there are exceptions he is implying that there are VISIBLE exceptions.

They say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire. In other words, he would not accept a VISIBLE baptism of desire.


They say Nostra Aetate 2 is a revolution in the Catholic Church since it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A person can be saved without the baptism of water and with ' a ray of the Truth' . In other words ' a ray of the Truth' is a VISIBLE exception.If it was not VISIBLE it would obviously not be an exception.

Similarly they say UR 3 has changed the Catholic Church's teachings on ecumenism. Now a Protestant can be saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'. In other words these cases are VISIBLE in the present times, we can name some one saved in imperfect communion with the Church.

They ask why do you use the VISIBLE and INVISIBLE distinction ?

It is because just about every one is using it and doing so irrationally and unaware of it.-
Lionel Andrades


http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2014/06/pope-francis-the-devil-hates-families.html#comments

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

Lionel Andrades said...

Chrysologos said:
Just over a month ago I thought I had an adequate understanding of 'extra ecclesiam...', and the roles played by baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

Lionel:
Now you are not sure.
May be the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus,after all?
To answer that you would have to define your terms. You would have to clarify if the baptism of desire is explicit for you or implicit for you.
Does CCC mention a visible for us baptism of desire or one which is invisible ?
Your not willing to clarify this.Neither is James,Joseph Shaw or Fr.Finigin and others willing to enter unknown waters.
__________________
You obviously had a bee in your bonnet about these matters, and I endeavoured to discover the nature of both the bee and the bonnet.
Consequently I've spent many an hour perusing the CCC, following up leads, and, as far as possible, checking with original sources. As a result my knowledge has expanded enormously, and that can only be a good thing.
Lionel:
But you still cannot answer these four questions.Let me ask hem again:
1.Is Wikipedia saying for you that Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
2. Is Wikipedia saying for you that LG 16 is explicit and so an exception all needing to convert into the Church in the present times ?
3. Does Wikipedia indicate that all non Catholics in England do not need to enter the Church in 2014 since there are now known exceptions saved in invincible ignorance ?
4. Can the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still the fundamental question ?__________________
Chrysologus:
Thus, it is with some confidence I conclude:
1) The Church's teaching, through its documents and its ministers, is clear and straightforward.
Lionel:
This is vague. It would be precise if you answered so many of the questions I have asked you.
______________________
Chrysologus:
2) On the other hand, your comments on your and other blogs, with their seemingly pointless questions; their fixation with 'exceptions' (or not), and things 'visible' or 'invisible'; all conspire to confuse and befuddle what is otherwise plain to see.
Lionel:
In general Catholics assume there are exceptions to the dogma. This implies that there are VISIBLE cases.I am usually responding to this irrationality.
___________________
3) You consistently avoid addressing coherently the points I put before you, and therefore there is nothing I can usefully further say.
Lionel:
These are some of the many points between us(from above) which have not been answered.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
1.
1.Is Wikipedia saying for you that Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
2. Is Wikipedia saying for you that LG 16 is explicit and so an exception all needing to convert into the Church in the present times ?
3. Does Wikipedia indicate that all non Catholics in England do not need to enter the Church in 2014 since there are now known exceptions saved in invincible ignorance ?
4. Can the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is still the fundamental question ?_______________
2.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
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”.- The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
Lionel:
What had the baptism of desire to do with the traditonal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston?
____________________________
3.
And then we have Prof. Gavin D'Costa, on the website of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales inferring that 'a ray of the Truth' and 'seeds of the Word' are VISIBLE for us.This is the NORM in the Catholic Church in England ?_____________________________
4.
Lionel:
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens.
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”.- The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007
Here it is again:
“To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio).
Note :He is mentioning this relative to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He is rejecting the literal interpretation, i.e everyone needs to convert into the Church, and he is implying that every one does not need to convert into the Church.
Every one does not need to convert for him since a person can be saved with implcit desire ! Implicit desire which is de facto. Implicit desire (baptism of desire) which is known. It would have to be known for it to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Why mention baptism of desire if it is only hypothetical for him ?_____________________
5.
2. From Wikipedia again.
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:
"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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).-Wikipedia
Lionel:
Why does Wikipedia cite Lumen Gentium 16 ? Is it implying that those saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma? These cases are known to us ?________
6.
The exact quote from the Holy Office letter is:
'Therefore, that one may attain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing'.
www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
Note that the Holy Office refers to an individual, 'one'.
Lionel:
It refers to an indvidual 'one'.That's my point! So there is one exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?
Some one known and visible to be one exception to all needing to convert into the Church?
------------
7.
The dogma said everyone who does not convert is damned.
Here is one quotation from this Wikipedia entry on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are also others.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
So how can Wikipedia now say 'The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned'?
So for Wikpedia there must be an exception/exceptions in the present times,since every one does not need to be visibly in the Church.
An exception ? Do you know any exception in England this year ?___________________
8.
You write with regard to Fr Finigan, 'when asked if implicit desire ... was implicit or explicit for us, he will not answer'.
This is not true. I refer you to your own blog
 (www.eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/frtim-finigan-responds-on-extra.html). Among much else, Fr Finigan writes:
I have indeed answered your question (several times now)Lionel:
I don't think he has answered it.You could ask him the two questions I asked Dr.Joseph Shaw and place his answer here. Or invite him here to answer the two questions I asked James.____________________
9.
In the previous paragraph the Pope wrote,
(7) Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he be excused through ignorance beyond his control.
(ibid.)
Lionel:
In principle a person can be saved with the baptism of desire.
De facto every one needs to enter the Church and there are no known exceptions.
You would place that statement in this frame?__________________
__________________
10.
Similarly if you ask me whether I know for certain of any individual on earth or Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, I am not simply going to answer "No", I am going to point out that we do not know for certain of any individual being saved.
Lionel:
Your saying that you cannot see a person now saved in Heaven; saved with the baptism of desire.
This is something obvious for us all.
It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead.
So why cannot James, Joseph Shaw and Fr.Finigan say this in public ?
______________________
___________
11.
Similarly, no one is denying all need belong to the Church to be saved,
Lionel:
They are all saying that every one in England in 2014 need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions?
::::::::::
12.
Chrysologus:
For the record, the exact quote from Cardinal Danneels:
Even though it is true that Vatican II is fully rooted in our Catholic tradition, it is equally true that it launched a development and a deepening of that tradition, which here and there shows a discontinuity with past thinking and practice.
(www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/yof_card_danneels_lecture.pdf)
Lionel:
There is no discontinuity with past thinking in Vatican Council II for me.The Council is traditional.
Chrysologos:
Clearly nothing there about doctrinal breaks, no wholesale breaks, and definitely no mention of who is saved and who is not.
Regrettably you continue to muddy the otherwise clear waters of Church teaching, and you sully the good name of excellent bishops and priests by imputing unorthodoxy to their words.
Lionel:
Is Cardinal Daneels saying that every one in England in 2014 need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions? Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?_______________________________________

Here are Catholic Religious including an Archbishop who has answered the questions you are avoiding.
 
Catholic Religious contradict most Catholic priests and nuns : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-most.html#links
_______________


These links could help.

 
The box of mangos
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/the-box-of-mangoes.html


Why do you use the words ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/why-do-you-use-words-visible-and.html#links
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2014/05/blessings.html#comments


'Martyrs of...ecclesiastical corruption' ?

Can't Reconcile the Message with the Reality

Pope Francis's homily today is rather thought-provoking. Certainly, it pricked my own conscience with regard to my treatment or rather lack of love for the poor and the elderly. I just cannot reconcile the message with the reality. There is a complete disconnect between the message of Pope Francis today and the treatment of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. 'Martyrs of...ecclesiastical corruption'....for Heaven's sake...that's a perfect description of the plight of the Immaculate sons and daughters! How eerie that His Holiness should mention St Stephen. The founder of the FFI, who lives apparently now more or less in seclusion under very strict rules imposed from above is called Fr Stefano Manelli. From time to time, we suffer our own glaring moral blindspots, but we are not all preaching in the emphatic manner of Pope Francis on brotherhood, charity, mercy, fraternity. The themes that His Holiness has chosen that mark his pontificate are laudable, but there is a real difficulty in reconciling the warfare on the FFI with these themes. Why single this group out for special and severe attention and then, when alerted to the possible charge of hypocrisy, do nothing to ease their burden?

http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-cant-reconcile-message-with-reality.html

AFTERLIFE: THERE ARE NOT ONLY PITS IN HELL BUT AS SO MANY EXPECT, THERE IS ALSO THE FIRE


 
 



I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire

Athanasius says:
We find this same theme repeated during the early persecutions when Catechumens, not yet baptised but desirous of baptism, were saved by their desire and the sacrifice of their lives for Christ.
Lionel:
Please note that I keep repeating that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me. I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire. I accept the baptism of desire.
I accept an implicit for us baptism of desire and reject an explicit for us baptism of desire in 2014.
_______________________
 
Athanasius says:
It is patently obvious then that a strict reading of the dogma, such as you and other followers of Fr. Feeney embrace, has neither historical nor theological support.
Lionel:
A ‘strict reading of the dogma’, for me, is compatible, with the baptism of desire ( implicit).For me there is no contradiction. So I accept the baptism of desire.
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire. This would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
However if the baptism of desire was explicit, then there would be a contradiction and it would not be the teaching of the Church (before 1940).
The Church accepts a baptism of desire.Before 1940 it was always considered implicit for us. It was a possibility but irrelevant to the dogma. After 1940 'the magisterium' interpreted it, it seems, as visible for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades

 

The Good Thief is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water

Athanasius:
The primary example would be the Good Thief who died repentant asking Our Lord to remember him. Now this man had not received baptism yet he offered his suffering and death in atonement for his sins – baptism of blood. He desired salvation and Our Lord granted it to him “this day you will be with me in paradise.”

Lionel:
Please clarify your terms.
You could be assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are VISIBLE, persons seen in the flesh.
For me they are INVISIBLE, cases known only to God.
Since for me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, or ‘ a ray of the Truth’(NA 2) , refer to persons invisible for us , I have no problem with the Good Thief being saved with or without the baptism of water.
If there is such a case in 2014 it would not be an exception, for me, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/14/bishop-schneider-schism-looming/#comment-16915

Hundreds of saints have used what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Athanasius says:
You claim that the Magisterium has at some point in time formally contradicted itself in respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Lionel:
Yes.
1) Hundreds of saints have used what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here are some of the popes saying the same thing while you and the editor allege that the baptism of desire is a VISIBLE exception to the traditional interpretation.
Either you or I are correct.One of us has to be wrong.
-Lionel Andrades

This ‘theoretical’ case can be saved.Once again I am asking you to please clarify your terms

Editor:  
the only reason this post is getting through is because it is loosely related to the topic and I am trying one more time to show where you are in grave error. Two hypotheses follow:
1) Mr X desires baptism. He deeply wishes to die a Catholic. Has instruction. Prays the Rosary. Loves the Faith. Can’t wait for his Baptism. He is in a car accident and dies the day before his Baptism was due to take place in his local parish. Is he inside or outside the Church – in God’s eyes? Clearly, unless God is completely unreasonable, that man dies a member of the Catholic Church. Therefore, there is no exception. He dies a Catholic.
Lionel:
Yes. This ‘theoretical’ case can be saved.Once again I am asking you to please clarify your terms.Are you referring to a case which is theoretical for you or which you practically know about it.
Since if it is a theoretical case for you then it is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Please review these two links.
 
Why do you use the words ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them
_________________________________________
 
Editor:
2) Mr Y – for whatever reason – has never heard of the Catholic Church. He longs to do God’s will in all things. He prays to do God’s will in all things. He dies without ever having heard of the Catholic Church. In God’s eyes, is he a member of Christ’s Church ?(always objectively speaking of course) IF he dies a member of Christ’s Church, then he is not an exception.
Lionel:
(always objectively speaking of course) What do you mean by always objectively speaking ??? This cannot be an objective case for you. This person is in Heaven. He is not objectively known to you.
__________________________
 
Editor:
You are confused. If the Church taught that non-Christians would be saved in their own religion – THAT would be an exception. But the Church does not teach that.There are no exceptions but in certain cases where souls desire to be part of the Church but are prevented through no fault of their own, the baptism is conferred directly by God, to put it as clearly as I am able to manage right now. If this isn’t clear enough to end your confusion, I am truly giving up and would question your good faith.
Lionel:
Please clarify your terms.
When you say ‘but in certain cases where souls desire to be part of the Church but are prevented through no fault of their own, the baptism is conferred directly by God’ is this a hyopthetical case or one known for a fact, this year, for you?
-Lionel Andrades

Little Girl Kicked Out of KFC Restaurant Over Scars on Her Face From Dog Attack

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com 

It’s a shame when unborn children become victims of abortion because they have some sort of physical or mental disability that supposedly makes them “less than perfect.” It’s also a shame when people with some sort of disability or disfigured condition are treated poorly by society simply because they don’t “look like everyone else.
kfcIn this case, a grandmother of a 3-year-old girl who was viciously attacked by three dogs says she was asked to leave a KFC in Jackson, Mississippi by an employee who said the girl’s scars were scaring other customers.
A spokesman says KFC is also giving $30,000 toward her medical bills.
Spokesman Rick Maynard told The Associated Press that the donation will be made regardless of what the investigation finds.
“KFC launched an investigation as soon as we were made aware of this report. We take this very seriously, as we have zero tolerance for any kind of hurtful or disrespectful actions toward our guests. Our investigation is ongoing, but we will make things right for this beautiful little girl and her family, and will work with the franchisee to take appropriate action at the restaurant,” Maynard wrote in an email to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger.
 
“They just told us, ‘We have to ask you to leave because her face is disrupting our customers,’” Kelly Mullins, Victoria Wilcher’s grandmother, told WAPT-TV. “She understood exactly what they said.”
Mullins said she was driving her granddaughter home from the hospital in early June when they stopped at KFC for mashed potatoes.
The dog attack, Mullins explained, has made it difficult for her granddaughter to swallow.
“The right side of her face is paralyzed,” Mullins said. “She’s got a lot of surgeries to go through and she won’t even look in the mirror anymore. When we go to a store, she doesn’t even want to get out [of the car]. She’s 3 years old and she’s embarrassed about what she looks like.”
The incident, Mullins said, left the girl in tears.
“No matter what’s wrong with a person, if a person’s different, if a person’s scarred, or is a different color or anything, people shouldn’t be discriminated against,” Mullins continued. “Her being 3 years old and already being discriminated against, it makes me mad, because I know for the rest of her life it’s going to be like that.”
KFC investigated the incident and its officials say they are upset at how the little girl was treated and the company is now giving her $30,000 compensation for how she was treated.
“We take this very seriously, as we have zero tolerance for any kind of hurtful or disrespectful actions toward our guests,” KFC spokesman Rick Maynard said in a statement. “Our investigation is ongoing, but we have been in touch with the family and are committed to doing something appropriate for this beautiful little girl and her family. We will also work with the franchisee to take appropriate action at the restaurant once the specifics of the incident are determined.”
A Facebook page launched in April to give friends updates on Victoria’s recovery has garnered more than 30,000 likes, thanks in large part to a post about her experience at KFC.
KFC, it’s worth noting, responded on Facebook the next day.
“Please accept our sincere apologies while we try to investigate this incident,” the restaurant wrote in a comment. “If you could help provide details of the incident … we will look into this immediately. We have zero tolerance for any kind of disrespectful behavior by our team members. Once we have further details, we will immediately investigate this and take action, and we wish nothing but the best for Victoria in her recovery.”
A donation page set up to help Victoria’s family pay her medical bills has raised nearly $20,000.
 http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/16/little-girl-kicked-out-of-kfc-restaurant-over-scars-on-her-face-from-dog-attack/

Catholic Religious contradict most Catholic priests and nuns : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Most Catholic priests and  sisters assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to VISIBLE cases and to so they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Most of them do not realize that these cases are INVISIBLE and so are not exceptions to the defined dogma on exclusive salvation.
Most priests and sisters are using Cushingism which says there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, i.e we can see and meet them in the flesh.If we could not meet them they would not be exceptions.
Most priests and sisters are not using Feeneyism which holds that the baptism of desire exists ( with the baptism of water) and there are NO VISIBLE CASES. So the baptism of desire is irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Most priests and nuns assume, without really thinking about it, that we can name people in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire, or ' a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) or 'seeds of the Word (AG 11). They not know the name and surname of any such person saved with ' a ray of the Truth' or 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
Here are Catholic religious who are not making this common mistake.For them ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) is invisible, implicit, hypothetical and known only to God.
-Lionel Andrades
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links
 
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
 
REDEMPTORIST PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF NOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
 
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html
 
BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
 
Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html

Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider.html

Why do you use the words 'visible' and 'invisible' ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/why-do-you-use-words-visible-and.html#links

The box of mangos - 2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-box-of-mangoes-2.html#links

Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html#links

Most Catholic priests are using the irrational, right-hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/most-catholic-priests-are-using.html#links

Holy Innocents, New York

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not accept Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.He was correct. The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.

Fidelity Always:
So you are saying a person excommunicated by The Church, rather than a Successor to Peter, is a more credible teacher for you? How odd.
Lionel:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated because he did not accept Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and then he ordained the bishops.He was correct about Vatican Council II. The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.
All good Catholics must reject Vatican Council ( with the inference)  in which it is assumed that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth and these cases are an exception to Tradition. This is not-real and neither is it Catholic.
At that time, the magisterium did not seem to know that a false premise was being used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
It is based on this false premise that there was ' the Spirit of Vatican Council' which the Church seemed to accept and still does.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the traditional dogma on salvation it is often reported by the secular media.We now know there are no known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. After some 19 years Fr.Leonard Feeney had the excommunicated lifted.He was lucky.He was excommunicated when he committed no fault doctrine-wise.The baptism of desire is not explicit and so cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot see ghosts.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct about Vatican Council II ( with the premise). Unlike Fr.Leonard Feeney the excommunication was not lifted during his life time.
-Lionel Andrades
http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/14/bishop-schneider-schism-looming/

At one of the two times, the magisterium has to be wrong


Fidelity Always
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS
 By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Exact from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150

“Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.”


 
 Lionel:
 Pope Pius XII has called 'the dogma' extra ecclesiam nulla salus an  'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). The dogma has always to be taught as the Church teaches it, the Letter says.The saints have always taught the dogma as having no exceptions.There are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Augustine, St.Anthony Marie Claret, St.Maximillian Kolbe.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not VISIBLE and so they cannot be exceptions.We cannot name any 'explicit exception' in 2014.
However the Letter of the Holy Office also mentions the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as an exception for many. Since the distinction between invisible and visible for us distinction was not made. The Letter has left this point confused.
So in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 , the magisterium in the past has said that there are no exceptions and now it is saying there are exceptions.
At one of the two times, the magisterium has to be wrong.-Lionel Andrades