Thursday, July 3, 2014

Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate forced to proclaim a lie

 


The Franciscan Capuchins  and Conventuals  say ' a ray of the Truth'(Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II) refers to deceased saved without the baptism of water. It is further speculated that these deceased  now in Heaven were non Catholics. Then it is speculated (inferred) that these cases are VISIBLE on earth! So they become physically visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Nostra Aetate 2 becomes a break with Tradition and the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. NA 2 refers to salvation outside the Church which is visible for the Capuchins and Conventual Fathers.
This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II ( with the dead-saved and visible theory) which the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate have to accept.
It is with this irrationality of the dead-saved with ' a ray of the Truth', who are visible on earth,that the Franciscan Capuchin and Conventual Fathers accept Vatican Council II.
Relatives of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate could phone up the Vatican and ask them where are these deceased and visible exceptions in Rome?
Why do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate have to say that those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' are visible on earth and these physically visible cases are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.?
Why cannot the Sisters says that those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' are possibilities only, hypothetical cases  for us, who can only be known to God?
Even the nieces and nephews of the good Sisters will understand that this is all irrational and not Catholic and the Sisters are expected to affirm this to have their community regularised by the Vatican.Even the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have to accept this irrationality to be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and to be given access to their seminary once again.Upon this irrational premise seminarians have to build a fantasy theology.
Please ask Fr.Fredrick Lombardi S.J, the Vatican spokesman to name someone in 2014 , who has been saved with ' a ray of the Truth'.Why are the Sisters expected to endorse this irrational inference ?
Ask him to cite any Church document before 1949 which says that the baptism of desire cases are physically visible to us.There are no such references.
Then why must the Sisters accept the Holy Office 1949 inferring that the deceased saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire  are visible to us  and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The relatives of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate, the Mannelli and Pia families, are perhaps discovering that the Vatican is forcing these religious to accept factual errors.
It is common knowledge that the dead-saved are not visible on earth.It is an objective error for the Vatican to infer that these deceased-saved are visible on earth and so there is salvation outside the Church.
This is dishonesty and a falsehood.The Sisters as Catholics are supposed to proclaim and support a lie  which results in a non traditional and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades


RELATIVES OF THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE : ASK THE VATICAN AND THE SISTERS TO CLARIFY THESE POINTS ON DOCTRINE

RELATIVES OF THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE : ASK THE VATICAN AND THE SISTERS TO CLARIFY THESE POINTS ON DOCTRINE


Following up on the last report 1 I would ask the Franciscan Sisters  of the Immaculate the 12 questions which follow here. Sister Maria Michela Pia Cozzolino is the Superior General,of the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate. If she could answer these questions and also ask the Vatican to state their position, then it would be clear that Vatican Council II ( without the irrational inference) is traditional. Would Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia be willing to accept this rational interpretation of Vatican Council?
The Vatican Curia presently uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council. The Franciscans Sisters correctly reject this interpretation which is a break with the past.


 
QUESTIONS:
1. Do they affirm ' a ray of the Truthì(Nostra Aetate 2), as  being invisible for us or visible in the flesh for us? ( If they say NA 2 is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then they are  saying those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' are physically  visible.So they are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.)
2.Do they affirm an invisible for us ' seeds of the Word' (Ad Gentes 11, Vatican Council II) or a visible for us saved with the 'seeds of the Word'? The dead are visible?
3.Do they affirm an invisible for us having been saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' or do they claim there is a physically visible case of a non Catholic saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' ? Someone saved outside the Church i.e without the baptism of water.
4.Do they affirm an invisible for us saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16, Letter of the Holy Office 1949) or a case of someone physically visible in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance ?
5.Do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate  affirm an invisible for us being saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) or are these cases visible in the flesh? They don't need the baptism of water being exceptions.
6.Do the Sisters affirm an invisible for us implicit desire/baptism of desire or are these cases visible for us and so are an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Does the baptism of desire contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of the dogma on exclusive salvation?
7.Do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate  affirm all salvation mentioned to or alluded to in Vatican Council II as being invisible in Heaven for us on earth or are they physically seen in heaven and/ or  earth? Can we see the dead now saved in Heaven?

 
I,Lionel Andrades, affirm an invisible for  me baptism of desire and I reject an explicit for us baptism of desire.Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church or am I in heresy, according to the Franciscans of the Immaculate? Note: I am not denying implicit baptism of desire as a possibility. I am denying the existence of an explicit,objectively visible baptism of desire.
8.For me Vatican Council II is traditional.Since Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and NA 2, AG 11,LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc are not visible to us.So they are not physically known exceptions.Is  it the same for the Franciscan Sisters of  the Immaculate?
9.For me the Holy Office 1949 has made a mistake in assuming that implicit desire/baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to visible cases.The Holy Office 1949 infers that these physically visible cases are a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Do the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate also make this inference ? Do they believe the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was irrational and factually incorrect ? We cannot see the dead, is a fact of life.
So can I  be called a heretic for the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate.I am not rejecting extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.Neither am I rejecting the baptism of desire ( implicit).I affirm the literal interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and for me there is no salvation outside the Church.
10.For me Vatican Council II (without the inference of the dead-saved being visible)  has a hermeneutic of continuity with no ambiguities.For others Vatican Council II (with the inference) has a hermeneutic of rupture, with ambiguities and contradictions.Is this true also for the Franciscan Sisters  of the Immaculate?
11.For me AG 7, Vatican Council II ( all need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation) does not contradict LG 16 ( saved with implicit invincible ignorance). Is this true also for the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate ?'
12.Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 do not criticize Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. It does not say that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not visible to us.So there is no salvation outside the Church.There is no defacto salvation outside the Church and de facto, all need the baptism of water.Instead the Holy Office has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney after inferring that the baptism of desire is explicit for us in real life (defacto) and so is a (defacto) exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake according to the Franciscans of the Immaculate ? The Holy Office did not clarify the defacto-dejure, in fact-hypothetical, objective-subjective,visible-invisible,explicit-implicit distinction ?'
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Relatives of the Franciscans of the Immaculate please contact the Vatican

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/relatives-of-franciscans-of-immaculate.html

 

Liguori – "Salvation is our only business in this world”

Liguori – Salvation is our only business in this world”

by Tantumblogo http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/liguori-salvation-is-our-only-business-in-this-world/
It has been a long time since I've quoted one of the Moral Doctor's books. Far too long. From The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, The Ascetical Works, Vol. III, The Importance of Salvation:
Of all our affairs there is none more important than that of our eternal salvation, on which depends our happiness or misery for eternity."One thing is necessary" (Saint Luke, X:22). It is not necessary that we should be rich, honored, or in the St-Alphonsus-at Mt St A, smenjoyment of good health, but it is necessary that we should be saved. For this end alone has God placed us in the world; and woe to us if we do not attain it!
St. Francis Xavier said that the only good to be obtained in this world is salvation; and the only evil to be dreaded, damnation. What matter if we are poor, despised, or infirm? If saved, we shall be happy forever. On the contrary, what does it avail to be great, or to be monarchs? If lost, we shall be miserable for eternity.
O God, what will become of me? I may be saved, and I may also be lost. and if I may be lost, why do I not resolve to adhere more closely to Thee?
My Jesus, have pity on me. I will amend my life. Give me Thy assistance. Thou hast died to save me, and shall I notwithstanding, forfeit my salvation?
iconStAlphonsusMariaLiguori3Have we already done enough to secure salvation? Are we already secure of not falling into hell?
"What shall a man give in exchange for his own soul?" (Saint Matthew, XVI:26) If he lose his soul, what will compensate him for its loss?
What have not the Saints done to secure their salvation? How many kinds and queens have renounced their kingdoms and shut themselves up in cloisters! How many young men have left their country, and have gone to live in deserts? How many young virgins have renounced marriage with great ones of the world, to go and give their lives for Jesus Christ? And what do we do?
O my God, how much has Jesus Christ done for our salvation! He spent thirty three years in toil and labor; He gave His Blood and His Life; and shall we, through our own fault, be lost?
O Lord! I give Thee thanks, for not having called me out of the world when I had forfeited Thy Grace. had I then died, what 32-alphonsusvxeprovwould have become of me for all eternity?
God desires that all should be saved' "He will have all men to be saved." (1 Tim II:4) If we are lost, it will be entirely our own fault. And this will be our greatest torment in hell.
St. Teresa says that even the loss of a trifle, of an ornament, of a ring, when it has happened through our own carelessness, occasions us the greatest uneasiness. What a torment, then, will it be to the damned to have willfully lost all -their souls, Heaven, and God!
Alas! death approaches; and what have I done for life eternal?
O my God! for how many years have I deserved to dwell in hell; where I could not repent, nor love thee! Now, that I can do both, I will repent and will love Thee with my whole heart, and truly convert my soul.
---------------End Quote--------------
The great, invincible Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, the very antithesis of the kind of creature that inhabits parishes like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan! How the names of such incredible Saints are sullied by this association!
This is what is necessary for salvation: observing all God's Commandments. Yes, love for our fellow man is absolutely key, but love of God com
es first. That means love for, and submission to, His Law. He has revealed His Law to us very clearly. He has given us great Saints - and even Himself - to guide us. He has given us Sacred Scripture, but even more importantly, the infallibly communicated Tradition that predates Scripture and constitutes the handing on of God's literal Truth from generation to generation.
Love is not sentiment. Love it not indifference. Love is not false tolerance that pretends that sin is not. Love is sometimes hard. Love sometimes causes great pain. But all for the greater good, for the only thing that matters, in fact: eternal salvation.
Love is a Person, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and He who said: "If you love me, keep my commandments." (Saint John, XIV:15) One of those Commandments, stressed in Old Testament and New, is that sodomy (and sapphos) are incredibly offensive sins to God, sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Pray for the lost souls that inhabit fallen parishes where error abounds and Truth is not just forgotten, but actively derided. Blind guides, indeed.
The most difficult person in the world to convert, according to a great priest I know who has converted many, many improbable individuals, is the invincibly ignorant/badly formed Catholic. That is why Catholic schools are such utter disasters - once people hear from one they believe to be an authoritative source in the Church that this sin is not a sin, or that the Church "doesn't believe that anymore," convincing them otherwise takes a great moral miracle.
We need millions such miracles. Lord, have mercy on Your Church!
stacrux - Copy

HAIL MARY-GENTLE WOMAN (hymn)










I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and the 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is no mistake in the letter of Pope Pius XII. Feeneyism is condemned by the Church. You are a Feeneyist. It means you like a doctrine which is heretical. You put yourself outside the Church. Considering that Pius XII is the last great Pope who defended Tradition, it means being also against Tradition...I think you misunderstand the real sense of the Letter of the Holy Office.-Gabreille ( edited)
Lionel:
I affirm invisible for us ' a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II). You, the SSPX and supporters of the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney affirm a visible for us ' ray of Truth.
I affirm  invisible ' seeds of the Word' (Ad Gentes 11, Vatican Council II).It is hypothetical and a probablity. You and the others affirm a visible-for-us saved with 'seeds of the Word'.
I affirm an invisible for us being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church', for a non Catholic.It is implicit and accepted in theory. You the traditionalists and liberals affirm a visible for us being saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'.


I affirm an invisible for us being saved in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II) . You and millions of other Catholics affirm a visible for us in the flesh, cases of non Catholics, saved in invincible ignorance, who have not heard the Gospel through no fault of their own.You allegedly can see and know them on earth.
I affirm that being saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' are invisible for us in 2014.For you they are visible.For you this is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they have to be physically visible cases for you.
I affirm an invisible for us baptism of desire.For you the baptism of
desire is explicit and known in the present times in individual cases.
 These physically seen cases in 2014, for you,  are exceptions to the
 literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.
Leonard Feeney.So you can see the exceptions? You can name them ?
I affirm all salvation mentioned or alluded to in Vatican Council II and the Letter  of the Holy Office as being invisible for us on earth.They are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are not exceptions or relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.These are possibilities accepted in faith but they are not explicit exceptions.Hypothtical cases cannot be exceptions.
I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire. I am not denying invisible for us baptism of desire as a possibility.I am denying the existence of an explicit for us baptism of desire.
For me Vatican Council II is traditional.Since AG 7 is in agreement with
extra ecclesiam nulla salus and NA 2, AG 11,LG 8,LG 16,UR 3 etc are
 not visible to us.So  they are not physically known exceptions.
For me the Holy Office 1949 has made a mistake in assuming that
implicit desire ( baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible
ignorance refer to visible cases.Then the Holy Office wrongly concluded that  these physically visible cases are a known exception to the literal and centuries old interpretation of the dogma on salvation, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So I cannot be called a heretic ( on Catholic traditionalist forums) since I am not rejecting  extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.Neither am I rejecting the baptism of desire ( implicit). Implicit baptism of desire is not a physical exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water. It does not violater the Principle of Non Contradiction.


I affirm the literal interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and for me there is no salvation outside the Church.Those who reject this position are irrational, non traditional and heretical.
I am correct with implicit baptism of desire and the Letter of the Holy Office is wrong and irrational with explicit for us baptism of desire.It is common knowledge that the dead are not visible. This is a fact of life and not theology.
I am correct and rational with implicit for us salvation in Vatican Council and the traditionalists and liberals are incorrect and irrational with alleged explicit for us salvation, visible for us in real lifei.e being able to  see the dead.
For me Vatican Council II (without the inference of the dead-saved being visible) has a hermeneutic of continuity with no ambiguities.For others Vatican Council II(with the irrational inference) has a hermeneutic  of rupture with ambiguities and contradictions.
For me AG 7, Vatican Council II ( all need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation) does not contradict LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance).Vatican Council II(without the inference) does not contradict itself. For the others, AG 7 contradicts LG 16 ( being saved visibly in invincible ignorance).Vatican Council II(with the irrational premise) contradicts itself.For me doctrines and dogmas are coherent and 'non-developing' for others doctrines are either pre or post Vatican Council II.


Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 do not criticize Cardinal Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. It does not say that there is no salvation outside the Church and that those saved with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not visible to us.


Instead the Holy Office has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney after inferring that the baptism of desire is explicit for us  in real life and so is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This subtle error was not corrected by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the latter who correctly affirmed the dogma on salvation with no exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Apostate Church -Michael Voris