Tuesday, October 7, 2014

F.F.I.: comunicato ufficiale dell'Isituto sulla sospensione a divinis di 6 padri F.I. Nulla si dice sull'irritualità.

MiL - Messainlatino.it

F.F.I.: comunicato ufficiale dell'Isituto sulla sospensione a divinis di 6 padri F.I. Nulla si dice sull'irritualità.

Pubblichiamo il comunicato ufficiale dell'Istituto dei Frati Francescani dell'Immacolata.
Vengono precisate le motivazioni della "gravissima" (se non la più grave) censura canonica (quindi confermata, come avevamo anticipato) che però non giustificano affatto una pena così eccessiva viste le asserite motivazioni "ufficiali".
NULLA viene detto sull'irritualità della comminazione della stessa (due lettere di ammonimento e una con il decreto di sospensione, tutte e tre contestuali), e del mancato processo, in lesione del diritto di difesa dei 6 padri sospesi.
Ah, e vorremmo ricordare a P. Bruno (che ha avuto l'incombenza di scrivere il comunicato) che Corrispondenza Romana, San Pietro e dintorni, MiL e Rorate Caeli, non sono certo blog di nicchia (Vi piacerebbe eh!), ma di ampissima diffusione, e ancora meno sono "ultra-tradizionalisti". Così, tanto per chiarire, se i citati blog fossero davvero ultra-tradizionalisti, cosa dire di altri?
Una cosa è vera: con i nostri articoli noi palesiamo la nostra specificità religiosa (e non anche quella politica, che NOI lasciamo ben distinta dalle cose sacre di Dio!!!),  parimenti, i superiori dell'Istituto Commissariato e del Dicastero di competenza palesano la loro.
Per tranquillizzare p. Bruno vorrei evidenziare come MiL avesse precisato che la "sola colpa" imputata ai 6 padri fosse stata sia quella -ufficiosa- di aver chiesto l'escardinazione, sia quella -ufficializzata anche da P. Bruno- di allontanarsi dal convento contro l'ordine dei superiori.
Roberto

 Sospensione a divinis, o sospensione della verità?
da Francescani dell'Immacolata
di
 P. Alfonso Maria Angelo Bruno FI

Portavoce Ufficiale dei Frati Francescani dell'Immacolata

False e destituite da ogni fondamento le accuse contro il Commissario Apostolico Padre Fidenzio Volpi di aver comminato la sospensione a divinis a sei sacerdoti dei Frati Francescani dell'Immacolata per "aver voluto cambiare di Istituto". Violenze e ammutinamenti premedidati contro i superiori e i frati in comunione con il Papa e il Commissario, fughe e prolungate assenze ingiustificate dal convento, sono piuttosto il vero movente delle salutari sanzioni disciplinari.
La “strategia” degli oppositori al Commissariamento dei Frati Francescani dell’Immacolata, alla luce di recenti post sui soliti blog di nicchia ultra-tradizionalista, oltre a dichiarare la specificità politico-religiosa dei soggetti attori e redattori, conferma la scelta dell’agitazione mediatica come unico e reiterato strumento al quale consegnare l’utopica rimozione del provvedimento attraverso la vile e pretestuosa delegittimazione “emotiva” delle Autorità che lo hanno emanato.
Con l’escamotage della mera traduzione di un post preso dal blog anglosassoneRorate Coeli utilizzato in mera presunzione per  tutelarsi da eventuali ritorsioni penali nell’ambito della giurisdizione statale, Corrispondenza RomanaSan Pietro e dintorni e Messainlatino si piegano al ruolo di quello che un tempo si chiamava “lo strillone”, colui cioè che annuncia lo scoop impresso in un’edizione straordinaria.
Esisterebbero nella fauna webbistica altre casse di risonanza, ma la qualità degli amministratori e la quantità degli internauti le rende insignificanti, più di quelle appena citate.
All’ordine del giorno questa volta è la notizia della “sospensione a divinis” di sei Religiosi ordinati in sacris.
Il Commissario Apostolico è comparato al gigante Polifemo, immagine indovinata se si considera l’identità dei suoi oppositori: “Il Signor Nessuno”.
Con la solita tecnica di distrarre l’ignaro lettore dal vero oggetto della questione e suscitare l’indignazione che si prova verso un presunto carnefice di inermi fraticelli, viene avanzato, come movente della censura ecclesiastica, la volontà di “lasciare l’Istituto” da parte dei chierici sanzionati.
Peccato che il “multiforme ingegno ulissiano” del redattore ispiratosi ad Omero non presenti i fatti nella loro verità appellandosi, a ulteriore detrimento della costruenda arringa retorica, ad un presunto difetto procedurale.
Il Commissario Apostolico, nell’esercizio dei suoi poteri, ha dovuto applicare la misura disciplinare della sospensione “a divinis” nei confronti di sei Religiosi dell’Istituto, di cui uno nigeriano e cinque filippini non certo per sanzionare, come affermato nell’articolo, la loro “volontà di lasciare l’Istituto”.
La sospensione a divinis, inoltre, contrariamente a quanto affermato dall’articolista, che oltre a non conoscere i fatti misconosce il Diritto Canonico, non è la sanzione più grave, come lo sarebbe ad esempio la riduzione allo stato laicale. La sospensione, infine, non è necessariamente permanente.
La volontà di lasciare un Istituto religioso, come afferma lo stesso blogghista, non costituisce nessuna violazione delle norme vigenti. 
La richiesta di dispensa dai Voti costituisce infatti un diritto di ogni Religioso, regolato dal Codice di Diritto Canonico. La concessione effettiva, invece, rimane una grazia. I Voti sono una promessa fatta a Dio, e non di un’esperienza stagionale di volontariato nella Caritas.
Se il Commissario considerasse erroneamente la presentazione di tale istanza  come una infrazione al Voto di Obbedienza, egli avrebbe già sanzionato tutti coloro che l’hanno interposta, ed avrebbe adottato tale misura nei confronti di quanti sono stati recentemente sospesi “a divinis” fin dal momento in cui si sono rivolti per questo scopo alla Congregazione competente.
Tuttavia, di fronte al comportamento di quanti, avendo inoltrato domanda di dispensa dai Voti, si ritenevano non più vincolati ai doveri derivanti dall’appartenenza all’Istituto, il Commissario Apostolico ha dovuto richiamarli alla osservanza di tali obblighi, che perdurano fino all’eventuale accoglimento dell’istanza da parte della Congregazione.
Rientra parimenti nella competenza disciplinare della suprema Autorità dell’Istituto, nel caso specifico il Commissario Apostolico, ogni  comportamento tenuto dai Religiosi fino a quando la dispensa dai Voti produca i propri effetti giuridici.
Il comportamento tenuto per una parte da un Religioso nigeriano e per l’altra parte da sei Religiosi filippini configura un gravissimo “vulnus” al Voto di obbedienza.

U.S Bishops officially dissuade receiving the Eucharist kneeling

Jesuit priest says the USCCB has issued new norms approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship.Those who want to receive the Eucharist kneeling, must ask for special permission before Holy Mass.

Risultati immagini per Kneeling Catholic

Sunday, October 5, 2014


(UPDATE 07 OCT) yours truly, denied Holy Communion (speaking of whom should be denied Communion!)

Hello Folks, (all 3 or 4 of you, Susan, Bear, Lynda, Nathalie, Victoria!)

I'm not really back yet.  I know the Synod on the family is beginning and I should just be praying and fasting! But--speaking about whom should be denied Holy Communion---something happened to me on Saturday, 4 October, which I earlier only  suspected was the stuff of urban legend.   My apologies to all you who have suffered this embarrassment...now I know such things really do happen! 

I was visiting a Catholic Church in a large city not far from Corpus Christi....(I am being deliberately vague) where a young-ish (about 50 years old) and ebullient Catholic priest refused me Communion for kneeling. 

'Friend, please stand for Communion'...
'I can wait, Father',
pause pause...
I surrender and move on.
Spiritual Communion for me!

I have his email address and am going to write him.  I want you all to follow along to see if I utterly fail in my attempt to win him over. I will be 'scrubbing' references which might allow outsiders to identify either 'Father Friend' or yours truly,  Sorry!!

My first email, minus the [scrubbed] material looks like what is posted below in bold italics, .....  When and if Father Friend replies, I'll make a new post of it....

Hello Father Friend!

I worshiped with your [SCRUBBED] Catholic Community on Saturday 04 October.

By way of background, Father, I am a[RAPPORT BUILDING SCRUBBED].  I see you are also a [SCRUBBED]therefore I hope you will not take my words the wrong-way, but more as grumbling coming from one [SCRUBBED] to another J!

I think you probably know why I am writing, but in case you don’t please forgive me the recap:  My [SCRUBBED]is in your town and I live some [SCRUBBED]miles distant.  I was just getting back to my hotel and was still in my work uniform, barely in time to make your Saturday vigil. I was edified by your sermon, your celebration of the Holy Mass. I love that your bulletin emphasized October as our Lady’s month and many other things…..however when it came time for Holy Communion….as you know-unless you do this kind of thing quite often and routinely…I was shocked when you refused to give me Holy Communion!

What was my crime, my public sin?  I knealt to receive our Lord.

Father, again by way of background perspective, this is the first time, that any priest has (ever!)  made a public example of me at the Communion rail-- never in the multitude of parishes – Lifeteen, guitar, Pentecostal, 80’s style, etc. -to which my professional travels have taken me in the U.S. and abroad,  certainly never by any [SCRUBBED]!

My purpose in writing this letter is not to cry about the embarrassment you caused me, as I believe such things should be ‘cheerfully endured’ and there from benefited, but instead I want to find out why you acted the way you did.  As I see it, Father, we could not have both been acting rightly. Either :
–a- Father was wrong to deny me Communion 
or –b- I was wrong to kneel for Communion.  

I do not rule out the latter possibility, but if you will convince me that it is wrong or forbidden to kneel at one’s most intimate encounter with Jesus Christ, (an venerable and august tradition) then I feel you do owe me an explanation!  If my wide-spread experience mentioned above is in any way representative of things in general, I am afraid your action leaves you quite alone on this. That per se does not mean you are wrong!

However neither do I rule out the former -a- as also a possibility, i.e. that Father-acting in good conscience- might have been wrong.  In which case please be assured that I am determined –as one of your very own order once put it- “never to despair your recovery” and will vigorously try to win you over to my side!

Do pray for me and do know that I am praying for you!

Risultati immagini per Kneeling Catholic

[[[FATHER WRITES A GOOD REPLY]]


Good morning K.C.


Thank you for your personal and faith-filled message. I appreciate your

message and tone, and hope that my reply will match your sincerity.  

Saturday I did not intend to deny you Holy Communion, nor to cause undue

attention to you.  I intended to follow the norms as given to our

archdiocese and the Catholic Church in the USA.


Let me first state that I had just talked about  the reception of Holy

Communion to the three congregations one week prior to Saturday, and that

was.  The whole of the instruction in the link  comes from the United States

Catholic Conference of Bishops. This group, according to the General

Instruction of the roman Missal is authorized by the Vatican's Congregation

for Divine Worship to set the practice for the reception of Holy Communion.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-th

e-eucharist/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm

The text is below.


The points which I made were the unity of the body of believers in the

procession and the reception of Holy Communion, the proper display of

reverence (bow) and the courtesy of opening one's mouth or holding out one's

hands to receive Our Lord.


With respect to kneeling. Are you wrong to kneel? In a word, yes. It's not a

sin, nor a crime.

The bishops state,  "In the United States, the body of Bishops determined

that Communion should be received standing,"

In addition to the principle of unity, we have no Communion rail and the

concern about foot traffic and safety is real. In other places/circumstances

kneeling is fine.   I ask you to read the bishop's instruction and take to

heart their message, particularly where they state:  "These norms may

require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other

practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a

symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the

governing factor in our own actions."


With respect to your question, "Am I wrong to deny you Communion?" I did not

deny you Holy Communion, nor was it my intention to deny you Holy Communion.


I was surprised by your departure when I said to you "please rise to receive

Communion." As such I had no opportunity to address the matter r reception

of Communion. ask you to see me after Mass.   There was an added challenge


this past Saturday in particular because of a blessing of a parishioner who


is to [SCRUBBED] this week and the purposeful procession to the parish dinner at


the other chapel. I am sorry that I did not see you afterwards.




In addition to being obedient, I believe that I am a priest who should look


at people with a pastoral approach of applying the norms. It's a challenge


to be pastorally sensitive and instructive during the reception of the Holy

Communion. Since you desire to receive Holy Communion kneeling, I counsel

you to bring this up to a priest before Mass, asking for an accommodation. I

have made pastoral accommodations only for [SCRUBBED]

but I do not do this without knowing this request in advance. Politely put

and respectfully intended, the responsibility rests on those who do not

follow the Church's norm. What I ask is that they be the last person in the

procession to  receive Holy Communion.  I extend this accommodation to you

with the note to politely  ask for the accommodation before Mass begins.   


At Mass I mentioned that I am a Jesuit. Having professed final vows[SCRUBBED]years

ago, I do take the vow of obedience seriously. Being a Jesuit, I know that

if I do not educate the congregation about general instructions for the

liturgy, I'm not act responsibly as a priest. I  even could possibly be

giving the false impression, "Oh, he's a Jesuit - those Jesuits." There are

very few of us in the [SCRUBBED] who are active and I don't want to

make it harder for more Jesuits to  serve in [SCRUBBED] .

The more that I'm put into a place of not publically following general

instructions, the heavier the weight I feel for not giving proper

instruction, guidance and pastoral response.


A line from today's morning prayer called attention to God's mercy. In that

spirit I send you my fraternal regards  as one[SCRUBBED]to another,

and my  paternal care as pastor: that any lacking on our part be made up for

by our union in Christ and the prayers of the saints, who keep us from

spiritual harm. 


Are you still at []SCRUBBED? If you are open to a cuppa joe or a talk, I would

like that.
Father Friend
[kc] hopefully to be continued.......

http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.it/

Risultati immagini per Kneeling Catholic


http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

The people approach the altar and, bowing with reverence, receive Holy Communion. People may receive the Body of Christ either on the tongue or in the hand. The priest or other minister offers the Eucharist to each person saying, "The Body of Christ." The person receiving responds by saying, "Amen," a Hebrew word meaning, "So be it" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2856).

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/


La necessità della missione. di Corrado Gnerre

La necessità della missione. di Corrado Gnerre

Mi ha sempre affascinato la vita di san Francesco Saverio, il grande missionario dell’Oriente. C’è qualcosa di misterioso e di incomprensibile nella sua vita. Ma ci pensate? Andare da solo verso terre sconosciute. Senza conoscere né lingue né usanze dei tanti popoli che doveva incontrare. Senza portarsi nulla. Tutto abbandonato alla Provvidenza e forte dell’ordine di sant’Ignazio di Loyola, suo superiore. Aveva un solo desiderio: portare Gesù a tutti.
Tempo fa, era sera, mi accingevo ad andare a dormire, quando alla radio, in una trasmissione in cui, guarda caso, si parlava di missioni, sentii da un sacerdote che operava nel Bangladesh una frase che mi fece trasalire: “…noi sacerdoti cattolici in Bangladesh non invitiamo le persone del posto a battezzarsi. Perché, se lo facessimo, le esporremmo al pericolo di ritorsioni da parte dei musulmani.” Cercai di non pensarci, ma poi, dopo le preghiere, a letto, approfittando del silenzio (nella mia casa insolito per figli che scorazzano a destra e a manca) il pensiero andò a san Francesco Saverio e a ciò che avevo appena ascoltato alla radio. Lui avrebbe ragionato in quel modo?
Parliamoci chiaro. C’è qualcosa che non quadra in una certa pastorale cattolica sulle missioni. Ho l’impressione che la storia di tante conversioni al Cattolicesimo non abbia più alcun significato. Quanti, prima di convertirsi, ci hanno lungamente meditato, quanti hanno sofferto; quanti hanno voluto convertirsi pur sapendo di rischiare la vita…e c’è chi l’ha persa! Ma oggi incombe un pericolo sulla memoria di costoro. Sul loro gesto si è anche generosi.
Chi si permetterebbe di discutere sulla coerenza e la passione di una conversione e sulla passione e la coerenza di morire per qualcosa e per qualcuno. Ma è un altro il pericolo che incombe. Ed è molto più preoccupante. E’ l’opinione dei Cristiani sul significato del loro gesto. Se tutte le religioni si equivalgono –perché tutte sarebbero capaci di salvare- allora che valore può avere la conversione? Ecco perché, oggi, molti Cattolici si limitano ad una formale ammirazione verso un gesto coerente e coraggioso come la conversione, ma, in sostanza, lo ritengono non necessario. La conversione al Cattolicesimo spolpata e ridotta ad involucro, così come un frutto saporito di cui, stranamente, si scarta la polpa succosa e si decide di conservarne la buccia.
Ora, tutto questo nasce sì da questioni teologiche (Che valore ha la Chiesa? Davvero la Chiesa è stata voluta e fondata da Cristo? E’ proprio vero che fuori della Chiesa non vi è salvezza?), ma anche da un nuovo e diverso modo di affrontare le grandi questioni attinenti allo studio delle religioni (Perché esistono tante religioni? Le religioni non cristiane sono anch’esse vie di salvezza? Ecc…).
Negli articoli che si potranno leggere su questo sito, tra le altre cose, mostrerò le differenze che vi sono tra il Cristianesimo e le altre religioni. Tutto questo per uno scopo che non voglio nascondere: dimostrare la superiorità (sì, avete capito bene: la su-pe-rio-ri-tà!) del Cristianesimo. Mi interessa poco se questa chiarezza possa essere giudicata “poco corretta” teologicamente, politicamente, culturalmente…mi interessa solo rendere un umile servizio ai lettori che desiderano capire per poter giudicare. E -perché no?- anche per entusiasmarsi di più del proprio essere cristiani.
Questo non vuol dire che bisogna mancare di carità. Guai, se si cadesse in questa tentazione! Il giudizio sulle singole coscienze spetta solo al Signore. Ma questo non ci esime da un dovere, che è il giudicare l’errore così come oggettivamente si presenta. E questo per amore! Per amore di chi ancora non conosce la verità. E per amore di chi può venire facilmente confuso da un clima in cui si tende ad annullare ogni differenza. D’altronde lo spirito missionario è stato sempre contrassegnato dall’amore a Dio come fonte dell’amore ai fratelli, di quei fratelli ancora lontani dalla verità. Solo chi è egoista, scoperto un tesoro, decide di tenerlo per sé senza condividerlo.
Ho iniziato ricordando san Francesco Saverio. Cosa lo spinse così lontano se non l’amore a Dio e ai fratelli? Siamo agli antipodi dell’egoismo!
Corrado Gnerre
- See more at: http://appuntiitaliani.com/la-necessita-della-missione-di-corrado-gnerre/#sthash.szecgiI5.dpuf

http://appuntiitaliani.com/la-necessita-della-missione-di-corrado-gnerre/


When the University of Bristol permits Prof. Gavin D'Costa and the faculty to use an irrational premise, it is a secular lie.

Any such legal threats would be completely empty. The courts refuse to adjudicate on matters of doctrinal orthodoxy. And what else there to the activities of PtP in relation to Tina Beattie and the like? The people she really needs to sue are in the CDF. The idea is absurd. --Dr.Joseph Shaw,Chairman,LMS
http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2014/05/closed-down-by-legal-threats.html
Risultati immagini per University of Bristol logo
On matters of 'doctrinal orthodoxy', yes, but what about simple lieing and presenting false information intentionaly ? When the University of Bristol permits Prof. Gavin D'Costa and the faculty to use an irrational premise, it is a secular lie. 
This is not doctrinal orthodoxy or religious belief. It is telling a lie in public. It is subtly using an irrationality to project un orthodox teaching and suggest that this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
When I first brought this to the attention of Prof. Gavin D'Costa he wrote tersely  that he denied what I had written.

But what did he deny?

Did he deny my claim that he  infers that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

If he denies this he would be be saying that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Does it mean he is affirming this ? Of course not!
So when he says he denies what I have written about him it is just a blanket, vague statement.He cannot get into specifics. Otherwise he would have to admit that he is presenting a fantasy ( visible dead exceptions).

The dispute with the University of Bristol is that they are officially  promoting a false premise. They are using an irrational inference .This knowingly  use a falsehood. The issue is the irrationality and not a particular religious belief.
So it would be irrelevant if Gavin D'costa said this or that person shared his beliefs. The issue is the irrationality.How can a university in England knowingly use a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

Can a University even after being informed claim  as such:
1.Catholics can see the dead who are now in heaven ( saved without the baptism of water) in 2014.
2.These visible-dead are explict exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
3.They are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and all not needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation in 2014.

This is the issue. This is the point of dispure.
I have written to Gavin D'Costa but he does not want to address this issue.
He has gone ahead and written a book irgnoring this point. He has used these three points mentioned above.
In his Book on Vatican Council II with relations to the Jews and Muslims he will not have mentioned Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. He will not have said that all Jews and Muslims are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism according to Vatican Council .

He will have mentioned those saved in invinicble ignorance (LG 16 etc) and analysed it with the three irrational points mentioned above.

This is unethical.
Chancellor
A University of Bristol professor denying the truth, using an irrationality, to sell a book for political capital.He has the support of the Head of the Department for Theology and Religious Studies right up to the Chancellor, Lady Hale.They connived.All were informed but they remained silent over this issue.

These are the values of the University of Bristol.This is what will be taught to students at the university. Catholics can now see the dead on earth who were saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith? Where, in Bristol?
If this issue was taken to court , by a student,would they be able to deny that they are using a false premise, an irrational inference as standard policy in the Department for Theology and Religious Studies?
-Lionel Andrades
Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol is still teaching an irrationality : even after being informed http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/department-of-theology-and-religious.html

Universities in England have a new interpretation of Catholic doctrine : uncontested

There is also uninformed bile on Catholic doctrine at the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.

King's College,London uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/kings-college-uses-irrational-premise.html

The irrational premise is also used at Oxford.
Kings College,University of Bristol, Oxford have a new interpretation of Catholic doctrine which is not contested by priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass. Neither by the Latin Mass Society.
 
  1. Do you have nothing better to do than to post Feeneyite ramblings and links to your site on every Catholic blog?
    Lionel:
  2. At issue is the Traditional Latin Mass. How would a priest offer the Mass? Would he assume that there are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus even when he does not know any such exception? He cannot name any such person saved this year.

    At issue is Vatican Council II. Would he assume that those who are saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or elements of sanctifcation and truth(LG 8) are exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?

    Does Dr.Joseph Shaw who attends the TLM interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ?

    Is not Cushingism irrational and heretical ?
    Did not the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a wrong inference when it assumed that the baptism of desire etc referrred to cases visible to us in real life and so they were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?


    October 7, 2014
    Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol is still teaching an irrationality : even after being informed
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/department-of-theology-and-religious.html
 
-Lionel Andrades
 

Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol is still teaching an irrationality : even after being informed

The Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol is still not clarifying that ' 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.'
Neither are they answering the TWO QUESTIONS 1 by saying that
1.We personally do not know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc, in 2014, we cannot  see them physically.They are not visible to us in 2014 .
2.Since we do not know any of these cases; in real life, since they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation
Instead Prof. Gavin D'Costa, a professor of Catholic theology at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol has e-mailed me telling me not to contact them.
The Catholic professor refuses  to explain how can the Department teach this irrationality.It  is as if this is their leftist political position, it is irrational and non traditional, but they will continue to uphold it.
This is the pro-Masonic position for the Catholic Church and it is approved by the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales. It is a denial of traditional Catholic  teaching with the use of an irrational premise.
 
Prof. Gavin D'costa has written a new book on Vatican Council II with reference to the Jews and Muslims. He has not denied that  he has used the same irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council, which is being taught by the University of Bristol.Even after being informed he is earning money on the book by promoting the irrational error which makes Vatican Council II a break with the past.
Risultati immagini per University of Bristol logo
 

Some of the Faculty who have been contacted and who  will not respond.

Balserak, Jon    
 LecturerTheology and Religious Studies+44 (0)117 928 7844j.balserak@bristol.ac.uk
 
Campbell, Jonathan 
 Senior Lecturer Biblical Studies and Judaism+44 (0)117 928 8171j.g.campbell@bristol.ac.uk
 
D'Costa, Gavin
ProfessorCatholic Theology+44 (0)117 331 7010gavin.dcosta@bristol.ac.uk
 
 
Greene, Eric
LecturerEast Asian Religions+44 (0)117 331 0437eric.greene@bristol.ac.uk
 
 
Leech, David
Lecturer Philosophy of Religion+44 (0)117 331 7717david.leech@bristol.ac.uk
 
Lyons, John
Senior LecturerBiblical Interpretation+44 (0)117 954 5930w.j.lyons@bristol.ac.uk
 
Muessig, Carolyn
Professor Medieval Religion+44 (0)117 928 7762c.a.muessig@bristol.ac.uk
 
Similarly Prof. Joseph Shaw, a professor of theology and philosophy at Oxford University,England will not comment on this issue.He probably also teaches extra ecclesiam nulla salus using the same irrationality. He has never commented on Vatican Council II being interpreted with the false premise which makes the Council a break with the past.
 
Presently the Traditional Latin Mass is being targeted all over the world since the political left assumes that the TLM is associated with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is a rejection of Vatican Council  II ( with the premise).
 
Without the irrational premise used in the interpretation, Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was traditionally interpreted.There would be no change in the Catholic Church's teaching on other religions and Christian communities. There would be no new ecclesiology. The present new ecclesiology is based on there being known salvation outside the Church.This is Cushingism and comes from the false inference in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Joseph Shaw is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society in England and is politically correct with the Vatican and the Catholic Bishops Conference in England .So he will not object to Gavin D'Costa's error on a video posted on the website of the University of Bristol.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
1.
TWO QUESTIONS
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?



2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?