Friday, October 17, 2014

Se si utilizza una premessa irrazionale con qualsiasi documento della Chiesa sarà una rottura con la Tradizione.


In evidenza

Questi commenti sono con riferimento a Il Vaticano II, un concilio pastorale. Un nuovo libro di P. S. Lanzetta sul blog Approfondimenti di "Fides Catholica".Sono stati rimossi dall'amministratore del blog.

http://catholicafides.blogspot.it/2014/05/il-vaticano-ii-un-concilio-pastorale-un.html?showComment=1413574579538#c7671120536044540857


titolo del lavoro di P. Lanzetta esprime chiaramente la peculiarità del Vaticano II: un concilio fontalmente pastorale, che si distingue per un insegnamento dottrinale cospicuo, 
Lionel:
Quando una premessa irrazionale  utilizzato poi Concilio Vaticano II , una concilio pastorale cambiato dottrina. 
Se si utilizza una premessa irrazionale con qualsiasi documento della Chiesa  sarà una rottura con la Tradizione.
____________________________________________

'il mistero della Chiesa in Lumen Gentium, con particolare attenzione alla questione dei membri divenuto poi appartenenza alla Chiesa, '
Lionel:
Il problema è la premessa irrazionale. 
Coloro che sono salvati al di fuori dei confini visibili della Chiesa non sono noti a noi. Quindi non sono eccezioni a extra ecclesiam nulla salus e Tradizione. 
LG 16 (ignoranza invincibile) è interpretata come visibile e noto a noi nel 2014, quando questi casi sono invisibili e quindi non contraddice la Tradizione. 
'Elementi di santificazione e di grazia' LG 8 sono noti solo a Dio. 
LG 8'subsist it' quelli che sono salvati come tali sono noti solo a Dio, in modo che siano irrilevanti per il dogma sul salvezza exclusivo in la Chiesa Cattolica.Tutti necessitano il battesimo di acqua nel 2014 per la salvezza. LG 8 non e una eccezione.
UR 3 e salvezza in comunione imperfetta, con la Chiesa non sono eccezioni per extra  ecclesiam nulla salus.Io non posso incontrero  nessuno sulla strada salvato in quanto tale. 
Non sappiamo il nome e cognome di qualcuno salvato con 'un raggio della Verità '(NA 2). 
E 'la premessa irrazionale che rende il Concilio Vaticano II sembra una rottura con il passato.Non che problema con Lumen Gentium .
________________________________________

'Ci sono molte dottrine che sono rimaste nella loro formulazione magisteriale al tempo del Concilio o a prima del Concilio, ma che necessiterebbero di essere di nuovo prese in considerazione e aggiornate.'
Lionel:
La differenza è l'uso di una premessa irrazionale nella interpretazione della Lettera del Sant'Uffizio il 1949 e poi il Concilio Vaticano II.
______________________________________

'Pensiamo al tema del limbo (scartato allora e solo di recente riaffrontato dalla CTI),'
Lionel:
CTI ha usato l'inferenza irrazionale.Qui e senza dubbio.E 'stato documentato.
_________________________________________

'L'ermeneutica della continuità, quella della discontinuità, lo spirito del concilio.'
Lionel:
Legge  questo con riferimento al Concilio Vaticano II e il Sinodo.
____________
E 'importante che la Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X corregge questo errore. E 'lo stesso errore compiuti dai cardinali.

Card. Kasper, 18 settembre: «la dottrina della Chiesa non è un sistema chiuso: il Concilio Vaticano II insegna che c’è uno sviluppo, nel senso di un approfondimento possibile. Mi chiedo se sia possibile in questo caso un approfondimento simile a quello avvenuto nell'ecclesiologia: anche se quella cattolica è la vera Chiesa di Cristo, ci sono elementi di ecclesialità anche fuori dai confini istituzionali della Chiesa cattolica. In certi casi, non si potrebbero riconoscere anche in un matrimonio civile degli elementi del matrimonio sacramentale? Per esempio l'impegno definitivo, l'amore e la cura reciproca, la vita cristiana, l'impegno pubblico che non c'è nelle coppie di fatto?»

- Card. Erdő, 13 ottobre: «una significativa chiave ermeneutica proviene dall’insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II, il quale, mentre afferma che “l’unica Chiesa di Cristo sussiste nella Chiesa cattolica», riconosce che anche «al di fuori del suo organismo si trovino parecchi elementi di santificazione e di verità, che, appartenendo propriamente per dono di Dio alla Chiesa di Cristo, spingono verso l’unità cattolica” (Lumen Gentium, 8). In questa luce, vanno anzitutto ribaditi il valore e la consistenza propria del matrimonio naturale. Alcuni si domandano se sia possibile che la pienezza sacramentale del matrimonio non escluda la possibilità di riconoscere elementi positivi anche nelle forme imperfette che si trovano al di fuori di tale realtà nuziale, ad essa comunque ordinate. La dottrina dei gradi di comunione, formulata dal Concilio Vaticano II, conferma la visione di un modo articolato di partecipare al Mysterium Ecclesiae da parte dei battezzati. Nella medesima prospettiva, che potremmo dire inclusiva, il Concilio dischiude anche l’orizzonte in cui si apprezzano gli elementi positivi presenti nelle altre religioni (cf. Nostra Aetate, 2) e culture, nonostante i loro limiti e le loro insufficienze (cf. Redemptoris Missio, 55).» (Relatio post disceptationem del Relatore generale, Card. Péter Erdő, 13.10.2014
http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1462:sinodo-sulla-famiglia-una-rivoluzione-dottrinale-sotto-una-maschera-pastorale&catid=58&Itemid=64
Lionel:
Il cardinale Kasper e il cardinale Erdő sono usare dallo stesso errore nella Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 durante il pontificato di Papa Pio XII.
La Lettera del Sant'Uffizio dedotto che il battesimo di desiderio e di essere salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile sono eccezioni esplicite per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In altre parole questi casi sono visibili a noi, personalmente noti a noi, e quindi sono eccezioni. Avrebbero dovuto essere conosciuto personalmente a noi per diventa eccezione. 
Ma questi casi sono in Cielo. Come possono essere eccezioni sulla terra per extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Questo è stato un errore nella Lettera di Sant'Uffizio 1949.Ipotetico erano considerati de facto eccezioni per il battesimo di acqua per la salvezza per tutti. La Lettera deduce che c'e salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa.Ma dove sono questi casi di persone salvate fuori della Chiesa? Non e nessuno.Non c'è salvezza conosciuto al di fuori della Chiesa. Così il dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus non è contraddetta. Non ci può essere una prova per una nuova ecclesiologia. 
Cosi nel Concilio Vaticano II non sappiamo nessuno che ha ricevuto salvezza in un'altra religione (LG 8 subsistit ). Una possibilità, una cosa teorica non è un'eccezione a extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 8 non contraddice extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Per il cardinali sono contraddice perche loro pensano che questi casi sono visibili a noi. Che noi posso vedere 'ghosts'.Senza questa irrazionalita non c'e una sviluppa di dottrine.
Quindi 'elementi di santificazione e di verità' (LG 8) trovati al di fuori della Chiesa non può essere conosciuto a noi in mondo.LG 8 non possono essere una eccezione per ecclesiologia tradizionale.
E 'importante che la Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X corregge questo errore. E 'lo stesso errore compiuti dai cardinali.
-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicafides.blogspot.it/2014/05/il-vaticano-ii-un-concilio-pastorale-un.html?showComment=1413574202602#c6697556378900066924

The SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, lock, stock and barrel, without the irrational inference. This has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past. This Vatican Council II is traditional

Comments from a previous blog post.
George:
Yes Lionel, of course "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" can be seen as protected by The Holy Ghost in VCII. But do you not understand that SPPX cannot agree or condone the innumerable heresies and blasphemy taught by VCII, not to mention the extremely vague and ambigious wording that is rampant and must be corrected.
Lionel
Firstly they can agree that Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communties since there are no contradictions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Secondly they can agree that they have been assuming all these years that LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational.
Thirdly they can agree that they have been interpreting Vatican Council II as a whole with this irrational premise ( the dead saved in invincible ignorance for example are visible and known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
Fourthly they can agree that the Vatican Curia, the liberals and traditionalists are all using this irrational premise in the interpretation.
Fiftly they can agree that Vatican Council II without this irrational premise is in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which said there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Finally they can ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to also clarify their position on this doctrinal issue.

Other religions and ecumenism are the main issues. Once they agree on extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is new light thrown on religious liberty.

Since they affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus they affirm that all religious, political,social and financial systems have an obligation to be Catholic.

The heresies and blasphemies emerge with the irrational premise used in the interpretation.It would be like watering the roots of a tree. With one simple action all parts of the tree are nourished.Similarly identify the premise and change the Council.


Anonymous George Brenner said...
Lionel, I salute your way of thinking and optimism on Salvation. But it is my understanding that the Vatican demands that SSPX accept VCII lock, stock and barrel and that it is in keeping in keeping with the hermetics of continuity with past Church teaching. The Vatican does not currently in the proper state to humbly accept the grace necessary to even consider let alone do what you have been fighting for many years now. Furthermore especially with the perverted, erroneous and non Catholic positions suggested by those of bad will at the synod on the family, publishing and releasing comments and positions that are non Catholic. Thank God that they are being opposed by many including the courageous Cardinal Burke. Keep fighting Lionel for it will now become ugly along with untold suffering by those who fight for their faith.

 Lionel said...
George:

Lionel, I salute your way of thinking and optimism on Salvation.

Lionel:
The optimism comes from the doctrine. The Truth.Truth has a precision of its own. It has a power of its own.
I only have to repeat it. Perfection is its own strength.


 Lionel  said...
George:
But it is my understanding that the Vatican demands that SSPX accept VCII lock, stock and barrel and that it is in keeping in keeping with the hermetics of continuity with past Church teaching.

Lionel:
Correct. The Vatican Curia want the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.This must be rejected.

The SSPX must accept Vatican Council II, lock, stock and barrel, without the irrational inference. This has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past. This Vatican Council II is traditional.


 Lionel said...
George:
The Vatican does not currently in the proper state to humbly accept the grace necessary to even consider let alone do what you have been fighting for many years now. 

Lionel:
True and this does not stop the SSPX and other Catholics from interpreting Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise.If I can do it any Catholic can.

-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/vatican-council-ii-affirms-extra.html

Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI dice che nei suoi studi del Concilio Vaticano II e un libro recente non ha preso in considerazione Ad Gentes 7





Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI dice che nei suoi studi del Concilio Vaticano II e nel suo recente libro che non ha preso in considerazione Ad Gentes 7, il Concilio Vaticano II.Lui studierà questo ragionamento in modo approfondito in futuro, che arriva spesso in soteriologia (salvezza teorie) dei non cattolici. 

Su Aprofondimenti di Fides Catholica che stava rispondendo ad un commento che ho fatto. Ho pensato che stava usando una inferenza irrazionale nei suoi scritti, e questo potrebbe essere espressa anche nel suo libro sul Concilio Vaticano II. 
Approfondimenti di "Fides Catholica"

Ho citato alcuni dei blog post su Eucharist and Mission. In mio blog, detto che lui non ha detto direttamente che il Concilio Vaticano II (Ad Gentes 7) dice che tutti hanno bisogno di fede e del battesimo per la salvezza e questo includerebbe anche ebrei e musulmani.

Né ha fatto scrivere che coloro che sono salvati con ignoranza invincibile, o il battesimo di desiderio non sono eccezioni esplicite a extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Sembrava implicare nei suoi scritti tra cui un rapporto pubblicato on line, che sono visibili e così sono eccezioni,

Così, quando ha chiesto se tutti i non cattolici sono orientati all'inferno egli avrebbe dovuto rispondere 'Sì'. Dal momento il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e Ad Gentes 7,Concilio Vaticano II, dicono che tutti i non cattolici sono sulla strada per l'inferno se non si convertono nella Chiesa Cattolica.

Mandato anche un link del mio blog in cui si chiedeva se la Lettera del Sant'Uffizio 1949 durante il pontificato di Papa Pio XII ha commesso una errore obiettivo.Lui non ha risposto a questa domanda.
Egli ha riconosciuto, tuttavia, che si tratta di un nuovo ragionamento, che potrebbe essere discusso in futuro.

Si può ricordare che in nessuno dei libri scritti da sacerdoti e laici della Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX) e sostenitori di FSSPX, Ad Gentes 7 e menzionato. Ad Gentes 7 indica tutti i non cattolici sono orientati all'inferno perché non hanno la fede e il battesimo, necessario per la salvezza. Ad Gentes 7 è in accordo con la posizione tradizionale FSSPX sul altre religioni, mentre LG 16, LG 6, UR 3, NA 3 ecc non sono eccezioni in quanto il defunto non sono visibili a noi nel 2014.Ad Gentes 7 supporta la dichiarazione di FSSPX Capitolo Generale 2012, che dice che non ci sono eccezioni a extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades

Father Serafino Lanzetta FFI says that in his studies of Vatican Council II and a recent book he has not taken in account Ad Gentes 7

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/father-serafino-lanzetta-ffi-says-that.html
 
 

Father Serafino Lanzetta FFI says that in his studies of Vatican Council II and a recent book he has not taken in account Ad Gentes 7

Father Serafino Lanzetta FFI says that in his studies of Vatican Council II and in his recent book he has not taken in account Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.He will study this reasoning in depth in future since it comes up often in soteriology ( salvation theories) of non Catholics.
Approfondimenti di "Fides Catholica"
On Aprofondimenti di Fides Catholica he was replying to a comment I made. I  thought he was using an irrational inference in his writings and this could be expressed also in his book on Vatican Council II.
I cited some of the blog posts on Eucharist and Mission.It said that he did not directly say that Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation and this  would also include Jews and Muslims.
Neither did he write that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He seemed to imply  in his writings including a report posted on line, that they are visible and so are exceptions,
So when asked if all non Catholics are oriented to Hell he should have answered 'Yes'. Since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes tell us that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
I also sent him a link to the blog post which asked if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII committed an objective error.He did not respond to this question.
 He  has acknowledged however that this is a new reasoning , which he has overlooked and it could be discussed in future.
It may be mentioned that in none of the books written by SSPX priests and lay SSPX supporters is Ad Gentes 7 mentioned. Ad Gentes 7 indicates all non Catholics are oriented to Hell since they do not have faith and baptism needed for salvation. Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the SSPX traditional position on other religions while LG 16,LG 6,UR 3,NA 3 etc are not exceptions since the deceased are not visible to us in 2014 .Ad Gentes 7 supports the SSPX  General Chapter Statement 2012 which says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel Andrades
 
Caro Lionel Andrades,
è da un po' che mi dice che non ho tenuto conto di Ad gentes 7 e solleva ripetutamente il problema soteriologico della salvezza dei non cattolici. Le faccio solo notare che nei miei studi pubblicati sul Concilio, e particolarmente nel mio ultimo libro, non ho affrontato questo argomento. E' un argomento interessante, ma lo lasciamo a un approfondimento successivo. E così potremo parlarne con cognizione di causa.
Cordiali saluti in Domino nostro

Saint Peter Julian Eymard on charity

Saint Peter Julian Eymard on charity

I don't know about y0u, but I need all the reminders, explanations, and exhortations regarding charity that I can get! I'm always appreciative to read such writings by Saints, and then I look at myself and say: "You stink at this!"
You must, therefore, practice charity always and in everything. The opportunities are numberless. If they do not present themselves, look for them. When you are free to choose between two good works, the one personal, the other charitable, choose the latter, it has double merit. But above all, I repeat it, let your charity be humble. Proud charity is egoism or forced benevolence. [Most interesting point. And false humility is a most dangerous thing, as well.]
Examine yourselves on these points: Are you charitable supernaturally? Do you honor brothers by our charity? Are you devoted to them, or your family?
How many sins we commit against charity! In thoughts, for instance, by rash judgments. Remember that what will harass us the most on our death bed - after sins of impurity - will be the memory of our sins against charity. Who called you to be the judge of your brothers? That anxiety at our death - according to Saint Vincent Ferrer - is the punishment of such sins which is meted out even in this world. The first impulses of rash judgments are nothing; but to remain with them, to acquiesce in them, this is to murder our brother in our heart.
And then in words. How many faults pious souls and religious have to reproach themselves with on this point!
There are also the sins against charity in action or by omission. Let us examine ourselves carefully on this point and let us take the means of correcting ourselves.
He who does not sin against his neighbor almost never sins against God either, because love is single, even if it has a twofold object and, as it were, a double channel.
----------End Quote----------
As a controversialist type blogger, much of the above concerns me quite a bit. There is a fine line between correcting errors abroad for the sake of others, for confirming others in their faith through salutary example of things to avoid, or decrying ongoing scandals in our midst, and lapsing into uncharitable judgment in excoriating others. This is something I always try to keep in mind, but I know that I fail at times when pushed to the limits of exasperation.
This is something I think most faithful/traditional bloggers, writers, and commentators struggle with. Some obviously more than others. I do try to be circumspect and balanced at all times, but I will be honest in admitting that balancing the practice of charity with this blogging habit is not always easy. I know some priests who would say just stop, don't mess with it, it's not worth it, but I know others who feel there is great benefit in efforts like mine and simply counsel prudence in all things. I have always tended to hear the latter better than the former - our wills are powerful things!
At any rate, I pray you find the above useful and edifying. I, for one, very much appreciate these calls to examination of conscience I read periodically in the Saints - I just wish and pray I remembered these counsels always, especially when my hot tempered blood is up!
My paternal grandmother, God rest her soul, said her father in law, my great grandfather, was the meanest man she ever knew. My grandfather was a hot tempered man. It runs in families, I tell you. So, in our modern parlance, I'm absolutely blameless, right? Heh.
But those mean men turned 400 acres of Kansas grasslands into a very profitable farming enterprise, well before there was much of any mechanization. I have a photo of my great-grandfather driving a team of 21 horses to pull what passed for a combine in those days.
That same grandmother said Heaven is an 8x10 room, and it's not crowded. And yet somehow we all envision ourselves being there, don't we?
Lord, have mercy on this sinner. That is all I can say.
 
 

Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me.

 
The resources you have provided for extra ecclesiam nulla salus seem only for sedevacantists or traditionalists who interpret Vatican Council with an irrational premise, which results in a break with Tradition.

Please do not place me in any of these groups.

For me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no such cases known in 2014.Period. It is as simple as that.

Secondly, no magisterial document before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 implies that these cases are visible to us.This error is made in the Letter of the Holy Office and then repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257-1260).

Even Vatican Council II does not state that invincible ignorance (LG 16) is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that these cases are known to us, personally. We cannot meet any such person on the streets(saved with the baptism of desire or about to be saved as such) yet the traditionalists infer that these cases are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So for me LG 16,UR 3, NA 2 etc do not refer to explicit cases in 2014 and so they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither are they exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.

So it is possible to accept the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the resources you have provided and it is also possible to accept the dogma in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7).

Vatican Council II without the premise of being able to see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a ray of the Truth (NA 2), elements of sanctification  and grace (LG 6), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) is TRADITIONAL on other religions and Christian communities

Any document which does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes , saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.

Non catholics need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7) and Christians need Catholic Faith which include the Sacraments,the Church teachings on faith and morals and interpretation of the Scriptures (AG 7).
Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus for me.
-Lionel Andrades

Seer from Medjugorje said "homosexual marriage is from Satan."- Michael H. Brown

a seer from Medjugorje laid it out rather plainly when she said that "homosexual marriage is from Satan."- Michael H.Brown, Spirit Daily.

http://www.spiritdaily.com/synodb.htm





__________________________________________________
ROILING TIMES IN THE WORLD AND ROILING TIMES IN ROME POINT UP NECESSITY FOR: LOVE, YES, BUT ALSO WARFARE
By their Synod shall ye know them? Indeed: as the world roils, as there is Ebola, as there is Iraq, as there is Ukraine, as there are storms, as there is drought, as fires flare, and volcanoes spew, as icebergs melt, but snow in Australia, as typhoons roar, as the moon turns red: so too is there a roiling atmosphere in Rome. There is little use in downplaying that, just as there is equally little use overplaying it. A drama? In the age of multivariate media, it is certainly that. Both liberal and conservative prelates, speaking aloud, and with frequency, like politicians, grab attention. Is it "bishop versus bishops, cardinal versus cardinal"? Not yet. Nothing quite so apocalyptic. But as time moves forward there is a graduation in high-level Church disputes -- no civil war, no schism, nothing all-out, but year by year a few more having at each other, with different styles, and bringing to mind a message from the Blessed Mother at the Church-approved site of Akita, Japan, where she reputedly foresaw (October 13, 1973) that, "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord" -- language strikingly similar to a notorious version of the "third secret" proclaimed in 1963 by a German publication which had Mary intoning that "Cardinals will be against cardinals, and bishops against bishops. Satan will put himself in their midst," a message Fatima seer Lucia dos Santos said was bogus. (She announced a different one in 2000; the felling of a bishop in white; an image only.)
Yet, in the future, will there be a ring to those predictions?
Right now, the Vatican struggles to find the correct balance in the likewise roiling cultural upheavals of the world. Rome wants to be pastor of a flock that has been dispersed, a flock it wants to call together again on a hillside as Mary appeared at Fatima to shepherd children gathered on a hillside.
However, it must do this -- reach out to the disenfranchised, to the divorced, to the remarried, to those cohabiting, to those contracepting, to those who are practicing homosexuals, or have committed abortion -- without coming across to the world as if it is now accepting such behavior, which would be striking a compromise with darkness. Such would be disastrous, and after a jolting "mid-Synod" statement which seemed to do just that this week (10/13/14, ironically, a Fatima anniversary) -- loosening its attitude toward sin -- the Vatican is quickly clarifying that it has reached no juncture; in fact this Synod is really only preliminary to one next year, one that will rule more concretely (though the current meeting is plenty important).
There's no question that the Church must extend itself to the world with love as commanded by Jesus but there is also no question that like Christ it must do so at times with firmness, a frame of steel, one that does not bend to the winds of modernism, nor one that is overly legalistic (which tends toward witchcraft, a notion we'll explore soon). There are different styles. There are prelates who find devotion in flowing robes. There is the Pope, in simple white attire. Both have their merits. Both have their moments. Simplicity is sacred. So are devotions. Saint John Paul II (the "bishop dressed in white," but also with the scarlet of martyrdom), struck a nearly perfect balance between the two.
The Church does well, reaching out to the world in the way it has; it has been a remarkable moment. It may never come again -- a time when the Church has regained much of what was lost from an extreme in one direction, as long as it does not now lose an equal amount by an extreme in the opposite direction. When it comes to fornication or homosexuality, it is dangerous to pretend that such things are simply different types of lifestyle. They are not. It is a spiritual circumstance. Spirits are involved. And it does a fornicator or homosexual or adulterer no service to pretend otherwise. We are all afflicted from time to time. We all sin, in word or action or thought. We all have been born with baggage -- with proclivities to certain sins. It is the test of life, as is the battle with spirits that are (as Pope Paul VI put it) "perverse and perverting." If a person can be delivered from a dark spiritual circumstance, but is told not to worry about it, that it doesn't matter, when it does (when it is the type of spirit Jesus would have commanded out), is this a true act of love?
Spirits move. Spirits attach. Thus, we don't judge. We don't know what people are born with; what haunts their lineage. Yes, we reach out to them with love. But neither do we pretend that what they have been deceived into doing (fornication, sodomy) is alright and normal and simply alternative.
Curious it is, that at no major site of approved apparition has the Blessed Mother mentioned homosexuality or abortion. Not at Fatima, not at Lourdes, or Kibeho, not at Medjugorje (not yet approved), not at Akita, not in San Nicolás, not at LaSalette, not at the Miraculous Medal (though these apparitions named many evils) were the sins of abortion and homosexuality ever cited. That's curious, yet less than a year ago a seer from Medjugorje laid it out rather plainly when she said that "homosexual marriage is from Satan."
And there was a message from a Medjugorje prayer group (not certain if it was from one of the six major seers, for there were also locutionists) in 1990 that said, "Dear children, today I ask you to pray in particular for the unborn children. Pray for all for the mothers who kill their baby. Dear children, I am sad because so many children are being killed. Pray that there would be no longer such mothers on earth."
Spirits move and the best love we can show is to lead those in our society -- and ourselves, when we stray -- onto the course of truth in Jesus, Who as much as He instructed us to partake of the Eucharist instructed us to deliver others and ourselves from what is unclean and what is untrue and what is demonic. It is an act of love. What spiritual warfare there currently is! And will be.
Reach out; but don't sell out.
Nor: lash out.
Our prayer: that the cardinals and bishops in Rome strike the right tone as we faithful also remember, in all the hyped rancor (in all the radio-like barking), that Scripture says (1 Samuel 15:21-22), "To obey is better than sacrifice." We accept that.
But let's not even begin to pretend that a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman or everyone living with each other and doing what they want when they want is okay with God, when clearly it is not.
--Michael H. Brown
[resources: The Final Hour]
[See also: Michael Brown retreat: Louisiana and Missouri]
[Footnote: Years ago, I had an editor at a major publishing house in Manhattan (in fact a few doors down the street from St. Patrick's Cathedral) who was a great guy, an excellent editor, and also an unabashed and unapologetic homosexual. He was the nicest editor I'd ever had, the most considerate and kind, very Godly in that way, but I'll never forget one time going to see him about a book I was working on for him. As usual, I checked in with the receptionist and strode a short way down a hall until I got to his office, third down as I recall. The door as always was open and he expected me and had been alerted by the receptionist but as I entered I stopped in my tracks because instead of this editor, a young man in his late thirties, there was an old woman at his desk, her back to me, facing a window looking upon mid-town Manhattan. I stepped back, returned to the receptionist, and asked if I had the wrong office -- if he had moved. The question surprised the receptionist, who replied that no, of course: he was still in the same office. And so I returned but there in broad daylight was the back of the head of a woman with curly gray-white hair, a tad disheveled, never turning around to acknowledge me. I made no sound, just studied the office, noting the furniture I was familiar with, the pictures, the bookshelf, the bestseller he was proud of (with Roseanne Barr), the posters. It was him but it wasn't him. Once again I stepped out, looked down the hall, peered into some adjacent offices, but was sure I was in the right one and when I entered this last time the "woman" heard my shuffling, turned around, and suddenly was no longer there, and there is my editor, welcoming me. She had left. He returned. I felt I had lay witness to an elderly female spirit that had control of this fellow (unless I was simply hallucinating in a way that never happened before, nor since).]

Document-gate

Video A Man Called Francis (Stignatist/ Healer)







http://gloria.tv/media/Gy7xGb3gXiD#4~media%3D7xj1mTPqDjn%26language%3Do9CtE7uatTg

Asia Bibi will hang for blasphemy, Pakistani High Court confirms

16 October 2014  

(Photo: Voice of the Martyrs)
Pakistani Christian woman Asia Bibi is facing death for blasphemy
The death sentence on Asia Bibi, who was first found guilty of blasphemy in November 2010, was confirmed today by the Pakistani High Court.
She was defended by Christian lawyers including the Provincial Minister for Minorities Affairs and Human Rights, Tahir Khalil Sindhu. However, two judges – Justice Anwar Ul Haq and Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi – upheld the original sentence.
She has been supported in her long-running case by the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), an organisation working for persecuted Christians in Pakistan. CLAAS will submit a final appeal to the Supreme Court within the required 30 days, but the process could still last a number of years.
Nasir Saeed, director of CLAAS-UK said: "I am very disappointed with today's result and my thoughts and prayers are with Asia's family. It is not surprising that the judges were swayed by pressure from local influential Muslims, but I had hoped that justice would prevail and that the case would be judged based on its merits.
"While the rest of the world condemns such draconian laws, Pakistan continues to persecute its minorities simply because of their religion.
"I have to now remain hopeful that the Supreme Court judges will look at the case objectively and allow the final appeal, eventually acquitting Asia."
Mrs Bibi's case reflects the deep religious tensions in parts of Pakistan and in the eyes of many campaigners illustrates the shortcomings of the country's blasphemy law, which is used to settle private scores. In June 2009 she was involved in an argument with a group of Muslim women after they became angry with her for drinking the same water as them. She was subsequently accused of insulting the prophet Mohammed, a charge she denies, arrested and imprisoned. Her health has suffered badly while in prison and her family has gone into hiding. A cleric offered a reward for her murder in prison and Italy, France and Spain have all offered her and her family asylum if she is released.
Her case has attracted world-wide attention, with a call from Pope Benedict XVI for her to be released. It has also led to at least two murders, further illustrating the intensity of religious feeling in Pakistan: Salman Taseer, governor of the Punjab, was assassinated in January 2011 for his criticism of the blasphemy laws and Christian minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in the cabinet, was murdered two months later.