Thursday, April 2, 2015

Easter at Ephesus by Benedictines of Mary


Heavenly songs from classical music's unlikely rock stars

Didn't Jesus teach about hell?

Preached graphic depictions of hell

Everyone knows that “fire and brimstone” preaching is ineffective and, in any case, antithetical to the spirit of the Gospel of love, right?
Then why did Jesus preach about hell so much?
Jesus gave horrifying descriptions of the place. Throughout the Gospels we find that Jesus describes hell as a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” a place where “the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched,” a “blazing furnace,” “darkness,” “unquenchable fire,” and “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Several of these descriptions he repeats several times.)
And he constantly warns people from doing things that would get them sent there. So maybe preaching about hell isn’t so bad?
from Spirit Daily


It contains in it, after the Preparatory Prayer and two Preludes, five Points and one Colloquy:
Prayer. Let the Preparatory Prayer be the usual one.
First Prelude. The first Prelude is the composition, which is here to see with the sight of the imagination the length, breadth and depth of Hell.
Second Prelude. The second, to ask for what I want: it will be here to ask for interior sense of the pain which the damned suffer, in order that, if, through my faults, I should forget the love of the Eternal Lord, at least the fear of the pains may help me not to come into sin.
First Point. The first Point will be to see with the sight of the imagination the great fires, and the souls as in bodies of fire.
Second Point. The second, to hear with the ears wailings, howlings, cries, blasphemies against Christ our Lord and against all His Saints.
Third Point. The third, to smell with the smell smoke, sulphur, dregs and putrid things.
Fourth Point. The fourth, to taste with the taste bitter things, like tears, sadness and the worm of conscience.
Fifth Point. The fifth, to touch with the touch; that is to say, how the fires touch and burn the souls.
Colloquy. Making a Colloquy to Christ our Lord, I will bring to memory the souls that are in Hell, some because they did not believe the Coming, others because, believing, they did not act according to His Commandments; making three divisions...
- The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, [1914]

A young Korean artist taken to Hell. Drew pictures of it.
The entrance it seems to me was similar to a very long and narrow alleyway, like an oven, low and dark and confined; the floor seemed to me to consist of dirty, muddy water emitting foul stench and swarming with putrid vermin...The bodily pains were so unbearable that though I had suffered excruciating ones in this life and according to what doctors say, the worst that can be suffered on earth for all my nerves were shrunken when I was paralyzed, plus many other sufferings of many kinds that I endured and even some as I said, caused by the devil, these were all nothing in comparison with the ones I experienced there...-St.Teresa of Avila's description of Hell.


These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.
I would have died
There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me...-St.Faustina Kowalska's description of Hell.

"Then I was pushed into one of those fiery cavities and pressed, as it were, between burning planks, and sharp nails and red-hot irons seemed to be piercing my flesh."

Here Josefa repeated the multiple tortures from which no single member of the body is excluded:

"I felt as if they were endeavoring to pull out my tongue, but could not. This torture reduced me to such agony that my very eyes seemed to be starting out of their sockets. I think this was because of the fire which burns, burns... not a finger-nail escapes terrifying torments, and all the time one cannot move even a finger to gain some relief, nor change posture, for the body seems flattened out and yet doubled in two.- Sr.Joseph Menendez's description of Hell.
There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,
Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man' s table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham' s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.
And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father' s house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. -Luke :19-31, The Rich Man (Dives) and Lazarus.
Second Circle (Lust)

Gianciotto Discovers Paolo and Francesca
In the second circle of Hell are those overcome by lust. Dante condemns these "carnal malefactors"[ for letting their appetites sway their reason. They are the first ones to be truly punished in Hell. These souls are blown back and forth by the terrible winds of a violent storm, without rest. This symbolizes the power of lust to blow one about needlessly and aimlessly.
In this circle, Dante sees
Semiramis, Dido, Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, Achilles, Paris, Tristan, and many others who were overcome by sexual love during their life. Dante is told by Francesca da Rimini how she and her husband's brother Paolo Malatesta committed adultery, but then died a violent death, in the name of Love, at the hands of her husband, Giovanni (Gianciotto). Francesca reports that their act of adultery was triggered by reading the adulterous story of Lancelot and Guinevere (an episode sculpted by Auguste Rodin in The Kiss). Nevertheless, she predicts that her husband will be punished for his fratricide in Caïna, within the ninth circle (Canto V).
Alse see Dante's experience in Hell in The Divine Comedy( Inferno)._______________________________________

They all agree with me !

Cardinal Agostino Vallini and Rome's Auxiliary bishops agree with me that the Catholic Church affirms the traditional rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since they do not know of any exceptions.So for Rome, there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict, Feeneyite version of the dogma.Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not personally known to them.They are not exceptions. They never were. They agree with me!!
I have been e-mailing these blog posts to them. There is no denial from the Rome Vicariate, the Vatican Press Office, Ecclesia Dei. No denials also from the SSPX at Econe or the sedevacantists CMRI.This is to good to be true!!
Even Mons. Guido Pozzo Secretary at Ecclesia Dei Vatican accepts there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II is in accord with the strict, rigorist, Feeneyite version of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The ecclesiology of the Church is still exclusivist. No denial from Ecclesia Dei. They agree with me.
I informed Econe that the Rome Vicariate and Ecclesia Dei have no denials to issue.This opens a new dimension for Vatican-SSPX doctrinal talks.The rules have changed. The Council is traditionalist. It never was ambigous.
There is no denial to these reports from Bishop Mark Pivaranus,Superior General of the sedevacantist community, Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae.He agrees with what I have written.
They all agree that today, April 2,2015, there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the traditional, centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
Ave Maria per Violino (Schubert) live - Uto Ughi

Yes. The contemporary magisterium has accepted the irrational theology of the liberal theologians. It is now 'magisterial'.

"So you have not been able to cite any text from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent which says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
That's because I have never made that argument, and neither does the Church's contemporary teaching.

You initially said.
'If the Church ever actually held the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then she threw it away long before 1949. Pope Pius XI rejected the rigorist interpretation in his encyclical Quuanto Conficiamur Moerore. Trent rejected it...'
This is a common misunderstanding in the Church among traditionalists and liberals.
As I have stated multiple times, there is no exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Are you saying every one with no exception on April 2, 2015 needs to formally enter the Church i.e with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell? All the Hindus, Jews,Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians are on the way to Hell ? Since they do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water or only the Catholic Faith as in the case of other Christians, they will not be saved today ?

I do not believe there are exceptions and the contemporary teaching of the Church does not teach exceptions. There was no change in 1949, no teaching after that differs from t he teaching before.
You earlier said:
'I am assuming that what you mean by the "rigorist position" is the one condemned by Suprema haec sacra, the position of the
"Cambridge-ites", that one must be a visible member of the Church to be saved.'
So here you indicate that there has been a big change.

"Liberal theologians have assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance (whatever be the concept) is explicit and knowable in the present times. Then starts their descent to heresy with this irrationality."
Here is the confusion for me. You have earlier characterized the Church as being guilty of this "irrationality," not just liberal theologians.
Yes. The contemporary magisterium has accepted the irrational theology of the liberal theologians. It is now 'magisterial'.
I agree that there is a very real risk of turning invincible ignorance and baptism of desire into a de facto universalism or indifferentism. But doing that requires the denial of explicit magisterial teaching, it is not something rooted in teaching after 1949.
"Vatican Council II refers to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It leaves it up to us to infer, if these cases, are exceptions to all needing faith and baptism(AG 7) for salvation. So I infer they are not."
Vatican II is not vague. It does not characterize the Baptism of Desire as an exception, nor even in a way that could be interpreted that way. The way that the Council speaks of salvation generally and Baptism of Desire is as something that joins a person of the Church, not as an exception to the necessity of the Church.
O.K if you are saying that every one on April 2 needs to be ' a card carrying member of the Church' , with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation.

"There is no text which says that salvation in Heaven is visible to us on earth to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
I do not understand why this is an issue. I have never made this claim. The Church's contemporary teaching does not make this claim; your objection does not apply to the Church's teaching. If you have a problem with heterodox theologians making some formulation akin to this, I have no problem with that. But it has no bearing on the Church's contemporary magisterial teaching.
It does and I don't like saying this.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257 The Necessity of Baptsm) says God is not limited to the Sacraments!
The dogma tells us that God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments. How would Cardinals Ratzinger and Marchetti know of any exception?
Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Christianity and the World Religions (ITC), Balamand Declaration do not uphold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. They infer that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.


"1. He says that God will send a
preacher to him. Obviously the preacher will speak about the Faith and baptise him."
Or that God will send him inspiration and that he could be saved even without a visible baptism.

How do you come to this conclusion? What is your source in the Catholic Church?
He will be saved without the baptism of water?
Is it because Cardinal Marchetti first said so? Can a pope, cardinal or magisterial document over rule a defined dogma?

"Are you affirming the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma here? The Feeneyite version with no exceptions?"
I am affirming the unambiguous Catholic interpretation (since we define "rigorist" differently). There are no exceptions to outside the Church there is no salvation, but Baptism of desire, baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, imperfect union provide ways to be inside the Church in ways not readily visible. But such is due to the mercy and and provision of God, not something we can judge.
You have said earlier:
'Or that God will send him inspiration and that he could be saved even without a visible baptism.'
This is an exception.

And as such, I reject the Feeney-ite position. Because what you have described as your own opinion is not Feeney's. He made his theology quite explicit in his book, Bread of Life:
“Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved.”
He is perfectly correct.Defacto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.He is referring to baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.

He may have allowed that Baptism of Desire could justify, but not that it could save.
He was correct. The Catechuman who implicitly desired the baptism of water and died before he received it, in this hypothetical case, would have received it before he went to Heaven.
The just who died before the coming of Christ had to wait in Abraham's Bosom before they went to Heaven after the Resurrection.They could not straight go to Heaven.
Similarly Limbo was considered a place of waiting. It was neither Heaven or Hell
The Catechuman too, in this theoretical case, could also have been sent back to earth only to be baptised with water. This has been the experience of the saints, including St.Francis of Xavier.
So if there is a concrete case today who will be saved with the baptism of desire or blood, he would be in Heaven as a Catholic saved with the baptism of water.
However either way, with or without the baptism of water, the case cannot be defacto known to us and so it does not contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma, the traditional interpretation of the popes and saints.It is irrelevant to the dogmatic teachig on exclusive salvation. It is not an exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology of the contemporary Church ( for me).
As such, the Feeney-ite position – unless the Feeney-ite position is different from Feeney’s position for some reason – is contrary to Catholic teaching and contrary to the position you have laid out above.
It is true that now there are different interpretations of what Fr.Leonard Feeney believed.
He never recanted.He died holding the rigorist, traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There was only one interpretation of the dogma before 1949 and which he knew of.
- Lionel Andrades