Wednesday, April 29, 2015

This is the teaching of the Church and if Our Lady at Medugorje has not contradicted it, it is because she is in step with the Church. She is in step with the error of the Magisterium

 
Michael Voris:
And switching gears here to the question of private revelation, it can never contradict official Church teaching. 1
Lionel:
According to Church teaching the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is implied in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,1257), Letter of the Holy Office 1949, the International Theological Commission ( Christianity and the World Religions etc) and magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus.
This is magisterial. The Church indicates that there are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. In other words people now Heaven are explicit on earth to be exceptions.
_________________
 
 
This is one of the ways that so many fraudulent apparitions are discovered. Our Lady, or whoever the supposed vision is of, says some oddball thing, or in other cases simply never seems to say anything related to Church teaching. It’s one of the biggest reasons for totally dismissing the supposed revelations of Our Lady of Medjugorge...
But according to the visionaries, she has said things like the differences in world religions don’t matter to God.
Lionel:
This is an interpretation of E.Michael Jones who lives in Detroit near the Church Militant.com studios.
__________________
That is a fake apparition, regardless of how many people who have gone their have felt about it. Feelings do not make something true. The truth makes something true...
Lionel:
Michael Voris and E.Michael Jones believe like the 'magisterium' that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would be apparition theology. They indicate that being saved in inculpable ignorance and the baptism of desire are known, seen in the flesh exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology. So they too can see appartiions.
Members of the St. Francis of Assisi School choir from Ann Arbor sing a selection during a March 19 festival sponsored by the American Federation Pueri Cantores at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament. They too accept, like the school children and their parents in Detroit, that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to exceptions to the teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Church to avoid Hell.
This  is the teaching of the Church and if Our Lady at Medugorje has not contradicted it, it is because she is in step with the Church. She is in step with the error of the Magisterium.
___________________
 
But in cases like real apparitions and private revelations such as that of God the Father to St. Catherine of Siena, not only is nothing revealed contrary to Church teaching or tradition — it all agrees with and supports already-existing tradition and teaching.
Lionel:
'not only is nothing revealed contrary to Church teaching or tradition — it all agrees with and supports already-existing tradition and teaching.' Tradition before 1949 did not teach that the baptism, of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible on earth cases.Or that they were exceptions to the dogma.
This is an irrational and heretical teaching held today by many Catholics who are not aware of it.Church Militant.com could comment on this.-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
 
The Medjugorje Message
 
 
 
"Those who are in Hell, they ended up there according to their own will.." -Vicka
 
How would Pope Francis or Cardinal Muller know if Our Lady is really appearing at Medugorje ? Dogmas and doctrines are no more accepted as a measure
 
Cardinal Muller has alleged apparitions like Medugorje : apparition theology for the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/cardinal-muller-has-alleged-apparitions.html
Estimated 100,000 attend Medugorje anniversary
 
 
Medugorje and Authority
 

Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits made a mistake when they inserted two superflous paragraphs in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) : until today Catholics are misled

Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits made a mistake when they inserted two paragraphs in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14). They were irrelevant passages. The passages were based on Cardinal Marchetti's factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter brought a foreign element into the Catholic Church.A new doctrine was created.
These superfluous passages are not exceptions to the orthodox passages in Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium 14 which affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here are the two superfluous passages which are irrelevant to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
SUPERFLUOUS  PASSAGES
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)... -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
 
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...
 
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14
Members of the St. Francis of Assisi School choir from Ann Arbor sing a selection during a March 19 festival sponsored by the American Federation Pueri Cantores at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Catholics are confused by the addition of these two passages.School children in the Archdiocese of Detroit 1 for example, interpret the above two passages as saying :-
1. We human beings can physically see the dead in Heaven.
2. We can know someone in Heaven in the present times who is there without 'faith and baptism'.

The children infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in inculpable ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Most Catholics think like this, including the apologists.2

So non Catholics do not have to convert in the present times Catholic  children are taught.Why ?

 Since 1) we human beings can physically see the dead in Heaven and  2) we humans can know someone in Heaven in the present times who is there without 'faith and baptism'!!.

So the two superfluous  passages above contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the following two orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14.

ORTHODOX PASSAGES

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14,Vatican Council II 

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. - Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II
So Catholics conclude wrongly that Vatican Council II contradicts the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are misled.
They use the same irrational approach with other magisterial documents.First comes the irrational premise ( 1. We human beings can physically see the dead in Heaven) and then follows the strange inference ( 2.  We  know someone in Heaven in the present times who is there without 'faith and baptism' and so the dogma is contradicted. There is salvation outside the Catholic Church).Then comes the conclusion based on the irrational premise and inference ( Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture with the past).
 
The two superfluous passages are what Donald Flood on the EENS FORUM would call a 'null set'. They would refer to John Martignoni's 'zero cases'.
 
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has to assume that these zero cases are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican) expects them to accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality. 3 Cardinal Gerhard Muller  will not admit that the CDF has made a doctrinal mistake. Instead the CDF wants the SSPX and sedevacantists to accept this objective error. 4

For Bishop Maurice E. Piat , Bishop of Port-Louis , ' the SSPX is not in communion with the Catholic Church. The talks initiated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011-2012 with a view to restore communion, failed.'(Rorate Caeili). They failed because Pope Benedict and Bishop Piat interpret Vatican Council II with an  irrational premise and inference, as do the school children in Detroit and Port-Louis. So Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition. This is acceptable for  Bishop Piat and the CDF.It is correctly rejected by the SSPX.
 
For Cushing every one had to assume that 'zero cases' were known exceptions to the dogma . They were not zero cases for him! Until today for most Catholics, the superflous passages refer to known exceptions to the dogma on salvation.So Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me it is not a break with Tradition. Since I am aware that the superflous passages do not contradict the orthodox passages. They are 'null sets', 'zero cases'.
The SSPX and the sedevacantists (CMRI,MHFM etc) must note that the superflous passages do not contradict Tradition, unless like the liberals, they assume that the dead now saved in Heaven are visible to us on earth.
There is nothing new in Vatican Council II with regard to an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians to formally convert into the Church for salvation.
-Lionel Andrades

1.


An irrationality is being taught at Catholic schools in Detroit, where Michael Voris is based- and he has no comment http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/an-irrationality-is-being-taught-at.html
2.
Mic'd Up: Catholic School Daze
 
Bishop Paul B.Bootkoski will not endorse Church teaching on sodomy and also Vatican Council II ?
 
Ralph Martin assumes that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience
 
There is an option Fr.John Zuhlsdorf
  
 
3.

Pope Benedict expected the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism. This is doctrinal heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/pope-benedict-was-expecting-society-of.html


Fr.John Hunwicke and Patrick Archbold expect the SSPX to also compromise the Faith with the irrational premise and conclusion http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frjohn-hunwicke-and-patrick-archbold.html

The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-mainstream-church-has-to-begin.html

Ad Gentes 7 can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/ad-gentes-7-can-be-interpreted-with.html

 
4.

Questions and Answers



what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
what inference/ conclusion ?
The inference is since the dead are visible to us on earth, those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance being explicit ( visible in the flesh) become exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So it is concluded that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So it is concluded that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition, it has the hermeneutic of rupture.
what theology,
The post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.Since it assumes that defacto( in fact in the present times,explicitly) there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.So it is a theology which assumes there is salvation outside the Church even though we cannot know of any one saved without 'faith and baptism'.

what Tradition.
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils, do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma.Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and inference is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.

Do you accept the baptism of desire?
Yes. I believe a Catechuman who has an implicit desire for the baptism of water and dies before he receives it can be saved. Since God will provide the means for him to receive the baptism of water. It has been the experience of saints, including St. Francis Xavier that some people returned from the dead only to be baptised by them with the baptism of water.

Irrational premise, Irrational inference, Non traditional conclusion
The secular media uses an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".
They then make an
irrational inference
which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."
Their
conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.

I accept the Magisterium
'For me the magisterial teaching of the Church documents (and not the contemporary magisterium i.e the persons in power) support the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( AG 7,LG 14, CCC 1257,845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).

I accept the Magisterium ( Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), CCC 1257, 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, Council of Trent,Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Cantate Dominio Council of Florence 1441 etc).
Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, before and after Vatican Council II support Fr.Leonard Feeney and the four Catholic professors of theology, who were expelled by Boston College. http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#comment-1943178630

Exclusivist ecclesiology?
The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.

Who agrees with you?
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
-L.A


Pelayo & The Cradle of Catholic Spain

Pelayo & The Cradle of Catholic Spain


By Father José Miguel Marqués Campo
Our story begins in 711 AD — Dark Ages Spain, when Muslims from North Africa have invaded the entire Iberian Peninsula.
1
No one can withstand their terrible onslaught, with the exception of a few hundred Christian men, women and children in this lonely mountain valley, where they make their desperate last stand.
2Blessed be the Queen of our mountain, whose throne is the cradle of Spain… She is Mother and is Queen! Come, pilgrims, before Her we inhale loves divine. And in Her is the soul of the Spanish people.
With the inspiring words of this popular song, dedicated to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Covadonga, sung with all solemnity at the beautiful Sanctuary of her tender advocacy for the people of Asturias, we begin our adventure into the events which led to the epic, Catholic Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula.
3
Legends tell us of Pelayo (Latin ‘Pelagius’) a Visigoth warrior who fought alongside the doomed King Roderigo at the Battle of Guadalete. Pelayo was captured by the victorious Moors, who brought him to their newly-chosen capital, Cordoba.
On the way, his captors taunted him with the news that his beloved sister had been forced into a Muslim harem. Determined and desperate, Pelayo escaped and made his way through the Cantabrian mountains to his home in the land of the Asturs— what the Romans had called Lucus Asturum.
There, in an ancient city called Cangas de Onís, the princely Pelayo was chosen to be king of the Christians, in 718.
4
The Christians were considered “rebellious” by the Moorish governor , as they refused to pay the tax imposed. The Moors then began their disciplinary action against these rebellious subjects.
Persecuted as they were, ill-equipped and disorganized, the Christians could not be expected to offer resistance to the powerful invaders. The Moors, however, disciplined and well-armed, fought the Christians in every valley.
5
Whatever damage the rebels could inflict on the oppressors was scanty at best. Providentially besieged in the valley of Cangas de Onís, the Christians sought refuge in the mountains. In this region, there is a cave called ‘Cova Dominica,’ (Cave of the Lady) a sacred place which since immemorial times had been a center of Marian devotion. Covadonga is an ideal place for shelter, surrounded as it is by a beautiful range of mountains known The Peaks of Europe, with narrow paths to and from the hidden caves.
AD 1
6
It was in this cave, carved in the rock escarpment over a thundering waterfall, where a group of Christians sought and found celestial refuge. The legends tell us that as they prayed, Our Lady appeared to them.
The Christians were mainly native, local Astures; they made their living on the northern Cantabrican coast. In the summer of 722 AD, however, they found themselves in the mountain caves looking down upon a huge, powerful Muslim army.
7
At first, the Muslims had not really paid much attention to this insignificant rebellion. But Munuza, the local governor had learned to not trust the mere appearance of these ‘weak ‘ Christians.
Having asked for help from Córdoba, he had at his disposition some 10,000 troops to subdue the few hundred recalcitrant Christians hiding in their cave.
But the terrain was better known to the Christians, who were thus able to take advantage of the circumstances.
8
It would have been wiser for the Moors to have besieged the Christians until they were forced to surrender or die of hunger. Instead, in their contempt for their enemy, the Moors attacked.
But their attack had a major tactical and strategic error: as their army progressed through narrow, mountain paths, when fired upon by the entrenched Christians from above, by arrows and rocks, they were unable to retaliate effectively.
For the Moorish sharpshooters, needing to fire upwards from where they were positioned, their situation was difficult for accuracy. Many of their arrows simply bounced back down upon them from the mountainside.
And so, unable to manoeuvre, pinned down under a rain of both enemy and friendly arrows augmented by large rocks being flung down by the Astures, the situation was ripe for a Christian counter-attack.
9
This came, a desperate charge led by Pelayo himself.
In a vain attempt to reorganize, the Moors ended up disbanding and fleeing into the mountains, with their leader, Al Qama, dead. Later, a defeated Munuza surrendered the coastal city of Gijón, dying as he fled from the Christians.
The Reconquista had begun.
10
Obviously, the Christian chronicles of the events differ from the Moorish chronicles, in that the Christian accounts tell of the staunch heroism of Pelayo and his small group of “rebels”, whereas the Moorish accounts downplay the defeat of their much superior forces.

11
Be that as it may, the Moors had attempted a diplomatic solution to the Christian rebellion: before attacking they had sent as their envoy, a captured bishop, Don Oppas, who, through human frailty, had turned traitor for political expediency.
12
The bishop tried to convince Pelayo that resistance to such superior forces was useless, saying: “I judge, brother and son, that it is not hidden from you that not long ago, all of Hispania was under Goth rule, whose brilliance was greater than other countries, by doctrine and science. And that, notwithstanding, with all the Goth army united, was not able to withstand the impetus of the Ismaelites. Will you be able to defend yourself from the height of this mountain? It seems difficult to me. Listen to my counsel: Go back to your agreement; you will enjoy many goods and also the friendship of the Chaldeans.”
13
14
And so, the apparently insignificant Battle of Covadonga of 722, with tremendously adverse odds for the besieged Christians led by King Pelayo, was the first time the Moors had lost a battle in their conquest of Iberia, and the first time that Christians defeated them.
Even today, a popular saying holds that ‘Asturias is Spain; the rest of the lands were reconquered.’
15
Pelayo became the first King of Catholic Spain, the father, grandfather and great-grandfather of people who kept the light of the Reconquista alive.
16
His was the beginning of an unprecedented epic campaign – the Catholic Reconquista of peninsular Spain – that would last nearly eight centuries, until that emblematic year of 1492.
http://reginamag.com/pelayo-the-cradle-of-catholic-spain/