Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Puljić: “Pope’s decision on Medjugorje will be good and right”

Pilgrims in Medjugorje

The Cardinal Archbishop of Sarajevo who is also one of the members of the Medjugorje inquiry Commission, has criticised the media for “twisting” the Pope’s words, making it seem like he was anticipating his decision on the apparitions

“Interpreting” the Pope’s words on Medjugorje “as conclusive” is “unacceptable”, said the Archbishop of Sarajevo, Cardinal Vinko Puljić - who is also a member of the Ruini Commission that has been in charge of examining the case of the apparitions in the village in Herzegovina – in an interview with Croatian political weekly 7Dnevno. And “this is precisely what certain media hastened to do… I believe Francis’ decision on Medjugorje will be good and right”.

First and foremost, Puljić commented on the significance of Pope Francis’ visit to the Bosnian capital last 6 June. “In Sarajevo, the Pope emphasised above all that the most important thing for the survival of all peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina is the defence of human rights, tolerance and equal rights. We want to survive and stay in our homes and so it gladdens us to have the support of our Holy Father.”

“The media’s interpretations of the Pope’s statements on Medjugorje shook the spirits of faithful, pilgrims and priests who have links to that place of pilgrimage,” the cardinal added, referring to the Pope’s interview on board the return flight from Sarajevo and the words he used during one of his homilies in St. Martha’s House in the days which followed.

“It is very regrettable that the media gave more – mistaken – attention to certain statements the Pope made on Medjugorje, rather than focusing on some of his more powerful messages about other problems Bosnia-Herzegovina is facing. In fact they twisted used some his statements on Medjugorje, on the Marian apparitions and on other things linked to these. All the Pope had intended to say to certain seers is that they cannot make a media spectacle out of their experiences with Mary, announcing how and at what time she will manifest herself in a given place.”

“It is therefore unacceptable for the Pope’s statement to be interpreted as conclusive.” And “this is precisely what certain media hastened to do, clearly with the intention of ruining the good relations between faithful who embrace the Medjugorje phenomenon and have been going on pilgrimages there for years. I believe Francis’ decision on Medjugorje will be good and right,” the cardinal remarked. “I must earnestly tell you that I am tied to Medjugorje and I was in the Commission that examined the whole case regarding the apparitions. We presented our conclusions and the information we communicated to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which must now work through this material and present it to the Holy Father. When people ask me what I think about all this, I say: praying is not a sin, confessing is not a sin and that is the most important thing.”


It is a fact of life that we do not know any one saved with BOD or BOD today ( June 30,2015) Do you not agree here? Do not your readers agree here?

From the blog Introibo Ad AltareDei http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.it/
The next point is tricky. BOD and BOB are NOT exceptions to EENS. He is correct, and that is what the Church teaches. However, the whole point of "we do not know any case of BOD.." is confusing. Is he trying to insinuate that you can state a heresy, and if there's no proof of it happening, it's not a heresy?? For example, If I say "Christ COULD commit sin" that's not heresy because we know of no examples of Our Lord committing sin? says IAAD
I don't think you still follow me IAAD.
BOD and BOB are NOT exceptions to EENS.
'He is correct, and that is what the Church teaches' says IAAD.
I do not mean it in the sense of theology.I mean it literally.I mean physically there cannot be any exceptions to EENS.
So I think you agree with me here. Also readers of IAAD's blog would agree with me.
Literally they cannot see any case of the baptism of desire.
With the naked eye you and I cannot see any case of someone in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.They are in Heaven. They are not on earth.
On the streets we cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Your readers cannot shake hands with any such person.
So in this sense, physically, literally, personally- I cannot know of any such case.
This is really common sense. So I think you agree with me here.I also quoted you clerics who have said the same thing. They have confirmed the obvious.
This point is central to what I have written.
However, the whole point of "we do not know any case of BOD.." is confusing. Is he trying to insinuate that you can state a heresy, and if there's no proof of it happening, it's not a heresy?? says IAAD.
I am glad you have asked this.
When I say that physically, literally we do not know any particular case of someone saved today without 'faith and baptism', I mean it only literally. I am not referring to theology.
I am not making any new inference. I am making a statement acceptable to all rational people.We all cannot see people in Heaven, literally. They would only be known to God.
It is important to understand this point.The dead for us who are now in Heaven are not physically known to us, we cannot see or meet them, we cannot talk to them.

Likewise, to state that BOD and BOB are not exceptions-- because we don't know of anyone saved by them is both illogical and heretical. Should God tell us the name of someone in 2015 who died saved by BOD or BOB, we still would not have an "exception" to EENS because he died AS A CATHOLIC just prior to the moment of death! says IAAD
'Likewise, to state that BOD and BOB are not exceptions-- because we don't know of anyone saved by them is both illogical and heretical.'
It is a fact of life that we do not know any one saved with BOD or BOD today ( June 30,2015) Do you not not agree here? Do not your readers agree here?.Do you know any one today who is an exception to the rigorist interpretation of EENS ? No! Of course not! So all of us really would be in agreement here.
Well, would he like to know an "exception"? The Roman Breviary states: "Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a catechumen says IAAD.
The dogma says all need to formally enter the Church for salvation. We can enter the Church with the baptism of water which is visible and repeatable. We can enter the Church by learning the teachings of the Church which can be checked and confirmed. This is concrete.
If someone does not need faith and baptism today for salvation, who is that person? What is that person's name? Any one concrete?
Where is the St.Emerentiana today ?

As to Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus of 2000, which allegedly "clarified" Lumen Gentium...writes IAAD.
Cardinal Ratzinger clarified the point of subsist it , in a tradition sense.
Cardinal Ratzinger however like Bishop Sanborn has accepted the theology which comes from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and his Curia in 1949.
So Dominus Iesus does not affirm the rigorist intepretation of the dogma EENS.It does not do so clearly. Instead it infers, like Pope Pius XII, that BOD,BOB and being saved in I.I are explicit for us in real life.They are exceptions to EENS.
So we are back to the initial question. Whom did Cardinal Ratzinger, Bishop Sanborn and Pope Pius XII know, who was saved without faith and baptism ? Who were these cases personally known to them ?
Where was the St. Emerentiana during their life time? Who was the St.Emerentiana whom they knew?


1. BOD and BOB are nothing more than the extraordinary application of the dogma EENS in extraordinary circumstances.
Lionel: This is the new theology.It is based on their being physically known cases of BOD and BOB in our reality. The ordinary means of salvation is 'faith and baptism'. If there was an extraordinary means of salvation it would only be known to God. We could not know of any case in the present times.When there can be no extraordinary cases for us, defacto, how can there be an extraordinary circumstance ?
They are not exceptions to EENS, and it matters not one iota whether we know of anyone today who was saved by such miraculous means.
They are not exceptions to EENS since physically we do not know of any such exception. If there is a box of apples  with an orange within, then the orange is an exception not only because it is different but because it exists there in the box. If it did not exist in that box it would not be an exception.
If there are four tall boys standing at a street corner and a boy short in stature joins them, then he is an exception, since he is different, but also because he there among them at that street corner.
If in a hospital in Rome for example, there are 20 patients with tubercolosis and one is cured and is to be discharged, then this one patient cured is an exception, since his case is different as compared to the others but also because he was there in the hospital with the other patients at a particular time.
When the doctor at the hospital makes his report he will not say that a patient named Emerentiana for example, who was in the hospital 10 years back, is also an exception in the present times.Nor will he say that a person in another hospital is an exception.

2. The Catholic Faith and Sacramental Baptism are the normal way to enter the Church, Outside of Which There is No Salvation
Agreed. This was the position also of Fr.Leonard Feeney.This is also the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,  the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA, traditionalists.

3. In extraordinary circumstances BOD and BOB are used by God to save souls apart from baptism by water.
A theoretical, hypothethical statement which we can accept.
Since we know it is not a defacto case in the present times ( this month, year or over one lifetime) it has no bearing on the dogma EENS. This was the mistake made in 1949. A whole theology has been built upon this factual error and it is being used by Bishop Sanborn, Fr.Cekada and the Vatican Curia.First comes the premise i.e the dead-saved are visible to us. Then comes the theology, since they are visible to us without faith and baptism, they are exceptions to the dogma. So the traditional ecclesiology has been changed with the new theology.The theology is based on the irrationality of being able to see in the present moment, people who are in Heaven.

4. BOD is a miracle performed by God on adults who live open to God's grace, follow their consciences, have perfect contrition, and are infused with the True Faith and Sanctifying Grace just prior to death.
And we could agree that they are not objectively known cases in the present times.There is no such case today June 30 to contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma.

5. BOB is the doctrine that someone who sheds his blood for Christ wanting to be united to the Roman Catholic Church will likewise be saved.
The dogma says all need to be formal members of the Church. Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism(AG 7,LG 14). So the BOD or BOB case who is in Heaven, would also be there with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, in a manner known only to God.
St. Thomas Aquinas says God would send preacher to the man in the forest. He would be taught the Faith and baptised.St.Francis Xavier said persons returned from the dead only to be baptised with water, by him.So who can say that St.Emerentiana was also not baptised with water.
However if she was baptised with water or not , she belonged to another century and is not present now to be an exception to EENS.She is irrelevant to the dogma.

6. There are known Catholic saints who were saved by BOB.
Fine.As long as you do not assume that this case is explicit in the present times and so contradicts the Feeneyite version of the dogma. This would be irrational.

7. BOD and BOB are taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and must be believed. If you reject them, you are a heretic!
They are not infallible teachings, like the dogma.
However I can accept them. Since for me they refer to dejure and not defacto cases in the present times. They are compatible with the strict interpretation of EENS.-Lionel Andrades

Sedevacantists are teaching irrationality

If you assume BOB and BOD are linked to EENS, then LG 16,LG 8, UR 3 etc will contradict EENS. Then V2 is heretical


Fr.Anthony Cekada uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II just like the liberals http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/franthony-cekada-uses-irrational.html

For Fr.Cekada Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to EENS when he does not know any LG 16 case in 2015 in the USA.Yet it is an exception to EENS for him  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/for-frcekada-lumen-gentium-16-is.html

We cannot say that any particular person on earth today will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church but instead with baptism of desire


The Fathers do not say that BOD and BOB are physically known to us in the present times to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/the-fathers-do-not-say-that-bod-and-bob.html

Pope Francis like the sedevantists uses Marchetti's irrational premise and inference. He accepts the Council with this error 

The EWTN report Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most is based on irrational Cushingism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/the-ewtn-report-tragic-errors-of.html

They would be saved with Catholic Faith when they are saved. Since in Heaven there are only Catholics. This is not contested in the UR 3 text

Marchettiism is a major heresy in the Catholic Church in the present times


For you UR 3 and LG 8 are exceptions to the dogma.Why? Who do you know today who is saved as mentioned in UR 3,LG 8?
Cardinal Napier agrees with me
Cardinal Napier : Vatican Council II and the Jews in America
Cardinal Napier just like me is saying that we cannot meet any exception today to the traditional teaching on salvation
Wikipedia continues with false propaganda on extra ecclesiam nulla salus : promotes Marchetti's factual error