Thursday, September 10, 2015

The heresy of the Catholic Doors website

Catholic Doors Ministry

P.O.Box 7615, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7K 4R4.

Evangelizing worldwide since 1998.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. 1. Can you tell me, what is the "Feeneyism" heresy? I never heard of it before.

A. 1. The heresy of "Feeneyism" is the strick interpretation of the Doctrice "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which means that "outside the catholic Church, there is no salvation." It is a rejection of the Church teaching that those who die for the sake of the faith without having been baptised, are considered baptised by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

"Feeneyism" originated with Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897–1978) who was a Jesuit priest and the founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In 1949, the Jesuit Order dismissed Fr. Feeney because of his disobedience. On February 4, 1953, being unmoved by repeated warnings, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicated him "on account of grave disobedience to the Church Authority. In 1972, Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Catholic Church.

Q. 1. Can you tell me, what is the "Feeneyism" heresy? I never heard of it before.
There is no Feeneyism heresy. Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is Feeneyite when it says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) is Feeneyite when it states the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. The Nicene Creed is Feeneyite when we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.The Athanasius Creed is Feeneyite when it states there is no salvation outside the Church. The three defined dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus are also Feeneyite.They affirm the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and do not mention any exceptions.

A. 1. The heresy of "Feeneyism" is the strick interpretation of the Doctrice "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which means that "outside the catholic Church, there is no salvation."
This was the official teaching of the Catholic Church for centuries.Popes and saints have affirmed it.
Immagine correlata
 It is a rejection of the Church teaching that those who die for the sake of the faith without having been baptised, are considered baptised by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
The rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not a rejection of the baptism of desire or baptism of blood. Since these are invisible cases, they are known only to God. So they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma which says all need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church. A Catholic can affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and blood and also the traditional, centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Implicit cases, which are hypothetical and abstract for us cannot be relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed they were exceptions and so made an objective mistake. It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know cases of baptism of desire etc which exclude the baptism of water. So no one in Church history knew of a case of someone who is in Heaven saved outside the Church, i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

"Feeneyism" originated with Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897–1978) who was a Jesuit priest and the founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Feeneyism originated with Jesus Christ and is expressed in the Bible ( John 3:5, Mk.16:16).

In 1949, the Jesuit Order dismissed Fr. Feeney because of his disobedience. 
The Jesuits like the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing were rejecting the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For them the baptism of desire and blood referred to explicit cases in 1949. So they assumed these explicit cases were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For them these speculative, known only to God cases were objective exceptions to the interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney. This was irrational and an innovation.This was heresy.It was supported by the Holy Office(CDF) in 1949.
The Catholic Doors website is repeating the same error.

On February 4, 1953, being unmoved by repeated warnings, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicated him "on account of grave disobedience to the Church Authority.
The heresy of the baptism of desire and baptism of blood being objective exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus was made official.
The Church accepted these cases which were speculative as being objective.
So in Vatican Council II the baptism of desire  and baptism of blood are mentioned with orthodox passages which support the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus. This was a mistake,They should not have been placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). Since they are not objective cases are so are irrelevant to the traditional teaching on salvation.
Until today cardinals and bishops interpret Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) as being an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, when there are no such cases known to us in real life.

 In 1972, Fr. Feeney was reconciled to the Catholic Church.
He was always reconciled to the Church since he never said anything new.He affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and rightly did not consider baptism of desire and blood as being relevant or exceptions to the dogma.
The Church 'reconciled' him by asking him to only recite the Creed and not to recant his teachings on the dogma. He recited the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation.
-Lionel Andrades

Madonna di Medjugorie ❤ Messaggio 2 Settembre 2015

Our Lady of Medjugorje ❤ Message, September 2, 2015

Quale è la preghiera più potente? Domande e risposte sulla preghiera -Don Tullio Rotondo

Three months and sedevacantists cannot answer if LG 16 is explicit and an exception to EENS

It's about three months and a lay sedevacantist is unable to answer if LG 16 is explicit or implicit for us. He cannot answer  if it is not explicit can it be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation. He will still not answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS.

These links 1 show the discussion with IAAD the blog owner of Introibo Ad Altare Dei, a sedevacantist, on our mutual blogs last June 2015.

There is one report which says Sedevacantists are teaching irrationality. No priest or seminarian from the seminary has responded .

Here are  recent comments with a sedevacantist from the blog post Ask the Wife

Sedevacantist :
BOD and BOB never were, nor are they now, considered "exceptions."
Agreed that being saved with implicit desire for the baptism of water was never exceptions,then and now.Neither martyrdom.
Also being saved with implicit desire or martyrdom were never baptisms like the baptism of water, in 1808 or now.Physically they could not know of any case at that time.So it was theoretical speculation.

If you receive BOD or BOB you are a member of Christ's One True Church--so what's your problem?


Yes, these are theoretical cases so they are not a problem with or without the baptism of water.They never were, so they were not mentioned in the text of the dogma by any of the three Councils, which defined extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


It only becomes problematic if you claim BOW is necessary IN ADDITION to BOB and BOD


It's theoretical so it is not problematic.Either way it is not an exception to EENS.


--or that BOB and BOD do not admit you to membership in the CHURCH.


It's theoretical. So one can long as it is not implied that these cases are known, and so are relevant or exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.


Trent did define BOD, stating the necessity of water baptism, .."OR THE DESIRE THEREOF."



We accept it in theory.

Since Trent did not say that these cases were explicit, must be followed without the baptism of water or that they were exceptions to EENS.Trent did not make these inferences.-Lionel Andrades

Sedevacantists refuse to answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS
Fr.Anthony Cekada has used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS).

Fr.Anthony Cekada should have apologised to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney

Bishop Donald Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's error

Sedevacantists jump ship

Bishop Sanborn, Fr.Cekada agree : in the present times there are no explicit exceptions to EENS

We do not know of a BOB and BOD exception in the present times. Here we can all agree since it is common knowledge.

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?

Collegamento permanente dell'immagine integrata
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

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

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.

Pope Francis like the sedevacantists 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

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?

Immagine correlataImmagine correlata

Ask the wife 2

Fr.Paul Kramer like Cardinal Ratzinger has been offering Holy Mass by changing the Nicene Creed, rejecting a defined dogma and interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit


While Saint John Paul II was very open to the mystical, and Pope Benedict XVI less so, no one is sure where Pope Francis stands when it comes to apparitions, weeping statues, and the like -- alleged miracles. His perceptions in this realm may soon become apparent, when he rules on formal Church direction for Medjugorje in Bosnia-Hercegovina. It's widely believed that a commission formed by Pope Benedict and largely composed of psychologists and theologians has decided that there is no definitive evidence of the supernormal and through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will recommend restrictions on seers who, some traveling about, assert that they still see the Virgin Mary and, until recent restrictions were placed on them, experienced apparitions so publicly. Francis already has indicated disapproval of that, but he is expected to allow Medjugorje -- so famous for producing vocations, conversions, and healings -- to remain as a shrine (a major one, at that). Pope John Paul II called it "the fulfillment of Fatima."

But for now, this is all conjecture -- how Francis will rule. Do we gain insight into his thinking -- when it comes to the supernatural -- from an alleged Eucharistic miracle that occurred in his own archdiocese of Buenos Aires when he was an auxiliary bishop?
This was in 1996, and the future Pope, it seems, asked that it be photographed and later professionally examined. We have reported this before but there are amazing new details, at least new to us.
As recounted in a new book, Peace Will Have the Last Word, "At seven p.m. on August 26, Father Alejandro Pezet was celebrating Mass in a church [called Saint Mary's] located in the commercial center of the city. As he finished distributing Holy Communion, a woman came up to him to say that she had found a Host that someone had thrown away at the back of the church. When Father Alejandro went to the place she had indicated, he saw the soiled Host. Since he couldn't consume it, he placed it in a small container of water, which he put in the tabernacle of the Blessed Sacrament chapel." A week later, when he opened the tabernacle, he saw, to his astonishment, that the Host had turned into a "bloody" substance.
It was then that he told Bishop Jorge Bergoglio about it.
The photos, taken on September 6, "show clearly that the Host, which had become a fragment of bloody flesh, had greatly increased in size." The whole matter was kept quiet and it remained in the tabernacle for several years. The future Pope decided on a scientific examination of it when it showed no signs of decay.

In 1999 (by which time the Pope was archbishop) the Host was sent to New York for the analysis. One of the scientists is someone we knew fairly well, a viewer of Spirit Daily named Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who was a well-known forensic pathologist and cardiologist.
Here is where it gets very interesting.
For after a DNA analysis, Dr. Zugibe (now deceased) declared that "the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells require a living organism to sustain them, or they will die outside of a living organism. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest."
This was New York City's foremost forensic expert! The blood cells, added Dr. Zugibe, should have ceased life after immersion in water. He was informed of this and other circumstances of the sample only after presenting his results. Wondered Dr. Zugibe: How could something taken from a dead person in 1996 still be alive?
It was only after he said this -- presented his findings --  that the source of the sample, a consecrated Host, was revealed to him.
Dr. Zugibe, a devout Catholic -- and an expert on the Crucifixion -- called it "an inexplicable mystery." (We had spoken to him about his studies of the Crucifixion, but this he had not mentioned.)
What's more, when the analysis was compared to those of the famous Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, Italy, the conclusion was that it came from the same person (perhaps we should say Person). Or so says the book. The blood types were "AB-positive." And the blood reportedly carried characteristics of a man from the Middle East -- or so it is written.
What happened to it then: the future Pope (by this time Cardinal Bergoglio) allowed it to be known but doesn't seem to have said much. As far as we can tell, it has not been formally declared or displayed (unlike a bleeding Host in Venezuela, which is venerated publicly). In the Venezuelan case, however, the Host bled in front of witnesses (on December 8, 1991), whereas Hosts that are put away can be prone to bacterial growth that mimics a miracle. But in this case? Heart cells? Noted a writer: "In all the interviews since his ascension to the Papal chair, no one has asked Pope Francis what he makes of this alleged miracle. Perhaps, they've never heard of it. I certainly knew nothing about it and I'm a practicing Catholic. I certainly would find investigation of this 1996 discovery more interesting than whether the Pope is a radical liberal." The  bottom line: stay tuned. The Pope's final conclusion on the Host (and other mystical matters) -- his personal opinion -- remains a mystery.
[Watch the testimony here:].

Cardinal Burke had grave reservations on the same annulment proposals Pope Francis just enshrined


card. BurkeSTEUBENVILLE, Ohio, September 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking yesterday at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Cardinal Raymond Burke expressed grave reservations about the very proposals that were released the same day in Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio concerning annulments in the Catholic Church.
Burke was addressing those proposals as outlined in the reports from the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family which took place last October, and not the Motu Proprio, since his prepared remarks predated yesterday’s release of the Motu Proprio. The crowd was directed to refrain from asking questions on the Motu proprio as the cardinal had not had time to review it sufficiently.
The most startling changes in the annulment procedure were to drastically lessen the time for acquiring an annulment to as little as 45 days. Moreover, the Motu Proprio eliminated the need for a second confirming judgment and left to the local bishop rather than canonical judges, the decision on annulments. Speaking of similar proposals as part of the Synod documentation and not as part of the Motu Proprio, Burke noted that the canonical procedures had been developed over centuries to give certainty of arriving at the truth.
He stressed the importance of determining the truth on the matter, noting that it deals with the “salvation of souls.”
Burke noted that similar proposals to alter the process along the lines that were suggested at the Synod (and now implemented in the Motu Proprio) were also proposed before the 1983 reformation of canon law and were rejected by Pope St. John Paul II. Moreover Burke noted that the Vatican already attempted a lessening of the procedures for the United States in the 70s and early 80s, leading to an impression of “Catholic divorce.”
Burke firmly rejected the notion that people could be too weak to conform to God’s law on marriage, saying that Our Lord has assured us that He gives to us all the grace we need to live our lives in His will.
“In the present moment when the attacks on matrimony and on the family even within the Church seem the most ferocious,” he said, “it is the Church who must show to the whole of society the truth in all its richness and thus the beauty and the richness of the truth about marriage.”
“The Synod Fathers and all faithful Christians must be willing to suffer,” he added, “to honor and foster Holy matrimony.”
He warned that “confusion and error on holy matrimony” are being “sown by Satan in society and in the Church.” Marriage, he said is “under a ferocious and diabolical attack.”
Responding to Church leaders who have called for false accommodation with the world, even for silence in the face of homosexual liasons being accepted as “marriage,” he said we must “call things by their proper name in order not to risk contributing to confusion and error.” That, “according to Divine wisdom, the Church must always speak the truth with love.”

Police demolish Taliban office in Karachi, Pakistan

Shahid Mobeen
Police demolish Taliban office in Karachi

Pakistan: Where you have to wait an extremely long time in prison to have your “blasphemy” appeal heard

Last month there was some cautious optimism on the case of Asia Bibi after her death sentence was stayed and she was given leave to appeal the conviction that has seen her languishing in jail for six years. But it soon emerged (this article is dated July 27th and we must have missed it previously) that her appeal might itself not be heard for another six years, due to the backlog of cases:

An SC [Supreme Court] official said the appeals that were granted leave in 2009 were being taken up by the court. “The petitions granted leave now might be taken up in another six years,” he told The Express Tribune.
Aftab Ahmed Bajwa, a criminal justice expert, too, said the SC’s Lahore Registry was currently taking up the appeals that were granted leave in 2007 and 2008. He said it appeared that Aasia’s appeal would not be fixed for hearing for up to six years. “She will have to wait for at least four years even if she is granted an ‘out of turn’ hearing by the court.”
And she’s not the only “blasphemy” convict awaiting an appeal hearing.
The High Court in Lahore (LHC) was yesterday set to hear the appeal on the case of one Waleeha Irfat, a 24-year-old woman accused of “blasphemy”, convicted more than three years ago, and in jail ever since. Previous hearings were re-scheduled because reportedly no lawyer would take her case. The Express Tribune reports:
On August 12, Justice Shaid Bilal Hassan had put off the hearing on her plea until August 20.
Waleeha Irfat was jailed on March 3, 2012, after an FIR was registered against her at the Factory Area police station under Section 295-B (blasphemy) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
On August 29, 2013, a seven-member medical board headed by the Health Services director general had said, “She has been found to be suffering from mood disorder (impulsive personality traits). The board is of the opinion that she needs drug treatment and psychotherapy.” The board had been formed on the court’s directive.
We cannot find word yet on the outcome of Waleeha Irfat hearing yesterday, assuming it took place.
In previous reports, advocates for the complainant blamed the delays on the jailed woman for changing lawyers, noting that no one would take her case because of “the nature of the accusations”.

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become world’s third-biggest: report

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become world’s third-biggest: report

PHOTO: Inter-Services Public Relations
PHOTO: Inter-Services Public Relations
Pakistan could have at least 350 nuclear weapons within the next five to 10 years, making it the world’s third-largest nuclear stockpile, according to a new report produced by two American think tanks.
The report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center states Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities owing to a fear of India.
However, Pakistan is far outpacing India in the development of nuclear warheads, the report adds. According to estimates, Pakistan has 120 nuclear heads while India has around 100.
Further, the report said Pakistan could be building up to 20 nuclear warheads annually.
“The growth path of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, enabled by existing infrastructure, goes well beyond the assurances of credible minimal deterrence provided by Pakistani officials and analysts after testing nuclear devices.”
Read: Pakistan has fastest growing nuclear weapons programme in the world: report
The report stated in the next few years, Pakistan’s large stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to quickly produce low-yield nuclear devices would become a growing advantage for the country.
India on the other hand, has far larger stockpiles of plutonium, which is needed to produce high-yield warheads, than Pakistan does. However, India appears to be using most of its plutonium to produce domestic energy.
With increasing warheads, Pakistan would probably possess more nuclear weapons than any country except the United States and Russia which each have thousands of the bombs.
Nuclear expert at the Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Mansoor Ahmed, said he suspects that “a more accurate assessment of Pakistan’s capability is that it can develop no more than 40 to 50 new warheads over the next several years.”
However, Ahmed did not dispute that Pakistan’s military is seeking to expand its nuclear capabilities.
Read: US confident of Pakistan’s ability to safeguard nuclear weapons
According to sources, Pakistani military officials were not available to comment on the report when it was made available to journalists ahead of its release.
“This report is overblown,” Ahmed said. However, Ahmed, who was recently named a nuclear security fellow at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School of Government added “what the world must understand is that nuclear weapons are part of Pakistan’s belief system. It’s a culture that has been built up over the years because [nuclear weapons] have provided a credible deterrence against external aggression.”
For many years, western officials have struggled to get an accurate assessment of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities.
Findings of the report were questioned by many Pakistani analysts, saying it is based on a faulty assumption that Pakistan is using all of its existing stockpiles of fissile material to make nuclear weapons.
Further, the report, written by Toby Dalton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, and Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Centre noted that Pakistan is believed to use plutonium as well as highly enriched uranium to create nuclear warheads.
According to Dalton, Pakistan recently added a fourth plutonium production reactor at its Khushab Nuclear Complex.
“We assume, maybe correctly, maybe inaccurately, with the fuel coming out of the four reactors, they are processing it as rapidly as possible to get the plutonium out,” Dalton said.
Read: July-May: Rs48b spent on Karachi’s nuclear power plants
India and Pakistan, which have fought three major wars, were declared nuclear powers in 1998. Since then, Western leaders have been increasingly alarmed about the potential for a nuclear exchange between the rivals.
India views nuclear weapons “as a political tool, a prestige item, not something you use on a battlefield,” Krepon said. In Pakistan, he said, nuclear weapons are seen as “things you have to be willing to use” to guarantee stability.
Concluding, both Krepon and Dalton said there is still time for Pakistan to slow down the development of its nuclear arsenal. If it does, they said, “the international community should consider what steps it can take to recognise it as a responsible nuclear state.”
Among other nuclear-power nations, France has about 300 warheads and the United Kingdom has about 215. Meanwhile, China has approximately 250.
This article originally appeared on The Washington Post

Subito l'asilo a chi fugge dalla persecuzione religiosa

Urge velocizzare le procedure per la concessione dell'asilo politico, anche perchè tra le principali cause delle migrazioni si intensifica quella della persecuzione e della discriminazione sulla base delle differenze religiose. Pubblichiamo l'appello lanciato da Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre.

Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre | giovedì 3 settembre 2015
Alla sezione italiana di Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre risulta che l’intensificazione della persecuzione e della discriminazione motivate dalla religione e la loro estensione in un maggior numero di aree geografiche sia diventata tra le principali cause di fuga dai territori di origine: rispetto anche solo a 5- 6 anni fa molte più persone e interi nuclei familiari sono costretti a fuggire dalla loro patria perché rischiano la vita per la fede. Lo conferma l’incremento dei richiedenti asilo giunti in Italia da Eritrea, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Siria.

Queste famiglie, così come tutti coloro che chiedono il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato, attendono non meno di dodici mesi prima che la loro istanza sia esaminata dalle Commissioni territoriali, vivono dunque problemi di emarginazione e di disagio collegati a questa lunga attesa, e spesso rischiano ritorsioni anche in Italia; nonostante le Commissioni siano raddoppiate rispetto a prima dell’emergenza (passando da 20 a 40), il loro numero è comunque insufficiente di fronte a domande che sono diventate 10 volte di più rispetto al recente passato.

Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre rivolge un appello alle istituzioni italiane competenti perché il sistema nel suo insieme sia reso più celere, e perché in particolare chi fugge dalla persecuzione religiosa abbia una corsia preferenziale, più rapida e con maggiori garanzie, per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato; e quindi perché le Commissioni territoriali siano sollecitate ad un esame veloce e dall’esito positivo, una volta accertate la zona di provenienza e la confessione religiosa di appartenenza: non è necessaria una approfondita istruttoria perché, per es., un cristiano proveniente da Homs in Siria o da Mosul in Iraq ottenga lo status di rifugiato. Senza entrare in questioni che non riguardano la competenza di Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre, l’appello è nello specifico ad un ampliamento del numero delle Commissioni territoriali, alla destinazione mirata di una parte di esse a quanti fuggono dalla persecuzione religiosa, e alla cura che la fede di appartenenza non sia causa implicita di discriminazione anche in Italia.

Roma, 3 settembre 2015

“Aiuto alla Chiesa che Soffre” (ACS), Fondazione di diritto pontificio fondata nel 1947 da padre Werenfried van Straaten, si contraddistingue come l’unica organizzazione che realizza progetti per sostenere la pastorale della Chiesa laddove essa è perseguitata o priva di mezzi per adempiere la sua missione. Nel 2014 ha raccolto oltre 105 milioni di euro nei 21 Paesi dove è presente con Sedi Nazionali e ha realizzato 5.614 progetti in 145 nazioni.

Per informazioni:;

PAKISTAN - Cristiano in carcere per false accuse di blasfemia dopo una controversia privata

ASIA/PAKISTAN - Cristiano in carcere per false accuse di blasfemia dopo una controversia privata

Lahore (agenzia Fides) – Il cristiano Pervaiz Masih, abitante del villaggio di Usman wala, nel distretto di Kasur, in Punjab, è stato denunciato e arrestato per blasfemia, in seguito a una controversia privata con un uomo musulmano, Haji Jamshed, sulla vendita di materiale edile. “Secondo un cliché che si ripete, la controparte musulmana usa e abusa della legge sulla blasfemia, accusando ingiustamente un cristiano dopo una lite privata che non ha nulla a che vedere con la religione”, riferisce a Fides l’avvocatessa cristiana Aneeqa M. Anthony, responsabile dell’Ong “The Voice”, dopo aver compiuto una missione sul posto. Nel villaggio l’episodio ha causato forte tensione tra cristiani e musulmani, nota la Anthony a Fides.
Il suo team sta cercando di venire a capo della questione. Secondo quanto ha spiegato Zarina Bibi, moglie di Pervaiz Masih, la polizia ha fatto irruzione nella notte tra l’1 e il 2 settembre nella sua casa e, con violenza, lo ha percosso e arrestato. Pervaiz e Zarina hanno quattro figli: Amir di 9 anni, Prem di 5 anni, Anmol di 3 anni e Sanam di 7 mesi. “Pervaiz è del tutto innocente, siamo in pena per lui”, ha detto piangendo la moglie
Il team dell’Ong “The Voice” ha assunto la cura e la responsabilità dei bambini e della sicurezza della famiglia. “Faremo ogni sforzo perché sia fatta giustizia per Pervaiz”, conclude l’avvocatessa Anthony. (PA) (Agenzia Fides 3/9/2015)

How can Fr. Kramer and Fr. Cekada come out in public and say they were wrong all these years?

I am asking something very difficult of Fr. Paul Kramer and Fr. Anthony Cekada. Since after years of condemning Vatican Council II I am asking them to say that the Council is traditional on salvation and that it is even Feeneyite and not ambigous.
I am also asking them to consider that Feeneyism is the official teaching of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II- and that the present magisterium has made a factual mistake which was accepted by both priests.
This is too much for them!
They know that Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This changes the premise and inference  which they used over the years.
Without the old premise and inference, how can they interpret Vatican Council II 2 and accept different conclusions, this is not easy for them.
A young Catholic who has not had the two priests religious formation, would find it simple to see that the Council does not contradict EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.He would simply have to avoid the irrationall premise and inference.Then interpret Vatican Council II in line with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the Council of Florence.This would be easy even if this young Catholic had not studied theology.
For Fr.Kramer and Fr. Cekada it is going to be difficult to mentally and emotionally make the U-turn.If they interpret Vatican Council II without the premise ( the dead in Heaven are explicit) and the inference( these deceased in Heaven are visible exceptions to EENS on earth and they can be seen without the baptism of water) then they would be in opposition to their sedevacantist bishops and would have to change their lifestyle.
How can they come out in public and say that they were wrong all these years?
They can no more make Vatican Council II the basis for sedevacantism. LG 16 they know is not explicit ( the premise is rejected here) and so LG 16 is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS( the inference is rejected here).This will be noticed over time by their colleagues and students.It's something obvious.
It is obvious that people now in Heaven with BOD or BOB cannot be exceptions to EENS.
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is pro-Feeneyism.While LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc not being explicit, do not contradict  AG 7 and LG 14.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Paul Kramer and Fr.Anthony Cekada cannot know of any physical exception to EENS: There are no explicit cases of BOD and BOB