Saturday, January 23, 2016

GLORIA POLO IESI 13 APRILE 2015





https://youtu.be/RCpIB9RapAU?list=PL01BA2A1BBD8D4519




Dr. Gloria Polo before she was 'killed' by a  lightning bolt.

       
Her nephew, who didn't survive when lightning directly struck them both.


And always she repeats (1000 of times) her testimony as she promised Jesus.
     


  

She supports her apostolate and
 vocacion with  daily prayer.

http://www.i-h-s.eu/www/gloria/htdocs/contactoeng.html

There is a factual error in Vatican Council II which has come from the Letter of the Holy Office and most Catholics have not noticied it

From the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
 
So Vatican Council II says :
'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'(Lumen Gentium 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(Ad Gentes 7).
 
But the Letter (1949) made a mistake.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
 
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and long.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949
 
' the effects, necessary for one to be saved...can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.
If someone is saved only in desire and longing he is a non existent case for us, he does not exist in our reality, he is a zero case. So how could the Letter state'it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing'? It is always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member and we do not know anyone saved only with longing and desire.
We don't know any one who will be saved with 'the baptism of desire'.
There are no concrete cases on earth of someone with only and longing.These cases can only be known to God.
There are no known cases of someone on earth saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.
There are no such cases visible in 2016. We cannot know or not know any such case.They would only be known to God.
So how could the Letter(1949) say, 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church...'.The Letter is here referring to a hypothetical case. It is a theoretical case.It is not  someone known in real life. O.K. No one will be saved who knowing the Church...but what has this to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation ?.Zero-cases, invisible cases are not exceptions or relevant to the dogma.
 So the Letter made a mistake here. It assumed these cases were personally known and so were relevant to the dogma EENS. So it says 'Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing...'
Then the Letter concludes, 'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.'
'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...' is  a denial of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is a denial with a non existing case in our reality,, someone whom it refers to as ' united to her by desire and longing'. This is a theoretical case. How can a theoretical case be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church?
So it is irrationality when the Letter states,'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.'
It is the denial of a defined dogma with an irrationality. This is heresy. It is magisterial heresy.
It was an objective error.It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
The same error was placed in 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'(Lumen Gentium 14) and 'all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching'(Ad Gentes 7).
Yes 'all must be converted to Him' and not only those who 'know' or are 'made known by the Church's preaching'.
Vatican Council II refers to those who 'know' because the Letter (1949) assumed there were known people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. It assumed there were known people saved with 'longing and desire', with what the Baltimore Catechism calls 'the baptism of desire'. It infers that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is how it is generally interpreted.  It assumed that 'when a person is involved in invincible ignorance' this is a personally known case. Then it was inferred that this 'unknown' case was a known exception to the dogma EENS. The Letter criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not accepting these 'unknown' cases as explicit exceptions to their traditional interpretation of EENS. The magisterium was saying they could see these exceptions on earth and wanted the St.Benedict Center to say the same.
They were so sure of themself. They incorporated this erroneous teaching in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
They effectively got rid of the dogma EENS and brought a new doctrine into the Catholic Church.Until today, most Catholics have not noticed this.
-Lionel Andrades

The Letter ( 1949) made a mistake.There is a mistake in Vatican Council II, too.It's an objective mistake. It's a doctrinal mistake.There are no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology on ecumenism and other religions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-letter-1949-made-mistakethere-is.html

The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X brought an innovation in the Church which changed doctrine on salvation and mission: the error of the Americans at Baltimore and Boston

 

Iranian / Afghani Christian Worship Song by Sedayezindagi


https://youtu.be/r_Hk2FaNwfc


Shadim Dar Khodawand



https://youtu.be/oIiIKn3f-0s?list=PL493CB68F9E5AFCC9


SAT-7 PARS Christian Music Video - When The Sprit of The Lord
https://youtu.be/YK1-XquiKqQ?list=PL493CB68F9E5AFCC9


Khodawand Ra Setaim
https://youtu.be/Oc1mozX5h2A?list=PL493CB68F9E5AFCC9


Kist Khodawande Ma
https://youtu.be/teJGaCpWCak?list=PL493CB68F9E5AFCC9

Khodawanda, To Agahi
https://youtu.be/pPDgZiSz7k8?list=PL493CB68F9E5AFCC9

The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X brought an innovation in the Church which changed doctrine on salvation and mission: the error of the Americans at Baltimore and Boston.

Lionel:
You still are emotionally unable to deal with the explicit-implicit distinction. You are repeating the same thing.
I am not opposed to the baptism of desire so what is the point of quoting the saints again.
I accept the baptism of desire since I make the visible-invisible distinction and so BOD is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as an exception.
_________________________


Lionel, I am working on an extensive reply to you on this ongoing discussion. I am linking all the dots throughout the centuries for you on salvation and the consistent teaching on BOB and BOD. What is ironic is that our catechesis is identical. Anyone and everyone that we might meet would be taught the rigorist formula of EENS. There are no exceptions to what we can teach and Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are completely irrelevant to teaching and living totally in the EENS mode. I have NEVER met a person in my life that told me in our discussions or at times heated debates, that they will or could be saved by BOB, BOD or in Invincible Ignorance of the Catholic certainty of EENS. No one has ever said to me anything but that they think that I and/or the Catholic faith is wrong or something to that effect concerning EENS as the only path. From a catechesis belief and teaching on the necessity of the Catholic Church and Baptism by water you and I are identical. All of our fuss is over the theological aspects of the modus operandi of God concerning BOB, BOD and II AFTER death and not while they are alive.

Fine!
________________________________

I will be quoting for you the exact Latin along with the English translation of what the great and holy St. Charles Borremeo said concerning what his and the Church's mindset was when he said, "...'or the desire thereof.' He reflected the church teaching of the ages. He is regarded as one of the greatest Saints.
This is not the issue. I accept BOD and so do the liberals and the magisterium and the St.Benedict Center.They all accept BOD.
The issue you are not discussing is : is 'the desire therof' referring to a visible or invisible case. For the Americans at Baltimore and Boston it referred to a visible case and one without the baptism of water.What about you ? Is this possible? And so were they wrong or correct?
______________________


 
There is no need for you Lionel to continue your private interpretations of a great multitude of church teaching throughout the ages. ST. Charles Borremeo told us and the Church exactly why ...'or the desire thereof' was rightly, correctly and supernaturally is in the catechism of the Council of Trent; this the catechism that was called the catechism of impeccable certainty for centuries by many Popes. It is the catechism used by the FSSP today.

The FSSP infer that BOD refers to visible cases and so it is an exception to EENS.
_______________________


Here is exactly what St. Charles Borremeo said in regards to ...' or the desire thereof' in the catechism of the council of Trent in regards to: " By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, 'or the desire thereof', as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The baptism of desire as theology can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.You have to recognise this .The FSSP uses one inference, one of the two options.
__________________________
Quote from St. Charles Borremeo:
"Sed quamvis hæc, ita sint, non consuevit tamen Ecclesia Baptismi Sacramentum huic hominum genere statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniuctem habet; cum illis, qui rationis usu præditi sunt, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et malæ actæ vitæ poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et justitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero hæc dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates affere.... which translated to English says :

"Yet, even though things are so, it is nevertheless NOT customary for the Church to confer the Sacrament of Baptism on men immediately, but rather at fixed times appointed for this. For the delay is not a danger as is said it would be over a child, for those with the use of reason, the resolution and plan of receiving Baptism and the full repentance for the bad acts of life endows them with grace and justice if suddenly some misfortune impedes so that they are not able to be washed with the saving water"

So now you know EXACTLY why ....' or the desire thereof' was and is Church teaching.
I repeat the baptism of desire and baptism of water as Church teaching is not being questioned or denied.
What is being denied is that BOD is a known baptism and that it can exclude the baptism of water.Since there are no known cases in Church history.There cannot be any known case for us humans, since we cannot see or know these persons in Heaven.So for the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to imply that they are exceptions to the dogma EENS and are baptisms similar to EENS is irrational and heretical.There is no proof or precedent.This error has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium and is magisterial heresy.
________________________


 
There is no need to speculate on why those words are indeed ongoing church teaching for all time. The reason why a baby MUST be baptized with great urgency is because they are helpless in the necessity of them obtaining Baptism by water in order to SECURE their salvation. This act and sacrament is dependent on their parents/God parents. On the other hand those who have attained the age of reason who St. Charles Borremeo is referring to in the ..." or the desire thereof' is explicitly referring to those who desire baptism by water and meet an untimely death that those too MIGHT be saved. Do Not take the "...or the desire thereof" out of context or self interpret as you do with the countless Church teaching that you have dissed throughout the many years.

St.Charles Borremeo does not say that the baptsm of desire is a baptism or that it refers to a known case. He mentions with good will, a theoretical case, known only to God.
It is the liberal theologians who read this quote and infer that he refers to a known case and so BOD is a baptism without water and it is an exception to the dogma EENs.It is not there in the text but they make the irrational inference.It is there in the Baltimore Catechism.
________________________


The sentence that contains...' or the desire thereof' is a complete sentence and jointed teaching which reads, " And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, 'or the desire thereof', as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." which emphatically says that, a person CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God without baptism of water OR a person who has attained the age of reason and desires baptism by water BUT meets and untimely death.

Yes.
All need the baptism of water for salvation.
The person who desires the baptism of water and dies before receiving it is a zero-case.He or she was not part of the saints reality.
__________________________

You are correct when you say we do NOT know and can not know if this person described.in the "or the desire thereof" has been baptized with water and is therefore irrelevant to teaching the exclusivity of EENS without exception for there are no exceptions. Everyone in Heaven is Catholic! You are correct when you say that " God can do as he wants"
When I say God can do as he wants I make the theoretical-practical distinction, you do not and so there is confusion here.
Theoretically God can do what he wants.
Practically God has chosen to restrict salvation to the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
In theory( everything is possible with God) a person can be saved with the desire for the baptism of water before he dies and did not visibly receive it.
Practically a person has to be saved with the baptism of water, since all need the baptism of water for salvation and this is the teaching of the Church which cannot be contradicted by modern theologians since the Baltimore Catechism was issued. There are no 'theoretical exceptions'.
__________________________


 
You are in grievous error when you repeatedly say, " that for me Baptism of Desire is always followed with Baptism by water for you project your position into the afterlife.

This is a de fide teaching which has been contradicted by the Baltimore Catechism and then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
___________________________


 
This was Father Feeney's error.

Was this also the error of the Church Councils which defined EENS? Was this also the error of the Council of Trent when it affirmed the necessity of the baptism of water for all for salvation? Be consistent and condemn the Council of Florence 1441 on Cantate Dominio.
But do not say every one needs to enter the Church but some do not.
____________________________
This is such a blatant error for you to project in the afterlife what God has to do or will do; for although we are bound by the sacraments and must believe and teach EENS without exception as Father Feeney correctly said when he proclaimed, " teach the faith and leave the mercies to God" He should have stopped there and not projected his views into the afterlife nor should
you.
'for although we are bound by the sacraments and must believe and teach EENS without exception'. You contradict yourself when you accept the error of the Americans at Baltimore and Boston.
______________________________



Lionel your premise on your blog and understanding is wrong and this is why it has produced no fruit.
What is my premise?
'My premise' and inference is something you refuse to discuss.For some emotional reason you cannot say that the Baltimore Catechism made a mistake and the FSSP position is irrational.You want to accept their irrationality and also hold the Feeneyite position on EENS.
_____________________________
Your defense and love of our Catholic faith is very admirable but instead of attacking church teaching on BOB nd BOD you should be asking:

1. Why did all save a few in the Catholic Church stop teaching EENS without exception in the 1950's
Since the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X brought an innovation in the Church which changed doctrine on salvation and mission.
________________________________

2. What significance does the letter of the Holy office of 1949 have to do with this crisis. You are right about the letters intent but for the wrong reasons. You will be surprised by what really happened during the time of that 'letter' that satan was foiled in doing for all of the previous centuries.
It followed the irrationality of the Baltimore Catechism and made the error official. The error was then transferred onto Vatican Council II since no pope corrected it in public.
________________________________

3. What are the questions that you should be asking of the clerics on your blog that will hit a nerve and become fruitful. ..... you are asking the wrong questions and attacking those who were and are faithful Catholics
Those who promote an irrationality and heresy in the present times are not faithful and honest.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Dopo il divorzio (1970) e l’aborto (1978), ancora una volta un governo guidato da un sedicente cattolico si prepara a sferrare un nuovo gravissimo colpo alla legge naturale e cristiana- Famiglia Domani al Family Day

Famiglia Domani al Family Day

Il prossimo 30 gennaio il Comitato “Difendiamo i nostri figli”, promotore del Family Day del 20 giugno 2015, ha indetto una manifestazione nazionale per protestare contro il disegno di legge n. 2081, Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze, noto come “ddl Cirinnà”, che giovedì 28 gennaio approderà in Aula al Senato per la decisiva discussione generale. Dopo il divorzio (1970) e l’aborto (1978), ancora una volta un governo guidato da un sedicente cattolico si prepara a sferrare un nuovo gravissimo colpo alla legge naturale e cristiana.
Il disegno di legge, che già dal titolo esplicita il suo obiettivo primario, è diviso in due parti denominati “Capi”: la prima metà del progetto disciplina ed estende il matrimonio alle coppie omosessuali, la seconda parte prevede alcune regole a tutela delle coppie che convivano senza sposarsi, i cosiddetti “conviventi di fatto”. La portata di questa legge è storica in quanto il “ddl Cirinnà” si propone di modificare uno dei pilastri della nostra civiltà: la famiglia, per come da millenni la conosciamo.
Per questa ragione, l’Associazione Famiglia Domani, da sempre in prima linea nella difesa e nella promozione della famiglia, aderisce alla manifestazione con l’intenzione di ribadire pubblicamente il valore fondamentale dell’istituto famigliare naturale fondato sul matrimonio indissolubile tra un uomo ed una donna, nucleo primario di formazione dell’uomo e cellula vitale di ogni società.
La nostra adesione alla manifestazione del 30 gennaio non può però prescindere dal sottolineare in maniera chiara il nostro fermo NO al “ddl Cirinnà” nel suo complesso: in primo luogo NO alle unioni civili di qualsiasi forma e in secondo luogo NO alla “stepchild adoption”.
Non possiamo infatti non rilevare come l’acceso ed ampio dibattito attorno al “ddl Cirinnà” si sia eccessivamente incentrato attorno al pur giusto diritto del bambino ad aver una madre ed un padre, oggi minacciato dall’adozione dei minori all’interno delle coppie dello stesso sesso e da istituti differenti quali la “stepchild adoption”, l’affido “rafforzato” e l’utero in affitto. Però, con il limitarsi al rifiuto di queste aberrazioni giuridiche, si rischia di tacere sull’inaccettabile approvazione delle unioni civili, in qualsiasi modo esse vengano declinate, sia appellandosi ai presunti diritti delle persone omosessuali in quanto tali, sia al falso principio della non-discriminazione.
Famiglia Domani denuncerà ogni cedimento compiuto in questo senso da associazioni o parlamentari che si dicono cattolici e difensori della famiglia.
Famiglia Domani era in piazza il 12 maggio 2007, in occasione del primo “Family day”, per dire NO ai “DICO”, acronimo che stava per Diritti e doveri delle persone stabilmente Conviventi, il disegno di legge presentato dagli allora ministri per la Famiglia Rosy Bindi e per i Diritti e le pari opportunità Barbara Pollastrini. A circa 9 anni di distanza, le rivendicazioni dei nemici della famiglia hanno fatto passi da gigante, pretendendo di approvare, in uno solo colpo, unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso, convivenze di fatto ed adozioni dei minori. Oggi come allora, il nostro NO è il medesimo: nessun compromesso o cedimento è possibile con il processo rivoluzionario che, attraverso fasi successive, ha di mira la distruzione totale della famiglia.
Per questo, Famiglia Domani rifiuta in toto il disegno di legge Cirinnà ed afferma con forza come la salvaguardia della famiglia sia inscindibile da una difesa totale ed integrale della verità e dell’ordine naturale e cristiano.

SCARICA QUI IL COMUNICATO IN FORMATO PDF

Associazione Famiglia Domani
Piazza Santa Balbina 8 – 00153 Roma
Tel. 06-3233370 – fax: 06-32110310
Email: info@famigliadomani.it

Grande manifestazione nazionale per la famiglia naturale a Roma piazza san Giovanni

20150620 manifest pro famiglia rona s giovanni 42Un avvenimento popolare di grande attualità,in qualche modo una sorpresa nel panorama sociale e civile italiano: la mobilitazione per il Family Day, iniziativa partita "dal basso", senza particolari appoggi politici o ecclesiastici, organizzata in due o tre settimane ma che ha dimostrato una grande sensibilità nella "base" familiare del popolo italiano, alle cui istanze e richieste  la politica fatica moltissimo a rispondere.
Sono palesi le "influenze" su mass-media e mondo culturale delle potenti lobby economiche e culturali internazionali che tentano di distruggere l'umano nel mondo occidentale, riducendo le persone singole a "monadi" senza legami e dunque in balia dei mercati.
Una buona parte di italiani non vuole essere sottomessa da leggi malfatte e assistere passivamente alla rovina programmata della famiglia naturale che nel tempo e' giustamente diventata quella che oggi possiamo chiamare famiglia tradizionale.


http://www.collactio.com/incontri/incontri/grande-manifestazione-nazionale-per-la-famiglia-naturale-a-roma-piazza-san-giovanni.html

Family Day a Roma - Circo Massimo - sab.30 gennaio 2016

20160130 family.day circo massimoIL FAMILY DAY DEL 30 GENNAIO A ROMA

SI SVOLGERA’ IN PIANTA STABILE
(CIOE’ SENZA CORTEO)

AL CIRCO MASSIMO

DALLE ORE 14 ALLE ORE 17
 
Roma, 19 gen. (Askanews) – Il Family Day contro il ddl Cirinnà che istituisce le unioni civili con la stepchild adoption, in programma a Roma sabato 30 gennaio, sarà una manifestazione statica al Circo Massimo, dalle 14 alle 17.
In una riunione tenuta oggi gli organizzatori hanno infatti deciso di abbandonare l’idea di un corteo fino a S. Giovanni (la piazza “storica” dei passati Family Day, 12 maggio 2007 e 20 giugno 2015) perché “stanno arrivando tantissime adesioni e San Giovanni potrebbe essere una piazza troppo piccola”.
Il programma degli interventi dal palco che sarà montato al Circo Massimo è ancora in via di definizione, ma di sicuro non ce ne saranno di politici. Previste di sicuro alcune testimonianze di famiglie, esperti giuristi e le conclusioni del neurochirurgo e presidente del comitato “Difendiamo i nostri figli” e portavoce del Family Day, Massimo Gandolfini.