Friday, May 27, 2016

Medjugorje Visionaries - the scientific tests

The SSPX could interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as I do and reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 since it is irrational and non traditional

There are no disputed Council teachings. Even LG 14 refers to a hypothetical case and so it is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology, the old exclusivist ecclesiology.

Cardinal Müller Expects SSPX to Recognize Disputed Council Teachings

Daniel Ibáñez/Catholic News Agency
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
– Daniel Ibáñez/Catholic News Agency

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has said he expects the Society of St. Pius X, which has always opposed the Second Vatican Council's declarations on religious freedom and ecumenism, to “unreservedly recognize” freedom of religion as a human right, and an obligation to ecumenism. 
I "unreservedly recognize" freedom of religion as a human right  however I interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.So I affirm the necessity of all people needing to become Catholics for salvation.Since there is no change in the old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II, for me, I affirm the necessity of the non separation of Church and State, since all need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This is the priority.
Similarly since Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, ecumenism must be based on an exclusivist ecclesiology for me.I am open to ecumenism as long as it is understood that Vatican Council II indicates that all non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church formally to avoid Hell.
Similarly the SSPX could also accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyism).So religious freedom and ecumenism would not be an issue.With Vatican Council II (Feeneyism), Vatican Council II would only be an issue for those who use the theology of Cushingism, as does Cardinal Gerhard Muller.
In an interview in the June edition of the German publication Herder Korrespondenzthe prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that if one “wants to be fully Catholic, one must recognize the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.”
Lionel: No problem here for me.I recognize the pope and accept what he says if it is in accord with Tradition.If it is opposed to Tradition and to the former popes I reject it. I affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and reject the pope's interpretation of Vatican Council II with irrational and non traditional Cushingism. Cushingism is heretical for me.
Cardinal Müller said he expects a recognition of all the Council declarations that deal with these issues, according to the interview, reported on the Austrian Catholic website, Kathpress, May 24.
I accept all the Council declarations. I however do not interpret hypothetical references as being objectively known. This is the error made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II by Cardinal Muller. For me LG 16 would be hypothetical. For him LG 16 would be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He implies that LG 16 refers to an explicit case.It would have to be objective to be an exception.So it is not hypothetical for him.
His comments come after reports that the Society of St. Pius X, which continues to oppose key teachings of the Second Vatican Council regarding ecumenism, freedom of religion and aspects of liturgical reform, may be close to being recognized by the Holy See.
Lionel: The SSPX opposes ecumenism, freedom of religion and liturgical forms, since they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
Archbishop Muller is also a Cushingite.He uses the same philosophical reasoning as Bishop Fellay. However unlike Bishop Fellay , he welcomes the Council as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
In 1988, the Society’s founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, along with Bishop De Castro Mayer, ordained four bishops claiming necessity, but the move went against the express wish of Pope St. John Paul II. The Pope had given permission for one bishop to be ordained. All five incurred automatic excommunication and, although Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the four bishops in 2009, the society has remained in a canonically irregular situation.
Earlier this month, the SSPX’s superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, told the Register that some in Rome were signaling to the Society that it was now possible to question the Council’s teachings on these issues “and remain Catholic.”
Lionel: Once the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction is made, Vatican Council II is no more an issue.The error is identified and the rational theology has to be chosen.

“That means, also, the criteria they would impose on us, to have us prove to them that we are Catholic, will no longer be these points,” he said. “That, to us, would be very important.”
Lionel: The SSPX would still be Catholic if they interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.Their position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus would be traditional and in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement (2012). With traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus they would be affirming the old ecclesiology. So there would be no change in their traditional position on religious liberty and ecumenism.The  liturgy will once again affirm the old ecclesiology without the SSPX having to reject Vatican Council II. 
Presently the SSPX bishops interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So they then reject Vatican Council II since the Council becomes a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.An irrational premise ( there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is used and so the conclusion ( so all do not need to formally convert into the Catholic Church) is non traditional and an innovation.
Furthermore, he stressed that Rome had two different approaches: “We have to distinguish the position of the Pope which is one thing, and then the position of the CDF,” said Bishop Fellay, who also insisted the SSPX would not compromise on its position. “They don’t have the same approach but have the same conclusion which is: Let’s finish the problem by giving recognition to the Society.”
Lionel: The SSPX could interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II as I do.
I also accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and reject the second part. Since in the second part it is assumed that hypothetical cases, baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objective. The Letter is critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney for not accepting the baptism of desire as an exception to his traditional interpretation of the dogma. In other words the Letter is saying that the baptism of desire refers to known exceptions to the dogma on all needing to be formal members of the Church to avoid Hell. Objective exceptions? Known exceptions? Where are they ? What are their names? Who has seem them in the present times or in the past?
The SSPX could also reject the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 since it is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
There are no disputed Council teachings. Even LG 14 refers to a hypothetical case and so it is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology; the old exclusivist ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades

Pope Francis celebrates the Corpus Domini after a procession from St. John at the Lateran Basilica to St. Mary Major Basilica to mark the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, on May 26, 2016 in Rome

From my perspective it is Cardinal Muller and the SSPX who do not accept Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)

Our Lady prays in Aramaic says Ivan, visionary at Medugorje

Ivan says Our Lady is so beautiful that he could just remain there in front of her. His testimony in Croatian on this video is translated into English and Italian,by two translators. He mentions that when Our Lady prays she prays in Aramaic.He speaks to an English speaking audience.

Video snapshots of reality : Rebuild for Bosnia

Snapshots of reality

Rebuild for Bosnia Mission
Rebuild for Bosnia's mission.Our mission is help the displaced people of Bosnia Herzegovina rebuild their homes and lives. The displaced people presently live in collective centres for refugees, made from fibre glass and asbestos. Families have been occupying huts and shacks since their homes were permanently destroyed and their towns and villages cleansed of their own ethnicity. In order to achieve this we engage in long term solutions by building secure and permanent homes for the the most vulnerable.
Beechfield Office Suite
Athy Road
Co. Kildare
Tel: +353 45 532410
Fax: +353 45 529 550

Rebuild for Bosnia is a registered charity No. CHY 13459
Patricia Keane - Chairperson
Kathy Brown - Company Secretary
Steve Shawl - Director
Fund Raising & Marketing
Tom Walsh
Our Lady Queen of Apostles
Father Svetozar Kraljevic O.F.M., Parish of Medjugorje
The Medjugorje Web™

Medugorje Message to Marija : May 25,2016

The Medjugorje Web is the very first web site created in 1995 about Medjugorje, and is still the largest, most comprehensive, and visited Medjugorje web site on the internet. Since 1981, in a small village called Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, (map) the Blessed Virgin Mary has been appearing and giving messages to the world. And that these years She is spending with us are a time of special Grace granted by God. In Her own words She tells us, "I have come to tell the world that God exists. He is the fullness of life, and to enjoy this fullness and peace, you must return to God".
Since the apparitions began in 1981, over 40 million people of all faiths, from all over the world, have visited Medjugorje and have left spiritually strengthened and renewed. Countless unbelievers and physically or mentally afflicted, have been converted and healed. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones, to investigate with an open mind and heart the events which are occurring in Medjugorje. I invite you to explore the over 4000 pages of information contained on this Web Site, and decide for yourself whether you will answer Our Lady's call to prayer, and conversion.  More...

Video : Medjugorje Apparition from 1984

St. James Church

Send a Petition to Medjugorje
By using the email address below, you can send your petition of intentions, via email,
directly to the Information Center in Medjugorje. The Information Center collects them
and will make sure they are given to either Vicka or Ivan to be presented to Our Lady
during one of their daily apparitions.
Although hundreds, and sometimes thousands of petitions are offered to Our Lady
at one time, Our Lady knows the content of each petition. Our Lady tells us that she
will pray with us and intercede for us before her Son Jesus for our intentions.
After every apparition the petitions are burned.
Email Your Petition To:


Bringing the image of Divine Mercy to the world : new documentary film, The Original Image of Divine Mercy

Bringing the image of Divine Mercy to the world

April 01, 2016
A new documentary tells the dramatic story of the original Divine Mercy image, commissioned by St. Faustina and kept hidden for much of the 20th century.
A replica of the original Divine Mercy image was placed in New York's Time Square for filming of "The Original Image of Divine Mercy." (Image via
Director Daniel DiSilva has wanted to tell the story of the Divine Mercy devotion for a long time. His new documentary film, The Original Image of Divine Mercy, follows DiSilva and his film crew as they travel throughout Europe and the United States interviewing a variety of prominent people about the Divine Mercy devotion and the story of the original image of Divine Mercy.
The devotion is based on a private revelation to Polish nun St. Faustina Kowalska (1905-38) as described in her diary; in 1931, she said that Christ asked her to have the image of Divine Mercy painted and shared with the world.  Despite the destruction brought by World War II and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in its aftermath, remarkably the image has survived and is today venerated in a 24-hour shrine in Vilnius, Lithuania. 
The Divine Mercy image is of importance to DiSilva personally, as it played a role in bringing him back to the Catholic faith of his youth, and after hearing the story of the original image’s survival, he wanted to share it with the world through film. He recently spoke with CWR.
CWR: How did you first learn about the Divine Mercy devotion?
Director Daniel DiSilva in a scene from "The Original Image of Divine Mercy." (Image via
Daniel DiSilva: I was born in Chicago, and grew up in an Italian neighborhood. We attended a Lithuanian parish. But, growing up in the 70s, I drifted from the Faith, and went the way of a lot of young people. I was a secular musician, and without going into any details, I’ll just say I lived the life of a typical secular musician.
At this time, a woman in my apartment complex gave me a picture of the Divine Mercy. I was too busy living my secular lifestyle to pay any attention at first. In 1999, however, I met Christopher West and heard his presentation on the Theology of the Body. I came to realize the beauty of Church teaching.
I grabbed that Divine Mercy picture and began to pray. I had a major turnaround in my life based on the devotion to the Divine Mercy.
My dad, Rudy, had an experience somewhat like mine. He was Catholic and was not practicing his faith for some time. When he was on his deathbed in 2006, I would go to his bedside and pray the Divine Mercy prayers with him. He returned to the Faith, and passed away saying those prayers. It was a special bond for us.
CWR: You had a Christian band for 10 years.
DiSilva: Yes, it was named Crispin, after St. Crispin. We toured the world for 10 years.
It was while doing Crispin’s final concert in Eastern Europe in 2009 that I got the idea to make the Divine Mercy film. I was introduced to a priest in Lithuania who asked me, “Do you want to spend the night with Jesus tonight?”
Our tour host assured me the priest was on the up-and-up, so I said yes, and went with him. He took me to the church, before it became a 24-hour shrine, where the original image of the Divine Mercy is displayed. He said he’d lock me in for the night, and let me out in the morning when he came to say morning Mass. He requested I write a testimony afterwards for a book he was compiling on the Divine Mercy.
So, I stayed there the night. Ever since then, I realized that God’s mercy was available to us in massive quantities if we wanted it. I didn’t understand that before then…in fact, I think I’m still trying to understand it.
CWR: Your film features many prominent people, including Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, George Weigel, Bishop Robert Barron, comedian Jim Gaffigan, and musician Harry Connick, Jr. How did you get them to participate?
DiSilva: I was persistent and fortunate. For example, I went on a date to a Jim Gaffigan show in San Diego. The woman with whom I went was saying afterwards that it was neat that Jim is a Catholic. She was an actress, in fact, and had recorded a pilot with him. She had his email address, and suggested I contact him about being in the film.
Within 10 minutes, he responded. He said he thought the film was an awesome idea. He had a great devotion to the Divine Mercy, and his wife had an even greater devotion. He agreed to be part of it.
We went to his apartment in New York and filmed him. His wife didn’t want to appear on camera, but you can see him looking off camera to her for support as we film.
Harry Connick, Jr. is another prominent entertainer we interviewed. He played the organ for us in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. He plays “How Great Thou Art” in an unusual New Orleans style and talks about it as he plays.
We contacted Mr. Connick through his manager, who asked us many questions before presenting our request to Mr. Connick. His was one of the last interviews we did.
I had originally written to Chicago’s Mundelein seminary, where [Bishop Barron] was teaching, to request his participation. He was filming in Greece at the time, but our calendars eventually matched up and we got him to participate.
We also got some cardinals to participate. We went to Austria, for example, to interview Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, and to Kraków, Poland, to meet with Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz. It was also in Kraków that we interviewed George Weigel; he teaches a class there each year.
We’ll be releasing a DVD of the film this fall, which will have an interview with Immaculée Ilibagiza, who survived the Rwandan genocide nearly 20 years ago. She has written about the power of forgiveness in her life.
Individuals will have the opportunity to buy the DVD this Thanksgiving; they’ll also be able to pay-per-view online at that time. Right now, we’re encouraging people to coordinate viewing through their parishes, groups, or even their homes. I also do a Director’s Cut film presentation, where I come personally and present the film.
CWR: Tell me about your use of music in the film.
DiSilva: We have some outstanding music which we like to highlight when we talk to people about the film. One of the musicians we use is Mike Mangione; old-timers might be familiar with his uncle Chuck Mangione. Mike plays music as a component of Christopher West’s Theology of the Body week-long presentations. He also travels with me sometimes when I offer the Director’s Cut presentations.
Mike’s music is secular, but I think it brings a fresh take on a Catholic documentary. Music’s highest calling is to proclaim the Gospel, to reveal the unrevealed and to make the invisible visible.
I also use music by Judd and Maggie, a brother-sister duet. Judd is now Brother Justin at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC and is in formation for the priesthood. Brother Justin went from being a secular musician to a Dominican friar composing chant music.
We also have music featuring an Austrian choir of Cistercian monks; their chant topped the Billboard charts last year. Their spokesman, Father Karl Josef Wallner, is interviewed in the film.
CWR: You also have many interesting locations and backdrops.
DiSilva: Yes. We went to Turin, where Pope Francis blessed our image (as well as a second time in Rome). We were interested in going to Turin so we could compare our image with that of Christ on the Shroud of Turin. As you’ll see, the image matches up: the length of the face, the space between the eyes and the eyebrows, and so forth. Only the original image of the Divine Mercy matches the Shroud.
We filmed in Lithuania, and all over Poland. While in Poland we were able to visit Biaystok, where Father Michal Sopoćko (1888-1975), St. Faustina’s spiritual director, and Eugeniusz Kazimirowski, the artist who painted the image of the Divine Mercy, died. We had the opportunity to interview St. Faustina’s and Father Sopoćko’s official biographers.
CWR: During the film you travel to Times Square in New York City and display a life-sized copy of the original Divine Mercy image. Why did you do that?
DiSilva: We wanted to bring the image to the world. So, we brought the image to the heartbeat of the world, the Big Apple, and put it out in the middle of everything. We got a permit from the city, and we were grateful to the local policemen who helped clear a space for us so we could set up the image. We were out there for eight hours. We did the same thing in Rome, in Kraków and Las Vegas, although the Vegas footage didn’t make the final cut.
CWR: What reaction did you receive in New York?
DiSilva: Nobody said anything; nobody cared. You might get that odd person or two who snaps a photo, or says a prayer, but for the most part, no one cared.  They just walked by.
CWR: Did that make you sad?
DiSilva: No, it made us want to work harder to get the message out there. This image featured in the film has been kept hidden, and it’s only coming out now. So, we expect reactions will change.
We recently gave a presentation for two hours in San Antonio. We had the image displayed. People stayed after for two hours venerating it.
CWR: How are you distributing the film?
DiSilva: We could have made it a DVD and distributed it and done very well. However, we decided to do it the hard way!
We wanted the film to be an event for parishes. We’re asking parishes to rent a theater or use their hall and play the film for their parishioners. They email us, and then we give them a license to show the film as often as they like for one week.
It’s been going very well. More than 700 parishes will be screening the film in the next few months. Most are in the United States, but some parishes are outside the US as well. The film is being shown in Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, and Austria. It’s also being shown in major theaters in Lithuania. 
CWR: Do you have any endorsements from American bishops?
DiSilva: Yes, we’ve had many, with more coming. If you visit our website, you’ll see endorsements from such bishops as Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, and Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington has also been a supporter. And, of course, we interview many bishops for the film.
CWR: What is your goal for the film?
DiSilva: I want to make the Divine Mercy devotion famous. That is our chief motivation. Most of the proceeds will be used to establish a Divine Mercy pilgrimage center in Vilnius, Lithuania. I hope this film will draw many pilgrims, so that the pilgrimage center is needed!
Down the road I hope we’ll see the story made into a major motion picture by the Catholic guys working in the industry.
The Original Image of Divine Mercy - Movie Trailer

The Vortex—Purging The Past

This Church, and this Church alone, has the power to transform.

The Vortex—Purging The Past

Surprise! Surprise! : Pope used Argentinian 'ghostwriter' for controversial document on the family, claims Vatican expert : Amoris Laetitia

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist

Surprise! Surprise!

Damian Thompson, "Pope used Argentinian 'ghostwriter' for controversial document on the family, claims Vatican expert" (The Spectator, May 25, 2016):
The leading Vatican commentator Sandro Magister – a conservative Catholic detested by the Pope’s entourage – this morning published an article that will severely embarrass Francis as he tries to clear up confusion over the Church’s teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried.

Magister, stripped of his Vatican accreditation last year after leaking a draft of the Pope’s encyclical on the environment, claims that Francis employed a ‘ghostwriter’ for key sections of Amoris Laetitia, his 200-page official response to last year’s Synod on the Family.

Magister provides chapter and verse – that is, side-by-side comparisons of Amoris Laetitia, published in April, and the writings of the Pope’s friend Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández, Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina.
Here is a link to Magister’s post, which deserves to be read in full.

“Amoris Laetitia” Has a Ghostwriter. His Name Is Víctor Manuel Fernández

Startling resemblances between the key passages of the exhortation by Pope Francis and two texts from ten years ago by his main adviser. A double synod for a solution that had already been written

by Sandro Magister

ROME, May 25, 2016 – They are the key paragraphs of the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.” And they are also the most intentionally ambiguous, as proven by the multiple and contrasting interpretations and practical applications that they immediately received.

They are the paragraphs of chapter eight that in point of fact give the go-ahead for communion for the divorced and remarried.

That this is where Pope Francis would like to arrive is by now evident to all. And besides, he was already doing it when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

But now it is being discovered that some key formulations of “Amoris Laetitia” also have an Argentine prehistory, based as they are on a pair of articles from 2005 and 2006 by Víctor Manuel Fernández, already back then and even more today a thinker of reference for Pope Francis and the ghostwriter of his major texts.

Further below some passages of “Amoris Laetitia” are compared with selections from those two articles by Fernández. The resemblance between the two is very strong.

But first it is helpful to get the broad picture.


During those years Fernández was professor of theology at the Universidad Católica Argentina in Buenos Aires.

And at that same university in 2004 an international theological conference was held on “Veritatis Splendor,” the encyclical of John Paul II on “certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine,” decisively critical of “situational” ethics, the permissive tendency already present among the Jesuits in the 17th century and today more widespread than ever in the Church.

Attention. “Veritatis Splendor” is not a minor encyclical. In March of 2014, in one of his rare and deeply pondered writings as pope emeritus, indicating the encyclicals out of the fourteen published by John Paul II that in his judgment are “most important for the Church,” Joseph Ratzinger cited four of these, with a few lines for each, but then he added a fifth, which was precisely “Veritatis Splendor,” to which he dedicated an entire page, calling it “of unchanged relevance” and concluding that “studying and assimilating this encyclical remains a great and important duty.”

In “Veritatis Splendor” the pope emeritus saw the restoration to Catholic morality of its metaphysical and Christological foundation, the only one capable of overcoming the pragmatic drift of current morality, “in which there no longer exists that which is truly evil and that which is truly good, but only that which, from the point of view of efficacy, is better or worse.”

So then, that 2004 conference in Buenos Aires, dedicated in particular to the theology of the family, moved in the same direction later examined by Ratzinger. And it was precisely in order to react to that conference that Fernández wrote the two articles cited here, practically in defense of situational ethics.

Partly on account of those two articles, the congregation for Catholic education blocked the candidacy of Fernández as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, only to have to give in later, in 2009, to then-archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who fought tooth and nail to clear the way for the promotion of his protege.

In 2013, just after he was elected pope, Bergoglio even bestowed episcopal ordination upon Fernández, with the title of the extinct metropolitan see of Teurnia. While he confined to the Vatican Apostolic Library the chief culprit of the rejection, Dominican theologian Jean-Louis Bruguès, without making him a cardinal, as instead is the tradition for all the librarians of the Holy Roman Church.

And since then Fernández has almost spent more time in Rome than in Buenos Aires, swamped as he is with acting as ghostwriter to his friend the pope, without any growth in the meantime of his credentials as a theologian, already anything but brilliant at the outset.

The first book, in fact, that revealed the genius of Fernández to the world, was: “Heal me with your mouth. The art of kissing,” published in 1995 in Argentina with this presentation to the reader, written by the author himself:

“Let me explain to you that I write this book not so much on the basis of my personal experience as on that of the life of people who kiss. In these pages I would like to summarize the popular sentiment, that which people feel when they think of a kiss, that which mortals feel when they kiss. This is why I spoke for a long time with many persons who have a great deal of experience in this matter, and also with many young people who are learning to kiss in their way. Moreover, I have consulted many books and I wanted to show how the poets speak of the kiss. In this way, with the intention of summarizing the immense richness of life have come these pages on behalf of the kiss, which I hope may help you to kiss better, urge you to liberate in a kiss the best of your being.”

While when it comes to the consideration that Fernández has of himself, there is enough in just one citation from an interview last year with “Corriere della Sera,” disdainful toward Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith and therefore an advance reviewer - but unheeded for three years - of the drafts of the papal texts:

“I have read that some say that the Roman curia is an essential part of the Church’s mission, or that a prefect of the Vatican is the sure compass that keeps the Church from falling into ‘light’ thinking; or that the prefect ensures the unity of the faith and guarantees for the pope a serious theology. But Catholics, reading the Gospel, know that Christ has assured special guidance and illumination for the pope and at the same time for the bishops as a whole, but not for a prefect or for another structure. When one hears such things it almost seems as if the pope would be one of their representatives, or someone who has come to shake things up and must be controlled. [. . .] The pope is convinced that what he has already written or said cannot be punished as a mistake. Therefore, in the future all will be able to repeat those things without the fear of receiving sanctions.”

So this is the figure that Francis keeps close as his thinker of reference, the man who put down in writing large parts of “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of the pontificate, of “Laudato Si’,” the encyclical on the environment, and finally of “Amoris Laetitia,” the post-synodal exhortation on the family.


And now for the passages of “Amoris Laetitia” in which can be seen the contours of formulations by Fernández from ten years ago.

Which it is helpful to read while keeping in mind what was said recently by Robert Spaemann, a great philosopher and theologian with whom Fernández cannot even be compared:

“The true problem is an influential style of moral theology, already present among the Jesuits in the 17th century, which upholds a merely situational ethics. John Paul II rejected situational ethics and condemned it in his encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ “Amoris Laetitia’ also breaks with this magisterial document.”


Comparison between “Amoris Laetitia” and two articles by Víctor Manuel Fernández from ten years ago

The texts with their respective abbreviations:

AL - Francis, post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” March 19 2016.

Fernández 2005 – V. M. Fernández, “El sentido del carácter sacramental y la necesidad de la confirmación”, in “Teología” 42 no. 86, 2005, pp. 27-42.

Fernández 2006 – V. M. Fernández, “La dimensión trinitaria de la moral. II. Profundización del aspecto ético a la luz de ‘Deus caritas est’,” in “Teología” 43 no. 89, 2006, pp. 133-163.

Each time are indicated, alongside the abbreviations, for “Amoris Laetitia” the paragraph numbers and for the articles by Fernández the page numbers.


(AL: 300)
There can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard.

(Fernández 2006: 160)
In this way there is not proposed a double standard or a “situational morality.”


(AL: 310)
For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.

(Fernández 2005: 42)
Taking into account the influences that attenuate or eliminate imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin could coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.

(AL: 301)
More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values” [Footnote 339: John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121], or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

(Fernández 2006: 159)
When the historical subject does not find himself in subjective conditions to act differently or to understand “the values inherent in the norm” (cf. FC 33c), or when “a sincere commitment to a certain norm may not lead immediately to verify the observance of said norm” [Footnote 45].

[Footnote 45: B. Kiely, “La 'Veritatis splendor' y la moralidad personal”, in G. Del Pozo Abejon (ed.), "Comentarios a la 'Veritatis splendor’,” Madrid, 1994, p. 737].

(AL: 301)
As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues” [Footnote 342].

[Footnote 341: cf. Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 65, a. 3, ad 2; De malo, q. 2, a. 2].
[Footnote 342: Ibid., ad 3].

(Fernández 2006: 156)
Saint Thomas recognized that someone could have grace and charity, but without being able to exercise well one of the virtues “propter aliquas dispositiones contrarias” (ST I-II 65, 3, ad 2). This does not mean that he does not possess all the virtues, but rather that he cannot manifest clearly the existence of one of them because the external action of this virtue encounters difficulties from contrary dispositions: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues” (ibid., ad 3).


(AL: 302)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved [Footnote 345].

[Footnote 343: no. 1735].
[Footnote 344: Ibid., 2352; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia “Iura et Bona” (5 May 1980), II: AAS 72 (1980), 546; John Paul II, in his critique of the category of “fundamental option”, recognized that “doubtless there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability” (Apostolic Exhortation “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” [2 December 1984], 17: AAS 77 [1985], 223)].
[Footnote 345: Cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried (24 June 2000), 2].

(Fernández 2006: 157)
This appears in an explicit way in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735). The Catechism likewise makes reference to affective immaturity, to the power of contracted habits, to the state of anguish (cf. CCC 2353). In applying this conviction, the pontifical council for legislative texts affirms, referring to the situation of the divorced and remarried, that it is speaking only of “grave sin, understood objectively, being that (p. 158) the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability” [Footnote 42].

[Footnote 42: Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, declaration of June 24 2000, point 2a].

(Fernández 2005: 42)
On the other hand, given that we cannot judge the objective situation of persons [Footnote 23] and taking into account the influences that attenuate or suppress imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin might coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.

[Footnote 23: On this point some recent statements of the magisterium leave no room for doubt. The pontifical council for legislative texts affirms, making reference to the situation of the divorced and remarried, that it is speaking of “grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability”: Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, declaration of June 24 2000, point 2a. In the same way, in a recent notification of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, it is maintained that for Catholic doctrine “there is a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between persons of the same sex,” while “the degree of subjective moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here”: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification regarding certain writings of Fr. Marciano Vidal, February 22 2001, 2b. Evidently, the foundation of these affirmations is found in what the Catechism of the Catholic Church defends in point 1735, cited at the end of the text of this article].


AL: 305
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin –which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.

[Footnote 351: In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. . .].

(Fernández 2006: 156)
This Trinitarian dynamism that reflects the intimate life of the divine persons can also be realized within an objective situation of sin (p. 157) as long as, because of the burden of influences, one is not subjectively culpable.

(Fernández 2006: 159)
A “realization of the value within the limits of the moral capacities of the subject” [Footnote 46]. So there are “possible goals” for this influenced subject, or “intermediate steps” [Footnote 47] in the realization of a value, even if they are always aimed at the complete fulfillment of the norm.

[Footnote 46: G. Irrazabal, “La ley de la gradualidad como cambio de paradigma,” in “Moralia” 102/103 (2004), p. 173].
[Footnote 47: Cf. G. Gatti, “Educación moral,” in AA.VV., “Nuevo Diccionario de Teología moral,” Madrid, 1992, p. 514].

(Fernández 2006: 158)
“There is no doubt that the Catholic magisterium has clearly admitted that an objectively evil act, as is the case with a premarital relationship or the use of a condom in a sexual relationship, does not necessarily lead to losing the life of sanctifying grace, from which the dynamism of charity draws its origin.

(Fernández 2005: 42)
On the other hand, given that we cannot judge the subjective situation of persons and taking into account the influences that attenuate or eliminate imputability (cf. CCC 1735), there always exists the possibility that an objective situation of sin may coexist with the life of sanctifying grace.

(Fernández 2005: 42)
Does this not justify the administration of baptism and confirmation to adults who may find themselves in an objective situation of sin, on the subjectively culpability of whom no judgment can be made?


The complete text of the commentary by pope emeritus Benedict on the encyclical of John Paul II “Veritatis Splendor,” on the foundations of morality:
> The Pope Emeritus Prays, But Also Advises. Here's How (17.3.2014)


For more details on Víctor Manuel Fernández and his interview with “Corriere della Sera":

> E questo sarebbe il teologo di fiducia del papa?

The interview in which Robert Spaemann affirms that “Amoris Laetitia” breaks with “Veritatis Splendor” of John Paul II:

> Spaemann: "È il caos eretto a principio con un tratto di penna


One case that has come up again recently in which a casuistic and situational ethics is presented in contrast with “Veritatis Splendor” is that of nuns at risk of sexual violence, in the Congo during the war of the 1960’s.

The legend says that Paul VI gave them permission to use contraception. But Pope Francis gave it out as true in the press conference on the way back from his journey to Mexico, maintaining that in that case such use was not “an absolute evil” but, as Fr. Federico Lombardi explained afterward, “a lesser evil” and therefore acceptable, contradicting not only the “Humanae Vitae” of that pope but also none other than the “Veritatis Splendor” of John Paul II, which judge contraception and other acts like abortion as “intrinsically evil” always and in every circumstance, without any exception.

For more information on the case:

> Paul VI and the Nuns Raped in the Congo. What the Pope Never Said (24.2.2016)


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.


From my perspective it is Cardinal Muller and the SSPX who do not accept Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)

Pope Francis celebrates the Corpus Domini after a procession from St. John at the Lateran Basilica to St. Mary Major Basilica to mark the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, on May 26, 2016 in Rome
For me 'the dogma of the faith' has not been lost, as it has been for Cardinal Muller. For me Vatican Council II is not a break with 'the dogma of the faith', as it is for the SSPX bishops.
I affirm 'the dogma of the faith', extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as did the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.
Now Cardinal Muller, the U.S ACLA and SPLC would want the SSPX  to accept Vatican Council II as a break with 'the dogma of the faith' which Our Lady mentioned at Fatima.
It is only if the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II as a break with 'the dogma of the faith', Pope Francis will be allowed to give the SSPX full canonical status.
The Vatican under pressure from the political Left wants the SSPX to accept a false doctrine, as has been done on such a wide scale by cardinals and bishops.
The issue is not Vatican Council II in itself but Vatican Council II as a break or in harmony with the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. The issue really is Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions, objective exceptions to EENS in the present times) or Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS) .
So Catholics have a choice. They can assume LG 16 refers to an invisible or visible case.It is implicit or explicit.
 According to Cardinal Muller the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II in which LG 16 is explicit and not implicit, it refers to a visible and not an invisible case, it is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.
If like me the SSPX says they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, according to the CDF, politically inclined towards the Left- the SSPX could go ahead and accept Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)- but this would not be enough for canonical status.
Since the issue was always ecclesiology and ecclesiology is linked to EENS. The issue is not Vatican Council II which be interpreted with the new ecclesiology ( Cushingism) or the old ecclesiology ( Feeneyism).
If the Vatican interprets Vatican Council Ii with Feeneyism, it would be considered Anti-Semitic and the liberal rabbis will come out with their legal demands.So to keep the peace, Cardinal Muller would want the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
© Antoine Mekary / ALETEIA
Meanwhile if the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II, with Cushingism or Feeneyism, the Jewish left media will label them as being schismatic, a cult etc and demand that they be banned.
 If the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II they will be directly under a pope who is pro-Left and the Left we know is pro-Satan.
I affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism but I am an ordinary layman in Rome and it doesn't make a difference, for any one.
If the SSPX affirms Vatican Council II with Feeneyism, at least Cardinal Muller  cannot say that the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II.Instead it is the SSPX which will be in a position to ask Cardinal Muller to accept Vatican Council , which he does not.
From my perspective it is Cardinal Muller and the SSPX, who do not accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
-Lionel Andrades

Pope at solemn Corpus Christi procession in Rome

Video :


Pope at Mass of Corpus Christi: How many parents will do anything for their children!

During the Mass of Corpus Christi, Pope Francis explained the meaning behind the Christian expression of "breaking bread.

"Jesus was broken; he is broken for us. And he asks us to give ourselves, to break ourselves, as it were, for others. This "breaking bread” became the icon, the sign for recognizing Christ and Christians.”

The Pope recalled that thanks to the act of breaking bread, the disciples of Emmaus recognized Jesus. The "breaking of bread" is the center of the Church.

"From the outset, it is the Eucharist which becomes the center and pattern of the life of the Church.”

So, thanks to the strength of the Eucharist, many Christians throughout the centuries have been broken just like Jesus asks us to give ourselves, to break ourselves, as it were, for others.

"How many mothers, how many fathers, together with the slices of bread they provide each day on the tables of their homes, have broken their hearts to let their children grow, and grow well! How many Christians, as responsible citizens, have broken their own lives to defend the dignity of all, especially the poorest, the marginalized and those discriminated!”

Every year, the ceremony takes place in the Basilica of Saint John Lateran. After Mass, there is a procession of Corpus Christi through the streets of Rome to Saint Mary Major.