Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Nearly two million holy communions distributed in 2015 in Medugorje : nearly 40,000 priests concelebrated Holy Mass

Nearly two million holy communions distributed in 2015 in Medugorje : nearly 40,000 priests concelebrated Holy Mass
http://marytv.tv/featured-programing/tea-with-rosie

                                                                    Tea With Rosie





                Tea With Rosie -Medugorje : Irish priest with cancer healed completely


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/tea-with-rosie-medugorje-irish-priest.html

Praying For Priebke

I am no friend of Priebke. I think he was a...
But I also think he was an immortal soul. I am reliably informed he died at peace with the Lord. My personal antipathy for him is nothing to do with the fact that the information we have allows us to hope – note this word well: hope – that he managed to save his immortal soul and will one day – after a purification process that I can only imagine long and painful – be allowed to enjoy the Beatific Vision.
These are the facts. They have nothing to do with our opinion of him. His priest said he repented of his sins and died at peace with The Lord, and that's that....
Image result for Photo of Priebke Italy
And so there we are. A deeply unpopular man, the Beelzebub of the Left, dies a Catholic, staying nearer the sacraments that can be said of the majority of the Italians, and of the vast majority of the mob hating him in his coffin. Who will be on the side of his immortal soul? Who will defy the rage of the mob, and do what is normal and Christian to do? Who will be on the side of the poorest of them all, the soul naked in front of her Judge? His Bishop, perhaps? The Pope, you think?
No.
The ones who will do what is decent to do; the ones showing real Christian spirit irrespective of how unpopular this will make them... once again, the bad, bad boys of the Society of Saint Pius X...
The comment function is shut off. In your charity, you may consider saying three Eternal Rest for the soul of Mr Priebke instead, who – assuming his salvation, for which we have reason to hope – certainly is now in need of them.
God bless the SSPX, an island of true Catholicism in a sea of cowardice.
God bless them all.
Mundabor
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/praying-for-priebke/

Telling it like it is : what I believe

Image result for Matthew 7:13
Image result for Matthew 7:13
Today afternoon I was telling a Franciscan Friar that I believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14)  which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation and I do not know any one saved without 'faith and baptism'; without being a formal member of the Catholic Church.So what I believe on salvation is the teaching of the magisterial documents before and after Vatican Council II.I support the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.1257) when it says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.Neither do I know of any other means.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE NARROW GATE
So if any says that this is not the teaching of the Church, I cite the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). They are based on Jesus' teaching ( John 3:5, Mk:16:16, Matt.7:13-16).
If someone refers to the baptism of desire without the baptism of water, I say I cannot meet anyone saved as such.There are no such cases known to me.Neither was there any such case known to the Franciscan Friar.Also no one in the past could have known someone saved without the baptism of water.
Image result for Photos of enter through the narrow gateRelated imageImage result for Photos of enter through the narrow gateRelated image
So I believe in the dogma EENS and in general we cannot know of any exception on earth.
So if any one says there are known exceptions to the dogma, as was suggested by this Franciscan Friar, he is irrational.

INNOVATION IN 1949
In 1949 the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake. It was an innovation in the Church.The hypothetical case of the baptism of desire could not be an explicit exception to the dogma EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.No one in 1949 could see a baptism of desire case in Heaven. No one could know of someone saved without the baptism of water.Physically this was not possible. This is something obvious.
So there should have been no reference in Vatican Council II to 'those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel'(AG 7).This is a superflous line and comes from the error in the Letter of the Holy Office when what is invisible is assumed to be visible. Then it is concluded that there is a known exception to EENS.
Related imageImage result for Photos of mistake
Similarly this line is superflous, dead wood, flotsam and jetsam:
'Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." (AG 7) This is a reference to personally unknown cases for us .They are hypothetical cases. If they existed they would only be known to God. However since the Letter (1949) made an objective error and it was not noticed, the error is placed here in Vatican Council II.This is a mistake. It is like a theme, an error-them in Vatican Council II.
The Council Fathers made a mistake since there cannot be ( known) salvation outside the Church.


WHY WAS THIS MENTIONED IN LG 14?
The same error is there in Lumen Gentium 14, 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.(LG 14)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.(LG 14).
Salvation outside the Church, outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, was possible for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 approved by Rome and the Archdiocese of Boston. Salvation outside the Church ? Where is there known salvation outside the Church? Who do you know who is saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church.No one. Yet it seems as if Vatican Council II was called to implement the error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.Here is another example.
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.(UR 3) 
Other examples of hypothetical cases being confused as being explicit is there in LG 8, LG 16, NA 2, AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc.

NO CONFUSION FOR ME
Since for me these are hypothetical cases, there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries and Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 4) supports St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and numerous other saints on EENS.It supports me.-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Slavko Barbaric : priest extraordinary

Medjugorje Tea with Rosie Tribute to Fr. Slavko




WHY MEDJUGORJE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/why-medjugorje.html


Medjugorje Sun Miracles caught of film!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDLoreVFo2k

Medjugorje - Miracle of the Sun - May 2010 (1)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/medjugorje-miracle-of-sun-may-2010-1.html


VIDEO: Impressive Eucharistic Miracle : Milagro Eucaristico Buenos Aires Argentina



http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/resources/forgotten-truths/impressive-video-of-eucharistic-miracle.html

Why does Vatican Council II have to mention being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire(AG 7, LG 14) with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14)? It was a mistake.

From the blog The Eponymous Flower : True or False Pope Part I: John Salza
This text also designates as THE instrumental cause of justification the Sacrament of Baptism - not a "desire" to receive it. Therefore, the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the “Sacrament of Faith”, is the ONLY instrumental means by which man was ever justified. Therefore, there is no justification without the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is administered with water.
Lionel:
Donnacha, I agree with you.
However would you also agree that there are NO objective cases of the baptism of desire in the present times or in the past?
So the baptism of desire is not relevant to EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake and the same irrational conclusion was placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) ?
Why does Vatican Council II have to mention being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire(AG 7, LG 14) with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14)? It was a mistake. The Council Fathers assumed these cases were relevant and exceptions to EENS, so they included this error in the text of Vatican Council II
.-Lionel Andrades

Without this irrationality the sedevacantists have no reason to reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism.

From the blog The Eponymous Flower : True or False Pope Part I: John Salza
  1. Baptism of desire is NOT an "exception".
    Lionel:
    The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbshop of Boston(1949) considers it an exception. This is accepted by John Salza and the SSPX.
    I reject the second part of the Letter(1949) since hypothetical cases could not be an exception to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    __________________________

    If a person makes an act of perfect contrition they are restored to the state of sanctifying grace before they go to Confession, which they must receive at the first opportunity.
    Lionel: Yes.
    However this has nothing to do with the dogma EENS unless you consider it an explicit case and an exception to EENS.
    _____________________

    In the same manner, Baptism of desire gives a person who has reached the age of reason the grace of justification before they receive Baptism (again, which must be received at the first opportunity).
    Lionel: O.K but this is a hypothetical case. You personally do not know any one as such. So it is not relevant to EENS.
    For John Salza the baptism of desire is relevant to EENs. This was the concept with which he wrote this book.
    Even for the sedevantists the baptism of desire is relevant and an exception to EENS.So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with EENS and the rest of Tradition.
    __________________________

    Btw, have you actually READ True or False Pope by Salza and Siscoe? If not, then I strongly suggest that you do so before you criticize them.
    Lionel: I strongly suggest Salza and Ciscoe clarify this issue even though it would put them at odds with the SSPX.
    Even before John Salza wrote this book I was in communication with him via e-mails. He ignored it all.

    I am not going to read this book even if I had it before me, it is based on a irrational premise and conclusion. Without this irrationality the sedevacantists have no reason to reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism.
    Who is going to tell them this? Not Salza and Ciscoe
    .-Lionel Andrades
 
The Catechism of Trent only mentions 'the desirethereof'.It does not state that it is objectively known, and so is an exception to EENs. This was the mistake made by Rome and Boston in 1949.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-catechism-of-trent-only-mentions.html



 

The Catechism of Trent only mentions 'the desirethereof'.It does not state that it is objectively known, and so is an exception to EENs. This was the mistake made by Rome and Boston in 1949.


From the blog The Eponymous Flower : True or False Pope Part I: John Salza
 
Also Baptism of Disire is de fide according to St. Alphonsus.
Lionel:
He did not say that it was explicit or relevant to EENS. The U.S liberal theologians made it relevant.Then it was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre So the traditionalists support the liberals on this issue.________________________

It was taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent,
Lionel:
The Catechism of Trent only mentions 'the desirethereof'.It does not state that it is objectively known, and so is an exception to EENs. This was the mistake made by Rome and Boston in 1949.
_____________________________

the Baltamore Catechism,
Lionel:
The Baltimore Catechism made a mistake by calling 'the desirethereof' a baptism.They placed the new baptism in the Baptism Section of the Baltimore Catechism.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire.We cannot give someone this baptism or repeat the baptism of desire as we can with the baptism of water. We cannot see the baptism of desire as we can see the baptism of water being administered. So objectively we cannot compare the baptism of desire with the baptism of water and it should not have been placed in the section on Baptism._______________________

St. Plus X's catechism,
Lionel:
The Baltimore Catechism error was repeated in the Catechism of St. Pius X.
It was used as a precedent in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.It is now the official error of the magisterium.No one has corrected.
__________________

many many Fathers, saints and even Popes.
Lionel:
St. Thomas Aquinas held the traditional interpretation of EENS and mentioned the man in the forest, in invincible ignorance, to whom God would send a preacher, since he was to be saved.
The liberal theologians project this man in the forest is an explicit case, personally known, and so it is an exception to EENS.So Aquinas would contradict himself. This was the reasoning of the Letter (1949).
_____________________

Furthermore, I have never seen a saint EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY condemn Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
None of them have said that the baptism of desire is explicit and not implicit, visible and not invisible.You assume they say the opposite ?_______________________

I have seen some quotes from saints which supposedly "contradicted" Baptism of Desire, but then I reserched and found in their other writings that they explicitly said Baptism of Desire was true.
Lionel:
Implicit for us baptism of desire does not contradict the dogma EENS.
Explicit for us baptism of desire would contradicit EENS
.
But how can there be an explicit for us baptism of desire ? If someone was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water,he or she would be Heaven. So how could any one on earth know about this baptism ?.
Then who among us can say that a particular person can be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water? No one
.
-Lionel Andrades