Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Similarly would you agree that when Mystici Corporis and the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I were also referring to hypothetical cases and so they are not exceptions to EENS?

Am I talking to the wall? For the nth time, canonized catechumens are NOT exceptions to EENS!
Lionel: 
Great so we agree that there are no physically visible cases of EENS in 2018.
Canonized saints are not exceptions to EENS. They were and are invisible cases.
Similarly would you agree that when Mystici Corporis and the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I were also referring to hypothetical cases and so they are not exceptions to EENS? -Lionel Andrades


JANUARY 3, 2018

The SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre interpret Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) as a rupture with EENS and so they reject Vatican Council II.So the Vatican Council II which they understand, is always a rupture with EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/the-sspx-bishops-like-archbishop.html














The SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre interpret Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) as a rupture with EENS and so they reject Vatican Council II.So the Vatican Council II which they understand, is always a rupture with EENS


You are accusing Fellay of denying extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)? And dont even quote him doing so? Are you serious?


Lionel: I know EENS according to the Church Councils (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441) and the missionaries of the 16th century. They did not mention any exceptions. They did not claim that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS. For them hypothetical cases are not exceptions to EENS.
1) Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops  accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter considers unknown and hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.So for this Cardinal Francesco Marchetti's  Letter in 1949 there are exceptions to traditional EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I are relevant.
This is a denial of EENS for me. Since I can affirm EENS without invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I being an exception. There is no rupture with Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 for me,
The SSPX bishops cannot say this.On their website they cosider BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to Feneeyite EENS so they reject what they call the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.Every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation. They condemn Fr. Leonard Feeney. 

2) This is also their position in a book written by fr. Francois Laisney.

3) Since hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions or relevant to EENS for them they also assume a hypothetical reference in LG 8 (subsistit it) is an exception to EENS. I have cited this earlier. Elsewhere Bishop Fellay assumes that UR 3 on ecumenism is a rupture with the dogma EENS and an ecumenism of return.(This has also been stated by the former District Superior of Italy). Again hypothetical cases are a rupture with EENS for him. He is denying traditional EENS.
These are just three references which show that the SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre wrongly assumed hypothetical cases of BOD etc could be exceptions to EENS. Also they did not support Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 16 and other hypothetical cases not being an exception to EENS. This is possibile. It is possible for me. Vatican Council II would be traditional and not a rupture with EENS or the past ecclesiology of the Church. I call this interpretation of the  Council , Vatican Council II Feeneyite or Vatican Council II without the false premise,The fact that they did not know or did not affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is a rejection of EENS Feeneyite.
Summary
1.The SSPX bishops like Archbishop Lefebvre interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS.This is expressed today on the SSPX website(See Feeneyism).This is a rejection of EENS.
2.They interpret Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) as a rupture with EENS and so they  reject Vatican Council II.So the Vatican Council II which they understand, is always a rupture with EENS.
Vatican Council II with LG 16 referring to only hypothetical cases, is not a rupture with EENS, it is Feeneyite.But for the SSPX bishops Vatican Council II is a rupture.They have chosen the irrational interpretation. Again this is a rejection of Vatican Council II(Feeneyite), EENS and the past ecclesiology of the Church which depended on EENS.

-Lionel Andrades



JANUARY 3, 2018


For Abp Marcel Lefebvre and Bp Bernard Fellay there are physically known cases of the baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/for-abp-marcel-lefebvre-and-bp-bernard.html


JANUARY 3, 2018


I have cited many cases where Bishop Fellay inferred that there are physically known cases when the reference is to only hypothetical and unknown people in our reality e.g Lumen Gentium 8 (subsist it)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/i-have-cited-many-cases-where-bishop.html


















I have cited many cases where Bishop Fellay inferred that there are physically known cases when the reference is to only hypothetical and unknown people in our reality e.g Lumen Gentium 8 (subsist it).


Lionel, show me where Abp Lefebvre or Bp Fellay said there are physically known cases of baptism of desire (BOD) for those who were not yet canonized by the Church. Show me where these two bishops identified these living BOD people.

Lionel: 
I have cited  many cases where Bishop Fellay inferred that there are physically known cases when the reference is to  only hypothetical and unknown people in our reality e.g Lumen Gentium 8 (subsist it). LG 8 is not an example of salvation outside the Church, the text does not state it.So it is not an exception to the old ecumenism of return.But for Bishop Fellay it is all this. Since for him it refers to a known person saved outside the Church. For him it is an example of a physically visible person saved outside the Church.
This was also the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre when he interpreted Vatican Council II. This is the norm for the SSPX bishops.
Most of their false inferences are made with Vatican Council II.I have cited you the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which wrongly infers that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are non hypothetical and so they become  exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Hypothetical cases which are exceptions to EENS are physically visible cases.This is the common false inference.This was not objected to by Archbishop Lefebvre.He accepted this inference.
So Vatican Council II had to be a rupture with Tradition and the old ecclesiology for him. His premise was false and so his conclusion would have to be non-traditional.
It think it is the same for you.
This is the norm in the SSPX. This is the norm for the sedevacantists too.
________________________________________


Show me where these two bishops identified these living BOD people.
Lionel: 'Living BOD people', for me there are of course no such living BOD people. You have not been able to say the same,theologically.
There are no living BOD people, I repeat.This is common knowledge. Practically we cannot meet a living BOD person.
But in theology a wrong inference can be made. It can be wrongly implied that there are living people saved with the baptism of desire, outside the Church.
This happens when it is said that there are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is the new theology. The moment you say that there is an exception to Feeneyite EENS, you imply that there are living cases,living people saved outside the Church. Since only a person alive could be an exception to  EENS.
So there could be different inferences and the exceptions are not restricted to BOD.
They could be saved for you with LG 16(invincible ignorance), LG 14( the case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water), LG 8( 'elements of sanctification and truth' outside the Church/subsist it), UR 3( imperfect communion with the Churc) etc.
You may say that in reality there are no exceptions for you.But in theology you accept exceptions.
You accept Bishop Fellay suggesting LG 8(subsist it) is an exception to EENS.
You accept Archbishop Lefebvre accepting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which they indicate that BOD is an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
You have accepted Pope Benedict saying in March 2016(Avvenire) that EENS is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. Since there was a development with Vatican Council II. He meant there were exceptions in Vatican Council II.
He had a choice.He could have said that EENS today is the same as it was in the 16th century and BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions. This would be orthodoxy but Pope Benedict did not say it when he 'broke his silence'. None of the traditionalists and sedevacantists complained. Since they too believe there are exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.This is why they reject the Council .
-Lionel Andrades

















For Abp Marcel Lefebvre and Bp Bernard Fellay there are physically known cases of the baptism of desire

Lionel, where does  Abp Lefebvre or Bp Fellay have said that there are physically known cases of BOD for those who were not yet canonized by the Church. Show me where these two bishops identified these living BOD people.

Lionel:
For Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre hypothetical cases are not hypothetical, invisible people are not visible this is the new theology which they have accepted. It is magisterial and they use it to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II.
On the SSPX website (Three Errors of the Feeneyites/Feeneyism) they matter of factly assume BOD is an exception to EENS. They criticize the Feeneyites for not accepting BOD as an exception and maintaining the strict interpretation of EENS.
They also praise Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". - Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 
Bishop Bernard Fellay says:
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.(Lionel: Hullo? Where does it recognise them? Where are they? Where can they be found? What are their names? Who was saved outside the Church? No one for me. So why am I reading LG 8 differently?
For me LG 8 refers to invisible people and so it is not relevant to the dogma EENS,So why did Bishop Fellay mention it and suggest that there were salvific elements outside the Church. For there to be salvifict elements ourside the Church there would have to exist. They would have to be there. They would have to be visible....
______
 The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949".-Bishop Bernard Fellay
Lionel: Why are they not reconcilable with the Letter of the Holy Office since the Letter also mentions exceptions?
But anyway this is another issue
UR 3 is not an exception to EENS since it refers to hypothetical cases(imperfect communion with the Church(Churches used as a means of salvation etc).
But it is an exception for Bishop Fellay.Otherwise why would he mention it with reference to EENS? They are visible people saved outside the Church.Do you see the indirect inference?
_______________________________________________
The dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas, to the point of altering the statement that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are identical.
 Cardinal Walter Kasper, then-President of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, saw the new definition of the Church (subsistit in; “subsists in”) as the thing that quite simply made possible the ecumenism that has been promoted since the Council. Coming from a figure like that, this is a fitting admission that should be taken seriously- Bishop Bernard Fellay
Lionel: Subsist it it is not an exception to the dogma EENS for me since it refers to a theoretical situation. There are no cases of people saved as such outside the Church.
For Cardinal Kasper there would be such persons.For him there are known cases of people saved outside the Church.For me these persons would be physically invisible.
So why has Bishop Fellay mentioned this? You know the answer...
He has not corrected Cardinal Kasper and told him that LG 8 does not mention any exceptions to EENS,
_____________________
These are two examples, I could provide you with numerous others. They are all there on my blog.
The next thing I would look out for is the mistake in the book Is Feeneyism Catholic by Fr.Francois Laisnery of the SSPX. It is sold by the Angelus Press of the SSPX.For Fr.Laisney there are exceptions to EENS, BOD is an exception. So if it is an exception, the inference is that it is a physically visible case. Since an invisible person cannot be an exception to EENS.
Then I would look out for the same mistake on the SSPX official website.See the subject Feeneyism. It is there on my blog.I have reviewed it.
Then I would look out for the book written by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize, the professor of Ecclesiology at Econe who has written a book in Italian, on Vatican Council II and has made the same mistake. It is there on my blog.
There are so many examples!!!!
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 so he accepted the same error.-Lionel Andrades

I do not refute BOD, BOB and I.I since they are not known cases for me. They do not contradict EENS,I am comfortable with them.


Lionel, I dont believe you really understand what you are arguing against. Your
repeated reference to visible cases in 2017 is a straw man argument.

Lionel.
I thought you agreed with me - there are no physically visible cases of BOD in 2017.
there were none in 2016 and there are none in 2018.
We cannot physically see someone saved with BOD, I.I or BOB.
Do we agree on this?
What ever are the other inferences that follow, which we accept or do  not accept, fundamentally, we agree that there are no physically visible people saved with BOD in 2017-2018 ?

___________________________


 I am not arguing that there are 2017 cases which can be known with absolute certainty.

Lionel: Are they known or not known ? Are there physically visible cases known to someone on earth?
____________________________

 I am saying that they become known only when the Church canonizes a dead
catechumem.
Lionel: O.K so you are saying that if the Church canonizes someone in 2018 and announces that this person was saved with the BOD and without the baptism of water then it would known. You mean it would be known as a possibility, in faith.
Only as a possibility or are you saying that someone in the Church would physically see such a person?
____________________________


 Also you err when you refer to these cases as "saved outside the
church" and that is actually the fundamental error in your position.
Lionel: No one is saved outside the Church for me. I affirm EENS.
_____________________________

 Canonized catechumens are saved in the Church because there is no salvation outside of
her.
Lionel : Duh!

In summary

1. I agree there are no visible cases in 2017 known with absolute certainty
(although I could argue for moral probabilities in some known cases). 
Lionel: What do you mean by absolute certaintity, are they known or not known, are they visible or not visible, can they be objectively seen or not seen?
___________________________


But you attempt to use this point to refute BOD in toto, and that doesnt work because of
point 2.

Lionel: I only accept BOD as a possibility, in theory, as a hypothetical case. It cannot be anything else for me.Since it is hypothetical it does not contradict EENS. So it is not a problem for me. I do not have to reject it. I can afirm Feeneyite EENS and also BOD.
I affirm BOD, BOB and I.I.They are not physically visible people for me.
________________________

2. There ARE known cases in the cases of canonized catechumens who were martyred
before water baptism.
Lionel: You accept this in faith, as a possibility.
For me there are no physically visible cases in 2018 and there could not be any in 1965,1949  or when someone suggested there were such cases, and mentioned it in the Martryology of the saints, just as they have mentioned it in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has been placed in the Denzinger.
________________________

3. These cases are not exceptions to EENS because of the dogma of EENS. These
saints were joined to the Church quoad se.
Lionel: They are not exceptions to EENS for me too.
So you are saying that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS since they are not physically visible cases(as it is for me) and that those who consider them as being exceptions to EENS are wrong e.g SSPX, Pope Benedict, CDF etc?
____________________________

So your continued appeal to no known cases in 2017 is a straw man argument that
cannot refute BOD.
Lionel. I do not refute BOD, BOB and I.I since they are not known cases for me. They do not contradict EENS,I am comfortable with them. If they happened to be known people in the present times, saved outside the Church, then only they could be exceptions to EENS.

So for me there is no known salvation outside the Church, also for you? 
-Lionel Andrades

If you can see and meet baptism of desire cases in the present then are reality is not the same.


 You do not want to affirm  the obvious or say the obvious.
I come back to what I have asked you over a year back : Can we physically see people saved with the baptism of desire on earth?
 Are they visible for you in real life where you live? Can you  meet someone saved with the baptism of desire( with or without the the  baptism of water) in 2018?
 I am not asking about possibilities in the past, I am not asking about canonized saints in the past, I am not asking about speculative cases expressed with goodwill, a good will even I would share with you and not  oppose.
I am asking about something concrete. Can you see a concrete person saved  in 2018 with the baptism of desire? 
To have a discussion we have to understand our terms and to be sure that  we both have the same understanding of reality.
 If you can see and meet baptism of desire cases in the present then are reality is not the same. -Lionel Andrades

Medjugorje Film - Our Lady Queen Of Peace - English HD







House of prayer “Domus Pacis” - Prayer and Fasting Seminars Silence

Seminars are conducted by franciscans of Međugorje.  Here are the dates according to language groups, as well as contact persons: Contact

http://www.medjugorje.hr/en/




Statistics for December, 2017.

date: 01.01.2018.

Number of Holy Communions:  66 000

Number of priests that concelebrated at Holy Masses: 1308 (42 per day)

In the previous 2017 there have been 1 571 100   Holy Communions given in the church, and total of  36 856   priests that concelebrated at Holy Masses.

Medjugorje, messaggio del 2 gennaio 2018




Latest Medjugorje Message, January 2, 2018 [O] - Apparitions to Mirjana

Mirjana during an apparition
Dear children, When love is beginning to disappear on earth, when the way of salvation is not being found, I, the mother, am coming to help you to come to know true faith – living and profound – so as to help you to truly love. As a mother, I am longing for your mutual love, goodness, and purity. My desire is that you be just and that you love each other. My children, be joyful in your soul, be pure, be children. My Son used to say that he loves to be among pure hearts, because pure hearts are always young and joyful. My Son said to you to forgive and to love each other. I know that this is not always easy. Suffering makes you grow in spirit. For you to spiritually grow all the more, you must sincerely and truly forgive and love. Many of my children on earth do not know my Son, they do not love Him; but you who do love my Son, you who carry Him in your heart, pray, pray and in praying feel my Son beside you. May your soul breathe in His spirit. I am among you and am speaking about little and great things. I will not grow tired speaking to you about my Son – the true love. Therefore, my children, open your hearts to me. Permit me to lead you as a mother. Be apostles of the love of my Son and of me. As a mother I implore you not to forget those whom my Son has called to lead you. Carry them in your heart and pray for them. Thank you. 

The CDF and the Masons are controlling what Our Lady can say

Image result for Photo of Medjugorje Our Lady
There is an objective mistake in both Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.The two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have not corrected the error.So theologically and doctrinally the popes and bishops have no right to evaluate Marian apparitions in Medugorje, Brazil etc.
MAGISTERIUM VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
Theologically and doctrinally they cannot check the apparitions since the magisterium is in error and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction with innovative philosophy and non traditional theology.
Due to magisterial heresy Our Lady would have to support theological errors or be opposed by the Vatican.

FALSE THEOLOGY IS OFFICIAL
The false theology is being taught in the parishes, seminaries and Catholic universities  and was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Rahner.It is not Catholic.The error came into the Church during the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and has influenced Vatican Council II.
Now after some 50 years we know that invisible for us baptism of desire (BOD) cannot be a visible exception to EENS.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the same as it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. So in March 2016 Pope Benedict was wrong. But Our Lady at Medugorje cannot affirm the strict interpretation of EENS since this is rejected by the two popes.
She has been careful to stay out of controversy and so the apparitions have not been banned.
Image result for Photo of Medjugorje Our Lady
In March 2016 Pope Benedict could have said that Vatican Council II is not a development with EENS, since hypothetical cases of LG 14 etc cannot be exceptions to EENS.

PROBABLY THERE WAS NO PERMISSION FROM THE MASONS
He did not say this for fear of the Masons, probably.He had the choice. He could have said there was no rupture with the old ecclesiology.He did not say that EENS was the same as it was for the missionaries and magisterium in the 16th century.Instead he affirmed public heresy.He said that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. So there was a break with the authentic magisterium of the past.There is a new version. He  admited it in public. Now Marian apparitions have to repeat this heresy otherwise Our Lady would not be able to continue her pastoral work.
Image result for Photo of Medjugorje Our Lady

EVEN TRADITIONALISTS AND SEDEVACANTISTS SUPPORT OFFICIAL ERROR.
Even the traditionalists and sedevacantists reject the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, they critically call it  Feeneyite.Since they believe invisible cases of BOD are visible and known exceptions to EENS. So they are examples of salvation outside the Church. For Pope Benedict and the traditionalists, possibilities from the past are living exceptions in the present to EENS.This is being rational for them.
Image result for Photo of Medjugorje Our Lady
MARCH 2016 HERESY
Pope Benedict said that there was a development with Vatican Council II.He meant that Vatican Council II was a rupture with EENS. It was a rupture for him since LG 16 etc referred to visible people saved outside the Church. It referred to known people saved in invincible ignorance.If it was not known or visible it could not be a rupture.

OUR LADY CANNOT CORRECT THE ERROR OF THE POPES
Now if Our Lady would  say that this is not true. Cases of BOD would only be known to God and that for us humans there are no visible cases, she would be affirming the dogma EENS.She would also be correcting the heretical statement of Pope Benedict in Avvenire in March 2016.But this would be the end of the apparitions.The CDF would end them for theological and doctrinal errors.
Image result for Photo of Edson Glauber apparition in  Brazil
POPE PROMOTES HIS NEW THEOLOGY BASED UPON AN IRRATIONALITY
Pope Benedict himself did not state that there were no known cases of salvation outside the Church and so the call to mission has not ended. Instead he finged and asked why was mission necessary when there was the possibility of salvation( a possibility  is  an exception to EENS for him) outside the Church?.He was subtly promoting his new theology which is based on the irrationality of invisible people being invisible. 
Now Our Lady cannot contradict him.
Image result for Photo of Pedro Regis' apparition in  Brazil

PEDRO REGIS SILENCED BY NEW BISHOP
In Brazil, Our Lady told the seer Pedro Regis that there is salvation in only the Catholic Church.Outside the Church there is no  salvation.
Pedro Regis has been silenced by his bishop it is reported.
Our Lady told a visionary( I do not remember the name) that a time will come when only those who follow her apparitions and messages will be saved.-Lionel Andrades 


.
Image result for Photo of Medjugorje Our Lady