Monday, December 10, 2018
Perchè la Santa Casa di Loreto è "fuggita" da Nazareth? Resterai a bocca aperta...
Perchè la Santa Casa di Loreto è "fuggita" da Nazareth? Resterai a bocca aperta...
UN MIRACOLO STREPITOSO, UN SIGNIFICATO MOLTO PROFONDO... Loreto: il santuario mariano più importante del mondo???… Potrebbe sembrare eccessiva una tale affermazione, eppure non appare così …
https://gloria.tv/article/gUTxuNBMC7GX1GMbAXjAh1V81
https://gloria.tv/article/gUTxuNBMC7GX1GMbAXjAh1V81
Science Confirms: Angels Took the House of Our Lady of Nazareth to Loreto
Science Confirms: Angels Took the House of Our Lady of Nazareth to Loreto
Angelic Translation the Holy House of Our Lady of Nazareth to Loreto.
Anonymous painting, 17th century, Mexico.
Anonymous painting, 17th century, Mexico.
How did the Holy House take off from its foundations and reappear intact about 2,000 miles away, where it remains to this day?
At a conference organized by the “Amici del Timone” Cultural Center
in Staggia Senese, Italy, titled “The Story of the Incredible Move of
the House of Mary of Nazareth to Loreto,” a topic was developed which
challenges engineering.
Indeed, the Holy House, birthplace of Our Lady and where the
Archangel Gabriel announced to her the Incarnation, has been for many
centuries in the town of Loreto (Santa Casa di Loreto), in the Marche region of Italy, facing the Adriatic Sea.
However, the Annunciation
took place in Nazareth, in the Holy Land, where the foundations of the
Holy House remain to this day. When compared with the dimensions and
characteristics of the Loreto House, they match perfectly; but the
similarities and concordances do not end there.
How did the Holy House take off, so to speak, from its foundations
and reappear about 2,000 miles away, where it remains intact to this
day?
According to historical evidence, the move took place in the
thirteenth century; but how could it have been done given the poor
technological resources of the time?
The move is attributed to an angelic action officially recognized by
Popes and sustained by saints. However, such authoritative approvals are
not intended to explain the material procedure, which carried an object
the size of a house from one continent to another practically
overnight.
This transfer, however, was confirmed by historical, documentary and
archaeological evidence. Once again, for the astonishment of many,
science confirms the Church.
Prof. Giorgio Nicolini, who devoted his life of study and research to
the case, spoke at this conference. Based on these scientific
evidences, he proved indisputably the veracity of the miraculous
transfer.
During his lecture, Professor Nicolini demonstrated the existence of
many documents and eyewitness accounts of the transfer, which science
and human method cannot explain. He also established a chronology of the
change of location.
1. On May 9, 1291, the Holy House was still in Nazareth.
2. On the night of May 9 to 10, 1291, it traveled nearly 2,000 miles and reached Tersatto (now Trsat), in the region of Dalmatia, in what is now a suburb of Rijeka, Croatia.
On that occasion, Nicolò Frangipane, feudal lord of Tersatto
personally sent a delegation to Nazareth to ascertain whether the Holy
House had indeed disappeared from its original place. The emissaries not
only verified its disappearance but found the foundation on which the
house was built and from which the walls had been taken away as a
block. Around these foundations in Nazareth, the Basilica of the
Annunciation was built. In Loreto, the Holy House stands firmly, without
its foundation, directly on the ground.
3. On the night of December 9 to 10, 1294, the Holy
House disappeared from Tersatto and landed “in various places” of
Italy. For nine months it stayed on a hillside overlooking the port of
Ancona, which thus came to be called “Posatora,” from the Latin “posat et ora” (to set down, or land, and pray).
A church was built on the site as a memorial, as was recorded at the
time and signed by a priest “Don Matteo,” probably an eyewitness.
Two tombstones also commemorate this occurrence. One is from the same
time period of the event and is written in old Vulgar Latin. The other,
from the sixteenth century, is written in vernacular and is a copy of
the older.
Posatora’s oldest tombstone already mentioned “Our Lady of Loreto,”
making it clear that the inscription was done after the House’s
departure from the site.
4. In 1295, after nine months in Posatora, the Holy
House moved to a forest that belonged to a woman called Loreta, near
the town of Recanati. That is where the name Loreto comes from.
5. Between 1295 and 1296, after spending eight
months in this location the Holy House was miraculously transported to a
farm on Mount Prodo belonging to two brothers of the Antici family.
6. In 1296, after four months at this farm, the
Holy House departed and landed on a public road on Mount Prodo
connecting Recanati to Ancona, where it remains to this day.
Countless other elements attest to the historical truth of this
inexplicable translation of the Holy House. Three churches were built in
Ancona—two still existing—testaments that eyewitnesses saw the “flying”
Santa Casa arrive in Ancona and stop in Posatora.
Moreover, in Forio, on Ischia Island, fishermen who traded with
Ancona returned narrating the events that had taken place in 1295. Their
reports led the city inhabitants to erect a basilica dedicated to
“Santa Maria di Loreto.” They also saw the Holy House in Ancona with
their own eyes.
Various bishops of the region approved the veneration of the
miraculous translations. For centuries the Popes renewed the approvals
until Urban VIII, in 1624, definitively established December 10 as the
Feast of the Translation of the Holy House of Mary, Mother of God.
Several Popes, including Paul II, Julius II, Leo X, Pius IX, Leo XIII
and Pius XI documented their recognition of the translation. These
respective documents, beyond their religious aspect in which the Popes
recognize the event as supernatural, are recognized as valuable
documents by historical science.
Professor Nicolini strongly reprimanded the materialistic mentality,
at times agnostic, atheistic or Protestant, which seeks to discredit the
authenticity of the Holy House venerated in Loreto.
In a way, this opposition encouraged deeper studies, which ended up
proving the Holy House actually came from the Holy Land. Proofs include
the chemical composition of the material used to build the house, its
shape, and many architectural details.
Some, denying the angelic translation, went so far as to fabricate a
story that a fanciful princely family from Epirus named “Angeli” had
dismantled the house and transported it brick by brick at the request of
the Crusaders facing the destructive advance of Muslims. That “family”
then rebuilt the house in Loreto.
Such an operation, with the transportation conditions of the
thirteenth century, would have been a more miraculous feat than the
angelic translation.
Continued
http://www.tfp.org/science-confirms-angels-took-the-house-of-our-lady-of-nazareth-to-loreto/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Science+confirms%3A+angels%C2%A0took+the+house+of+Our+Lady%21&utm_campaign=TFP181207+-+Science+confirms%3A+angels%C2%A0took+the+house+of+Our+Lady%21
Mass offered by the Dominican priest Fr.Thomas Crean at the TMC chapel may be valid but it is in scandal. There is an impediment which is not denied by the TMC faculty.
Fr.Thomas Crean op is on the faculty of the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts(TMC) and was a speaker at the Rome Life Forum in May 2018.He offers Holy Mass interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas as contradicting himself and Tradition.Like the Cushingite Dominicans, he holds the liberal position on Vatican Council II.It is interpreted as a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).He reaches this conclusion by using a false premise and inference.So the understanding of the Creeds are changed and there is a doctrinal mess.
AQUINAS CONTRADICTS HIMSELF FOR TMC
The TMC is non-traditional and a rupture with St. Thomas Aquinas who held the strict interpretation of EENS.Hypothetical and speculative cases of BOD,BOB and I.I could only be speculative.They were not objective exceptions to his traditional understanding of no salvation outside the Church.They were not exceptions to his 'Feeneyite' understanding of EENS.The TMC would misinterpret Aquinas when he mentions the speculative man in the forest in ignorance or the case of the unknown catechumen saved with only the desire for the baptism of water. 1
The TMC is non-traditional and a rupture with St. Thomas Aquinas who held the strict interpretation of EENS.Hypothetical and speculative cases of BOD,BOB and I.I could only be speculative.They were not objective exceptions to his traditional understanding of no salvation outside the Church.They were not exceptions to his 'Feeneyite' understanding of EENS.The TMC would misinterpret Aquinas when he mentions the speculative man in the forest in ignorance or the case of the unknown catechumen saved with only the desire for the baptism of water. 1
CATECHISM OF PIUS X CONTRADICTS ITSELF
The TMC faculty also teach the Catechism of Pope Pius X which says all need to be members of the Church for salvation. This Catechism is Feeneyite. Since when it mentions invincible ignorance, it is not a reference to a visible and practically known exception to EENS.But the Catechisms are interpreted with Cushingism.This is the teaching norm at TMC.2 So the Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict the Syllabus of Errors ( ecuemnism of return etc.) The Catechisms and other Church documents are interpreted with the hermeneutic of rupture, even though a rational choice is available.
This is the doctrine that the two popes and Fr. Thomas Crean reject by using a false premise and inference.
1.Nicene Creed.
2.Athanasius Creed.
3.Apostles Creed.
4.Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
5.Vatican Council II.
6.Catechism of the Catholic Church.
7.Catechism of the Council of Trent and other Catechisms.
VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION
They violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
There is is a factual error. It is a fact of life that we cannot physically see people saved in Heaven and neither in general can we see them on earth.So people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood( BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who cannot be seen on earth cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They cannot be exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.People who do not exist in our reality cannot be exceptions.
There is is a factual error. It is a fact of life that we cannot physically see people saved in Heaven and neither in general can we see them on earth.So people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood( BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who cannot be seen on earth cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. They cannot be exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.People who do not exist in our reality cannot be exceptions.
HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY FOR ME
For me there is no rupture between Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Similarly the Catechisms are also interpreted with the hermeneutic of continuity.
This would not be true for the Dominican priest. He rejects EENS as it was known to the Jesuits in the 16th century.He rejects EENS as it was known to St. Dominic.This is the norm for the Dominicans today.
I do not interpret the Creeds as contradicting themselves.This is an an error of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is irrational and heretical. However it is acceptable for the two popes, the CDF and the Domicans.
I affirm EENS like the Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.They do not do the same.
SACRILEGE
For me they are in public heresy and the popes, cardinals and bishops offer Holy Mass in sacrilege. In public they, like Fr. Crean op, will not affirm Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church rationally and traditionally.Instead they will choose a hermeneutic of rupture.
SACRILEGEFor me they are in public heresy and the popes, cardinals and bishops offer Holy Mass in sacrilege. In public they, like Fr. Crean op, will not affirm Magisterial documents of the Catholic Church rationally and traditionally.Instead they will choose a hermeneutic of rupture.
The Mass offered by the Dominican priest at the TMC chapel may be valid but it is in scandal. There is an impediment which is not denied by the TMC faculty.-Lionel Andrades
1
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/thomas-more-college-of-liberal-arts-tmc.html
2
ibid
DECEMBER 8, 2018
Thomas More College of Liberal Arts rejects Catholic Tradition by irrationally interpreting Vatican Council II. This has the approval of the two popes, the political Left and the college accreditors :I support Tradition by re-interpreting Vatican Council II rationally
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/thomas-more-college-of-liberal-arts.html
DECEMBER 8, 2018
Thomas More College of Liberal Arts rejects Catholic Tradition by irrationally interpreting Vatican Council II. This has the approval of the two popes, the political Left and the college accreditors :I support Tradition by re-interpreting Vatican Council II rationally.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/thomas-more-college-of-liberal-arts.html
DECEMBER 7, 2018
Alleged faithful college coming to New England,USA is Cushingite and not Feeneyite : interprets Vatican Council II and Catechism with an irrational premise to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/alleged-faithful-college-coming-to-new.html
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
