Wednesday, September 30, 2020

For the Lefebvrists jobs and income are the top priority and not the faith

 The Lefebvrists do not want to give up the good life and interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise. There could be tension.

Now life is easy since they use the same false premise as the Left to interpret the Council.

Now they say they accept the Council but do not qualify if they refer to Vatican Council II interpretd with or without the premise.The ambiguity is useful for them.

Joseph Shaw, Thomas Pink and John Lamont avoid this issue. Since they have to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to keep their teaching jobs as professors of theology and philosophy in England and Australia.

At Una Voce International they do not comment on the issue of the false premise in the interpretation of the Council.It is the same for the Lepanto Foundation and the Remnant News.Here we have liberals who go for Mass in Latin.

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf wants to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise like Pope Francis and the Bologna School of Alberto Melloni in Italy.

Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, the Holdebrands and Fr. Nicholas Gruner they are all interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.Then they express their surprise or  disappointment with the expected non traditional conclusion.Then they blame the Council and not themselves.

John Henry Weston continues to post reports on Vatican Council II on Life Site News but does not touch the subject of the false premise.Since then people would expect him to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and so affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Lefebvrists have thought out this issue among themselves and have decided to let this issue remain ambigous.Peter Kwasniewski and Taylor Marshall are also into this and is Archbishop Carlo Vigano.

Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II and they interpreted the Council with the false premise. They do not acknowledge it, deny or or issue an apology. -Lionel Andrades

If Amy Barrett interpreted Vatican Council II rationally she may not have qualified as a judge

 Amy Barrett is a professor of law at Notre Dame Univesity and is a progressivist since she interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise, even though she may be pro life.

She interprets Magisterial documents with an irrational premise, by confusing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 in Vatican Council II as being not invisible but visible in the present times.So there is a  rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).So she is nominated a judge of the U.S Supreme Court.

Without the false premise i.e without confusing hypothetical UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 as not being hypothetical, there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to contradict 16th century EENS and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

All the six Catholic judges on th Supreme Court interpret Vatican Council II unethically.This could be an issue for the U.S Senate Ethics Committee.

With the false premise Amy Barrett and the other Catholic judges  reject the Athanasius Creed.The present two popes do the same and this does not make the error correct and justified.

None of the judges affirm the traditional Catholic teaching on other religions.Neither of them affirm an ecumenism of return or promote the Social Reign of Christ the King in political legislation as it is mentioned in Quas Primas.

They are liberals who support the official New Theology of the Vatican based on a false premise and inference which creates a non traditional conclusion. Then they attribute it to Vatican Council II, when the error lies with their personal perspective.

The Catholic judges record on abortion has not been special. The Catholic faith is ambigous for them.

According to  Christ to the World, the mission magazine of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Church has not retracted the teaching outside the Church there is no salvation.One can hardly expect Amy Barrett and the Catholic judges to say the same thing.

If she interperted Vatican Council II rationally she may not have qualified as a judge. She would be a traditionalist, 'rigid' Catholic. -Lionel Andrades



SEPTEMBER 29, 2020

U.S Catholic Supreme Court judges use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so project themselves as progressivist and not traditional

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_96.html

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Adorazione Eucaristica - Međugorje - giovedì 3/9/2020 - fra Andrija Majić

Don Roberto Malgesini: in un piccolo video il suo cuore grande

Adorazione Eucaristica - Međugorje - martedì 1 Settembre 2020 - fra Vjek...

U.S Catholic Supreme Court judges use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so project themselves as progressivist and not traditional

  
The Judges of the Supreme Court in the USA interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise as does Bishop Robert Barron and this is unethical. Since without the false premise the Left would consider them traditionalists etc. They would not be progressive Catholics who are welcome in U.S. politics.




Bishop Barron is asked :"Does that mean that I am damned ?.The Catholic judges on the Supreme Court in the USA would also answer like him, " No, no that is not Catholic teaching".(0.29 video).Since for them LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.People who are invisible and known only to God are assumed to be visible. The unknown is known.With this false premise Vatican Council II is projected as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS( extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
There is a rupture with the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.
The Protestant in the video is damned since Catholic faith and baptism is the ordinary means of salvation(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II). Invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council II) is not the norm.
Also when Vatican Council II mentions LG 16 it is a reference to a hypothetical case only in the present times (1965-2020). So it is not an objective exception to the norm ( Ad Gentes 7, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. )
But LG 16 is an exception to the traditional norm for Barron.In his mind it refers to a known person, a visible person saved outside the Church.It would be the same for the Catholic judges on the Supreme Court and also for Joe Biden the U.S Presidential candidate.
If there was no visible and known person saved outside the Church they would be back to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. They would be in harmony with the Jesuit missionaries of the 16th century.
 With a false premise and inference they project exceptions to exclusive salvation in the Church and this is acceptable for the Left.They are in politics and it is politically correct.
Bishop Barron's premise is wrong( invisible is visible) and inference is wrong( exclusive salvation is contradicted) and his conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation and EENS etc are obsolete).So for him the Protestant is not going to Hell.This would be appreciated by the Establishment in the USA.
Even if a non Catholic or non Christian can be saved(in Barron's mind) he must know that he is referring to a hypothetical case. This invisible case must not be projected as an exception to the norm.Someone who is not there must not be made an exception to Catholic Tradition.
(Time 1.07) He refers to Lumen Gentium 16 and says that this is Catholic teaching.He is inspired to say that the person before him will not be damned.He uses a false premise and inference to interpret LG 16 and calls it Catholic teaching.It would be the same for the U.S judges.

USCCB BISHOPS TOO
(Time 1:16) He refers to Jesus as the fullness of salvation and says if every one is saved he is saved through Christ.Bishop Barron does not mention the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation. He cannot. He does not feel obliged.Since for him LG 16 is an exception to traditional exclusive salvation.He has found an exception to throw out Tradition. The traditional interpretation of the Creeds and Catechisms are put aside. He has used the false premise like the liberals and Lefebvrists.This is a common error of the USCCB bishops too. They overlook it in the judges of the U.S Supreme Court who now are not officially Catholic traditionalists.
(1.22) He says there are participations in the grace of Christ in non Christian religions as if he knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church in these religions.He does not !Yet for him there are exceptions to the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q and 27Q).The Catholic judges too are in a schism with Pope Pius X.They have created division and this is good for their political image.
 What is hypothetical and theoretical has become real and known for all of them.
(1:30) Even a non believer with good will(GS 22), Barron presumes is a non hypothetical case.This would be deception if the Amy Barrett said the same after being informed.Presently the error is innocent.
 
Now for them and Bishop Barron there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and baptism, as if we could meet them or know their name.
(2:00) He concludes that one can be saved in these other religions as 'a participation in the grace of Christ' and this is Catholic teaching.
This is the New Theology.With a false premise it is inferred that there are exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.So the New Theology says outside the Catholic Church there is salvation, there is known salvation.
First Bishop Barron supposes that there is known salvation outside the Church and then he concludes that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church in other religions.This is the new norm for him.
(2:13) He does not say that Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist since they are outside the Church and outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7 etc).He reads Vatican Council II with the false premise and this is common also for the judges.
He uses the false premise to intepret Vatican Council II and so does not have to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. 
Now what if Bishop Robert Barron and the U.S Supreme Court judges did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? They would then be affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They would have to say that the Protestant interviewer, , Cameron Bertuzzi   was on the way to Hell if he did not convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water.Bishop Barron and the judges would be  called  radical traditionalists just as Barron pejoratively labels conservative Catholics.-Lionel Andrades



SEPTEMBER 29, 2020

With Amy Barrettt the U.S Supreme Court will have six Catholic judges who all interpret Vatican Council II and other Catholic Magisterial documents with a false premise and so project an artificial rupture with Catholic Tradition including the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as does Bishop Robert Barron in this video

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_29.html

SEPTEMBER 28, 2020

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would be traditionalists, rigid and fundamentalists, but they avoid these labels, when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference, like Bishop Barron in this video.


 SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

A Protestant Asks Bishop Barron if He should become Catholic and he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and avoids the rad trad label

SEPTEMBER 28, 2020

But by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective and unknown as known, Pope Francis and Bishop Barron are not traditionalists who affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. They avoid the label.








With Amy Barrettt the U.S Supreme Court will have six Catholic judges who all interpret Vatican Council II and other Catholic Magisterial documents with a false premise and so project an artificial rupture with Catholic Tradition including the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as does Bishop Robert Barron in this video

   


"Does that mean that I am damned ? No, no that is not Catholic teaching", remarks Bishop Robert Barron.(0.29 time on video)
Yes it means he is damned since faith and baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. Invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is not the norm.
Also when Vatican Council II mentions LG 16 it is a reference to a hypothetical case only in the present times (1965-2020). So it is not an objective exception to the norm ( Ad Gentes 7, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. )
But LG 16 is an exception to the traditional norm for Barron and in his mind it refers to a known person, a visible person saved outside the Church. So it is an exception to exclusive salvation in the Church. His premise is wrong( invisible is visible) and inference is wrong( exclusive salvation is contradicted) and his conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation and EENS etc are obsolete).So for him the Protestant is not going to Hell.
Even if a non Catholic or non Christian can be saved he is referring to a hypothetical case. This invisible case must not be projected as an exception to the norm.
(Time 1.07) He refers to Lumen Gentium 16 and says that this is Catholic teaching which inspires him to say that the person before him will not be damned.
(time 1:16) He refers to Jesus as the fullness of salvation and if every one is saved he is saved through Christ and Bishop Barron does not mention the necessity of the Church for salvation. Since LG 16 is an exception to exclusive salvation for him. He has used the false premise like the liberals and Lefebvrists.
(1.22) He says there are participations in the grace of Christ in non Christian religions as if he knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church in these religions. What is hypothetical and theoretical has become real and known for him.
(1:30) Even a non believer of good will(GS 22), he says, he projects as a  non hypothetical case. For him it is a known non Catholic saved outside the Church without faith and baptism, as if he could meet them or know their name.It is as if he knows of an atheist who will go to Heaven.
(2:00) He concludes that one can be saved in these other religions as 'a participation in the grace of Christ' and thid is Catholic teaching.
This is the New Theology.
First Bishop Barron supposes that there is known salvation outside the Church and then he concludes that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church in other religions and this is the new norm for him.
(2:13) He does not say that Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist since they are outside the Church and outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7 etc).
He uses the false premise to intepret Vatican Council II and so does not have to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. 
Now what if Bishop Robert Barron did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? He would then be affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and would have to say that the Protestant before him would be oriented to Hell unless he did not convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water. He would be called a radical traditionalist.
The false premise in the interpretation of th Council saves him from this label which he uses against conservative Catholics. -Lionel Andrades




Adorazione Eucaristica - Medjugorje 26 settembre 2020

Monday, September 28, 2020

The Holy Office - Is It Infallible? (Geocentrism & Fr. Feeney)

Lefebvrists misunderstand Vatican Council II like the liberals

 
The priest here a Lefebvrist, interprets Lumen Gentium with the false premise. This is the way Archbishop Carlo Vigano interprets the Council too. It is also the way Pope Francis and Bishop interprets the Council. They see LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. So there is a rupture with Tradition for them.
But LG 8,LG 14 and LG do not refer to known people in 2020 saved outside the Church. They do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. Since in reality there cannot be an exception to EENS for us human beings.
Only God can know if someone' could be saved ' outside the Church. 
So to posit LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 as exceptions to EENS is an error for the speakers above. It is the same error being made in what they call the 'Novus Ordo' church.
They need to look at LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 differently and accept that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake.
Similarly Pope Pius XII made an error when he did not correct the same mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It assumed the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church. So it says that it is not always necessary for someone to enter the Church.
The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This same error was accepted by the Lefebvrists and Council Fathers (Cushing, Rahner and Ratzinger) at Vatican Council II.

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR3, NA 2, etc refer to hypothetical and invisible cases always and so cannot be an excepton to Feeneyite EENS. They do not contradict according to the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 
This error has to be acknowledged by the present two popes and then corrected -Lionel Andrades

SSPX and liberals interpret Pope Pius X with an irrationality and repeat the error at Vatican Council II


The Society of St. Pius X interprets the Catechism of Pope Pius X with confusion. For example invincible ignorance mentioned in this Catechism, would contradict 24Q and 27 Q in this catechism which supports exclusive salvation. This is modernism.
Similarly both groups, SSPX and liberals, interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational. It implies that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire etc.
So the issue is not only Vatican Council II. The issue is the use of the false premise to create a rupture with the Creeds and Catechisms.
So even if Vatican Council II is annuled the doctrinal problem remains since the false premise is being used to interpret other Magisterial documents.
The speakers above do not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.They  make the same error as Pope Paul VI and the liberals.-Lionel Andrades

Those who do not use the irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II are dubbed rad trads in a pejorative sense by Bishop Robert Barron

 

Bishop Robert Barron in this video still does not address the issue of the false premise used by Pope Paul VI to interpret Vatican Council II when he could have avoided this error . He also does not speak about his own interpretation of the Council by confusing what is unknown as being known and then creating an artificial rupture with the past ecclesiology which supported exclusive salvation in the Church.
In principle, Bishop Barron's organisation, Word on Fire, interprets hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical and then produces a non traditional conclusion which they attibute to Vatican Council II.
I accept Vatican Council II without this irrationality and so there is no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

For Bishop Barron I could be a rad trad who accepts Vatican Council II and interprets Lumen Gentium 16 as not being an exception to 16 th century EENS.
For me there is no rupture with the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church who affirmed the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance and did not project them as exceptions to Tradition. 
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict  evangelize with Jesus as the centre and without the necessity of the Church for salvation. It is Jesus without the Catholic Church.
They also evangelise with a doctrinal development created with a false premise.
So we are now a tension free Church which is politically correct with the Left, which represents Satan.
There is no proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since there are alleged examples of salvation outside the Church.
There is no traditional mission, which says all need to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation with no exceptions, since there is alleged known salvation outside the Church.
How can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known salvation outside the Church when there are no such cases in our reality(2020)?
Then those who do not use the irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II are dubbed rad trads in a pejorative sense by Bishop Robert Barron. - Lionel Andrades

But by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective and unknown as known, Pope Francis and Bishop Barron are not traditionalists who affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. They avoid the label.

  

Pope Francis would be a traditionalist if he did not make the mistakes of Bishop Robert Barron in these videos.The same mistake is there in all the books on Vatican Council II.
If Pope Francis interpreted Lumen Gentium 16 like me, as referring to only hypothetical, theoretical and speculative cases, which exist only in our mind, then Lumen Gentium 16 would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.
Since there would be no exceptions to EENS there would be no more a New Theology, New Ecclesiology, New Ecumenism and New Evangelisation supported by a revised Canon Law.
But for Pope Francis and Bishop Barron, Lumen Gentium 16, is not hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only.They are real, known non Catholic saved without faith and baptism in 1965-2020,otherwise how could there be exceptions to EENS.
For them there is an objective exception to EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition.
This is a rupture with the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church who did not interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, as referring to objective people.Common sense in any age tells us that these are references to invisible people. Hypothetical cases.
But by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective  and unknown as known, Pope Francis and Bishop Barron are not traditionalists who affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They avoid the label.-Lionel Andrades

Ultimo saluto a don Roberto Malgesini - Omelia di Mons. Oscar Cantoni

La lingua è una cosa piccolina ma ti porta dove vuole lei se non la sai ...

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would be traditionalists, rigid and fundamentalists, but they avoid these labels, when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference, like Bishop Barron in this video.

  

In this video Bishop Robert Barron had to pretend that Lumen Gentium 16 referred to a known person, someone visible, saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.So he could reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and not be considered a traditionalist.
He had to pretend that a theoretical possibility of being saved outside the Church, ehich exists only in our mind, was a real case of salvation outside the Church.So he was not proclaiming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, like the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA and telling the Protestant that he was going to Hell.
For  him, ' a could be saved ' outside the Church and ' a can be saved' becomes 'is saved' and 'was saved'.
With his calculated confusion he inteprets Gaudium et Specs 22 ( saved with good will) as a rupture with the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology  and so pleases the Left.
He does not tell Cameron Bertuzzi, his Protestant interviewer, that he is going to Hell, outside the Church.
Cameron believes in Jesus he is baptised and perhaps approves of contraception and divorce.
Bishop Barron was careful to present Cameron Bertuzzi with the politically correct interpretation of Vatican Council II.It sees invisible cases as being visible. With this irrationality the hermeneutic of rupture is created with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of rrors,Athanasius Creed etc).

This is also a common mistake of the Lefebvrists and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ecclesiastics.

If Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia, Secretaries of the CDF did not use Bishop Barron's approach, they too would be affirming EENS like Brother Andre Marie MICM at the St.Benedict Center and the community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would be traditionalists, rigid and fundamentalists, but they avoid these labels now, when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference, like Bishop Barron in this video. -Lionel Andrades



Sunday, September 27, 2020

A Protestant Asks Bishop Barron if He should become Catholic and he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and avoids the rad trad label

  
"Does that mean that I am damned ? No, no that is not Catholic teaching", remarks Bishop Robert Barron.(0.29 time on video)
Yes it means he is damned since faith and baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. Invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is not the norm.
Also when Vatican Council II mentions LG 16 it is a reference to a hypothetical case only in the present times (1965-2020). So it is not an objective exception to the norm ( Ad Gentes 7, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. )
But LG 16 is an exception to the traditional norm for Barron and in his mind it refers to a known person, a visible person saved outside the Church. So it is an exception to exclusive salvation in the Church. His premise is wrong( invisible is visible) and inference is wrong( exclusive salvation is contradicted) and his conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation and EENS etc are obsolete).So for him the Protestant is not going to Hell.
Even if a non Catholic or non Christian can be saved he is referring to a hypothetical case. This invisible case must not be projected as an exception to the norm.
(Time 1.07) He refers to Lumen Gentium 16 and says that this is Catholic teaching which inspires him to say that the person before him will not be damned.
(time 1:16) He refers to Jesus as the fullness of salvation and if every one is saved he is saved through Christ and Bishop Barron does not mention the necessity of the Church for salvation. Since LG 16 is an exception to exclusive salvation for him. He has used the false premise like the liberals and Lefebvrists.
(1.22) He says there are participations in the grace of Christ in non Christian religions as if he knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church in these religions. What is hypothetical and theoretical has become real and known for him.
(1:30) Even a non believer of good will(GS 22), he says, he projects as a  non hypothetical case. For him it is a known non Catholic saved outside the Church without faith and baptism, as if he could meet them or know their name.It is as if he knows of an atheist who will go to Heaven.
(2:00) He concludes that one can be saved in these other religions as 'a participation in the grace of Christ' and thid is Catholic teaching.
This is the New Theology.
First Bishop Barron supposes that there is known salvation outside the Church and then he concludes that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church in other religions and this is the new norm for him.
(2:13) He does not say that Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist since they are outside the Church and outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7 etc).
He uses the false premise to intepret Vatican Council II and so does not have to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. 
Now what if Bishop Robert Barron did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? He would then be affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and would have to say that the Protestant before him would be oriented to Hell unless he did not convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water. He would be called a radical traditionalist.
The false premise in the interpretation of th Council saves him from this label which he uses against conservative Catholics. -Lionel Andrades




Our Lady changed my heart too at Medugorje

 
The young lady in the video Mariela says that Our Lady changed her heart at Medugorje. It struck a note. The same thing happened to me.
It was when I was at home that I realized what had happened.
I was a teacher of oriental meditation, heavy into New Age in a big way.I would organise inter faith meetings.I would like to quote Vatican Council II with the false premise.
I left all that.
 It just fell off. It was there before me but I felt an aversion for it.I knew something big had happened and the change was  permanent.It was consistent.
Our Lady had changed my heart at Medugorje.There was something special about that place. This was also the experience of non Catholics.
In these videos on Medugorge which I have been posting on this blog and watching,I notice that the same thing happened to countless pilgrims at Medugorje.  
When I went home I tried to convince my relatives to visit Medugorje. I would say that it is a special place but they would say that Our Lady was everywhere and they did not have to go to Medugorje. 
But this is not true.
 Our Lady is at Medugorje in a special way. 
There is something supernatural about the place. As someone said, it was a little piece of Heaven brought to the earth. It was a gift of God.
It still is there - a  gift from God for those who visit the site.
Go there even if you do not meet or see the visionaries. Go to the church.Stay there for a week at Medugorje and participate in the prayers at the church of St. James.Something will happen.
I did not have a problem with drugs. But I saw drug addicts cured. 
I saw people exposed to the occult who were healed.
Another theme I see in these videos is pilgrims saying they were called (una chiamata).
This too was my experience.A young lady said that Our Lady caught her by the scruf of her collar and dumped her at Medugorje. This was a description of my experience.Our Lady got me there in spite of so many obstacles.She wanted me there. 
It was the first time for me in Europe.
Then yesterday  Marija in her conversation with Radio Maria remarked-that she thought the late
Fr. Slavko Barbaric OFM, was a saint. I thought the same too. This is something I cannot describe completely. But I know he was always available for me. He would fight to have me accomadated in a cottage or a prayer meeting which was packed. 
I was there for four weeks at the Domus Pacis and every week a new group of pilgrims would come there for the fasting program. Fr. Slavo would be regular early in the morning at about 6 a.m to lead the pilgrims up Mount Krizevac for the Stations of the Cross.How did he have all that energy ? From where did he get that drive? I suspected that Our Lady was appearing to him in a special way.
Our Lady told the visionaries that he was in Heaven.
I realized that the same feelings on Fr. Slavko were also drawn by many other pilgrims including a seminarian at the Beda Pontifical College, Rome. He too felt the same way about Fr. Slavko. He framed a large picture of this priest in his seminary room and once called me to view it.
He was a liberal, like my former self, while I had changed.I could be tolerant with the liberals and not judge and condemn them since I knew from where they were coming.
Not all the liberals who go to Medugorje are changed. But something special happened to me there.
Our Lady gave me a new heart and she taught me also how to pray from the heart. When I said a Hail Mary and was not in the present moment , with Jesus and Her, I would go back and pray that bead again.It was someting spontaneous.I knew something was not correct. I had become so sensitive.
I hope you have a chance to visit Medugorje. Don't say Our Lady is every where.
And when you are there, if your are there, because of this report, say an Ave Maria, for me.
-Lionel Andrades

When Pope Benedict says that the present Orthodox Christians cannot be blamed for the sins of the past, he is presenting an arguement to support his New Ecumenism based on the false premise. So he does have to ask Orthodox Christians to enter the Catholic Church for salvation

 When Pope Benedict says that the present Orthodox Christians cannot be blamed for the sins of the past, he is presenting an arguement to support his New Ecumenism based on the false premise. So he does have to ask Orthodox Christians to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. -Lionel Andrades



APRIL 23, 2018

New Catholic ecumenical groups must be formed which do not interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition, affirm the old traditional ecumenism in harmony with the Council and the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church






New Catholic ecumenical groups must be formed which do not interpret  Vatican Council II  as a rupture with Tradition.They  participate in ecumenical meetings along side the present Catholic ecumenical groups, for example, in England,where they interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition.The new ecumenical groups  would affirm the old traditional ecumenism of the Catholic Church in harmony with Vatican Council II and the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.The present ecumenism of the Catholic Church in Britain is based on the new ecumenism which assumes there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church. So there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for them.


Possibilities of salvation in Christian religions are assumed to be de facto, concrete and known cases of people saved outside the Church.This is the reasoning which is the foundation of the New Ecumenism and New Ecclesiology created with a New Theology, which is irrational.
These new ecumenical groups, pro-EENS, pro-Syllabus of Errors and pro-Vatican Council II,  would include all Catholics, those  who attend Mass in different Rites and who even belong to the Lay Catholic Movements.
At ecumenical gatherings other Christians must know that 
Vatican Council II is not a rupture with an ecumenism of return.The Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation.Other Christians are invited to enter the Catholic Church as members to avoid Hell ( for salvation).Since without Catholic faith there is no salvation.

So when it is known that "There are no physically visible cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in 2018" and " LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases "Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, which was the traditional basis for an ecumenism of conversion into the Catholic Church.
These new Catholic ecumenical groups affirming the old ecumenism must also be there to witness to traditional Catholic teachings without rejecting Vatican Council II.
The new ecumenical groups would work to create local political parties and proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, a priority, in political legislation.Since the old ecclesiology would be intact Vatican Council II would not contradict the teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.All need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14) and Vatican Council II 's Lumen Gentium  8, Lumen Gentium  16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2, Gaudium et Spec  22 etc, do not contradict the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).-Lionel Andrades



________________________





APRIL 23, 2018

 A battle is raging about the life of terminally ill Alfie Evans
Catholic political party needed in England
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/catholic-political-party-needed-in.html


APRIL 21, 2018



Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests still not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation : positivism towards magisterialism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/frchad-ripperger-and-fssp-priests-still.html



APRIL 8, 2018


Fr.Paul McDonald is really saying he supports an exclusivist ecclesiology with no dual conclusions, heterodox passages, no passages against EENS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/frpaul-mcdonald-is-really-saying.html


APRIL 7, 2018

Even Vatican II says every one on the face of the earth is called to become a member of the Mystical Body ( the Catholic Church)- Fr.Paul McDonald , Fatima Center http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/even-vatican-ii-says-every-one-on-face.htm

APRIL 5, 2018

Conferences must criticize the March 1 and 30th statements of Cardinals Ladaria and Nicols : affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, there are billions of non Catholics in Hell today.It is important to be a Catholic and to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/conferences-must-criticize-march-1-and.html
__________________________________
__________________________________




































_________________________________________________________________



SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

Now once we correct this error then today for us there is no 'magnificent movement of approach begun with the ecumenism of Vatican Council II'. Since we would be back to the old theology.


The Phineus Report: How the Catholic Church was hijacked...

..and was made into something that appears hideous and deranged, lacking credibility, and no longer useful for the original intention of it's Founder.

But, how did we get here?  What mechanism was utilized to so effectively convince Catholics of the pre-1950's to accept what has turned out to be one of, if not the greatest revolution in human history, after the Fall of Adam in the garden?  What genius was employed? What machinations and trickery, sleight of hand maneuvers were set in motion to produce such a monstrous outcome?
Lionel: In one word, Cushingism.
Can this be reversed. Yes. In one word, Feeneyism.
________________________

We do have most certain clues, that are "hidden in plain sight", such as....

Lionel : They are not clues. The clues are the false premises and inferences which have created a New Theology. The New Theology is based on the conclusion that there is known salvation outside the Church. This conclusion emerges by inferring that hypothetical and invisible cases are objectively visible.The theoretical case of the unknown catechumen who dies before receiving the baptism of water which he desired, is assumed to be a known case.
Since there is salvation outside the Church with this reasoning, there is the new ecumenism etc.UR 3 for example comes to us in Vatican Council II with the use of the false premise and inference.
__________________________

Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite, in his book Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason praised the ecumenism nurtured at Vatican II. He said:

       Catholics ... must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of freethinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter's. One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry.” 
Lionel : Only with the false premise and inference do we have the new ecumenism.Without this false reasoning  there is no  new ecumenism and we simply return to the old ecumenism of return and the outside the Church there is no salvation, without adding any thing new.
So even today the error can be avoided and we return to the  past ecclesiology without making any change in Vatican Council II. The Masons will be horrified.
Yves Marsaudon does not mention the false philosophy and false theology which has created the new ecumenism.If he did it would be possible to change it. 
_____________________________ 

French Freemason Jacques Mitterand, who wrote approvingly:


       "Something has changed within the Church, and replies given by the Pope to the most urgent questions such as priestly celibacy and birth control, are hotly debated within the Church itself; the word of the Sovereign Pontiff is questioned by bishops, by priests, by the faithful. For a Freemason, a man who questions dogma is already a Freemason without an apron." 
Lionel: The attitude is that if the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) can be changed or rejected then why not other teachings of the Catholic Church
___________________________ 
Marcel Prelot, a senator for the Doubs region in France, is probably the most accurate in describing what has really taken place. He wrote:


       "We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail within the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church." 
Lionel : They can also be officially rejected by the Catholic Church today once the false premise and inference is identified.
__________________

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was the sole Catholic Prelate who led traditionalist opposition to the conciliar liberals and had militated for a conciliar condemnation of Communism.  
Lionel: He was rejecting the interpretation, or conclusion of an interpretation, of Vatican Council II.
If he had interpreted Vatican Council II it with Feeneyism, it would be the end of the farce, the great facade.No one in the SSPX is still doing it today after 50  years.
______________________________

What has happened to his work? It was condemned, marginalized, ostracized, demonized (one NO FSSP zealot priest even has gone so far as to claim the SSPX are Satanic. Such a priest is suspiciously reminiscent of a wolfe in sheep's clothing, if not a Hebrew plant spoken of by Bella Dodd.) and made out to appear schismatic, in order to scare the sheep away from the truth once taught by the Catholic Church.  These sheep then run into the open arms of the conciliar Church which deceives them with their false ecumenism and watered down gospel, which is less effective in the work of their salvation. 
Lionel: The SSPX priests are interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism just as those who offer Mass in the vernacular. The SSPX is still part of the problem.
_______________________________

The Traditional Latin Mass is simply not enough to gain eternal life. One must also believe correctly...and this belief is hard pressed to be found, if not outright banned in the TLM locations, authorized and approved by the Vatican II Bishops. 
Lionel: The Traditional Latin Mass is being offered by priests who will not affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and EENS ( Feeneyite).So they have rejected the past ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass. The TLM is today offered with the new ecclesiology and this Latin Mass in its theology is not that of the TLM in the 16th century for example. So today liberal bishops and the Vatican encourage the TLM without the past ecclesiology.The ecclesiology is the same as the Mass in vernacular and in other rites.
________________________________

Remember, the pre-Vatican II Catholics had only the Traditional Latin Mass, and most of them fell far short of heaven's gate.  The Traditional Latin Mass is not enough, my friends. We must have the orthodoxy of the ancient Church, as well as the purity of the worship of God, which includes the exposing of the perennial enemies of Christ. 

Where do we find such a priest who teaches "the whole counsel of God"? They are "as hen's teeth".  If we cannot find one, then we must educate ourselves on what the true gospel is, and then adhere to it and disseminate it. In this we have a greater ability to be saved, as opposed to holding hands with the murderers of Christ.

  L'Unita, the official publication of the Italian Communist Party, brazenly gave advice to Pope Paul VI regarding Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It said to him....“Be conscious of the danger that Lefebvre represents. And continue the magnificent movement of approach begun with the ecumenism of Vatican II.”
Lionel : It can all be changed. We have to understand that , for example, the baptism of desire can be interpreted literally or theologically. Literally there are no baptism of desire cases. This is something obvious. There is no baptism of desire case for us human beings since only God can recognise it. There is no such thing as a baptism of desire.However if you tell me, like many  have that the Church teaches that there is a baptism of desire, then you are looking at this issue theologically. I would agree with you. The Church does teach it.
But it means that a theology was created at some time when no case of the baptism of desire existed.The baptism of desire was seen as an exception to EENS when there were no baptism of desire cases.
There was no such thing as a baptism of desire for Fr. Leonard Feeney.He denied it.
So now we have a false theology. How can we today say that there is salvation outside the Church when there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS for us? Where are the practical exceptions today?
Yet this is what was done by the liberal theologians , in 1949 and they were supported by the Masons and the secular media. Pope Pius XII and his cardinals did not issue a correction.Even Archbishop Lefebvre did not object. The error was then repeated as a kind of theme in Vatican Council II.
Now once we correct this error then today for  us there is no 'magnificent movement of approach begun with the ecumenism of Vatican Council II'. Since we would be back to the old theology.-L.A
_________________________________

Does not this advice directly from Communists, give you even a hint about the SSPX?

The Communists were elated with the results of the Council. 

The Italian Communist Party declared at its 11th Party Congress in 1964: “The extraordinary ‘awakening’ of the Council, which is rightly compared with the Estates General of 1789, has shown the whole world that the old politico-religious Bastille is shaken to its foundations.” 

In by-gone days of Catholic orthodoxy, we were taught by Pope Pius XI
"By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world’s goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism."

With our present pope, we see the revolution of communism within the Church declared openly and without shame.... "The root of all social evil is inequality" [ Pope Francis I ]

So, what are we, who cherish, jealously, the one, true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation?

 I think I know....Catholics must continue to educate each another in this fight against the new religion and this delusion of "absolute equality".

 We have Our Lady, the Rosary, the Scapular, we have the Sacraments and the Sacred Heart of Christ, therefore, all we need further is only one thing, which we can get, simply by asking...………..courage!

In the article below, I have, for your convenience, highlighted a few things that we MUST take note of if we are to successfully extricate ourselves from this web of deceit.

Phineus…... 




Bella Dodd - The "New World Order" is Communism

Bella Dodd-06.jpg
https://www.henrymakow.com/160303.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/message-incomplete-phineus-report-how.html