Repost : In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises

 FEBRUARY 13, 2015

In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises

The discussion continues.1

Ok Lionel,

i understand your mindset clearer now. (Lionel: May be not) You are speculating (Lionel: I am not.It is clear that for the cardinal and the magisterium which followed the Letter (1949-2015), the baptism of desire is an exception to all needing to enter the Church, with the baptism of water. Even the traditionalists have accepted this. See the Section on Feeneyism on the SSPX (USA) website. Also see Wikipedia and so many other sources on the Internet. Are you saying that they do not consider the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? )on what the cardinal might have been thinking but this is clearly not what he or the Church said. (Lionel: He has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.They did not accept the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma. He was saying outside the Church there is salvation. The magisterium has accepted this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.) When you assume that the Cardinal implied or inferred that these situations were known and/or exceptions (Lionel: Are you saying that Cardinal Marchetti implied or said, that there are no exceptions to the dogma? He agreed with Fr.Leonard Feeney ? ) those are your conclusions and certainly not what was said or quoted below. They once again describe states of holiness which God in his judgement may or may not grant salvation.(Lionel: This is not the issue. This is the theology of the baptism of desire . In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises. It implies that these cases are explicit, objective and visible in the present times to be exceptions. This is an irrational inference.So if the cardinal only mentioned the charisteristics of the baptism of desire, it would not be an issue. It is when he faulted Fr.Leonard Feeney he was making an irrational statement) Their salvation is not known to us on earth any more than yours or mine is. (Lionel: Yes and the cardinal should not have assumed that they were an exception to the dogma. Since he was implying that these cases are known personally and their salvation is known. Otherwise how could they be exceptions ?) While we are still alive the state of our soul can turn for the better or worse in the blink of an eye.(Lionel : And either way we cannot say who has the baptism of desire. The cardinal did not know of any case) You are right in that all save a few in the church believe that it is necessary and commanded that the Church to teach for ALL to stay in the Church militant, return to the Church militant or convert to the Catholic Church.(Lionel: Is the baptism of desire relevant or an exception to the dogma for you? )

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

1

The lawful authorities were saying that there were exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/i-have-received-e-mail-today.html

 

Would the FSSP Monsignor say that according to Vatican Council II all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/would-fssp-monsignor-say-that-according.html 

 

The baptism of desire is accepted by me since it is not an exception to the dogma even when it occurs and it is known only to God http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-baptism-of-desire-is-accepted-by-me.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/02/in-itself-baptism-of-desire-is-not.html

Repost : Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus

FEBRUARY 14, 2015

Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus

Every human creature in the present times needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation! Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus.

Cardinal Marchetti in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 wrongly assumed that there was known salvation outside the Church.So for him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So he came up with this new theory in the Catholic Church. He said every one does not need to convert into the Church for salvation but only 'those who know.'

This was the new Marchetti Theory based on the Marchetti Inference that there were visible and known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in 1949.

 

The Marchetti Theory that only those who know about the Church need to convert was placed in Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits.The theory is based on an irrationality that of salvation in Heaven being visible on earth.

 

When Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) refers to only those who know we have to remember that this line does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It also does not contradict the passage in Vatican Council II  (LG 14,AG 7) which says all need faith and baptismfor salvation.

So I accept Vatican Council II when it states that those who know, need to enter the Church.I leave it to God to decide who knows or is in invincible ignorance at the time of death. It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which tells us that all need to be formal members of the Church in the present times.

-Lionel Andrades

Continued 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/02/every-one-needs-to-be-catholic-those.html

In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/in-itself-baptism-of-desire-is-not.html

Repost : St.Emerentiana is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version, in 2015

FEBRUARY 15, 2015

St.Emerentiana is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version, in 2015

Comments from the blogpost.1

Lionel said: "Every human creature in the present times needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation! 

Lionel:

Yes, this us what the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says.

This is also the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7).

___________________________

Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus".

Lionel:

It means they are not known to us and they are known only to Jesus. So they do not contradict the dogma nor Vatican Council II.

____________________

as compared to: ◦“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

Lionel:

All need to be Catholic. Yes.

_______________________

The pronouncement by Pope Innocent III is the perfect decree and of course it is directed only to those that are alive.

Lionel:

Yes. It does not say that we can know who 'knows' or does not know. It refers to all.

Those who know about the Church need to enter and those who do not know(theoretically for us), need to enter. Those who do not know have Original Sin and commit mortal sins e.g natives and pagans in the jungles.

It was because Cardinal Marchetti assumed that there was known salvation outside the Church ; we knew those who were exceptions, i.e those who did not have the baptism of water and was saved, he inferred that only those who knew need to enter the Church, as compared to those in invincible ignorance who could be saved.

So this line was inserted in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14 with respect to all needing 'faith and baptism'.)

________________________

It certainly is not directed to the deceased.

Lionel: 

The deceased are not exceptions to the dogma in the present times. They are not exceptions as Marchetti believed they were.For him the deceased were visible exceptions to the dogma.

_____________________

There are problems with your quote and by example the Church has confirmed Sainthood on Catechumens/Martyrs who are certainly known to us.

Lionel: 

They are deceased. So they are not exceptions to the dogma. 

Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or blood are not an issue. It is only when it is inferred that they are exceptions to the dogma that the problem arise. It would mean they are alive to be exceptions.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made this objective error.

_________________________

They were not possibilities but confirmed facts.

Lionel:

Yes and if there were hundreds of them they would be deceased and so not relevant to the dogmatic teaching in 2015.

St.Emerentiana is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version, in 2015.SSPX and FSSP priests usually make this objective error.

______________________

It is not for you to question or speculate how God and Jesus welcomed them into Heaven.

Lionel:

However Jesus may welcome a deceased person,it is not relevant to the dogmatic teaching. Since people who are deceased cannot be exceptions or relevant to the dogma in the present times (2015).

-Lionel Andrades

1

Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/every-one-needs-to-be-catholic-those.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/02/stemerentiana-is-not-exception-to-extra.html

Repost : The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails. It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven

FEBRUARY 16, 2015

The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails. It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven

Comments from the blog post. 1

 

George Brenner said... 
Lionel,you continue to completely miss the point. Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are sound and require obedience to their teaching and as a wise friend just posted today
Lionel:
So where and when have I denied it? Please refer me to it.
They are possibilities. I have said this many times.

Obviously we do not know of a case in 2015. This would be known only to God. So defacto there is no such case.
St.Emerentiana is deceased. So she is not a known exception to the dogma in 2015. I cannot say that every one does not need the baptism of desire in 2015 because St.Emerentiana died without the baptism of water in the past.This would be irrational thinking.

So I accept the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire or blood. However they are not relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Feeney. The Letter of the Holy Office assumed that they are exceptions. This was a factual mistake. How can they be exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation in 2015, when we do not know and cannot know any such exception? An exception must exist in our reality to be an exception.
______________________

: "If the doctrine has been abused,
Lionel:

This doctrine on the baptism of desire and blood and invincible ignorance is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I am not referring to the theology of these doctrines.
______________________________

 

 

and it clearly has been,
Lionel:

 When the SSPX for example assume that these cases are objectively known in the present times, then it is an abuse. This could also be the error of the FSSP Monsignor you spoke to .
Since he cannot say that Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation and so all non Catholics need to convert to avoid Hell.

For him there are objective exceptions to the dogma, in Vatican Council II, for example, LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience)

_____________________

 it is not the fault of the doctrine, but of weak men, for the baptism of desire does NOT render the sacrament of Baptism “optional” or “unnecessary”, neither does it turn the words of our Lord in John 3:5 into a “metaphor” for Baptism, and neither does it deny that true and natural water is absolutely necessary for a valid sacrament.
Lionel:

 'Neither does it deny that true and natural water is absolutely necessary for a valid sacrament.' Yes it does not deny it, only when you are aware that there are no objective cases in the present times. So there are no objective exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church with the baptism of water.
The Holy Office made an objective error in 1949 and this has been accepted by the SSPX and others.
______________________

Go ahead and shake your fist at Pope St. Pius V, Gregory XIII, Clement XIII, Innocent III, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV
Lionel:
Why them? They have only mentioned implicit desire and being saved in ignorance. They have not stated that these cases are exceptions to the dogma. This was the wrong inference of the Holy Office Letter in 1949.
____________________________

and Pius XII;
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII did not correct the error in the Letter of the Holy Office during his pontificate and neither did he lift the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He let the error persist in the Catholic Church.
___________________________

shake your fist at the greatest Doctors (and saints) of the Church to include Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Bernard of Clairveaux, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Canisius, Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus de Liguori;
Lionel:

None of them have said that there are known exceptions to the dogma.
After 1949 to justify the error, theologians began interpreting these saints using the Marchetti Inference i.e there are visible exceptions to the dogma of persons saved in invincible ignorance etc.

None of these saints have said that salvation in Heaven is objectively visible on earth and these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
This new doctrine came into the Church only in 1949.
__________________________

 shake your fist at each and every of the scholastic theologians and manualists – not a single one of whom “denied” the baptism of blood and desire, 
Lionel:
They did not have to deny the baptism of desire and blood. They could accept it.Since the baptism of desire and blood are not exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So one can affirm the baptism of desire and blood AND ALSO the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

If there were objective, known cases in 2015 then you could not affirm the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
______________________

and every one of whom who weighed in on this topic affirmed the same doctrine"
Lionel:
Yes but with a difference.
For me these cases are possibilities known only to God.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
For others these cases are exceptions to the dogma, so they must be objective for them in the present times. This is an irrational proposition. To build ones theology on this irrational premise creates irrational theology. It is bad theology.

Yet this is the familiar Marchetti theology used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
______________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Father Feeney denied that Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible could happen on earth OR in Heaven.
Lionel:
He denied there was salvation outside the Church.

 

 How can the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to salvation outside the Church when objectively we do not know of any case?
________________________

You continually ignore that fact in your hybrid interpretation. You also dictate how God judges when you say that He must baptize with water.
Lionel:
This is what the dogma says. This teaching is repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7).I interpret them without visible and known to us baptism of desire etc.
______________________

Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance have nothing to do with teaching all that they must enter, stay or return to the Catholic Church for Salvation and be baptized with water.
Lionel:

 Agreed!
_________________________

This idea of exceptions has no place in the discussion by you OR those that abuse the truth. 
Lionel:
It has not place in the discussion.It is irrelevant. We agree here!
___________________

Wolves in sheep's clothing have always been with us. From your posts I see that you are moving towards the truth but still misunderstand that which the Church teaches versus the abuses in what the Church teaches which are sickening and disobedient to Jesus command.
Lionel:
The theology of the Magisterium has gone off the rails.

 

 It is bad theology to assume there are objective cases on earth, in the present times, of people who are in Heaven.
- Lionel Andrades

 

1

 

February 14, 2015

Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/every-one-needs-to-be-catholic-those.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-theology-of-magisterium-has-gone.html

 

Repost : Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.

FEBRUARY 16, 2015

Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.

The 150th Anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors - Special Edition

By John Vennari

 

Ratzinger affirms elsewhere in the same book, “There can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism but cannot be the last stage.”

Lionel:

Yes there can be no return to the Syllabus for those who use the irrational inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.

Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council IIdoes not contradict the Syllabus.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger accepted Marchetti's theories:-

1.There is known salvation outside the Church in 1949.

2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are objectively known in 1949.

3.These objective cases are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.

4.The dogma has changed or evolved.

All this was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the Syllabus of Errors.

____________________

It is always amusing to see Modernist churchmen, who built their careers on the alleged “changeableness” of certain doctrine, solemnly declare that their favorite Modernist tenet cannot change: “There can be no return to the Syllabus”. In other words, “There can be no change to the countersyllabus”. Ratzinger would not be open to a counter-counter syllabus....

Lionel:

Yes since an irrational inference is the basis of the new theology and the liberals and traditionalists are not aware of it.So there cannot be a return to theSyllabus, with this irrational proposition and conclusion approved by the 1949 Holy Office.

__________________

Stressing the deadly seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, “would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.”

Lionel:

With this error the Nicene Creed 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin ' has been changed to 'I believe in three or more KNOWN baptisms for the forgiveness of sin'.

________________________________

He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly before God: “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eodemque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously."

Lionel:

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has evolved for the SSPX since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to known cases in the present times and they are known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water. Those who say there are no known exceptions are pejoratively criticized as 'Feeneyities' by the SSPX.So there has been a change and it has been accepted.

_________________________
 

At the end of the Oath, he make this solemn Promise before God Himself: “I promisethat I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand."
There is no way that a person who holds to the counter syllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith

Lionel:

If he avoids the Marchetti theology, Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

_________________________

“in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as the Church always held. There is no way that someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and “in no way deviated” from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes regarding religious indifferentism and the Social Kingship of Christ.

Lionel:

Without the Marchetti Inference Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and ecumenism.

___________________________________ 

As already noted, both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a counter syllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes – and thus advance a Modernist tenet.
Lionel:

It is a counter Syllabus with the 1949 irrationality.

-Lionel Andrades
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/77809c8032706eb06aa84965262b3462-311.html

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/02/without-marchetti-inference-vatican.html

Repost : In general heresy is being endorsed in the Church and it is considered magisterial

JANUARY 23, 2015

In general heresy is being endorsed in the Church and it is considered magisterial

Tantumblogo on the The Blog for Dallas Area Catholics has a post Liberalism is an ideology too .It reminds me of how he and Pat Archbold have  accepted the Cardinal Marchetti letter of 1949.They have approved an ideology, a new doctrine.They may not realize it. 

 

This is the new theology based on an irrationality, a factual error. This is liberalism.

 

This is the modernism approved also by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) when they do not see the contradiction with Tradition in the Letter of the Holy Office, which is the basis for heresy in  the Church.

 

In general heresy is being endorsed in the Church and it is considered magisterial.

-Lionel Andrades

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/01/in-general-heresy-is-being-endorsed-in.html

Repost : Rome Vicariate's Ecclesia Mater teaches lay Catholics theology with an irrational premise : Vatican Council II then becomes a break with traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus

JANUARY 26, 2015

Rome Vicariate's Ecclesia Mater teaches lay Catholics theology with an irrational premise : Vatican Council II then becomes a break with traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus

The Vicariate in Rome has centers in the city where they teach theology to lay Catholics.These lay Catholics are not aware that the theology of these centres is based on an irrationality.It is false theology.It is a break with Tradition and rationality. They use an irrational premise.With this false premsie they interpret magisterial documents including Vatican Council II.

 

I wrote to this office Ecclesia Mater a few years back but no one responded. Lay Catholics who attend these courses should ask themself two questions which the profesors at Ecclesia Mater and the Auxiliary Bishops of Rome will not answer.

 

TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?


 

If the answer is :1) No we do not know any case of the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc and we cannot physically see them in 2015 and 2) since they are not known; not visible to us they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II - then you are rational.

You would be saying that there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015.

Defacto, objectively, you and I would not know of any such case.If there was any such case, it would only be known to God.And if there was such a case of someone saved, or going to be saved, without the baptism of water, it would be a possibility known only to God and unknown to us human beings.It would not be an exception. Possibilities are not exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.

So do you think the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it alleges that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the historical interpretation of the dogma , the 'rigorist interpretation' ? Yes! - but the Vicariate will not say it. Instead they will teach theology based on their being known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be wrong when there cannot be any known exception? The Vicariate will not answer.

Many Catholic priests, who offer Mass in Italian,  in Rome to whom I have spoken to say there are no known exceptions and the Marchetti Letter of 1949 made an objective mistake. It assumed that the dead are visible, to be exceptions to the dogma.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see these exceptions.

What is your view as a student ?

Fr.Stefano Visintin OSB, is Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome. This Benedictine priest says there are no known exceptions.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibilities, he said, but are not known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.

Prof. Visintin was speaking with me on Oct.15,2013 at the University of St.Anselm in Rome.
So did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvagginai Marchetti make a mistake for you ? Ask your professor at the Vicariate may be he will answer you.

Vatican Council II is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me.

Vatican Council II, without the irrational inference(visible-dead who are exceptions to the dogma), would be saying, all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews,Muslims  need to convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) for salvation ( to avoid Hell). All Protestants and Orthodox Christians need Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14)

Would you agree? 

Could you confirm this with professors of theology at the St.John Lateran University?.

The priest who confirmed this for me most recently is Fr.Marco Hausmann. He offers the Traditional Latin Mass on Sunday mornings at the church San Giuseppe a Capo le Casa in  Rome.

I simply asked him if there are any physical exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus, are baptism of desire cases visible and known to us to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.His obvious answer was - no.There are no physically visible cases.There are no known exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades


1.
centro.teologia@vicariatusurbis.org
ecclesiamater@vicariatusurbis.org

Professors of Theology at the Ecclesia Mater  according to the Rome Vicariate website.	Email
Ardovino Adriano	adriano.ardovino@libero.it
Asolan Paolo	paoloasolan@gmail.com
Barzotti Rossella	rossella.barzotti@gmail.com
Boffi Giandomenico	giandomenico.boffi@unint.eu
Brambilla Giorgia	giorgia.brambilla@gmail.com
Brienza Carmine	SantaFrancescaRomana@VicariatusUrbis.org
Buonomo Vincenzo	buonomo@pul.it
Caneva Claudia	claudiacaneva@libero.it
Cardellini Innocenzo	innocenzocardellini@gmail.com
Ceccarelli Marco
Chenaux Philippe	philippe.chenaux@fastwebnet.it
Chiarazzo Rosario	rosarchi@alice.it
Cicatelli Sergio	sergiocicatelli@libero.it
Cicchese Gennaro	gennarocicchese@libero.it
Ciola Nicola	niciola@gmail.com
Cipriani Roberto	roberto.cipriani@tlc.uniroma3.it
Costa Cecilia	ceciliaromana.costa@libero.it
Cozzoli Mauro	cozzolim@tin.it
Cuccurullo Rossan       Dal Bello Mario De Luca Mario mariodelucadocente@libero.it Delpozzo Paola Maria delpozzo@hotmail.it Ferri Riccardo ferririccardo@hotmail.com Filippi Nicola nicola.filippi@vicariatusurbis.org Forlai Giuseppe giuseppeforlai@virgilio.it Frisina Marco frisina.segreteria@gmail.com Giampiccolo Maria giampi@figliedellachiesa.org Grappone Antonio agrappone@rmroma.it Grasselli Bruna grassell@uniroma3.it Lee Jae-Suk Maria lee@pul.it Lees Davide davidelees@gmail.com Lonardo Andrea ufficiocatechistico@vicariatusurbis.org Luparia Marco Ermes presidenza.aas@apostolatosalvatoriano           Mastantuono Antonio antoniomasta@tiscali.it Mattiocco Francesco francesco.mattiocco@gmail.com Merenda Paolo paolo.merenda@virgilio.it Merlo Paolo merloseidl@libero.it Mobeen Shahid shahidmobeen75@yahoo.com Monda Andrea monda66@gmail.com Montan Agostino amontan@murialdo.org Morlacchi Filippo filippo.morlacchi@vicariatusurbis.org Olivieri Pennesi Alessandro ale.pennesi@tin.it Palombi Roberto studio.palombi@libero.it Panizzoli Alessandro alexpaniz@fastwebnet.it Pasquale Luca Pirone Bartolomeo b.pirone@libero.it Posabella Flavia flavia.posabella@libero.it Pulcinelli Rondinara Sergio rondinara@flars.net Rossi Roberto borgesrossi@inwind.it Sabetta Antonio antonio.sabetta@gmail.com Santangelo Domenico domenicosantangelo@hotmail.com Scordamaglia Domenico domenicoscordamaglia@tiscali.it Selvadagi Paolo slvdgpaolo@tiscali.it Sguazzardo Pierluigi pierluigi.sguazzardo@gmail.com Simeoni Martino Monica simeonimonica@gmail.com Termini Cristina cristermini@gmail.com Viganò Dario Edoardo vigano@pul.it Giuseppe pinopul@tin.it

 

Preside

Mons. Prof. Antonio Sabetta

Vicepreside

Mons. Prof. Pierluigi Sguazzardo

http://www.ecclesiamater.org/default.aspx

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2015/01/rome-vicariates-ecclesia-mater-teaches.html