800,000 In Procession

Manila (AsiaNews) – More than 800,000 Catholics flocked to the streets of central Manila this morning to take part in the traditional procession of the Black Nazarene, a century-old wooden statue of Christ. Every year, the translation of the sacred sculpture from its original site – the church of St. Nicholas from Tolentino – to the parish of Quiapo concludes a novena (December 31-January 9) and sees the participation of millions of faithful gathered in prayer, to ask a personal grace or miracle.

In the Philippines, over 82% of the 105 million people are Catholics. Among the celebrations of a religious nature, the procession of the “Black Nazarene” is one of the most famous and popular. The statue of the Black Nazarene represents Jesus bent under the weight of the Cross. It was brought to Manila by an Augustinian Spanish priest in 1607 on board a ship from Mexico. According to tradition, the boat caught fire during the journey, but the image of Christ miraculously escaped the fire taking on the black color. The procession recalls the first movement of the statue, which took place on January 9th 1767.

https://spiritdailyblog.com/news/800000-in-procession

Manila, 800 thousand Catholics on the way to the Black Nazarene

   

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Manila,-800-thousand-Catholics-on-the-way-to-the-Black-Nazarene-45922.html

Brother Andre Marie MICM affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus based on Vatican Council II : query from the CDF

Brother Andre Marie MICM ,Prior at the St.Benedict Center has informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus based upon Vatican Council II(Ad Gentes 7), Dominus Iesus (20) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 etc).In an excellent response he has not denied the  possibility of salvation in hypothetical cases of invincible ignorance etc, whch would be known only to God.So invincible ignorance etc are not defacto, objective exceptions to the Church's perennial teaching on salvation.

He has not rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither Vatican Council II.Instead the Council in Ad Gentes 7, for him, supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries.

So he affirms the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church expressed in Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally, which has a continuity with the past popes and Church Councils on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

He has supported dialogue with other religions while affirming the necessity of membership in the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation.

While accepting that salvation is open to all in potential, Jesus has died for all, he affirms that for this salvation all need to enter the Church; the Church is necessary for salvation( Dominus Iesus 20 etc).

He has acknowledged that physically and personally it is not possible for any of us humans to judge a particular non Catholic as being saved or about to be saved in invincible ignorance. This can only be known to God.

So the norm for salvation for him is Vatican Council II (AG 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.It is the Conciliar Church which supports defacto exclusive salvation in the Church(AG 7).While it is a fact of life that there can be no defacto exceptions, in personal cases, of  invincible ignorance etc.

So for him all need to enter the Church for salvation (AG 7), those who know and those who do not know(LG 14) while acknowledging that if anyone is saved in invincibe ignorance(LG 16) as a possibility, it would not be an exception to AG 7.Since obviously a theoretical possibility is not a concrete case in the present times(2019).

Brother Andre Marie was responding to a written query from Bishop Giacomo Morandi,Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It may be mentioned that Brother Andre Marie has opened up a new precedent for Catholics all over the world. He has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was interpreted over the centuries, by citing Vatican Council II (AG 7).He has also interpreted LG 16 etc as referring to a hypothetical possibility only. So LG 16 is not a practical exception to EENS as it was known to the Magisterium in the 16th century.Neither is it an exception to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7.

He has not denied hypothetical cases of invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc and nor has he denied the practical norm for salvation being faith and baptism for all people (AG 7).So he supports Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc) and also the Conciliar Church.

He has acknowledged the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) referenced in Vatican Council II(LG 16) and interpreted invincible ignorance, rationally.So his conclusion is that present- day magisterial documents do not contradict those of the past  on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There is a coherence.His principal document of support, is Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

Letter Explaining Saint Benedict Center’s Doctrinal Stance

https://df9ixb8c8gy4m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2019/01/20170307-Letter.pdf

Press Release: January 10, 2019 Response to Media Inquiries    https://catholicism.org/press-release-january-10-2019-response-to-media-inquiries.html

Michael and Peter Dimond have mixed up what is invisible as being visible and this error is there in their book : the same error is made by them on Vatican Council II

From the Holy Family Monastery website

HOW CAN BAPTISM OF DESIRE BE CONTRARY TO DOGMA WHEN...

OBJECTION- How can baptism of desire be contrary to dogma when a saint such as St. Alphonsus believed in it after the Council of Trent?  That would make him a heretic, which is impossible since he is a canonized saint.

ANSWER- First, the key to heresy is obstinacy/pertinacity. 

Lionel : Michael and Peter Dimond  assume that the baptism of desire(BOD) refers to a known person, someone visible. So when St.Alphonsus or St.Thomas Aquinas or the Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire( 'the desire therof') Michael and Peter Dimond posit it as an exception to EENS.

So for them St. Alphonsus would be in heresy, persisting in error.

They know that to assume that the baptism of desire is an exception or relevant to EENS is an error. They now know that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire in 2018-2019.However if they discuss this it would mean that they would have to change their position on Vatican Council II.

This would be too radical for them, too much to expect from them.

They make the same error in their interpretation of Vatican Council II. So the Council is now a rupture with Tradition for them.

They have mixed up what is invisible as being visible and this error is there in their book from which this quotation is taken.
So they do not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS since they would have to admit that they made a mistake and now have to accept the Council.
Meanwhile Fr.Dwight Longenecker, Peter Kwaskniewki and Steve Skojec do not want to admit the same error as Peter and Michael Dimond since then they would have to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.

-Lionel Andrades

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation/?utm_source=HPP&utm_medium=button&utm_campaign=Homepage#.XDdOOtbSI5k

Lefebvrists still at it

Peter Scott the former District Superior of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) asked that the members of the St. Benedict Centers, the Feeneyites, be ostracized at SSPX chapels. Since for him invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Then Fr. Anthony Cekada says that unknown cases of the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma EENS and since the 'Feeneyites' do not accept it they are in mortal sin. So for him, like it was for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, unknown cases of the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2019.

Similarly Bishop Fellay says unknown cases of UR 3, LG 16, etc in Vatican Council II are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For him BOD, BOB and I.I are also exceptions to EENS.Since this was how Archbishop Lefebvre understood it.

So Fr.Brian Harrison and Dr.Joseph Shaw will not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.Neither will Peter Kwasniewski and Steve Skojec deny that they support heresy and sacrilege.They are as politically correct with the leftists and liberals as the other Lefebvrists.

-Lionel Andrades

Michael and Peter Dimond referring to heresy is different from me

When Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Hospital(MHFM) correctly affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) they would be criticized by Jim Likoudis,Bill Donohue and others  as being sedevacantists who are are at odds  with Vatican Council II.The MHFM would be told that Vatican Council II contradicts EENS.They are told that  BOD, BOB and I.I 1   are exceptions.

Michael and Peter could do nothing.Since they also wrongly believe that  Vatican Council II is a rupture  with EENS.
 

They would continue to call people heretics while they reject Vatican Council II, the past catechisms and the popes with an irrationality.

But with me it is different.

For me Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS and I affirm Feeneyite Vatican Council II. I am also not a sedevacantist.Yet  I too affirm the strict interpret of EENS like Michael and Peter Dimond.

So I am Feeneyite on EENS and do not reject Vatican Council II. I affirm only an ecumenism of return and am in agreement with Unitatitis Redintigratio.

I affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King which for me is not contradicted by Dignitiatis Redintigratio ,Vatican Council II.

I see the need for traditional Mission  since Vatican Council II (AG 7) says,for me,  all non Catholics need faith and baptism.It indicates that most people on earth go to Hell, since they die outside the Church without faith and baptism.

So when I say that the popes, cardinals and bishops are in heresy I am doing so as a Catholic who does not reject Vatican Council II or the traditional interpretation of EENS. I am not a sedevacantist or a traditionalist who rejectd the Council since they they interpret it irrationally.-Lionel Andrades 



1
BOD(baptism of desire), BOB( baptism of blood), I.I ( invincible ignorance) 

November 30, 2018

Peter and Michael Dimond : the scandal must be ended before they receive the Eucharist at Holy Mass in Latin. (Graphics

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/image-result-for-photos-of-most-holy.html