The image to the left is one of a few which have emerged today of prayer and demonstration taking place in Rome (note, big Basilica in background).
Check out the story at Pray 4 the Friars and follow that blog for news of the treatment, that certainly appears to be heavy-handed, of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
The same link has the text of an official appeal from the Immaculate's Committee to His Holiness Pope Francis.
Thankfully, no teargas or rubber bullets have been used on this crowd standing up in defence of the FFI...yet!
16 comments:
A pity this wasn't more widely known beforehand. There would have been a much bigger turnout with people coming from all over, I'd guess.
“In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men... All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.” Pope St. Pius X, Discourse he pronounced on December 13, 1908 at the Beatification of Joan of Arc.
while the hierarchy occupying the big chairs in the church remain predictably mute and forseeably sitting on their hands regarding the situation with the Franciscans, Bergoglio is still remaining mute on the occupiers of Santa Maria Maggiore:
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/homeless-squatters-write-letter-to.html
It would seem fitting that he should invite them all to take up residence at Martha's House; after all this marxist disrespect for private property was his idea.
FFI like Roberto de Mattei and Bishop Fellay and other traditionalists have been wrong about Nostra Aetate being an exception to Tradition.
Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/bishop-athanasius-schneider.html#links
@catholic mission - the rabbis certianly think Nostra Aetate overturned the concensus of the Catholic Fathers:
"When Pope John XXIII convened Vatican Council II, he initiated the process that led to Nostra Aetate, which 40 years ago this year essentially dropped the charge that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Nostra Aetate accorded fundamental respect to Judaism, not only as the mother religion of Christianity, but also as an ongoing religious faith."
http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/item/nostra_aetate_20051021
"JOHN PAUL II “BLESSED” BY THE RABBIS - On January 18, John Paul II received about 160 rabbis from around the world at the Vatican. They went there to celebrate the change that Vatican II made in Catholic teaching regarding Judaism, and to pay official homage to this Pope for his support of Jews and Judaism. At the climax of the meeting, three rabbis carried out a religious ritual to “bless” the Pontiff" The Rabbis went to 'celebrate the change that Vatican II made in Catholic teaching'.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/062bev02-03-2005.htm
They see a definite contradition in their favour. But the Church doesn't contradict herself.
Yes this is the political position of the libral rabbis but why do the traditionalists have to follow them?
Why does the FFI have to do the same ?
I try and explain it here further:-
Why do you use the words 'visible' and 'invisible' ?: It is because others are using it unknown to them
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/why-do-you-use-words-visible-and.html#links
The box of mangos - 2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-box-of-mangoes-2.html#links
Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html#links
Most Catholic priests are using the irrational, right-hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/most-catholic-priests-are-using.html#links
p.s.
"For if you believe not that I am He [the Messiah, the Blood of the New Convenant, the Son of the Living God], you shall die in your sins." Jesus Christ.
"The Church officially recognises that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say, 'you lost the game, now it is our turn." Jorge Bergoglio.
Who's right? Jesus Christ or Jorge Bergoglio? [who, by the way has got it wrong when he says 'no where does it say... Scores of Popes, including St Peter, have stated plainly that Judaism (and later popes said the same of Islam) are bereft of salvific value - they do not have Christ.] Who is right?
"We are waiting for the Messiah, but in order for him to come, we have to prepare the land." Rabbi Skorka at a meeting where Jorge Bergoglio gave him an award.
"so venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." Pius XI (Why? Because non-Catholic religion and worship is 'deceit', and being a true Pope, Pius XI was not capable of leading people into sin.
If anyone has a good reason as to why that which Pius XI taught was deceit and sin isn't anymore i would be interested.
@Catholic Mission: the missing link of the hermeneutic of continuity between VII and VII is still missing - I think. "The International Theological Commission(ITC) is implying here that the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church are visible for us." Putting the 'rational/irrational' squash game aside as exampled in the links, it would appear that what VII is propsing is presumption (a sin against God's mercy) when it presumes salvation outside the Church, which, objectively and subjectively is not in agreement with the voice of the Church prior to VII. It should be noted that 'invincible ignorance' (visible or invisible) is not Catholic dogma, whereas, 'no salvation outside the Church', is and has been reiterated as part of the Ordinary Magisterium throughout Church history. If VII has attempted to make a dogmatic statement on invincible ignorance (!?!) in order to redefine extra ecclessiam nulla salus..?
oh dear - I think, either way sailing off to a balmy archipelego to find the missing link of evolutionary theory would be more enjoyable, though as fruitless, as trying to find the missing link in the hermeneutic of continuity between 0-1950sAD and 1960sAVII+
"The International Theological Commission(ITC) is implying here that the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church are visible for us."
YES!
VII is proposing is presumption (a sin against God's mercy) when it presumes salvation outside the Church, which, objectively and subjectively is not in agreement with the voice of the Church prior to VII
YES!
It should be noted that 'invincible ignorance' (visible or invisible) is not Catholic dogma, whereas, 'no salvation outside the Church', is and has been reiterated as part of the Ordinary Magisterium throughout Church history.
Whether 'invincible ignorance ' is dogma or just doctrine is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is dogma. Since these cases are objectively not known to us.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma.
If VII has attempted to make a dogmatic statement on invincible ignorance (!?!) in order to redefine extra ecclessiam nulla salus..?
No Church text prior to the 1940's hints at 'invincible ignorance' etc being VISIBLE for us.
Vatican Council II does not state it is VISIBLE for us.
Reason tells us that these cases cannot be visible for us.They are visible only for God.
So those who have inferred that they are visible for us have made a rational error.
Here is the missing link.
When you correct this error VII emerges traditional once again: as tradtional as Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
viterbo,
At the Second Vatican Council, the original draft of the 'Dogmatic Constitution of the Church' - which was tossed out by the periti - said that the Church, existing on earth as a structured society, *is* the Catholic Church. This was changed to, "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society , *subsists* in the Catholic Church."
Gregory Baum, a peritus at the Council, commented, "Instead of simply identifying the church of Christ with the Catholic Church, the Constitution rather says more carefully that the Church of Christ 'subsists in' the Catholic Church. The body of Christ is present in the Catholic Church, but, at the same time, without losing its historical and incarnate character, transcends it . . .". And the Anglican observer at V II, J Moorman, noted, "The Council has, therefore, admitted that the Church of Christ is something bigger than the Roman Catholic Church."
There you have it. The Protestant observers picked up the doctrinal change immediately. Archbishop Lefebvre, who also was at the Council, said that, "throughout the Council, there was an adamant, determined refusal to define terms with regard to the subjects under discussion, and it was this insistent refusal which made philosophical and theological discussion impossible; the result was that we were able to describe various subjects but not define them. Thus with no definitions, there was little difficulty in falsifying traditional definitions, and this was, in fact, what frequently happened. In my opinion, it is for this very reason that we are now faced with a whole system which we can neither accept nor easily refute because of its ambiguity, a system which casts aside all traditional definitions."
@Annie: "The Council has, therefore, admitted that the Church of Christ is something bigger than the Roman Catholic Church." The 'is' which they turned into 'subsists' fuelled the idea of 'full communion' and 'and partial communion' which cannot be found in the Magisterium prior to VII. I would take a guess that this 'full' and 'partial' innovation is what is at the root of Bergoglio's 'peripheries' business - the sense being that everything is 'Church' - either undiltued or slightly diluted, full or partial. Doesn't really explain his dislike of sphere's and his admiration of polyhedron's however.
“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world.”
- 1st Epistle Of Saint John 4:3
@Annie: "The Council has, therefore, admitted that the Church of Christ is something bigger than the Roman Catholic Church."
Lionel:
Annie in Ad Gentes 7 the Council says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This is also expressed in Lumen Gentium 14.
The council is affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
So we should also affirm a Vatican Council II in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If LG 8 is interpreted as saying there is salvation outside the Church, it is important to note that these cases are INVISIBLE for us. They are not VISIBLE. So they cannot be exceptions to Ad Gentes 7. There cannot be known salvation outside the Church.
Objectively there is no such case as Viterbo has observed.
There is nothing in the Council which contradicts AG 7 when you are aware of the INVISIBLE-VISIBLE distinction.
Annie:
The 'is' which they turned into 'subsists' fuelled the idea of 'full communion' and 'and partial communion' which cannot be found in the Magisterium prior to VII. I would take a guess that this 'full' and 'partial' innovation is what is at the root of Bergoglio's 'peripheries' business - the sense being that everything is 'Church' - either undiltued or slightly diluted, full or partial. Doesn't really explain his dislike of sphere's and his admiration of polyhedron's however.
Lionel:
Either way 'subsistit it' is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is the MISSING LINK we have to be aware of it when interpreting Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston and some other magisterial documents (Redemptoris Mission, Mystici Corporis etc).
June 18, 2014
'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/subsistit-itlg-8-is-not-visible.html#links
@Catholic Mission: Apparently Fr Feeney was excommunicated for denying, 'baptism by blood', and the 'baptism of desire':
"The Catholic Church never said or taught the doctrines of Fr. Feeney. The Catholic Church has universally taught and teaches that there is a baptism of blood and a baptism of desire, and that those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith are not guilty of the personal sin of infidelity in their failure to embrace the Catholic Faith."
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Anti-Feeneyite%20Catechism%201%20&%202.pdf
If invincible ignorance (surely something only 'visible' to God) excuses the "personal sin of infidelity [infidelity to the True Faith]", it doesn't impinge upon one's membership in that egalitarian club of original sin. (or for that matter do away with other personal sin).
for parts 3 and 4 of the anti-Feenyite Catechism:
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Anti-Feeneyite%20Catechism%203.pdf
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Anti-Feeneyite%20Catechism%204.pdf
Viterbo:
Catholic Mission: Apparently Fr Feeney was excommunicated for denying, 'baptism by blood', and the 'baptism of desire':
Lionel:
If the magisterium thought that the baptism of desire etc was VISIBLE and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney, then it made a MISTAKE.It was a FACTUAL ERROR. We cannot see the dead-saved for them to be exceptions.
Viterbo:
"The Catholic Church never said or taught the doctrines of Fr. Feeney. The Catholic Church has universally taught and teaches that there is a baptism of blood and a baptism of desire,
Lionel:
Yes the Catholic Church has taught it. We accept this.
The Catholic Church however does not teach that the baptism of desire is VISIBLE to us.This has to be inferred wrongly.
So we can accept a baptism of desire which is implicit for us and so is not an exception or relevant to the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Viterbo:
and that those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Faith are not guilty of the personal sin of infidelity in their failure to embrace the Catholic Faith."
Lionel:
We can accept that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance ( LG 16) but do not have to claim that this case is VISIBLE for us.
The Church doesn't ask this of us.
Viterbo:
If invincible ignorance (surely something only 'visible' to God) excuses the "personal sin of infidelity [infidelity to the True Faith]", it doesn't impinge upon one's membership in that egalitarian club of original sin. (or for that matter do away with other personal sin).
Lionel:
Being saved in invincible ignorance is visible only to God, as you say. So it is a non issue.
It has nothing to do with the salvation dogma.
Likewise NA 2, LG 16, LG 8, UR etc are not exceptions to Tradition.
Post a Comment