To be filed under 'increasingly irritating'.
"I would now like to turn to my native tongue to express feelings of profound sorrow. Today I read about the execution of those twenty-one or twenty-two Coptic Christians. Their only words were: 'Jesus, help me!' They were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians. You, my brother, in your words referred to what is happening in the land of Jesus. The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard. It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ. As we recall these brothers and sisters who died only because they confessed Christ, I ask that we encourage each another to go forward with this ecumenism which is giving us strength, the ecumenism of blood. The martyrs belong to all Christians." ~ Pope Francis
I agree with anyone who calls these valiant men martyrs for Jesus Christ. However, I do not think that the heroic deaths of these Coptic Christians, who died with the name of Jesus on their lips, should be exploited by anyone for any agenda whatsoever. It is wrong to shamelessly advance in the name of your own projects men's real sacrifices to further your agenda, namely, in this case - ecumenism. Cannot Churchmen just honour the lives and heroic deaths of these men and acknowledge that they didn't die for ecumenism. It is tasteless to hijack people's deaths for your own agenda and then announce it to be the 'ecumenism of blood'. They died for Jesus Christ. Their obvious martyrdom, their shining witness stands well enough for what it is. They didn't die for Vatican II projects of closer ecclesial relationships or any ecclesial project. They died for Jesus Christ.
66 comments:
bravo, Mr Bones
Agreed. God bless!
How does one get from the murderous persecution of Christians to "ecumenism"? Our Lord didn't become Man, suffer His Passion and Die and Rise again for ecumenism but for each person to convert, be baptised and hold to the One True Faith He gave us, by means of The Church He established for our salvation.
they also died, as did the Jews in Paris and Copenhagen, because Islam is directed by its prophet to destroy to bring about the Caliphate.
Martyrdom is surely the supreme act of witness to Christ. Have you not heard of Baptism of Blood?
Spot on! Thank you Bones. Sick of hearing this tripe.
Spot on, Bones!
Of course he's exploiting the beheadings for his ecumenical agenda. He's a POLITICIAN and a damn good one!
Seattle kim
Yes, absolutely. The Pope's response is shameful.
This popes statement is shameless...sadly Ive come to expect nothing less.
I cringed when I read "ecumenism of blood". You're right!!!
All events must serve the idol of ecumania. It is a madness and an idolatry. Sickening. Truly sickening.
So, ecumenism is no longer a stated aim of the Church, then. Must have missed that.
It's as if Vatican II and Unitatis Redintegratio never happened. Which,of course,is exactly what you wish, with your own made-up version of what you think the Catholic Faith consists in.
The aim of the Church is the salvation of souls.
Ecumenism is a project, laudable as it may be.
Its not the primary aim of the Church.
I'm just saying its wrong to use the deaths of these martyrs to promote your agenda because they didn't die for that agenda at all.
Ecumenism- properly understood- has been a major aim of the Church for a very long time. A good example, prior to Vatican 2, was the Council of Ferrara-Florence in the fifteenth century which sought to end the Greek Schism. If Pope Francis can be said to "have an agenda" here then he is in good company with many of his predecessors who sought to respond to our blessed Lord's prayer "that they all be one". Please try to avoid confusing true- and false ecumenism. There is an important distinction here of which Blessed Paul VI was very much aware at the time of the canonisation of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales.
Pope Francis has made it clear he does not want people to end their schism or heresy, or paganism, etc.
Patricius,
If only the earlier sense of ecumenism was still alive and well, but Mr. Bones is not wrong to ignore the distinction you and perhaps I would like to make because the reality is that in the Church today that earlier form doesn't exist any longer.
We must examine the fruits of the actual practice of the past 45 years and it has been a miserable failure. We diluted our Mass for Protestants, and less come into the Church today than they did before Vat II - and many of them were due to the evangelization of Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.
For every person who converts to the Catholic Church in America today, four leave. And of those who do enter the Church, 50-70% are gone before one year has elapsed.
Christianity (the Catholic Church) spread as it did over the first thousand years because bishops were solid and unafraid, and correctly warned the faithful to stay away from heretics and apostates. There was no attempt at "bridge-building" and other liberal niceties.
Ecumenism as you conceive it is dead. Ecumenism as conceived and practiced by the progressive forces in the Church has devastated Her.
Thanks all the same, but the answer is still no.
In the immortal words of another great progressive, " never let a crisis go to waste". They cannot help themselves, it is always about the agenda.
I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13). [St John Paul II,Ut Unum Sint n.84] What greater living of this teaching on ecumenism are we going to see than the martyrdom of our Coptic brothers?
Bravo, Mr. Bones! God bless you.
If ISIS had shouted "Ecumenism Akbar" then Pope Francis would be correct and the Coptic Christians were beheaded because they hadn't dialogued enough with their captors.
ISIS, however, shouted "Allah Akbar" and beheaded those poor men for being "those of the cross" i.e. followers of Jesus Christ.
It makes it tough for me as an American to wonder who is worse: Pope Francis for thinking that we need to find common ground with jihadists or President Obama for saying Islamists need more jobs, housing, and educational opportunities.
Totally agree! That was so off-putting to read what the Pope had to say. Not at all surprising, though.
A nauseating comment, yes. The Vatican had better wake up given that ISIS is only a couple hundred miles away. And they've infiltrated via Lampedusa. Bergoglio is too drunk on Vatican II and the supposed "right" of muslims to walk into foreign countries that he can't see it.
I have had a good look at the picture, at the individuals, something I should have done already.
These men are truly martyrs for Christ.
They are in Heaven.
But what the Holy Father is pursuing is absolutely false ecumenism, is it not Patricius?
What the Church pursues since VII in the name of ecumenism is indifferentism, even synchretism.
Bergoglio's words, as usual, are an affront the the faith.
You're wagging your finger in the wrong direction.
Patricius, that self-same Ecumenical Council also infallibly taught the following:
"It (the sacrosanct Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, EVEN IF HE HAS SHED BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
From the Decree for the Greeks, promulgated by the Papal Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV.
Would this fit into your category of "true ecumenism" or "false ecumenism"?
Agree. Exactly who benefits from the acts of the beheaders/terrorists? Falsehood - if one is a Novus Ordo 'pope'. These men are now a banner for Bergoglio-ism's doctrine of false ecumenism and the continued promotion of false 'faith communities (as the Protestants prefer the 'churches' to be known)', who continue in error without the 'benefit' of blood baptism or an incarnate visible Pope teaching the True Faith and its absolute necessity. Bergoglio's doctrines of error-sublating-truth seem to have no boundaries whatsoever.
PS. Patricius, Bergoglio clearly has no intention of 'ending' schisms (unless it is subsuming the SSPX into the Novus Ordo mess) or encouraging anyone to convert to the True Faith. The ecumenism you brought up is pretty much the opposite of Bergoglio's. He teaches the unnecessity of doctrine, the unnecessity of Apostolic succession, the unnecessity of conversion - 'there is no Catholic God' therefore there is no True God, just some God of all relativeness, not needing to be heeded; no need to convert to the Church He founded which is the purpose of authentic ecumenism.
PPS. Re: the ecumenism of the council of Florence:
[This council] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
(Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino)
Very well said, Mr. Bones!!... This 'Holy Father' needs many, many prayers, I really believe so. Thanks very much for your post.
You really are just distorting the pope's statement here. I know it plays well to your galley of heretics who stop following Peter the second Peter doesn't look like them, but bearing false witness is a sin.
The Holy Father did NOT say they died for ecumenism. He says, quite clearly, "They were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians." He goes on to say "It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians!" and says they are martyrs, whether or not they were Catholics.
What would you say? They're not Catholic, so can we recognise them as martyrs? Put up or shut up. Tell us what you would have said.
You blame the Holy Father for not speaking out about crimes against Christendom in the Middle East, then when he does speak out about it you blame him for having the temerity to acknowledge that the victims were not Catholics.
Modern orthodoxy: radically heretical schismatic stupidity that finds it acceptable to consistently slander Peter.
The dissolution of CC began in the early fifties and Pius XII knew it, Bugnini was a man of his, then came vat2 with the Rhine stream and after a swift running to the empty, the results are these times we are living in, also in Europe mln. people left churches, proddies, catholic, and there's nothing doing now but praying.....12 were at the beginning, let's trust in God's power, popes, bishops, cardinals, come and go, like laymen, only Christ is forever. Have a good Lent, repent, fast, and pray.God bless+
I didn't say the HF said they died for ecumenism.
I said the death of the these men was hijacked by the Pope to promote his ecumenical agenda.
This is exactly what he did and it is not the first time he has used the phrase 'ecumenism of blood'.
It's using the blood of the martyrs to promote ecumenism. I think that stinks, and I'm not the only one who thinks it stinks.
Huzzah, Bones! You said: "It's using the blood of the martyrs to promote ecumenism. I think that stinks, and I'm not the only one who thinks it stinks." So true.
Lots of Anonymice scurrying about here of late. Shall we put a bell on the cat?
Anon, or Mark Shea if that's you, nothing of his statement was "distorted." Bringing up ecumenism in the context of islamic freaks decapitating Christians was utterly bizarre, and one of long string of bizarre statements from this man. We are all tired of it.
There are many ways other than at the hands of ISIS to die a martyr's death, including 'dry martyrdom', i.e. Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty, St. (Padre) Pio, Asia Bibi, and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
There are untold numbers of unborn children cut to pieces by abortionists every day and yet we are cautioned by FrancISIS, Bishop of Rome,not over-stress this issue.
FrancISIS is unwilling to call out radical Islam by name much as he is unable to speak out against homosexual behaviour, etc.
I could go on with this vein of thought, but suffice it to say that there are any number of forms of theological violence perpetrated by 'terrorists'these days the chief distinction being that some do not parade their victims before the cameras for shock effect.
There is some deep evil at work here and I feel that FrancISIS is a blind facilitator of it.
Pray much for the Pope.
Liam: no need for a bell. here's how you can tell it's one of us.... the comment doesn't come from the same ten people and doesn't slander the Holy Father.
Look, the HF's hands were tied. He was raising the martyrdom of Christian brothers in public. Good on him for doing so. He was also speaking as the head of the Catholic Church. He is successor to Peter and, whether you like it or not, the head of your Church.
He was commenting on the deaths of non-Catholics. Ecumenism is a therefore a necessary topic, otherwise he'd be obliged to speak about every single massacre on the world. The point he was making was simply that when Christians are slaughtered (blood) we are reminded that they are our brothers (ecumenism). Like I say, feel free to draft an alternative response that points out Christians were slaughtered while acknowledging that they were not part of Our Church.
Or just spend the next 20 years moaning about a holy man who you don't like because he doesn't wear red shoes. Whatever. It will pass the time until you get to Hell for heresy and schism.
Dear whichever 'Anonymouse' you may be, you said:
"It will pass the time until you get to Hell for heresy and schism."
'Hell'? 'Heresy'? 'Schism'? Better check with Eugenio Scalfari and the Bishop of Rome before you start tossing such out of vogue terms around.
By the way, the 1st anniversary of Mario Palmaro's death occurs on March 9. I thought you might be acquainted with his work and his writings and would like to know.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/mario-palmaros-last-interview-message.html
From Mary
I intend to defend the Church and her teachings over the person sitting in as Bishop of Rome. Many people defending Pope Francis defend him, a person, rather than the teachings of the Church. How does the ecumenism proposed by Pope Francis fit into the concept of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that we profess at every mass? Does Pope Francis see ecumenism that way or does he see it as a loose association of Christians that identify with Christ but don't get too wrapped up in the details of professing Christ?
Oh yes we have Mark Shea with us. How can I tell? Because he threatens us with "hell" for voicing any criticism of the pope.
They seek him here. They seek him there. Is he in Heaven or is he in Hell, that damned elusive Pimpernel, aka Mark Shea. I see it's no longer Reds under the Bed but Mark Shea.
Incidentally, it says above this box, "Anonymous comments will not be displayed."
I recommend that for Lent, people give up criticising other Catholics. You'll feel better for it.
Could be Michael Voris. He won't touch the pope either.
Mark Shea recently spoke at my parish.
Seattle kim
Highland Cathedral recommends 'feeling better' by forgoing 'criticising other "catholics" during lent'. It might be helpful to have a definition of uncronstructive critism as opposed to constructive criticism (the vigorous constructive kind being a long-standing aspect of authentic Catholic tuition); but at least as important, a definition of who is a 'Catholic'; will it agree with the definition given us by the Church before Bergoglio called the late Mr Palmer a 'brother bishop' - or indeed before Roncalli's (J23) Encyclical, 'Pacem et Terris' - a neo-communist tract lauded by Freemasons? What is a Catholic? One who adheres to Christ and His Apostolic Bride, or one who doesn't?
PS. What shall we do throughout Lent (apart from craving the natural over the spiritual)? Learning the authentic Faith might be a start. Fast from VII. A challenge - fast from every narrative called 'Catholic' post Pacem et Terris for the next 38 days. Perhaps, everything "Catholic" before J23's encyclical, 'Pacem et Terris' (Lent 1963) is a good Lenten meal. The rest are like joining in Zwingli's 'affair of the sausages'.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
http://www.novusordowatch.org/ecumenism.htm
Viterbo's quote from the Council of Florence is interesting. But Pope Paul VI's motu proprio "Credo of the People of God" states that " the divine design of salvation embraces all men; and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation".
Or is Pope Paul one of the Holy Fathers you don't recognise?
Patricius said...
Martyrdom is surely the supreme act of witness to Christ. Have you not heard of Baptism of Blood?
Lionel:
Baptism of Blood in the Catholic Church.
For Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Louie Verrecchio and Robert Sungenis the Church's teaching on marriage, the family and salvation has changed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/for-bishop-robert-c-morlino-louie.html
Deacon Augustine:
Would you say that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the need for Christians to convert to avoid Hell ?
Did the Holy Office 1949 make an objective mistake?
February 18, 2015
Louie Verrecchio's wife is not Catholic, he interprets the dogma on exclusive salvation with an irrational premise and so it is not a sin for him
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/louie-verrecchios-wife-is-not-catholic.html
Anon says:
"Or just spend the next 20 years moaning about a holy man who you don't like because he doesn't wear red shoes. "
Doesn't this comment precisely confirm the point that Lawrence was trying to make: that the Holy Father is happy to hijack contemporary news stories about "martyrs" when it suits his wider masonic agenda, but won't even deign to wear a type of shoe that would daily witness to the whole phalanx of those that have died for the faith?
Hello Anthony Maunday. If Montini is teaching something that rejects that which was laid out clearly by the Holy See already then we all have to 'recognise' Montini's contribution as nothing other than his personal opinion, and a bad one at that. If it contradicts the Holy See, the one Voice of Faith that went before, then it is not a teaching of the Holy See.
Happily with current access to a great deal of historical Catholic Majesterial sources such as papal encyclicals, decrees, approved Catechisms and approved theological manuals that preceded the 1960s revolution (before the death of Pius XII) we can 'compare and contrast' and reach the logical and reasonable conclusion that Roncalli introduced a Revolt against the Church from within the Church. He made novelty a 'catholic' practice a remit carried on by his successors in the faith of modernism. VII introduced heresies such as 'partial communion', it is the Council of the New Order or Novus Ordo, with new doctrines, disciplines and worship all of which were informed by the enemies of the True Faith. These novelties which were applauded by the Communist, Jewish, Freemasonic and Protestant leaders that helped construct then, and ultimately have no foundation in authentic Catholic teaching, yet they are what the majority now accept as Catholic, hardly realising that it is in stark contrast to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the True path of salvation she has safeguarded and handed on for two millennia.
Here's a good article on 'continuity or contradiction': http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2013/features_feb13.html
Viterbo's quote from the Council of Florence is interesting. But Pope Paul VI's motu proprio "Credo of the People of God" states that " the divine design of salvation embraces all men; and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation".
Lionel:
The dogma says all need to enter the Church formally to avoid Hell. So all in 2015 need to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and we do not know any one in 2015 who ' without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience'and will be saved.(LG 16). To imply that these cases are exceptions to the dogma is falling into the Cardinal Marchetti irrational error of 1949.It is also inferring that this category of people in Heaven are present on earth to be exceptions to the dogma.
Since we do no know these cases, they being known only to God when they exist, they are not explicit exceptions to 'all' needing 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) for salvation. LG 16 does not contradict AG 7 nor the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For the pope there would be a contradiction since his theology is based on Marchetti's Irrational Inference.
Without the Marchetti inference, the wrong supposition, Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the strict interpretation, the Feeneyite version.
they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation".
The Coptic Church is not in communion with Rome. I think the Pope was possibly just emphasising the fact that you do not have to be a Christian in communion with Rome to be a martyr. Otherwise you might have people saying that they were not martyrs because they were not Catholics.
Viterbo, because you don’t know by name of any particular soul (I mean, no-one has returned from the dead to give you the heads-up) who has benefitted from God’s mercy in this way, you suggest that this class of persons does not “explicitly” exist. Well, yes it does, Lumen Gentium 16 (which you cite) clearly says so: men who are in ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own but “attempt to put into practice the recognition of [God’s] will that they have reached through the dictate of conscience….. can attain everlasting salvation”. It would be ridiculous for the Church to describe a category of persons and then for no-one to fit into that category.
Baptism is the normal way into the Church but God is not bound by the sacraments and indeed the Church has always recognised, for example, the baptism of desire of catechumens and of course the baptism of blood referred to in this blogpost.
Anthony:
because you don’t know by name of any particular soul (I mean, no-one has returned from the dead to give you the heads-up)
Lionel:
We do not know of any soul who has been saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in 2015.Agreed? So there are no known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching. All need faith and baptism (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ) for salvation. All need to be formal members of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).So if we are aware that there are no known exceptions in the present times, then the Catholic Church teaches, before and after Vatican Council II, that all Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need to convert formally, into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
_______________________________
who has benefitted from God’s mercy in this way, you suggest that this class of persons does not “explicitly” exist.
Lionel:
It is possibile that this class of people exists and are known to God.However they are not known to us. So this class of people must not be considered exceptions to the dogma.
We can accept being saved in invincible ignorance. However we cannot infer that these cases are defacto, known explicitly in 2015.Then we must not conclude that these invisible for us cases are exceptions to the dogma.
________________________
Well, yes it does, Lumen Gentium 16 (which you cite) clearly says so: men who are in ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own but “attempt to put into practice the recognition of [God’s] will that they have reached through the dictate of conscience….. can attain everlasting salvation”.
Lionel:
Yes they can as possibilities for us and known cases only for God.For us LG 16 is acceptable as a hypothetical case. A hypothetical case cannot be an explicit exception in 2015 to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
LG 16 is not an exceptions to AG 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
_____________________
It would be ridiculous for the Church to describe a category of persons and then for no-one to fit into that category.
Lionel:
The Church mentions this category of people. Before 1949 it did not say that this category of people were personally and explicitly known to us, for them to be exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water in the present times for salvation.
______________________________
Baptism is the normal way into the Church
Lionel:
Yes baptism is the normal way into the Church since God has bound salvation to the Sacraments. This is the de fide teaching before and after Vatcan Council II.
_____________________________
but God is not bound by the sacraments
Lionel:
This error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 comes from the factual mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
________________________________
and indeed the Church has always recognised, for example, the baptism of desire of catechumens and of course the baptism of blood referred to in this blogpost.
Lionel:
Yes and before 1949 the Church has not stated that these cases are personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.Mystici Corporis, the Council of Trent etc only mention these cases. They do not state that they are exceptions to the dogma.
__________________________________
Lionel, you maintain (if I understand correctly) that exceptions to the “extra ecclesiam” dogma are only theoretical. But para 1259 of the 1993 Catechism of the Church states: “For catechumens who die before their baptism, their explicit desire…. [to receive baptism]…. assures them the salvation they were not able to receive through the sacrament”. Now, we know for a fact that there have been many such people…. So we know for a fact that they are in Heaven, hence they are definite, concrete exceptions to “extra ecclesiam”.
But…. You think the Catechism is in error(!). Also, I looked up your Fr Feeney……. He was excommunicated.
We may all rest assured that the 21 Coptic victims died to justify the majority of the prissy, fiddling opinions expressed above, including in the main piece. I am sure that this sort of fastidious debate is exactly what went through their minds as the knives touched their throats.
Never mind, we will have preserved our theological and liturgical purity in the face of it all because that is what the Real Faith is all about.
Disgraceful.
It is odd ISIS doesn't get it that these Copts are the true Egyptians and they and just victims of the Arab invasion and occupation of Egypt in the 6th Century. The violent, murderous, rapist, vile acts are what Mohamed did and what Arabs did so as to conquer others. We must obliterate ISIS and throw their ashes to the wind!
Congratulations on the site which Laura, a contributor of The Wild Voice, just pointed me to. But as glad as I am to see the work being produced by Mr. Bones, I am saddened to witness the harsh words of 'doctrinal nonsense' written by some deceived people.
Brothers and sisters: who is more important between God(and His Holy Word) and a Masonic-infiltrated 'Catholic clergy' who is about to submit to the dark humanistic doctrine of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
Not only have Francis' heresies been countless since that "good evening" on March 13 2013, but it was exactly on that day that he was illegitimately voted as "pope". The non-canonical election broke Vatican voting regulations by allowing
the conclave to hold one extra ballot (the fifth of the day), therefore breaking the limit of FOUR voting turns allowed within a period of 24 hours. This has been proven and never confronted with by the "Katholik Gestapo".
Please read Antonio Socci's book "Non E' Francesco" (He Is Not Francis) to finally understand the truth.
The last true Pope is Joseph Ratzinger who was tragically ousted by the same secret sects responsible for the raise of false prophet Jorge M. Bergoglio.
Needless to say that the events are unfolding just as prophecy stated: Satan comes into the Temple of God, and Christ will not find faith among "His" people.
You must wake up before it's too late. Can't you see that his teachings are just as false as his humility?
Do you not recognize the works of the devil in the doctrinal changes he desires to introduce?
The Freemasons, his TRUE fraternity, have pushed Benedict XVI out of his place to force this Rotary Club member onto the Chair of Peter. Welcome to the 'kingdom of the False Prophet' whose name is
JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO.
May the Lord Jesus Christ enlighten all through the splendor of the Truth +++
God Bless you all.
www.thewildvoice.org
Ante el nuevo dicho de Kasper sobre Lutero, les dejo este link que incluye una Conferencia sobre Lutero del P. Alfredo Sáenz: http://la-verdad-sin-rodeos.blogspot.com.ar/2015/02/lutero-y-la-iglesia-lutero-segun-lutero.html
Hello Anthony. Feenyism is the current that denied Baptisms of Desire and Baptisms of Blood. What you are referring to, in citing LG, is its attempt at representing 'invincible ignorance' - which no one but God can know in any individual circumstance. Bergoglio, putting God aside, has claimed, for his own reasons, those brutally murdered by the 'cream of Islam.' Let's not forget that Bergoglio seriously put Catholic Traditionalists on a level with Islamic fundamentalists in his teachings on the 'Abrahamic faiths'.
"The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved" (Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio, citing Pope St. Gregory the Great).
PS. I really really wish more 'Catholics' were the slightest bit interested in the Church, Eternal Rome, rather than, the Rome that is because I'm alive.
Beautifully put, Anthony. Some common sense at last! Well said.
Anthony:
Lionel, you maintain (if I understand correctly) that exceptions to the “extra ecclesiam” dogma are only theoretical.
Lionel:
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are possibities known only to God and can only be hypothetical for us. Since they are theoretical possibilities, they cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation in 2015.
_________________________________
But para 1259 of the 1993 Catechism of the Church states: “For catechumens who die before their baptism, their explicit desire…. [to receive baptism]…. assures them the salvation they were not able to receive through the sacrament”.
Lionel:
This is based on the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti error in 1949. He assumed that there was salvation outside the Church, and that there were persons saved without the baptism of water.He did not know of any such case personally, and no magisterial document before 1949 makes this claim.Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent only refer to these hypothetical cases. They do not say that they are personally known to us or can be personally known to us and so are explicit exceptions to the dogma.
This error was accepted by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston and the confusing lines on being saved in invincible ignorance ( inculpable ignorance) and with implicit desire were inserted in Vatican Council II (AG 14,AG 7).
_______________________________
Now, we know for a fact that there have been many such people….
Lionel:
No we don't know for a fact if God may have saved a person with the baptism of desire or blood followed by the baptism of water, before or after, physical death. This is known only to God.We do not know for example,if St.Emerentiana for instance, received the baptism of water before death. The saints including St. Francis Xavier tell us that some people have returned from the dead only to be baptised with water. We do not know if this happened to her.This would be known for a fact only by God.
__________________________________
So we know for a fact that they are in Heaven, hence they are definite, concrete exceptions to “extra ecclesiam”.
Lionel:
If someone is deceased then that person cannot be seen on earth for him to be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The person who is saved in Heaven is not visible to us on earth.So he cannot be relevant to the dogma which says all need to be formal members of the Church for salvation. Non existent persons in our reality, cannot be defacto exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
This was the original mistake of Cardinal Marchetti.
__________________________________
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
But…. You think the Catechism is in error(!).
Lionel:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and it ALSO SAYs God is not limited to the Sacraments. In other words for salvation all need the baptism of water but some do not need it . This is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. In the first part of the Letter the dogma is affirmed as it was known for centuries i.e without exeptions. In the second part of the Letter, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are assumed to be explicit for us in real life, and so are exceptions to the dogma, as mentioned in the first part of the Letter.
So the Magisterium has made an objective mistake. How can deceased people be defacto exceptions to the dogma ?
_____________________________
Also, I looked up your Fr Feeney……. He was excommunicated.
Lionel:
Yes he was excommunicated. He said there is no salvation outside the Church and they wanted him to say that they could see ghosts who were living examples of salvation outside the Church! He refused to do it.
There were also four Catholic professors at Boston College who also could not say that they could see the visible-dead exceptions. They were expelled by the Jesuits.
___________________________
The loonies really have taken over the asylum this time.
No more reading blogs for me now, until Easter, as a Lenten discipline. And for my sanity.
AnthonyMunday
The loony theology says that the baptism of desire is an exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It also says that LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an excception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The loony theology implies that these persons, though in reality in Heaven, are visible exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The deceased are exceptions to all needing the bhaptism of water on earth!
This is standard theology in the Catholic Church after 1949.
It comes with the irrational inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.
I usually refer to it as fantasy theology.
Fr.Leonard Feeney had to put up with it during his time.It has now ossified among the Jesuits and the rest of the Church.
Let me define my terms.
Lionel:
what premise ?
The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".
______________________
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
_______________________
what Tradition?
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and false conclusion this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the batism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
_________________
"It is tasteless to hijack people's deaths for your own agenda and then announce it to be the 'ecumenism of blood'."
It was this specific and telling point that you put forward, Bones, with which I heartily agree.
To my mind some of the discussion which followed (as discussions will do) diverted from what I took to be your most compelling point.
Who gets to heaven (pray God I may be there) is God's decision. I think the most strained arguments that have developed here are those which sound remarkably like:
"...We are of Abraham’s breed, nobody ever enslaved us yet..." John 8:33
Pray for the conversion of all men every day. Pray the rosary.
After showing the children Hell, Mary expressly asked for the Fatima prayer to be recited.
She said, "Each time you say the Rosary, My children, say after each decade:
‘O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead ALL SOULS to Heaven, especially those most in need'." (Emphasis added)
This prayer taught to the children by the Blessed Mother herself, asks us to pray for 'all' to be lead to heaven.
Therefore, I'm guessing that our prayers can make the difference of whether or not some unbaptised non-Christian in the back of beyond might still gain heaven through the Grace of God and our constant intercessory prayer.
These prayers the Blessed Mother asks of us is truly a powerful form of evangelization.
I seriously doubt our Christian martyrs spoke those words that liar, heretic pope claimed. Yes, I sy heretic and heresey in relation to the pope
Post a Comment