Saturday, March 15, 2014

Roberto de Mattei's interpretation of Vatican Council II is non controversial at the European University, Rome

Roberto de Mattei teaches Church History at the European University of Rome, where he is the head of the Faculty of Historical Sciences.

The Rector Grande of the European University of Rome is Fr. Luca Gallizia, L.C.How will Prof. Roberto dei Mattei be able to say that Lumen Gentium 16 etc are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities in Vatican Council II ? This would contradict the Left.
The Dean of Philosophy Fr.Rafael Pascual L.C, at the sister university, the Regina Apostolurum has in public affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .Other priest-professors may not be willing to do so.They include Fr.Michael Ryan L.C the new chaplain and Fr. Edward McNamara LC, the Dean of Theology.,UPRA.
Will Roberto de Mattei be able to say that : when  Lumen Gentium 16 is explicit and visible to us, only then, does Vatican Council II contradict Tradition? Without the premise of being able to see the dead-saved, Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation.It is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to St.Robert Bellarmine, St.Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas and other saints.Can the university say that Vatican Council II is pro-Bellarmine?
This would mean the head of the Faculty of Historical Sciences at this Legionaries of Christ university in Rome maintains that all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. All Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians need Catholic Faith which includes the Sacraments.There are no exceptions in 2014.He would also be saying that the majority of people are oriented to Hell since they have died without converting into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'.This is the teaching of Vatican Council II and not a personal view.In Heaven there are only those saved who are without mortal sin and and have Catholic Faith, which includes the Sacrament of Baptism.
This would contradict the teachingsat the University Pontifical Regina Apostolurum (UPRA), housed in the same university premises as the European University of Rome. It would contradict UPRA 's teaching on Ecumenism and Inter religious dialogue.(1) They do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither do they say Vatican Council II supports exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So Prof. Roberto Mattei even after being informed about a traditional Vatican Council II over the last few years, will in April 2014 in the USA, say the Council II is a break with Tradition. This will be his theology based on the premise of the dead being visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation this year.
If he spoke the truth about the Council it could create problems for him and the Rector.Fr. Luca Gallizia, L.C.His standard interpretation of Vatican Council II is non controversial.
-Lionel Andrades

Lepanto Foundation and the Apostolic Commissioner to the Franciscans of the Immaculate are making a common error

 According to the Lepanto Foundation Prof. Roberto de Mattei is to speak on April 9 at the Cosmos Club, Washington, DC  on “The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story”
'To the ongoing debate Roberto de Mattei offers the contribution not of a theologian but of an historian...' (1)
The Lepanto Foundation (LF) and Roberto Mattei have contributed to the debate as theologians. They have interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition. A report on the LF website tells the Franciscans of the Immaculate not to sign a statement approving Vatican Council II. Again the issue is theology.

This injunction of the Commissioner implies acceptance of the hermeneutics of discontinuity and of rupture, because by isolating the Second Vatican Council from the whole tradition of the Church, the Council becomes, by implication, the only true Council and one which dissolves all preceding doctrine-Maurizio Grosso (2)
The Second Vatican Council - an unwritten story
Here the LF, the Apostolic Commissioner and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are making the common error. They assume Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) refer to cases visible to us. It is with this premise that they interpret Vatican Council II and so the result is 'the hermeneutics of discontinuity'.
They have used the premise of being able to see the dead -saved who are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and upon this factual error have built their theology.
This is the theological error of the Lepanto Foundation founded by Roberto Mattei.
The Franciscans of the Immaculate could accept Vatican Council II in which Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) etc is implicit and known only to God. It is invisible for us. So it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism ) affirms the dogma on exclusive salvation.
Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities unless like the Lepanto Foundation and others it is assumed that the dead saved referred to in the Council are visible to us on earth.
It is with this error that Roberto Mattei will be giving talks this summer in the USA.
-Lionel Andrades


Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate : to sign or not to sign ?

Why the Franciscan Friars must not sign

Ordine-dei-Francescani-dellImmacolata(by Maurizio Grosso) It is by now known to all that by the disposition of 8th December 2013, the Commissioner of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Capuchin Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, has ordered the immediate closure of the theological Seminary of the Friars of the Immaculate and has requested the following:
- that all seminarians, who are evidently believed to be misguided and who are apparently even suspected of heresy, must “personally subscribe to a formal acceptance of the Novus Ordo as an authentic expression of the liturgical tradition of the Church and therefore of Franciscan tradition … and of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, in accordance with the authority accorded them by the Magisterium.” To this is added the usual threat that, “Whoever does not accept such dispositions will be immediately dismissed from the Institute.”
All the other friars must “clearly and formally express in writing their willingness to continue their journey in the Institute of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, according to the Marian-Franciscan charism, in the spirit of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, according to the directives concerning religious life contained in documents of the Second Vatican Council.”
Therefore the Seminary is closed, the teaching thrown to the wind, the cultural apostolate via the publications of the Casa Mariana Publishing House is suspended, all because the friars have allegedly denied the magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council, together with the Mass of Paul VI. It would be interesting to ask the Commissioner where this has occurred and if he is able, at least at times, to indicate precisely the place. The accusation is vague and therefore false.
In fact, by this disposition, the oath taken by the professors of the Theological Seminary of the Friars of the Immaculate has been abolished and substituted by a new oath, or rather a simple self-certification, in which one is to subscribe to a formal acceptance of wanting to remain Catholic, of wanting to remain in the Church and in the Institute, accepting the Council and the Holy Mass reformed by Paul VI.
It is necessary, however, to remember that in the profession of faith in assuming an office to be exercised in the name of the church, such as the office of a teacher in a seminary, following an oath of fidelity (which takes up again the anti-modernistic oath of Pius X, updated by the Congregation for the Faith in 1988), the candidate says:
“With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed. I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”
This oath was taken by the professors of the Seminary of Sassoferrato as well. It can be observed, however, that now the Commissioner asks the oath, not from the professors but from the pupils; from the friars who are being educated. The professors, just as for anyone who assumes an office in the Church, publicly professed that faith of the Church in order to then teach it correctly to the students. They professed the faith of the Church to remain faithful before God, and only in this way to remain faithful to it in front of every listener. There was nothing else to add to that faith, nor to take away from it.
The message which comes from the action of Father Volpi, though, is very clear: this profession of ecclesial faith having been rendered vain and in some way abolished by the closure of the Seminary, the students now have to recognize the SecondVatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI. It is as if to say: the profession of faith which animated the Seminary has been put on ice and so now one has to accept a new one instead; there will be a new formula to express a new obedience. This new obedience is by definition against the formula of the faith and concerns just two aspects of the Magisterium, taken out of context.
Will the Commissioner offer the students a new formula of “formal acceptance” of what he is asking for? It would be interesting to know this and by what ecclesiastical authority it has been approved.
If there is not a “formula,” but instead just a spontaneous subscription to the directives of the Commissioner on Vatican II and the Holy Mass, this proves that we are dealing here with an act which is illicit and above all ideological. Not only is it not the faith of the Church which is being professed, but also the seminarians are being deceitfully urged to demonstrate their own submission to the Volpi-Bruno line of reset and re-education. The implication is that those who do not obey Volpi do not obey the Pope, which is completely wrong.
It is as if Volpi and his collaborators permanently enjoy that infallibility which the Pope enjoys only under certain conditions, and which for the last few years he has preferred not to invoke to sustain his teaching.
The most serious problem, however, is this: the “new oath” is in itself extremely ambiguous and it seriously undermines the entire doctrine of the Church. It is a clear example of a break with the preceding doctrine, with the simple Catechism. This injunction of the Commissioner implies acceptance of the hermeneutics of discontinuity and of rupture, because by isolating the Second Vatican Council from the whole tradition of the Church, the Council becomes, by implication, the only true Council and one which dissolves all preceding doctrine. By contrast, Paul VI insisted that the Council was not a synthesis of all the faith of the Church. Consequently, the new liturgy is not either. Benedict XVI has said clearly – and it is the strongest and most painful note of the entire Summorum Pontificum, which some liturgists still pretend not to understand – that the new Missal has not abolished the preceding one. It could not do so and no one has the authority to do so, not even the Pope. The Pope is the guardian of tradition, not its inventor. Even the new Mass cannot be abolished but but without the preceding Missal, it has neither context nor roots.
However, Fr Volpi’s letter of 8 December implies precisely that the Council has abolished the earlier doctrine, or rather the very doctrine of the faith, just as the new Mass has abolished the old.
It is difficult to understand, however, from where the new Mass takes its form, if the old one has suddenly disappeared or must disappear. By this even the new Mass is compromised and the poor seminarians will soon lose their faith.
In reality, it is precisely this mentality of subjection to the new oath or “formal acceptance,” which has caused a severe winter in the Church for these past fifty years, an atmosphere of the conciliar super-dogma which Fr. Volpi has so deeply inhaled and which he is now so generously spreading around on the basis that he is a “representative” of the Church.
In the light of all this, the students and friars of the Immaculate, as well as all the other friars, should not subscribe to this injunction. It is the moment to say: in all conscience, we cannot sign. By doing this, conscience will, this time, be correctly asserted before mere authority. Such a refusal would not be based on a rejection of the Council and the post-conciliar innovations – the Friars came into being after the Council and thanks to Perfectae caritatis, authentically interpreted by Pope VI – but instead on the fact that the mens which animates such a request is not Catholic.
Not to sign means to return to its rightful central place not power but reason and, together with reason, faith itself. Not to sign means to demand clarity in doctrinal principles; to demand that the mens of the Superior be made explicit, and that precisely in this situation which is so grave, the mind should not remain in the vagueness of presumed “crypto-heresies” or “traditionalist drifts” which do not even exist; and that the Council and the New Mass are not the unicum of the faith but instead a part of it, the latest but not definitive development, and which is capable of improvement and of further development.
Under these conditions it will not be possible to expel friars who do not sign, or at least they will not be refused denied the possibility of defending themselves, something which is provided for in the Code of Canon Law, or of having a peaceful discussion, on the basis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Why not involve the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in all these events? Is there anyone in a higher position who could put in a good word? (by Maurizio Grosso)


Suffering can be reduced to three main types, when it has a mystical root: Suffering brought to the victim soul (on behalf of mankind).Expiating suffering, to purge past darkness (suffering as deliverance, even purgatory on earth)
And suffering caused by evil spirits.It is often a mystery, of course, which type we are encountering. Don't automatically assume it's one or the other.
 It may be in God's Plan.
It also may not.
There are also the sufferings caused by simple physiological, emotional, and mental adversities. We all realize that.
But let's stay in the realm of the spirit.
It may well be that people with various illnesses are in those afflictions being offered an opportunity to unite their sufferings with those of Christ for the redemption of their own souls or those of others. Such suffering does not have to be obvious. In fact, much of the worst suffering is mental. There is anxiety. There is obsession. There is the feeling of inferiority. There is insecurity. There is oppression. There is depression.
Many, many sufferings are thus hidden.
If you can't judge a book by its cover, neither can you judge a person's state of suffering.
We all have crosses in life. One day we may even find out that the crosses we are asked to bear -- though far different (and greatly variable, as far as visibility) -- are basically equal. Suffering parts the curtain of blindness as the suffering of Jesus caused a rent in the veil of the Temple (Matthew 27:51). We see differently. Why does suffering purge us? It separates us from the flesh. We are granted a new (and often higher) perspective. On a cross, we are elevated.
When separated from the flesh we begin to see with the eyes of eternity.
Suffering (which includes fasting) should open the soul for release of impurities.
Then again, there is suffering caused by the devil. Don't underestimate his role. He hooks into our weaknesses.

We know this from Jesus Christ: the majority of those He healed were made well after an evil or "unclean" spirit was cast out. Go back and study each of Jesus' healings. Isn't it remarkable how infrequently you hear about the spiritual aspect? He did no surgery. He did not write prescriptions. His healing depended on a spirit being cast out: deliverance. The intellectual approach to religion in our time negates this notion (we need to hear about this more from the pulpit), but spirits can cause virtually any ailment, from allergies to malignancies (they are malignant spirits).

When we take ill we should cast spirits out in the Name of Jesus (and by name: for example: "spirit of arthritis"; or in general: "spirit of infirmity") along with following prudent medical advice
It comes down to balance.
So does our health: when we are in spiritual, emotional, and physical balance, good health is usually the fruit. The body can be the soul's harbinger. Praying for "balance" -- balance, balance, balance -- should be a goal of Lent!
Right now our society is in a state of extremism and imbalance and we take only the physical approach to healing.
It must go beyond that.
We can never judge a person's spiritual state nor why or how he or she is suffering. A person can be born with a bad spirit as surely as he can be born with troubled DNA. Or hit by a virus. It may not be the fault of the person's whatsoever: He or she may be carrying the weight of family spiritual baggage. It may be that person's mission in life to dispel it. This is hidden martyrdom -- hidden often even from the person.
At other times, there is no doubt that wrong practices -- illicit sexuality, the occult, theft, negativity, gossip, lust, gluttony, addiction, lack of love, hatred, pride -- serve as spiritual entry points. Underline the word ego. Pride is a root sin. Humility searches for the pride that is hidden.
Once inside, spirits can then root, grow like a weed, and cause torments -- physical and mental.
During Lent, the Blood of Christ and His fasting in the desert can bring us special power to turn sin into ash and heal afflictions.


Anibale Bugnini, prime architect of the Novus Ordo, also wanted to wreck the Rosary

from Spirit Daily
March 25, 2013 Posted by tantamergo 
But Paul VI would not let him.
Some time ago, my wife bought Bugnini’s gloating, bloated Reform of the Liturgy at a used book giveaway. She read little bits, became totally disgusted by the man’s preening superiority, monumental ego, and his constant disdain for the 1500+ year old Roman Rite. So, she put it down. But, I picked it up the other day, and in just reading a little tiny bit, found in pp. 874-876 (Bugnini, he loved to talk) that the man who placed such enormous emphasis on “noble simplicity,” eliminating “useless repetitions” and “historical accretions,” also desired to utterly destroy the Rosary. How did he plan on doing that?
First, he was going to limit the Our Father to once at the beginning of the Rosary. Gone would be the Pater Nosters at the beginning of each decade. A “public version” of the Rosary would contain only one decade of Hail Marys/Ave Marias. Not only did he have the incredible gumption to gut a prayer prayed by millions that the Tradition tells us was given directly to St. Dominic Guzman by the Blessed Mother Herself, but he was going to wreck the Hail Mary by removing the “non-biblical” parts. That is to say, everything from “Holy Mary Mother of God” on would be eliminated, so you’d be left with Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (the word Jesus at the end of this 2nd half of the Rosary would also be eliminated from most Hail Mary’s) and that’s it, 10 times, in the very hip and mod Rosary of Bugnini. That’s not entirely true, Bugnini – intruding himself into the private prayer lives of billions of Catholics (over time) and modifying one of the cherished, sacred, and efficacious prayers the Church has ever had, if not THE most efficacious, would allow for ONE recitation of the Holy Mary Mother of God part in each decade. So very generous of him.
That “public Rosary” – the traditional Rosary having been such an aggravation to the protestants Bugnini did everything possible to appease (with no discernible success) – would have been utterly unrecognizable as the same prayer, as only one decade of the truncated Hail Mary above would be present, with the rest replaced by passages from Scripture, hymns (and you can guess what kind of happy clappy crap he would come up with), and excerpts from the writings of various modernist exegetes.
Paul VI was actually somewhat sympathetic to the whole notion, but felt that the umbrage of the faithful would be too great to bear. Bugnini reported on p. 876 that Paul VI replied: “The faithful would conclude that ‘the Pope has changed the Rosary,’ and the psychological effect would be disastrous…” Amazing that Paul VI would say that regarding the Rosary, but somehow did not see that he was doing exactly the same thing with regard to the Mass.
I am utterly, utterly stupified by the monumental arrogance it would take to say “Hmmm….. that prayer Catholics have been saying for 700+ years, it’s really deficient, and it certainly isn’t ‘ecumenical.’ It really needs to be updated and changed.” Can you believe that? Isn’t that simply incredible, that a mid-level Vatican functionary would arrogate to himself the right to change a timeless, glorious prayer? He couldn’t even point to VII as cover in this case, as the Council never even remotely approached saying anything about attacking and wreckovating such constant prayer traditions. Thank God.
For some reason, all the above makes me feel compelled to post the following:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
Vice what it replaced:
Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto everlasting life. Amen.
I don’t think Our Lady would have been pleased with Bugnini’s update.
I could post this 500 times, I love it so

They asked me if I thought Roberto dei Mattei and Bruno Gherardini were wrong

I was talking to a few Catholics who thought Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. I told them I believe Vatican Council II did not contradict the traditional teaching.They asked me if I thought Roberto dei Mattei and Bruno Gherardini were wrong.
How should I explain it to them?
Take the word 'salvation'. Every time there seems a reference to this word or its meaning in Vatican Council II ask yourself: 'The word salvation for me refers to people who are dead and now in Heaven and whom I cannot see with the physical eye or they refer to people whom I can see with the physical eye'.
So there are two options for interpreting the word salvation.
We can also interpret Vatican Council II with either of the two options.
We can interpret LG 16( being saved in invincible ignorance), NA 2 ( being saved in another religion which has good and holy things), UR 3 ( being saved in imperfect communion with the Church) as being visible to us  or invisible to us.
If we consider these cases as being visible to us then it means LG 16 etc contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition. There are known exceptions in the present times.
If we consider these cases as being invisible for us and visible only for God then they are not exceptions to Tradition.
So the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the conclusion which follows depends on one of the two interpretations. One interpretation is rational i.e we cannot see the dead-saved. The other is irrational and false i.e we can see the dead-saved.
Roberto Mattei and Bruno Gheradini are interpreting Vatican Council II by assuming that LG 16  etc refer to cases visible to us. For them we can see the dead-saved.
So the conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
For me it is not. Since I cannot see the dead-saved.
-Lionel Andrades

France: 700 youth gone to fight in Syria

France: 700 youth gone to fight in Syria

Filed under News, The Church in the world
7_syrieThe habitants of a district in Strasburg rallied on February 8, 2014, to protest the departure of young Frenchmen to fight in Syria. With the watchword “Don’t touch our youth!” 250 people gathered in a socio-cultural center of Meinau, a popular district of the Alsatian capital. “If we are here today, it is because children have been betrayed, families broken, a whole city traumatized,” declared Mohamed Benanouz, spokesman for the group of associations behind the rally, when questioned by RTL’s website. In all, lists a dozen young men from Strasburg who have left to fight in the jihadist ranks in Syria over the last few months.
According to the weekly Jeune Afrique’s February 14, 2014 edition, the numbers given by the intelligence services count about 700 Frenchmen in Syria, about 1 third of whom are converts. About 250 are formally enlisted in the fights against Bachar al-Assad, and at least 21 have already met their death.
An article published on February 9, by the French newspaper La Croix explains that it is “a growing phenomenon, that, according to the government, is leaving families completely disconcerted.” About 2,000 young Europeans have been enrolled to fight in Syria. La Croix quoted the testimony of a “non-practicing Catholic” who converted to Islam “to be like his friends”. At 21, he moved into an apartment and only visited his family every once in a while. His family later learned that he was really preparing his departure for Syria.
For Serge Blisko, president of the Miviludes (Inter-ministerial Mission for Vigilance and the Fight against Sectarian Derivatives), as quoted by La Croix, “this is being done without any real theological basis, just under the influence of friends. Religion suddenly becomes an element of conflict with the parents.” Almost all the families, reads the article, tell the tale of “the same disintegrating of relations, the distance that they thought a result of adolescence, then the rupture.” They say that they are “stunned” or “staggered” by their child’s departure.
According to Marc Trévidic, an anti-terrorist judge questioned by the information channel BFM TV on January 21, these young men “come out of nowhere”, it is a “spontaneous generation that was not counted among the very radical groups, and that is the fruit of internet propaganda and of a depiction of the Syrian conflict that motivates them to go defend their Muslim brothers.”
According to the sociologist Samir Amghar, also quoted by La Croix, “these young men are marked by idealism. They are convinced they are fighting for a “good cause”: “They enlist with the idea that they are saving children, defending an oppressed people, dying for their ideas, in a way. There is a lot of romanticism in their approach.”
Marc Trévidic believes that there is certainly “an identity crisis, as well as a search for a life ideal.”
(sources: apic/LaCroix/rtl/Jeune Afrique/bfm tv – DICI no.292 March 14, 2014)

When the exception disproves the rule

At the Second Vatican Council there were no plans—in principle—to abolish Latin from the liturgy, nor to authorize Communion in the hand, but some time afterward, in the name of the spirit of the Council, exceptions were introduced depending on the circumstances, the persons, the countries…. Which means that today the exception has become the rule: everywhere the liturgy is in the vernacular and Communion is received in the hand.
In keeping with this spirit, which makes it possible to obtain in practice what is not authorized in principle, Cardinal William Kasper, during the recent Consistory on the family, proposed exceptions to the rule that does not allow divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion. This is not a matter of changing the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, he assured his listeners, but only of authorizing some pastoral exceptions. In other words, marriage is doctrinally indissoluble but can be dissolved pastorally.
In a while we will see that these exceptions become the rule: all divorced-and-remarried Catholics will receive Communion on the hand during Masses celebrated in the vernacular. Because in reality, since the Council, doctrine itself can be dissolved in pastoral practice.
Fr. Alain Lorans

Voris does a good job explaining the disastrous LA religious “education” conference

Posted by tantamergo
I put education in scare quotes, because it’s really much more oriented towards propagandizing than true catechesis.
Many are probably familiar with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Religious Education Conference held every March from the abhorrent videos of liturgical abuse that invariably surface each year. This conference is wildly popular in Amchurch circles, attracting thousands of attendees and sparking imitators around the country, including in our own Diocese of Dallas (which, I must hasten to add, is much more orthodox, even if there remain problematic presenters, such as one of last year’s keynote speakers, popular heretic and new age evangelist Fr. Ron Rolheiser).
Michael Voris goes into some depth in this most recent episode of his “Dispatches” series, spending about half an hour exploring the aberrant beliefs and open heresy of many of the LA conference’s speakers. There is a great deal of good info below, even if Michael could have easily produced a 2+ hour video and still not captured even half of the heresies held by those allowed to “educate” Catholics in LA.
This video is very informative and well worth your time if you have a little quiet period this weekend:
This video is very informative and well worth your time if you have a little quiet period this weekend:

As a final note, now that Archbishop Gomez has been in LA for nearly 3 years, it is very sad to see that he has made precious few visible efforts to change the course of the LA trainREC. I’m not convinced Gomez was ever very orthodox (see the desperate condition of the Archdiocese of San Antonio), and he certainly doesn’t seem to be making many waves in reforming an Archdiocese of LA which visibly decayed during Mahoney’s period as ordinary.
Destruction is easy, building up is hard.

Dr.Dudley would be saying that he could accept Vatican Council II if these passages refer to cases invisible for us

There are so many passages that contradict traditional teaching that I would argue that it is of the greatest importance to entirely reject the II Vatican Council -Prof. John Dudley
Feast of the Assumption_05
If Bishop Michael Olson, the Bishop of Fort Worth has objections to the appointment of  Dr.Dudley at the Fischer More College for reportedly rejecting Vatican Council II  it would be a misunderstanding on both sides, the college and the Bishop's office.
Firstly, Dr.Dudley can remove the misunderstanding and specify that the passages he was referring to (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11 etc) refer to invisible cases on earth, not visible to the naked eye. So they do not contradict Tradition.
He could then  ask Bishop Michael Olson to clarify if he accepts that these passages are implicit for us and do not refer to explicit cases in the present times.
So Dr.Dudley would be saying that  he could accept Vatican Council II if these passages are refer to cases considered invisible for us. If they are considered explicit for us , then he would be rejecting Vatican Council II (with the false premise).
He is affirming Vatican Council II without the false premise of LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) etc being explicit, objective, visible in the flesh and defacto known in the present times.
-Lionel Andrades

Dr.John Dudley and the schools in Dallas

Fr. Stefano Manelli, founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, on Our Blessed Mother
March 14, 2014   Posted by tantamergo
The ongoing agony of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) has been extensively covered on this blog. I remain convinced that the actions taken against that vibrant and growing order were wholly unjust and profoundly disturbing.
5123XCLopEL__SY344_BO1,204,203,200_I have had a book written by the FFI’s founder, Fr. Stefano Manelli, for some time. It was distributed at our parish when some FFI’s came to visit. This Devotion To Our Lady is a most glorious book. I do not hesitate to say that Fr. Manelli comes the closest to the awesome writings of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori of any modern Church author I’ve read. I think you will find the same in the excerpt below. That makes the very severe, some might even say savage, treatment he has received since he was forcibly removed as Superior of the Franciscans of the Immaculate all the more troubling.
The following excerpts are from the Foreword of the book:
The more Marian we are, the more Christian we are. The more fully we belong to Our Lady, the more Jesus will claim us as His own. The more we resemble the Mother of God, the more we will resemble our Divine Brother, Jesus, “Son of the virginity” of Mary (St. Ambrose). Becoming true images of Jesus in Mary is the genuine fruit of devotion to Our Lady.
As St. John the Evangelist, in receiving Our Lady, “took her into his own” (Jn XIX:27), so may it be granted us to welcome Our Lady in the dwelling of our hearts…….
0798md16……..IF we do not have true Marian devotion, then we ought to beg for it as did St. Francis de Sales: “My God, when shall we have the Grace that the Holy Virgin might be born in our hearts?”
padre stefanoBut if we already have the Grace of devotion to Our Lady, we should apply all zeal and every effort for its increase, since salvation and sanctification depend on Our Lady’s living presence in our lives as well as in the life of the whole Church. “Mary,” says St. Bernard, “is the whole reason for our hope.” St. Louis Grignon de Montfort preached the same. St. Alphonsus M. Liguori taught likewise; and this was the firm conviction of St. John Bosco: in a famous dream he saw a ship, representing the Church, standing firm and victorious in the midst of the tempest because it was anchored to two immovable pillars – the Eucharist and the Immaculate.
Our Lady saves us. Our Lady gives us life. Our Lady enriches us with God. With the Holy Spirit she repeats to us: “he who finds me, finds life, and will have salvation from the Lord” (Pr VIII:35). And again: “With me are riches and glory….that I may enrich them that love me” (Pr VIII:18,21). It was not without reason that St. Pius X proposed devotion to Our Lady as a primary means to restore all things to Christ in the Church and in the world.
padre stefano missaLet us, then, love Our Lady. We make our own the last recommendation of St. Pio of Pietrelcina: “Love Our Lady and bring others to love Her. Always recite the Rosary.” Let us love Our Lady without ever saying we have loved her enough; rather, let us promote a holy rivalry in order to be the generation giving the most glory to Mary.
———–End Quote———–
One of the aspects that most characterizes St. Alphonsus’ copious writings are his constant use of quotes from Saints and Scripture to buttress his arguments or catechesis. Fr. Manelli’s writings seem very similar in that respect, and in fact in tone, form, and content seem almost modeled on the writings of the Great Moral Doctor.
Which, to reiterate, makes the shameful treatment he is receiving at present all the more amazing. But, many of Christ’s most devoted Saints have experienced similar or worse, so perhaps we should not be surprised.
But from what I’ve read thus far, I will not be surprised to see Fr. Manelli raised to the altars at some point in the not too distant future.
Fr. Manelli with Cardinal Burke in happier times
Fr. Manelli with Cardinal Burke in happier times