Thursday, July 24, 2014

Meriam Ibrahim Meets Pope Francis In Rome

And she receives a blessing from il Papa. Vatican Radio has the story.
Meriam Ibrahim, the woman who was sentenced to death in Sudan for refusing to renounce her Christian faith, arrived Thursday in Italy and met with Pope Francis in the Casa Santa Marta. During the meeting, she was accompanied by her family: Husband Daniel Wani,  Martin (a year and a half), and Maya, born in prison two months ago.
Her family was accompanied by the Italian Deputy Foreign Minister, Lapo Pistelli, who helped arrange her departure from Sudan and travelled with her to Italy.
The head of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, said the meeting took place in a “very serene and affectionate”  environment, and Pope Francis thanked Meriam for her “courageous witness to perseverance in the Faith.”

Chinese Defend Church Against 500 Police -- "Ready for Martyrdom"

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Chinese Defend Church Against 500 Police -- "Ready for Martyrdom"

(Beijing) In China, the state is moving with force against churches and especially against "too visible" crosses. Christians have defended the cross of their church. 500 police officers took violent action against them. To the bloody police action occured last Monday at 3 O'clock in the morning in the district of Pingyang (Prefecture Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province). The number of injuries, including serious injuries, is considerable. However, the police had to withdraw.

"We are ready to go to prison and die for our faith," say the Chinese Christians and these are not empty words, as evidenced by the images of the defense of ShuiTou Church of Pingyang. Christians have formed a living shield to protect their church from destruction by the state. Many of them were beaten by the police and went to hospital for treatment. Some lives are in danger.

Wave of destruction against churches and crosses

The Protestant Church in Shui Tou is one of the officially recognized churches. Nevertheless, it is to be demolished because the communist regime for several months has engaged in a major campaign against Christianity. In some provinces of the People's Republic of China, Christianity is spreading rapidly. "Too quickly," according to the opinion of the dictatorial ruling Communist Party. For this reason, churches, crosses and other symbols that are "too large" and "visible" and other are to be removed. The Church of Shui Tou has also gone straight to the attention of authorities because of the large cross, which dominates it.

Therefore, Christians have guarded their church for 33 days around the clock. In the early morning hours of July 21st, it was time. At 3 clock in the morning, a large contingent of 500 police with a demolition squad prior drew around the believers. With batons, truncheons, fists and kicks, the police tried to disperse the Christians and to clear a path to the church. The attack lasted an hour. In the end the police had to withdraw. But there remained numerous injured Christians, many of whom had to be rushed to hospitals.

"In anticipation of martyrdom"

The pastor of the church left in protest, from the Protestant organization, loyal to the regime and began a hunger strike "in anticipation of martyrdom." In an open letter he writes: "My heart bleeds at the sight of hundreds of crosses, which are removed one after another in Zhejiang Province. Given the fierce attacks [the police], we are not sure that we can protect the church from destruction. I pray to God that he gives me the strength to be a martyr. "

"The growth of Christianity in recent years is excessive and disorderly," according to the Communist Party. The party is threatened by the increase of the Christians and their influence. The Wenzhou prefecture was an important Christian center of China before the Communist takeover. Before 1949, there were 115,000 Christians, almost one in ten of all Chinese Christians. Today the number of baptized Christians is, despite government persecution and oppression, estimated at 15 percent of the more than nine million inhabitants. It's a fast growing trend.

Twelve Advantages to be Derived from the Contemplation of Death

   July 23, 2014 Posted by Tantumblogo
I haven’t visited Dom Lorenzo Scupoli in some time.  He has some excellent meditations on the Four Last Ends.  This one is on the advantages gained by souls who contemplate their own death on a regular basis.  I found this very good, I pray you do, too!
1. Contemplation of death enables us to judge properly and prevents our being imposed upon in all affairs. With nothing we came into this world, and with nothing shall we leave it.  Why then should we consume our very lives in the accumulation of riches?
No one is to accompany us out of this world and to our final judgment; why then are we so fond of creatures?
The stench and corruption of the grave in which the pampered body is the prey of the lowest vermin shows us the folly of carnal pleasures…..
2. ……..It is our best instructor through life, laying down but one simple rule, which is the direction of all our acts to one last end.  This consideration drives away all the petty troubles which punctuate this life with unfailing regularity; it steadies us on the course and sustains us on the journey.
3. It teaches us to know ourselves, one of the essential points of true wisdom.
4. It teaches us to despise all that this world can offer, and is the solace of all true servants of God.
5. It is like ice, and helps to chill and deaden the fire of concupiscence; it is a bridle which curbs our sensual appetites.
6. It is a continual source of humiliation, a specific remedy against pride and vanity.
7. It is an excellent preservative against sin.  “In all thy works be mindful of thy last end, and thou shalt never sin.”(Eccl VII:40).
8. It brings exasperated minds back to peace and reconciliation.  Whoever considers seriously that a certain and unavoidable death will one day bring him before the Judge Who shows no mercy but to those who show mercy to others, he will easily be induced to forgive.
9. It is an antidote against the pleasures and vanities of the world…..
10.  It teaches us a provident economy with regard to our salvation, by setting before our eyes the transitory character of this life, and the necessity of laying up a treasure of good works while it is in our power to do so.
11. It induces us to embrace penances with a cheerful spirit.
12. It encourages us to persevere in the way of penance with unshakable firmness.
We live in a culture that is absolutely terrified of growing old, being old, etc.  65 year olds want to be like 28 year olds, wearing skinny jeans and partying.  I think much of this is due to a great, latent fear of death, a fear so great many people have quite willingly bought into the grave error of universal salvation.  So now Catholic funereal Masses are more instant canonizations than they are Requiems imploring prayers for the departed souls.  How many souls languish in Purgatory as a result?
If they are that lucky.  Given the omnipresence of grave sin, Purgatory might not be nearly so populated as it once was.  I pray I’m wrong.  But there is much to be said for contemplating death, the extinguishing of this life, and our judgment before the all-powerful Lord. “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of Almighty God.”  Indeed, it is.  And we would be very well to contemplate all the four last things, to better prepare ourselves for the end that inevitably awaits all of us.
A far better thing it is to know Jesus

No Church Father, pope,saint or Doctor of the Church inferred that the baptism of desire was explicit for us,seen in the flesh

Paul at has a message.
Pope Pius XII approved the global publication of the letter of the Holy Office in 1952 and allowed it to circulate around the world for the rest of his pontificate until 1958.


Any one who infers that the dead-saved who are now in Heaven are visible to us on earth and this visibility is common to all of us is irrational.When you  consider the baptism of desire an exception to all needing to defacto enter the Church with the baptism of water, you are implying that these 'deceased' are exceptions.
You are saying that there is no implicit for us baptism of desire but one which is explicitly visible in the flesh.This is your reasoning even though no magisterial text before and after the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, makes this claim in the text.
The Letter was an inter office communication from one bishop to another without the signature of the Secretary of the Holy Office and it was not placed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.So it is possible that Pope Pius XII did not see it.
However he did condone the error with his silence.

 In a separate letter to me you told me the letter of the Holy Office was heretical. With this statement you are claiming Pope Pius XII a heretic, having supposedly allowed the infection of the faithful with heresy and who did nothing to stop it.
To claim that there are known exceptions to the dogma ( even when you cannot name any case) is heresy for any Catholic. It is a denial of the dogma.It is changing the Nicene Creed.
However just as you were not aware that the baptism of desire is never explicit for us and it is always implicit , this could have been an oversight also of Pope Pius XII.
      The contents of the letter from the Holy Office in 1949 coincides with 20 centuries of teaching from Church Fathers, Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, etc, as listed at
It does not coincide. No Church Father, pope,saint  or Doctor of the Church inferred that the baptism of desire was explicit for us.You have not listed a single such case on You have only cited saints etc mentioning the baptism of desire.Yes the baptism of desire is a possibility.None of them have said that  1) these cases are visible in the flesh  or 2) that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
You boldly condemn all of them.
I do not condemn any one.I am only pointing out to a doctrinal irregularity.I am calling attention to an irrationality which was not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949.I respect the popes including Pope Pius XII.
 Your claim is also a direct denial of the dogma of the infallibility of the Church, as if the Church could spread heresy.
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in its traditional and 'rigorist interpretation'.The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.It does not mention the baptism of desire.For me there are no known exceptions. I affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church in accord with implicit for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.They are possibilities known only to God.
I affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. For me Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The ecclesiology of the Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II,according to magisterial documents.
 Your audacity is sickening and you have lost your faith.
You still have not answered the TWO QUESTIONS. They are rational questions..
1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2014 ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible to us, there are not known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci,District Superior,SSPX makes the same error as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949: faulty reasoning on two videos

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII has made a mistake.It assumed  the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit. It inferred that they are physically visible for us and so are known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.Hypothetical cases were assumed to be defacto.Theoretical cases accepted in faith became  known in reality exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This error is made in general by the Society of St.Pius X.The faulty reasoning is used in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 Father Pierpaolo Petrucci, the District Superior of the SSPX,Italy (Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X) has used this faulty reasoning on two videos which can be watched on Youtube.The same error is there in a book published by the SSPX,Rimini, Italy.
In Terza Giornata Tradizione 2012. Intervento don Pierpaolo Petrucci he begins speaking about present day Ecumenism in the Catholic Church (51:10).For him it  contradicts the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (51:59). He assumes that Lumen Gentium 8, subsistit it. contradicts the dogma.Then he also mentions Unitatis Redintigratio 3,' the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.'
Fr.Petrucci says other religions have become means of salvation  in Vatican Council II and that this teaching has been condemned by the magisterium. To be saved he says one needs to be a member of one Church, the Catholic Church.
He also mentions (54:17) Nostra Aetate 2  the Church ' regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.'   
'often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' is controversial for him.This  doctrine contradicts the magisterium of the Church he says.The same Truth from the Church does not also come from other religions.The result of all this confusion he concludes is that there is no mission and evangelisation  in the Catholic Church(55.10)
Don Pierpaolo Petrucci infers that those non Catholics saved in their religion (LG 8,UR 3,NA 2) are not just hypothetical possibilities but known cases in reality. So they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him.
For them these cases are not implicit and invisible for us but explicit and seen in the flesh.So he infers that they contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
He has picked up the error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which it is assumed that implicit for us baptism of desire etc are explicit for us and so are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

'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).
Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci has not mentioned Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.AG 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church titled Outside the Church No Salvation(CCC 846).LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 (implicit for us) do not contradict AG 7 which says all need explicit for us 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
For the SSPX District Superior LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 is explicit and so it would be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
For me LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 is implicit and not physically visible so Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in AG 7 and there are no known exceptions mentioned.
When Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no change in the Catholic Church's position on Ecumenism and other religions.The ecclesiology of the church is the same.

Don Pierpaolo Petrucci has made the same error in an interview with Italian television Romauno: Intervista a don Pierpaolo Petrucci.The interviewer was also not aware of the inmplicit for us-explicit for us distinction.

(6:25) Don Pierpaolo Petrucci says that the Catholic Church is the one true religion founded by Jesus Christ the only Saviour yet Vatican Council II says all religions are paths to salvation and that all religions are means of salvation (6:53).

 Vatican Council II does not say that all religions are equal paths to salvation unless one assumes that salvation mentioned in the Council is visible to us. Then the Council becomes a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus

How can being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and 'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2) be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This was the error made by Don Pierpaolo Petrucci in a article he had written on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the loss of the missionary spirit in the Catholic Church Church Atti del Convegno di Studi Cattolici, Rimini 2012. 1 On page 39 he mentions the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.On page 47 he refers to the errors which has entered the Council. On p.49 he refers to Unitatis Redintigratio and on page 51 Nostra Aetate 2.
The problem can be traced to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. 
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

'only in the desire and longing' have nothing to do with the centuries old teaching which says all need to convert.There is no visible case of someone saved ' only in the desire and longing'. So it is not an exception to the dogma.Neither is it relevant. What has 'only in the desire and longing' to do, for example, with everyone physically needing to enter the Church in 2014 with the baptism of water,for salvation ?
Desire and longing have nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These cases are not explicit as it is being suggested here.

No pope or saint, who has referred to the baptism of desire, has said that it is visible for us. Rationally we know that the baptism of desire is always implicit for us and explicit for God. This is a given.
It is  assumed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ?
This is theology based on visible to us baptism of desire.These cases are not known to us and here a theology has been built upon this error.

The theology is based on a false premise that of being able to see the dead-saved.This is irrational.  How can the deceased-saved be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Yet this is the error repeated by Fr.Petrucci.
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
"are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," refer to cases which are implicit for us.To be seen in real life they would have to be ghosts.So they are not exceptions.
'certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28)'.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
'submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church".The authorities of the Church were telling Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center that there is known salvation outside the Church.This is a new doctrine. There was known salvation for them since the deceased saved with implicit desire and in invincible ignorance were allegedly visible in the flesh for them to be exceptions.The Holy Spirit cannot teach this irrationality.

To claim that there are known exceptions to a dogma defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' is heresy. It is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.This refers to the baptism of water only. It is being implied in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  that there are three or more known baptisms,water, desire, blood etc.
The SSPX priest Fr.Francois Laisney on the official website makes the same factual error as Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci. 2

The same faulty reasoning as the SSPX, is being used by the Vatican Curia and the liberals. So Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci is correct when he says that Vatican Council II ( with the false premise) is a break with Tradition. He is not aware that Vatican Council II ( without the false premise of the dead being visible exceptions to the dogma) is not a break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades


Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Cattolici, Rimini 2012. Concilio Vaticano II e la salvezza delle anime, la morte dello spirit missionario di Don Pierpaolo Petrucci pp.39-58. Published by Fraternita Sacredotale San Pio X in collaboration with La Tradizione Cattolica.
p.39 Fuori dellaChiesa non c'e salvezza.
p.47. Gli errori penetrati nel Concilio.
p.49. Unitatis Redintigratio
p.51. Nostra Aetate 2

Error 1:

Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation" by Fr.Francois Laisney
The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation." (Without the baptism of water there is no defacto salvation.Without the baptism of water de jure in principle, salvation is a possibility known to God)
St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.
In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."
(Why is the SSPX priest mentioning the baptism of desire and baptism of blood with reference to Fr.Leonard Feeney? How can something that is not defacto seen ( but accepted hypothetically) be an exception to relevant to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?)
Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.
(Since 'from the beginning' the Church has never taught that the baptism of blood and desire are physically visible to us in the present times.Since they are not visible in the present times they cannot be a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation.For the SSPX priest these cases are relevant. So he implies that they exist defacto. If they did not exist defacto they would not be relevant. So indirectly he is saying that these cases are visible for us and they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching).
This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., (Wrong - none of the persons mentioned here say that the baptism of desire is physically visibile to us) and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). (None of them!) St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4] (He does not imply or say that it is visible to us physically. Since it is an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, it must be physically visible to Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX)
The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445).(It does not mention the baptism of desire as an exception. So it was not saying that these cases are visible to us) The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas! (St.Thomas never said that the baptism of desire is visible to us or that it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the error of the SSPX )
None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors. (This visible for us baptism of desire is an objective error of the SSPX and not part of Tradition before 1949).