Friday, August 29, 2014

CCC 1257 IS HERESY: CONTRADICTS NICENE CREED AND EX CATHEDRA DOGMA ON SALVATION

Here is St.Thomas Aquinas on the neccesity of the baptism of water for salvation.No where does he state that there are de facto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water. We have this passage through the  courtesy of Fr.Martin Fox.

It can be seen that St.Thomas Aquinas says 'On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."'

Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirming St. Thomas Aquinas  'God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism' but then also saying 'but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.' It then says ' (1258)This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.' In other words the baptism of water is not needed in certain cases.There are exceptions. Move over St.Thomas! There are exceptions? Yes the Catechism (1257,1258,1259,1260) says there are defacto exceptions to all needing the baptism of water as mentioned by St.Thomas Aquinas. The Catechism says 'For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. ' So the Nicene Creed says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' but now we have three baptisms. Then of course there are more 'baptisms' mentioned in Vatican Council II.They are being saved with 'the seeds of the Word' (AG 11), ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) etc.
Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the conflicting positions, which contradict the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
 
Here is St.Thomas Aquinas.

Whether all are bound to receive Baptism? 

 
 
Objection 1: It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after Christ's coming.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been baptized, should not themselves be baptized.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the womb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized."
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
Reply to Objection 1: At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament, was always necessary.
Reply to Objection 2: As we have stated in the FS, Q[81], A[3], ad 2, those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom. 8:10: "The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification." Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi) proves that "not everything that is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who are baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be baptized.
Reply to Objection 3: Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.
 
It should be clear from the above that no where does St.Thomas Aquinas say that any one can be saved without the baptism of water.
Neither does he state that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are substituites for the sacrament of the baptism of blood. This is a false inference.
It is a false premise when it is assumed that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood refer to cases visible and known to us in the present times and so they are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.This is irrational.How can the deceased now in Heaven be explicit exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water with Catholic Faith for salvation?
So aside from St.Thomas Aquinas this is irrational.The irrationality has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It inferred that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani issued the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 and he died in 1951. The Letter was made public in 1952 observes Cantarella on the CathInfo forum. So there could be as she says 'some funny business'.Initialy it was Fr.Leonard Feeney who accused the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing of heresy.It was he who first wrote to the Holy Office about the Archbishop.

So the inference is not only irrational it is heretical since it contradicts the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra, it contradicts the actual dogma on salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc) and it contradicts the Nicene Creed.It also contradicts the Athanasius Creed,  which says outside the Church there is no salvation and which was affirmed by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston before the 'lifting' of the reported  excommunication.-Lionel Andrades 

1.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q68_A1.html

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14168956&postID=6551107021275196810

CCC 1257 is double talk, irrational and non traditional.It contradicts the teaching of the Holy Spirit over the centuries

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.-Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)


for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

Lionel:
The above statment is hypothetical. These cases are not known to us on earth.So they cannot be relevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvatiion.
but he himself is not bound by his sacraments
Lionel:
Yes he is bound to the Sacraments as 1257 says that baptism is necessry for all.This is taught by the Holy Spirit.
CCC 1257 is double talk, irrational and non traditional.It contradicts the teaching of the Holy Spirit over the centuries.
-Lionel Andrades

Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/where-does-catholic-church-teach-that.html#links

Why did the Holy Office 1949 mention the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma? This is a factual mistake.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/why-did-holy-office-1949-mention.html#links

Only at the physical level can there be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Hypothetical, theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/only-at-physical-level-can-there-be.html#links

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (N.1257)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-made.html

CCC 846 refers to the aphorism outside the church there is no salvation. It was not an aphorism it was a dogma!!

God has limited himself to the Sacraments according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC 846 refers to the aphorism outside the church there is no salvation. It was not an aphorism it was a dogma!!
 
Fr.R.
I tried to explain some things, but it seems it is impossible. Reply only this: are Moses and Elijahsaved or not? How can you explain this with your thesis?
Lionel:
Moses and Elijah had to wait( in Abraham's bosom) for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus before going to Heaven.
A
Now every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.
De facto every one needs the baptism of water for salvation.
In 2014 every one needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no known exceptions.
In the words of Vatican Council II all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).
In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 all need to enter the Church as through a door and CCC 1257 God knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.
 
B
 
When CCC 1258 etc says that a person can be saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance it is correct.It is referring to an implicit for us case.It is a possibility known only to God. This is not a defacto case, personally known.
So far so good . There is no problem here as Catholics we can accept A and B as long as we make the distinction between implicit and explicit, invisible and visible.
The problem arises when CCC 1257 infers that B is explicit, objective, defacto known in the present times and is a known exception to A.
This is irrational.Vatican Council II does not make this claim in any text.
The error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
So I can affirm A and I would be accepting Vatican Council II and I can affirm B ( as implicit for us) and I would be accepting the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,845,1257. CCC 1257 would be accepted when it states all need the baptism of water.
God is limited to the Sacraments according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC 846 refers to the aphorism outside the church there is no salvation. It was not an aphorism it was a dogma!!
-Lionel Andrades

Who was Cardinal Cushing to suggest that the baptism of desire was an exception to the centuries old teaching?

Fr.R.
you contradict yourself. Firstly, you cannot argue with a Council against another.
Lionel:
I interpret the Council without the irrational premise. The irrational premise says all salvation in Heaven is physically visible to us on earth and so these cases are objective exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So I do not contradict the Vatican Council II.
Fr.R.
You don’t agree with some other truths in the Bible (as this one: “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”, I Tim 2, 1-4), the Tradition of the Church (I think neither Moses nor Elijah where baptized, for instance, and both are considered saints!)
Lionel:
I agree with you here. I pray the rosary for all sinners, for all people. Salvation is available for all in potential. However to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church... 
Fr.R.
and the Magisterium.
Lionel:
Dominus Iesus 20 says salvation is universal and is open to all, and all need to respond and enter the Church. I agree with Dominus Iesus.
Fr.R.
Who is Fr. Leonard Feeney to interpret so authoritative this question?
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying the same thing as the Church Councils, the popes and saints.
 
Fr.R.
I am so far sure with the teaching of Holy Father Benedict XVI, as also Saint John Paul II who promulgated officially the Catechism… Be more smart!
Lionel
I love Pope John Paul. He was a good pope.He was an ailing pope and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who consolidated power and approved the Catechism. Perhaps he was unaware of the error. It was an innocent mistake.Something he overlooked.
-Lionel Andrades

The text of the defined dogma does not mention any exceptions.So how can the Catechism say God is not limited to the Sacraments ?

Fr.R.
 Dear Lionel,
 you are not a theologian. So you need to be more cautious in your assertions…
You also know me. So follow my suggestions.
Dear Fr:
Could you or one of the theologians at... be kind enough to show me via theology or philosophy where I am wrong ?
My thesis is simple.
1. We cannot see the dead in Heaven. We cannot see with our physical eye those who are saved with the baptism of desire etc. So these cases cannot be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Letter of the Holy Office has assumed we can physically see the dead and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Then the Letter has created a theology based on this fundamental and objective error! This theology is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
This is irrational and is not part of the Deposit of the Faith before 1949. It cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
2.We agree on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The text of the dogma indicates that God has chosen salvation to be limited to the baptism of water. The text of the defined dogma does not mention any exceptions.So how can the Catechism say God is not limited to the Sacraments ?
3. We have to make the distinction between implicit and explicit,invisible and visible, subjective and objective, dejure and defacto. Neither does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 nor the Catechism makes this disctintiion.So there is confusion. -Lionel Andrades
  
August 28, 2014

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (N.1257)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-made.html#links

Catholic bishops of Dallas, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Florida, USA approved a Mandatum to teach there is known salvation outside the Church and the dead-saved are visible to us : error in the Catechism n.1257

The error in the teaching mandatum at U.S Catholic univetrsities can be traced to the objective error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.-L.A

August 28, 2014

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (N.1257)



April 15, 2014

Catholic bishops of Dallas, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Florida, USA approved a Mandatum to teach there is known salvation outside the Church and the dead-saved are visible to us

'The theology faculty at Aquinas is united in its vision of the Church and her teachings. In accordance with the document Ex Corde Ecclesiae every teacher of theology has the Mandatum (official authorization) from the local bishop.' 1
040914-bishop-jugis-croiser2
The Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis, Bishop of Charlotte, USA stated "All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all."
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. This is my interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846). For me, being saved in invincible ignorance (CCC 847,Lumen Gentium 16) etc is a posibility known only to God. Since there are no known cases in 2014, CCC 847,LG 16 are not an exception to Ad Gentes 7, cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846). All need to enter the Church as through a door (CCC 846). All need faith and baptism (AG 7).
Dr. Mark Goodwin
So the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) is in agreement with the Catechism of Pope Pius X. CCC 846 has the same message as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
The Mandatum has been given for universities and school teachers by the bishops in the USA to teach that CCC 846 is contradicted by CCC 847 and 848.
In other words there are visible cases in the USA of the deceased saved in invincible ignorance etc who are exceptions to all needing to enter the Church as through a door and all needing faith and baptism for salvation. (CCC 846,Ad Gentes 7)
It is the same Catechism of the Catholic Church but we have different interpretations of CCC 846. For me CCC 847 and 848 are not exceptions to CCC 846 (and CCC 845). For the USCCB they are exceptions to Tradition. The dead-saved are visible for them.



Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ (CCC 847) refer to implicit for us cases. For the bishops they are explicit for us cases. For me being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word, good and holy things in other religions, imperfect communion with the Church are hypothetical.It is not so for millions of Catholics.For me these cases refer to the deceased, now saved in Heaven, who are not visible to us.So they cannot be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.
This is not the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, according to the University of St.Thomas Aqunas in Rome. This is not the interpretation of Sr.Mary Sarah Galbraith O.P, the President of Aquinas College.It is not the interpretation at the University of Dallas and nor of the catechetics and theology departments of the Ave Maria University , Florida.For all of them the dead-saved are visible in the flesh!

Catholic Diocese of Dallas
TheLetter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney which says we must interpret the dogma on salvation as the Church does. We know how the popes and saints interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus - St.Anthony Marie Claret, St.Maximillian Kolbe, St.Francis of Assisi, St.Francis Xavier, St.Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila...If the cardinal who issued the Letter had assumed that being saved in implicit desire or in invincible ignorance was an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, then he made an objective mistake and a great wrong was done to the ex-Jesuit priest from Boston.
VATICAN COUNCIL II CONFUSION
Similarly the American bishops have approved Catholic educational instituions teaching that in Vatican Council II Ad Gentes 7 contradicts Lumen Gentium 16.
For them AG 7 says 'all' need to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism', while LG 16, it is implied, says all do not need to enter the Church. Those saved in invincible ignorance are 'known exceptions'.They would have to be visible for us for them to be known exceptions to the traditional concept of salvation.
-Lionel AndradesAvemariauniversity.jpg




"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337


848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338


1.

FAMED EXORCIST APPARENTLY CLAIMED IN VIDEO TO STAUNCH OUTLET THAT FATIMA REQUEST WAS NOT 'MET' DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURE

FAMED EXORCIST APPARENTLY CLAIMED IN VIDEO TO STAUNCH OUTLET THAT FATIMA REQUEST WAS NOT 'MET' DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURE
Father Gabriele Amorth, the famous exorcist of Rome, claims Saint John Paul II was pressured not to name Russia in his consecration of the world and Russia as requested during the historic Fatima apparitions.
"We don't have time to analyze this subject, but I do hold it very dear," he said of the consecration to an outlet called Fatima TV. "Sister Lucia always said Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia and only the consecration of Russia. She also asked the consecration of the world to another great and young Portuguese saint, Alexandrina Maria da Costa. But these two things are very different and very separate. Now Our Lady requested a consecration of Russia in a very solemn and public ceremony to be performed by the Pope with all the bishops of the world. This was specified in detail by Our Lord Jesus, Who continued to appear to Sister Lucy, as Our Lady also did. He wanted this consecration to be recognized as the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that she would be honored together with His Sacred Heart. These are the words of Our Lord, but the time has passed and the consecration not done and Our Lord is deeply offended. You see, with our free will we can affect world events.
"Our Lady said the consecration would be done, but that it would be too late. I feel shivers run down my spine when I remember the words 'it will be too late,'" the exorcist said in a 2012 interview that only now has come to our attention.
"Unfortunately, they didn't open the secret up in 1960 and Russia spread her errors all over the world. The conversion of Russia would have been a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary," the priest, now in his eighties, added.
It was an event, said Father Amorth, that would have changed the world.
"In 1984 the Pope quite timidly attempted to consecrate the world to Mary in St. Peter's Square," the exorcist told the organization, which long has argued about Fatima issues. "I was there, just a few feet away from him. I was the organizer of the event in St. Peter's Square. It was March 25 and the Pope had the statue of Our Lady of Fatima coming over from Fatima, the statue that usually stays in the large sanctuary at Fatima. But on that occasion he wanted the statue there. Kneeling in front of the statue, he attempted the consecration, but all around him were politicians who told him, 'You can't name Russia. You can't.' And he asked again, 'Can I name it,' and they said, 'No, no, no.'"
There are no details from the priest on who the "politicians" allegedly were, nor any substantiation of what was said and when it was stated. It is a hot-button issue, with the Vatican maintaining that the 1984 consecration met the requirement (as outlined in the secrets of 1917) and Sister Lucia herself, in interviews during the 1990s, saying that the consecration was accepted by Our Lady. The seer asked that those who disputed this stop.
It also has been pointed out that Communism miraculously fell immediately after that consecration -- and that Russia itself appears to some as being in the throes of a Christian revival -- in some ways more Christian, at least in the public square, than the United States.
For our discernment. The interview arrives at a time when an Italian journalist has released alleged comments from Sister Lucia in an unpublished diary in which the seer seemingly relates additional details about the third secret, including a description of huge geologic events occurring as an angel touches the earth's axis with the flame of a spear.
It also comes at a time when others have pointed out that another major request from Fatima -- the First Saturday devotion -- has never spread in a significant way, which was another requirement for world peace.
Meanwhile, tensions between Russia and Ukraine remain a cause for acute international concern.
"Whoever thinks the prophetic message of Fatima is over deceives himself," asserts the exorcist. "The apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima are unique in the history of the Church. They have a great influence over the course of human history. They have religious importance as well as historical significance."
Thus far, mankind has headed down the wrong road, he believes, as has the Church. "Vatican Two: instead of a Renaissance, a disaster," intoned the well-known expert on demonology.
"But the end is glorious and in the end Russia will be converted and the Immaculate Heart will triumph. It hasn't yet, but it will, and the world will experience a period of peace."
"Before this finale it is probable that man will suffer some kind of chastisement by God due to the sin and cold hearts. But we're not facing the end of the world, not as some crazy men are saying. We're going toward the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart."
The video was dispensed by a group that staunchly insists three consecrations by the Vatican have not been valid responses to the request of the Virgin, who in 1917 had said, "When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays.
"If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."
How a request meant to forestall what turned out to be World War Two is still relevant is a matter of debate. The tragic war is now a chapter deep in history.
Sister Lucia said in the 1990s that we were currently in a "period of peace" due to the fall of Communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Others dispute that -- among them, it seems, Father Amorth (a proponent also of Medjugorje). He believes that by 1984 Russia had not yet completed its dispersal of errors.

Vatican Council II without the irrational premise is not in agreement with a Catechism which states God is not limited to the Sacraments

Vatican Council II no where says God is not limited to the Sacraments. One has to infer it, wrongly!
My Photo
Fr.Martin Fox says :
No, Cardinal Ratzinger did not make a mistake.
If you follow the link, you will see the mistake identified as the Catechism's statement: "God is not limited to the Sacraments." And Catholicmission asks, "Why did Ratzinger say this?
He said it because it's true.
Lionel:
The dogma defined three times by three Church Councils says all need to enter the Church for salvation. This is corroborated by Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and this was the traditional teachiing of the Catholic Church until the time of St.Maximillian Kolbe. We can see it in his writings.
So why does the Catechism says 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' ?
There is no visible exception in 2014. Neither does any Church document before 1949 state that the baptism of desire is not implicit, subjective and invisible but explicit, objective and visible.
So why did Cardinal Ratzinger make this objective error? We cannot see the dead and no tradtional text before 1949 infers this.
Fr.Martin Fox:
Did Aquinas make a mistake when he said the same? Did Augustine?
Lionel:
Aquinas and Augustine no where infer that the dead are visible to us.They held  the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They did not state that there were visible in the flesh exceptions.
The man in the forest who is saved in invincible ignorance would have a preacher sent to him said St.Thomas Aquinas. Since all who are in heaven are there with the baptism of water.
Similarly St. Augustine affirmed the traditional interpretation of the dogma, the 'Feeneyite' version. He did not claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.
Similarlay I affirm the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire etc ( followed by the baptism of water). However I will not infer that the baptism of desire  is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Martin Fox:
It takes a lot of sand for a latter-day blogger to assert that Ratzinger, Aquinas and Augustine (not to mention many others who held the same) are all wrong, and the said blogger, alone, is right.
 
Lionel:
Any one who alleges that we humans, in general ,can see the dead is wrong. He is irrational even if he is the pope
 
Fr.Martin Fox:
And, to top it all off, Catholicmission's post blames all this on Vatican II!
 
Lionel:
False. Vatican Council II without the visible- dead- who- are- exceptions premise is traditional. I support a traditional Vatican Council II which is not a rupture with the past.There is no irrational premise used in this interpretation.
The Council text is neutral.
 Fr.Martin Fox:
A council in the 1960s caused Augustine and Aquinas both to err, across the span of centuries into the past? What won't these folks blame the Council for?
 
Lionel:
The Council is in perfect agreement with Augustine and Aquinas.It is traditional. Vatican Council II without the irrational premise is not in agreement with a Catechism which states God is not limited to the Sacraments.
Vatican Council II no where says God is not limited to the Sacraments. One has to infer it, wrongly!
-Lionel Andrades