Saturday, September 6, 2014

Cardinal Muller must also begin dialogue with Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI :sedevacantism based on misunderstanding on doctrine

Cardinal Gerhard Muller and  Bishop Bernard Fellay are to meet this month.Bishop Mark Pivarunas could also be invited for these reconciliation talks at another time.They all could agree on two common sense points which are at the basis of the doctrinal confusion in the Catholic Church.. The two points are at the basis of disagreement with the sedevacantists CMRI who have hundreds of priests and sisters in their community. Their bishop has posted an article on the CMRI website 1 explaining why they have gone into sedevacantism.The reasons are doctrinal and at the centre is  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I have analysed it below with reference to the two points.

Like with the meeting with Bishop Fellay there can be end to the tension with CMRI if the Vatican clarifies the following two points; two irrational premises; fantasy inferences, used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the CMRI,SSPX and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Ecclesia Dei  cardinals,bishops and priests.
The two points which are hypothetical and irrational are  :-
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.

2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.

It is upon these two simple points there can also be a reconciliation of the Vatican with the traditionalists,sedevacantists and the Franciscans of the Immaculate.


Sedevacantism

By Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize Benedict XVI as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize him as a true pope. The word sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean “the Chair is vacant.” Despite the various arguments raised against this position — that it is based on a false expectation that the pope can do no wrong, or that it is an emotional reaction to the problems in the Church — the sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines of the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church and on the theological opinion of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine.
As an introduction to this article, let the traditional Catholic first ask himself why he is a traditional Catholic. Why does he not attend the Novus Ordo Mass? Why does he reject the teachings of Vatican Council II on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism?( Why does Vatican Council II reject the teachings on Ecumenism for the CMRI ? It is because Cardinal Muller and Bishop Pivarunas use the following two irrational premises.

THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We can see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it can be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he can be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it can be inferred that it is there.
(So LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to visible to us cases who are living exceptions in 2014 to the need for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation. This is a contradiction of the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II is heretical and a break with Traditon.
Result: Sedevacantism)

WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.
(So Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors when it says all need faith and baptism for salvation and since the false premise is not used Nostra Aetate 2, Lumen Gentium 16,Unitatis Redintigratio 3 are not exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition
Conclusion. Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.)

  Why does he reject the new code of Canon Law (1983) in which under certain circumstances schismatics and heretics may, without an abjuration of their errors and a profession of the Catholic Faith, be administered by a Catholic priest the Sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction, and Holy Eucharist? (Before these issues can be addressed the sedevacantists and traditionalists must identify the false error being made by them in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents) If the traditional Catholic answers the first question correctly, he would state quite simply that the New Mass is without a doubt a danger to his faith and that due to the radical changes in the Offertory and Consecration, it is questionable whether transubstantiation even takes place. In answer to the second question, the traditional Catholic would properly state that the teachings found in Vatican II decrees of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism have been condemned by previous popes, in particular by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.( Alert signal here! He is using the irrational premises mentioned  above. One with the irrational premise is Vatican Council II a break with the Syllabus of Errors)  Lastly, to the third question, the traditional Catholic would surely answer that such a law in the new code can never be considered as true and binding legislation since the sacraments would be sacrilegiously administered to heretics and schismatics.
How appropriately did the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (We now know that Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that the Hindu in Tibet saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church was visible and known to us and so was an explicit exception for Archbishop Lefebvre , to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.To be an exception to the dogma the Hindu in Tibet would have to be visible and known to the Archbishop.This was the error made by the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case) on the occasion of his Suspension a divinis by Paul VI write the following reflection on June 29, 1976:
“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
“This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.
“This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
(He is correct in as much as the 'Conciliar Church' is interpreting Vatican Council II with the FALSE PREMISE  mentioned above. With this irrationality the result is  heretical.Pope Paul VI and the following popes overlooked or ignored it.) 
Let the traditional Catholic, especially the members of the Society of St. Pius X, ask themselves to what extent have the Pope, bishops, priest and laity adhered to this new Church which would, as Archbishop Lefebvre reflected, separate themselves from the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI, as did John Paul II before him, completely adheres to the Conciliar Church. He enforces the Novus Ordo Mass and false teachings of Vatican II.(Yes with the FALSE PREMISE  used above.Identify the irrationality and the Conciliar Church is traditional once again on other religions and ecumenism.It results in a new way of looking at Religious Liberty.) He follows in the footsteps of John Paul II, who promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and who boldly practiced false ecumenism and heretical religious indifferentism in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, by the atrocious convocation of all the false religions of the world to pray to their false gods for world peace!
As unpleasant as this subject may be, traditional Catholics are confronted by the terrible and burning questions:
Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?( Yes.Once the FALSE PREMISE  is  identified theology will return to rationality)
Is Benedict XVI, as the head of the Conciliar Church, a true pope? (Yes. He is equally in the dark about the FALSE PREMISE  as is Pope Francis. No traditionalist or sedevacantist bishop is calling attention to this error overlooked by the popes,cardinals and bishops.)
The sedevacantist would unhesitatingly and unequivocally say no.
To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the above questions, would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain. Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:
“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”(The irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial documents is an error also being made by Bishop Parvenus and Bishop Fellay)
How can a traditional Catholic on one hand reject the New Mass, the heretical teachings of Vatican Council II, and the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and on the other hand, continue to recognize as pope the very one who officially promulgates and enforces these errors?
To consider yet another question, is the faith and government of the traditional Catholic the same as Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church? Do traditional Catholics believe the same doctrines as Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church on the New Mass, false ecumenism (ecumenism is false when the FALSE PREMISE is  used) and religious liberty?
Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome?
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystical Body of Christ, taught:
“It follows that those who are divided in faith and government cannot be living in the one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Are traditional Catholics united or divided in faith and government with the Conciliar Church?
The sedevacantist honestly recognizes that his faith is actually not the same as Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church (Bishop Parvenus  uses the FALSE PREMISE and then rejects Vatican Council II while the popes also use the FALSE PREMISE above but accept Vatican Council II and the break with Tradition). He recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to Benedict XVI. As a traditional Catholic, the sedevacantist believes and professes all the teachings of the Catholic Church, and this profession of the true Faith includes a rejection of the false teachings of Vatican II (“all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive” — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 29, 1976).
During the first prayer of the Canon of the traditional Mass which begins Te igitur, the priest in normal times would recite una cum papa nostro N. (one with our pope N.). What significance does this short phrase convey — una cum, one with? One in faith, one in government, one in the Mass and Sacraments — united — this is the significance! Can a traditional priest honestly recite in the Canon of the Mass that he is una cum Benedict XVI? In what is he una cum Benedict XVI? (Both are using the IRRATIONAL PREMISE in the interpretation of magisterial documents. The error is conspicuous in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it is inferred that the baptism of desire  etc being visible to us are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. The dead are living exceptions!? The same error is made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) regarding the necessity of the baptism of water i.e 'God is not limited to the Sacraments')In the Conciliar teachings, in government, in the official New Mass and Sacraments — is he actually una cum?
One last consideration on this subject of sedevacantism is the manner in which all these things have come to pass. When did they take place? How did they take place? This is an area in which sedevacantists themselves differ. Some hold that the papal elections were invalid based on the Bull of Pope Paul IV in 1559, Cum ex apostolatus:
“If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.”
Some sedevacantists quote the Code of Canon Law (1917) in Canon 188 No. 4:
“All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”
Others hold the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice (Chapter XXX):
“The fifth opinion (regarding a heretical pope) therefore is true; a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact (per se) ceases to be pope and head (of the Church), just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian (sic) and a member of the body of the Church. This is the judgment of all the early Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Pope Innocent III as quoted by the theologian Billot in his Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610:
“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith.”
Suffice it to say, the issue of the pope is a difficult one, an unpleasant one, and a frightful one; yet it is a necessary and important issue which cannot be avoided.
In conclusion, let it not be said that the sedevacantist rejects the papacy, the primacy, or the Catholic Church. On the contrary it is because of his belief in the papacy, the primacy, the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Catholic Church that he rejects Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church.(It is because of ignorance of the irrationality mentioned above that the sedevacantist rejects the popes.The misinterpretation has resulted in sedevacantism)
For the sedevacantist, the Catholic Church cannot and has not failed. The great apostasy predicted by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians has taken place:
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.... And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed...” (2 Thess. 2:3-8).
Who is this one “who is at present restraining it... until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed”? Perhaps Pope Leo XIII has the answer in his Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church alludes to this and many in the Conciliar Church expect  this to happen.Still identifying the irrationality can remove the misunderstanding on doctrine.This is  now vaguely attributed to Vatican Council II and the popes. We can have a Vatican Council II interpreted with or without the false premise.I interpret it without the False Premise.
THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We can see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it can be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he can be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it can be inferred that it is there.
(So LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to visible to us cases who are living exceptions in 2014 to the need for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation. This is a contradiction of the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II is heretical and a break with Traditon.
Result: Sedevacantism)

WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.)

Cardinal  Muller must begin talks with the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae CMRI, as it has done so with the SSSPX:The CMRI ara a Catholic community and they could be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Catholic Churches,a  facility which is being given to the Orthodox Church.-Lionel Andrades

1.
Sedevacantism 
http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm

APRIL 19, 2012


ITS TIME FOR ECCLESIA DEI TO BEGIN RECONCILIATION WITH HUTTON GIBSON, CMRI,MHFM AND OTHER SEDEVACATISTS: PRIMARY ISSUE IS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Vatican clarification needed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma and no magisterial text makes this claim.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/its-time-for-ecclesia-dei-to-begin.html


Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html


Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Church documents with an irrationality : appeal for justice
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/pope-francis-and-vatican-curia-want.html

Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II : hope for the Franciscans of the Immaculate
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/rational-interpretation-of-vatican.html


Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I : SSPX and Franciscans of the Immaculate must continue to reject Vatican Council II with the dead man walking premise ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/frangelo-geiger-fi-sspx-and-franciscans.html

Fr.Francois Laisney and CathInfo are a block to the SSPX Reconciliation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/frfrancois-laisney-and-cathinfo-are.html
The SSPX (SOS-Resistance) does not clarify if they are referring to Vatican Council II with or without the premise.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/they-sspx-sos-resistance-does-not.html#links

Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/meeting-needed-between-ecclesia-deicdf.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/cardinal-gerhard-muller-and-bishop.html#links

Spiritually Insane Bishops -Michael Voris

Esorcismo di Don Leone parte 1

Madonna at Medugorje made devil howl

The Spirit of Medjugorje (Online)
 P.O. BOX 6614, ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA 16512
EDITOR: JUNE KLINS 
EDITOR EMERITUS: JOAN WIESZCZYK
SPIRITUAL ADVISOR: FATHER BILL KIEL
 
 
 
Medjugorje – A Taste of Heaven on Earth
By Anita B. Cugini
To say I was vaguely aware of Our Lady’s apparitions in Medjugorje in 1981 is as truthful as I can be. My cousin journeyed there in the early years, and returned with stories of the many blessings she experienced. She was the only one I knew of who had actually been there.
My first gentle whisper from Our Lady, urging me to come, began with the purchase of a dingy rosary with crystal beads with blue centers purchased at a yard sale for $1.00. The rosary looked awful, but it flooded me with memories of the same rosary given to me by a grade school Sister. My attempt to clean it was fruitless.
As I began to use it, the chain, crucifix and center medal began to turn gold. Puzzled as to what this could mean, I consulted my cousin, Joan, who said this phenomenon sometimes happened to pilgrims’ rosaries brought to Medjugorje... Her advice was to “pray on them” and see what happened. A year later, while still using the rosary, my cousin encouraged me to write my story and send it to The Spirit of Medjugorje newsletter.
Shortly after submitting my story, I decided to access the newsletter’s website and learn what I could about Medjugorje. As I read “The Beginner’s Guide”, I was dumbstruck when I realized that Our Lady had asked that the anniversary be celebrated on June 25th –my birthday, and the apparitions began in June 1981, the year our youngest daughter was born! I carefully studied the picture of Our Lady on the newsletter’s website, trying to memorizing how Her dress, veil, and the position of Her hands and arms looked.
From then on, I knew that I would journey to Medjugorje. The reasons kept mounting: I found a small statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje at a yard sale, which looked exactly like the picture on the newsletter. Then, I lost my beloved rosary with the golden chains exactly two years to the day I first found it, and in the same way – while going to yard sales! Initially I was saddened by its loss, but quickly realized that it was Our Lady’s way of saying that these beads, which lit the flame of my desire to come to Medjugorje, would be placed in the hands of another in need of a spiritual boost.
I began asking everyone I knew if they would be interested in going to Medjugorje with me. I told my cousin Joan that I would pay for her trip, if she would accompany me. She kept insisting that she was “too old” to go, and no amount of pleading on my part would change her mind. Everywhere I turned, the response was the same…no one was interested.
Joan encouraged me to pray and said she was sure I would make the trip in “God’s time” and a travelling companion would come along. She was right. Five years later, after moving into a different county in my state, I found her.
In 2012, my husband and I moved into a 55+ community and the first thing I did was to join a weekly Rosary group. When I got to know the members, I confided my wish to go to Medjugorje. To my shock, one of them blurted out, “I can’t believe you just said this…my niece has already been there twice and wants to return, but can’t find anyone to go with her.” My journey had begun.
Sharon, my travelling companion insisted we use the same travel agency she used on both of her prior trips some 18 years ago and stay at the same pansion. I put my trust in God and Our Lady and prayed that I had made the right decision.
Initially, we planned to go in May, but then for some reason, we decided to go in June, in time for the 33rd anniversary of the apparitions –my 65th birthday. After I sent my initial payment, time flew. Oddly, I felt no excitement about making my pilgrimage…it didn’t seem real…it seemed more like a dream.
Enter the evil one. For six months prior to departure, his physical and mental attacks were relentless. Family issues with grown children, including two with Lupus, my husband’s nagging cough that five doctors and multiple studies could not explain, and thoughts of my first international trip started the downward spiral of my anxiety. I doubted everything. Would the food be too salty, was the milk pasteurized…would I get “Montezuma’s revenge” from drinking the water? Little things magnified. Would our accommodations be decent and could I share a bathroom? I was hanging on by a thread.
June 19th drew ever closer, while my doubts and anxiety were out of control. At the beginning of June, I was within inches of cancelling. I couldn’t deal with the growing uncertainty (fueled by the evil one) that I felt within me. Then he “hit me with his best shot.” Three weeks before departure, I broke out with the worst case of poison ivy imaginable…my first in 60 years! My arms and legs were riddled with inflamed, oozing pustules which began to migrate to my trunk area. The incessant itching was unbearable and sleep was impossible. In total panic, I went to my primary doctor for relief. When his measures didn’t help, I called the dermatology office, in tears, begging for an appointment as I whined, “If I got onto a plane and sat next to someone who looked like I do, I would run screaming for the flight attendant.” Thankfully they agreed to see me.
Then the first of many miracles occurred…one week from departure, the poison ivy had calmed down. I bought slacks and a long sleeve top to cover up the remnants, and I was flooded with an incredible sense of calm…I WAS going and everything would work out!
The pansion where Anita stayed
Once I arrived in Medjugorje, I spent the first three days in tears…tears of joy because of all the wonderful things that began to unfold. The first morning at 4:45 a.m., I sat on the balcony listening as two roosters crowed back and forth,with the cross on Mt. Krizevac shimmering in the rising sunlight, and I glimpsed the “Morning Star”…the last star to disappear from the night-turned-day sky. It was there and then it was gone…this was the first of many blessings of the trip.
Day after day, blessings and graces rained down, I continued to sob…I’m nobody special…did I deserve to see these wonders? I saw the sun turn a brilliant shade of turquoise, with undulating ripples radiating from it. When I saw this, I couldn’t bring myself to look away, and had no problem staring into its brilliant light.
I watched liquid ooze from the knee of the statue of the Risen Christ, much like tear drops running down a bronze cheek. Each night, I assisted at the International Mass, drinking in the cacaphony of different languages being used to pray the Rosary…At the church in Tihaljina, I knelt on the marble floor, inching my way closer to the statue of OurLady. As I stared up into that beautiful face, her garments turned a brilliant white and the flesh on her face was alive with color, even the blush of her cheeks!
Did the evil one leave me alone once I arrived in Medjugorje? Of course not…his determination to disrupt my pilgrimage was impressive. Two of his attempts were anything but benign!
As a special gift for the cousin who led me to Medjugorje, I purchased a crown for her statue of OurLady of Fatima. I took it back to my room and placed it in a bag with other religious articles I had purchased. When I looked for it the next evening, it was gone…I literally tore the room apart trying to find it. It was packed in a small white box, the size of the Rubik’s Cube, making it unmistakable…it simply wasn’t there. Obviously, the evil one was aggravated that I bought this, so he removed it to assert his power. Wrong! I went back the next day and purchased another. This time, it didn’t leave my sight until I returned home.
He unleashed his next assault in Ivan’s private chapel. Our group was invited to his apparition and we were told repeatedly not to tell anyone. The tiny chapel held 30 people and this privilege was by “invitation only.”
We entered the chapel, Italian pilgrims on the right and English pilgrims on the left, and the Rosary began. I sat on the left side of the church, at the end of the second row. Midway through the Glorious Mysteries, Ivan’s apparition began as he widened the distance between his upturned palms (from the pressed palm position in which he prays the Rosary, to greet OurLady, as this is the way She greets him). I could see his lips moving but heard no sound.
About five minutes into the apparition, the young woman sitting directly behind me, let out a feral scream/growl sound that I can only described as inhuman. Not since the 1970’s movie The Exorcist have I heard such a sound. She continued this high pitched keening interspersed with hissing and spitting, and I learned later that she lunged at me. Sister, who led our pilgrimage, got up from the first row (using two canes), and walked back to her. She placed her arms around the woman, who continued to scream, hiss and sob. I heard Sister repeat over and over, “You have to let it out…you have to let it out…” When I turned around, I saw the woman’s contorted face as she clutched a large olivewood crucifix to her chest. Needless to say, the entire chapel was terrified!
The apparition ended and our guide asked Ivan if he was aware of this disturbance. Ivan answered he was not. When OurLady appears, he is in ecstasy…he sees and hears Her alone.
Ivan's Chapel
Once outside, a woman from our group shared what she perceived to be OurLady’s voice as she knelt before the Rosary began. She clearly heard a voice say, “I am going to show all of you a sign…do not be afraid.”
Sister spoke with the woman’s companion who revealed that this woman had been seeing an exorcist once a week for over a year. When Sister heard about the inner voice, she explained that Mary and the devil cannot exist in the same space…when the devil tried to disrupt the apparition by coming out of this woman, he was thwarted by Mary and his attempt to control the apparition was a dismal failure! One final mystery – no one knew these women, where they came from, or how they got in. They weren’t with either group of pilgrims!
Day by day, miracles and blessings continued. I saw Vicka, touched her, and gave her a cord rosary that I made. I also gave one to Ivan. I climbed Apparition Hill and visited Father Slavko’s grave.
June 25th dawned, and my ascent to Mt. Krizevac had finally come. Our guide said it was not an easy task, and if it rained that day, or started to rain while we were climbing, we must stop. Climbing, while difficult on dry rocks, becomes extremely dangerous when the rocks are wet. Serious injuries are common.
Mt. Krizevac was mobbed…pilgrims from around the world prayed while waiting to begin their climb. Everyone knew that making the climb on the Apparition’s Anniversary was very special. I began to climb, walking stick in hand, praying with each step…that OurLady allow me to do this and shield me from harm.
At the Eighth Station (Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem) it began to rain. My heart sank – I didn’t believe it! I knew…wet rocks, climb canceled! I asked for a moment’s rest to see what would happen. I looked skyward, lifting my arms, and begged Mary to stop the rain. Miraculously, it stopped!
As I reached the giant white cross that I first beheld shimmering in the morning’s light, I praised OurLady Queen of Peace for allowing me to do this on my 65th birthday…My dream that began with a crystal rosary found at a yard sale had become a reality…Medjugorje is a taste of Heaven on earth!
Editor’s note: Anita lives in North Wales, PA. Anita shared with me, “The food was delicious, the milk was 2%, we drank well water, and there were more than enough bathrooms for everyone! None of my fears came true.“

Porta a Porta. gli esorcismi di Clara Romano

Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Bishop Bernard Fellay must agree on two points for doctrinal sanity

Cardinal Gerhard Muller and  Bishop Bernard Fellay are to meet this month and for the reconciliation of Catholic groups, they should publically agree on two common sense points, related to the doctrinal confusion of today.
 
They are :-
 
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.
An agreement on this two simple points will be important for the reconciliaiion of the Vatican among itself, and with the traditionalists SSPX and sedevacantists CMRI etc.It is also important for the reconciliation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.
 
The following points which I mentioned in the previous blog post related to the Franciscans of the Immaculate are relevant also for the SSPX and CMRI.

1. The Excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney, if it was for Catholic doctrine, was a mistake since cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known in real life. They are invisible for us. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014. They are irrelevant to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven.Even a non Catholic will tell you that if something does not exist it cannot be an exception.


 
2. So there was an error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257) when it says with reference to the necessity of the Baptism of Water that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'. Upon this error the Balamand Declaration of the International Theological Commission (ITC) says there is no more an ecumenism of return (N.30).While Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope Of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized of the ITC wrongly infers that there are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949, during the pontificate of Pope PIus XII, was wrong when it inferred that the baptism of desire/ implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was an error when they expected Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston to claim that he could see persons saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. He correctly refused to state that there was known salvation outside the Church i.e there was someone who did not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
 
4.Similarly those saved with ' a ray of the Truth'(NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), invincible ignorance(LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8),substitit it (LG 8), seeds of the Word (LG 8) etc are invisible for us. So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So Ad Gentes 7 supports Feeneyism and NA 2 etc are not exceptions to Feeneyism.
Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.
Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims etc need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell and go to Heaven and Orthodox Christians,Protestants etc need Catholic Faith, which include the Sacraments through which Jesus saves, and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church to avoid mortal sin and preserve Sanctifying Grace.
Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz ,Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi Ofm.Cap, the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, must be asked to affirm a rational Vatican Council II.Ask them to clarify that this is the Vatican Council II which they expect the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept.
They must be asked to clarify that they do not expect the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, to accept Vatican Council II in which all references to salvation are considered to be visible for us instead of invisible.
According to Canon Law they are expected to accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi must accept Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries, by the Church Councils, popes and saints.
They must agree that :
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.If someone is nor present in our reality he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.
Even a Catholic school boy can agree on these two points.
 
Cardinal Muller ,Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Bishop Bernard Fellay must agree on these two points above for a reconciliation in the Catholic Church.
The Leftist media which opposes the entry of the SSPX into the Church says that the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II. This is false. The SSPX clarifies that they accept the Council as a historical event and they accept 95% of the teachings of the Council.
The media says that the SSPX must accept the 'historical' or 'revolutionary' teachings of Vatican Council II on the Jews, who no more need to convert for salvation.
 
Cardinal Muller and Bishop Fellay must clarify that they accept Vatican Council II without the irrational premise of being able to see the dead on earth, who are  alleged exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times (2014).
 
This would mean Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) says all need faith and baptism ( Jews included) for salvation 1  and NA 2, LG 16,LG 8, AG 11, etc refer to hypothtetical, invisible for us cases which  cannot be exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II supports Feeneyism and the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on other religions,when the false premise is not used.-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
 

The Magisterium has supported Feeneyism in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

James:
1. If what you say is true of the Sisters, they (and you) are not in agreement with the Magisterium which has , in fact, excluded the Feeney error as authentic teaching.
Lionel:
The Magisterium has supported Feeneyism in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Wake up! So many times I have repeated it on this blog including my last discussion with you.
James:
2. No wonder these particular Sisters they are being investigated as contradicting the teaching on salvation of an Ecumenical Council and previous Roman Pontiffs.
Lionel:
They hold the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on salvation and it is in agreement with Feeneyism in Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 1257, 845,846).
James:
3.Again, you muddle discussion with your word game about “exception”. Catholic teaching is that Non-Catholics and non-Christians can (not will) be saved, but that is no exception to the axiom “Nullus salus extra Ecclesiamsince the graces necessary for salvation they receive places them in an invisible manner within the Church. As some would say, they have a Catholic passport to arrive in heaven.
Lionel:
It is extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it is a centuries old teaching which has not changed in the Catholic Church.

James:

3. The Feeney error was based on the false premise that there was no “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood” rendering sincere non-Catholics capable of salvation. Most theologians before Vatican II overwhelmingly accepted the


Vatican decision in the Feeney case that distinguished attachment to the Church in reality (re) BY FORMAL MEMBERSHIP- and by desire (voto).

Lionel:
The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate can accept the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, Feeneyism, along with implicit for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. This was traditional. This is what I believe.
Whatever is your concept of the 'Feeney error', the bottom line is that the baptism of desire is not explicit for us and so is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation and Feeneyism.
Every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation in 2014 and you have agreed that we do not know any exception to this Church teaching.
You personally do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance etc . You cannot see them in Heaven or earth this year.


James:
It made clear that one who belongs by desire, even if only implicitly, is sufficiently WITHIN THE CHURCH to arrive at salvation.

Lionel:
Yes.
And it was not made clear that this was just a hypothetical case and had no bearing on Feeneyism.

James:
Vatican II only made that clearer and did not mitigate the traditional teaching of theologians that there was need for all to be saved WITHIN THE CHURCH.

Lionel:
Vatican Council II was pure Feeneyism when it stated that all need faith and baptism for salvation( Ad Genets 7). AG 7 has been placed in the Catechism under the tite Outside the Church No Salvation.

James:
4. And Vatican II also made it clear that by Church, it meant the Church in full communion with the Successor of Peter.

Lionel:
Yes of course.
James:
5. I repeat that your understanding of “Nullus salus extra ecclesiam” contradicts that of the existing Catholic Church, and is not Catholic.

Lionel:
It is extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I have quoted you Vatican Council II and the Catechism. I have affirmed the dogma and also implcit for us baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. This is what the existing Catholic Church teaches and it is Catholic since it is also in agreement with Tradition.
I reject what is non traditional, heretical and irrational and which is being passed of as the teachings of the Catholic Church since the 1940's.
-Lionel Andrades
September 5, 2014