Thursday, April 16, 2015

Dress well or go to Hell

Last Tuesday I was walking under the bridge off Via Tritone when a bus full of teenagers parked and they got off all at once and so I had to  walk through them along the pavement.Many women had most of their legs bare and when they looked at me some of them had rebellion and anger on their face.I must have come across as one of 'the bad guys' portrayed by the secular media.Satan's own media.
I kept looking down and so tried to retain my recollection. I would not want to lose Jesus' Presence with something so trivial as this.
As Catholics we do not kill people for being dressed immodestly but it still is a mortal sin, as it is in Judaism and Islamism.
Before the last 100 years in Europe there was no vulgarity in dress on the beaches.It was not part of the Christian-Catholic culture.Now it is common since over the last 100 years or so, the media is not Christian but really anti Christian.It opposes the teachings of God and supports His adversary.
While we cannot depend on popes, cardinals and bishops any more to teach on immodesty in relation to sin and Hell, there is a whole new genre of teaching on this subject emerging from apparitions of Jesus and Our Lady to Christians.
For Gloria Polo modesty in clothes was important for salvation. She learnt this only after she died and was before the Throne of God.Jesus showed her how immodesty in clothes was a mortal sin and took a person to Hell.We have a responsibility towards others.We show this by the way we dress.The way we dress can send another person to Hell because of sins of the flesh.Lust. Impure thoughts willfully held...
Some of those young people may believe in Jesus and also think it was not wrong to dress as they did. This was how Dr.Gloria Polo thought before she was struck dead with a lightning bolt and her body was completely charred.
At Garabandal,Spain Our Lady told the young seers to avoid the beaches.At Medugorje Our Lady says avoid television and use the time for prayer.
The way you dress, or the lack of it is important for this secular, anti-Christian society.Even if you are well covered don't seem poor.Poverty is not popular in clothes! Faded and torn jeans are acceptable but never torn jackets and overcoats.Illustrations of St.Francis of Assisi don't always  project him as a poor man.It is usually 'without the suferrings and smells'.The stuff of the after life in Hell.1
It still is, dress well or go to Hell.
-Lionel Andrades
Hell pictures_ A Trip To Hell (Full version) / 지옥그림_지옥을 견학하다 (Full version)

Danish queen: “It is vital that we give Islam opposition”

Denmark Queen

UK Prison Service allowing jihadi book to be distributed to inmates

Muslim prayers

Pakistan frees mastermind of Mumbai jihad massacre : but not Asia Bibi

Zakiur Rehman LakhviPhoto_asia

ChurchMilitantTV removes comments : irrational theology which David Obeid and Luke Macik have to teach to be approved by the bishop

Church Militant TV Staff have removed two comments from Mic'd Up : Catholic School Daze 1
This was one of the comments.
Church Militant TV could begin to resolve this issue by identifying the irrational premise, inference and conclusion.
This error is the basis of the new ecclesiology which is being taught at Catholic Schools in Detroit, where CMTV is situated.This error is also being taught by Fr.Joseph D.Fessio,Editor at Ignatius Press, David Obeid, Principal of St. Mary Mackillop Colleges, Australia and Luke Macik, Headmaster of the Lyceum Academy,USA .They appeared on the last Mic'd Up program ' The School Daze'.They have not denied this error in the comments section. 2 David Obeid is a recognised apologist whose work I appreciate.
SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents interpreted with the false premise and conclusion : ChurchMilitant TV comment incomplete
Ryan Fitzgerald, Simon Rafe and the Church Militant TV Staff will not discuss this issue with specifics. They cannot get technical. They cannot cite doctrine or  logic to support any view. So instead of assisting with the CDF-Reconciliation they knock off comments.
The other comment which was removed mentioned that David Obeid, Principal of St. Mary Mackillop Colleges, and Luke Macik, Headmaster of the Lyceum Academy have no denial to issue. They agree that it is irrational to assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They also agree that there are no magisterial documents before 1949 which state that these cases are personally known to us in the present times to be exceptions to the dogma or that they were exceptions.
This is all inferred wrongly by the contemporary Magisterium and is supported by the bishops in Australia and the USA.
This is the irrational theology which David Obeid and Luke Macik have to teach at their Catholic educational institutions, to not have the name Catholic removed  and be approved by the bishop.
It is this irrational theology which the SSPX has to accept to receive full canonical status.It is endorsed by Ryan Fitzgerald and Simon Rafe.It has the blessings of the Church hierarchy in Detroit where Church Miltant TV is located.
-Lionel Andrades

Church Militant TV could produce a video for the CDF-SSPX Reconciliation

Ryan Fitzgerald, Producer and Simon Rafe, Executive Producer,  at Church Militant TV could produce a video saying the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican should encourage the SSPX and the CMRI to enter the Catholic Church, with full canonical status , by proclaiming correct Catholic doctrine themself.The SSPX/CMRI beef is with doctrine.The present doctrine affirmed by the CDF is irrational, non traditional, non-Catholic and heretical. It is based on an objective error which would be detected even by non Catholics.There has been no denial so far from the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to these charges in many reports posted on the Internet.
As mentioned in a previous post the Church Militant TV comment on its Facebook page was incomplete.1 Ryan Fitzgerald and Simon Rafe must be objective and Catholic.They need to show how there is so much misinformation on this subject in all camps.
Let Church Militant TV state its position on these six points. Don't send me an e-mail but mention it on your Facebook page.
Pope Benedict XVI said the issue is doctrine. Can Vatican Council II can be interpreted with or without the Marchetti-Cushing error ?.
Are orthodox passages contradicted or not contradicted by the Richard Cushing Additions in Vatican Council II ?  2.For me there is a choice. One choice is irrational.Cardinals Francesco Marcheti Selvaggiani and Richard Cushing chose the irrational option.This one infers, for example, that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance , refer to known persons this year.Then it was inferred that these known cases were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.They would have to be known to be exceptions.
This must be talked about. Since it is a valid reason for the SSPX rejecting the Muller-Ladaria-Pozzo interpretation of Vatican Council, with this Marchetti-Cushing irrationality.It was unfortunately approved by Pope Benedict XVI.
This is also the irrational option accepted by Simon Rafe at Church Militant TV in my past communication with him.Simon says the Church says that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.Yes.So it is correct for him, even when we do not personally know any exceptions and no magisterial document before 1949 makes this claim? Is not the Church after 1949 contradicting the Church before 1949 with an irrationality? How can the dead in Heaven be living exceptions to the dogma according to the Church before 1949? At one time the Magisterium must be wrong.
The secular media uses an irrational premise which is "We can see the dead who are now in Heaven, we can physically see them in Heaven and on earth".
They then make an
irrational inference which is " Since we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and formal entry into the Church, there is known salvation outside the Church and these cases are an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS."
Their conclusion is : Vatican Council II is a break with EENS
The SSPX also makes this same error : irrational premise, inference and conclusion. They reject the result and so reject Vatican Council II. The CDF also uses the  irrational pattern but they accept Vatican Council.It is a Vatican Council II which becomes irrational,non traditional and heretical.It is the same Council text but two interpretations. One rational and the other irrational.
 This  needs to be discussed on a video.
The SSPX General Chapter issued a doctrinal statement in 2012 seeking to enter the Church canonically, when it affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nullas salus with no exceptions.This is traditional Catholic doctrine. Why cannot the contemporary Magisterium accept this?
Would not its rejection by any Catholic be heresy and schism? Why cannot Ryan Fitzgerald say this on a video ?
For the contemporary Magisterium at the Vatican, the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins', has really changed to, 'I believe in two or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water. They are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood, seeds of the Word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men' (NA 2) etc.'

Why must the SSPX accept all this nonsense in the name of Vatican Council II ?
Is not the contemporary magisterium in schism?
Is it not a mortal sin to change the Nicene Creed, reject a dogma defined by three Church Councils and to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise, inference and conclusion after being informed ? Is this not a mortal sin  for Church Militant TV staff ?

In the past ecclesiology was always exclusivist. So where is the New Revelation for the CDF to reject the old ecclesiology and create a new one ?
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the CDF should state that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known to us in personal cases in April 2015. So they cannot be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Ecclesiology will not have changed.

He should announce that the International Theological Commission, Vatican made this objective error in two theological papers, overseen by the Secretary of the CDF, Cardinal Luz Ladaria S.J.Cardinal Muller was also a member the ITC committees.They should issue an apology.
The CDF must announce that the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is still exclusivist even if there  are protests from the Jewish Left magisterium.
The CDF and the SSPX could choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise,inference and conclusion.So could ChurchMilitant TV staff.
Could someone be in schism for affirming traditional Catholic teaching and accepting Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion? No!
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents interpreted with the false premise and conclusion : ChurchMilitant TV comment incomplete
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.
Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.
Argentine CatholiSchism

Gavin D'Costa comes across as professionally unethical.His irrationality would not be accepted by academics in England

Gavin D'Costa as a Catholic professor of theology at Bristol University, England has to project factually incorrect information, false reasoning and a non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II to be approved by the bishop in the diocese of Clifton or the cardinal-archbishop of Westminister.The deception has to be approved by the local ordinary and only then they are allowed to teach theology in Britain I mentioned in a previous blog post.1
Gavin D'Costa cannot say that the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II ( AG 7,LG 14) indicates that the Prophet Muhammad and all Muslims at his time were oriented to Hell ,since they did not have 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). The Quran shows that they knew about Jesus and the Church but did not enter. According to Vatican Council II ( LG 14) those who 'know' and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell.
As a Catholic this is my Catholic belief and this the teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial texts before and after Vatican Counci II, and including Vatican Council II.
If Gavin D'Costa, as an objective Catholic professor spoke the truth he would be saying that Vatican Council II does not contradict the centuries old interpretation on outside the Church there is no salvation.Since there cannot be any exception to the dogma.Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions.So if a pope, cardinal or bishop claims it is an exception then it is irrational. It is not real.
In other words there is no known salvation outside the Church in 2015.So all need to formally convert in the present times to avoid Hell.We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire this year.
Yet instead, an otherwise rational professor of theology at an accredited British university  in Bristol, infers that there is salvation outside the Church and this salvation is defacto known to us in the present times.In other words the dead now saved in Heaven are physically visible to us on earth, to be exceptions to the traditional interpretationm of the Catholic dogma on salvation.
This is not genuine scholarship. It is also unethical.He places this reasoning before students at the university.
This Catholic professor is not going to tell Muslims at the university, those of  the  University of Bristol Islamic Society  or the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society that the Chuch teaches in Vatican Council II, and  in other official documents, that all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. As a Catholic I feel this is dishonesty and he is projecting a wrong image of my Catholic Faith.
On the website of the University of Bristol,U.K , Prof. D'Costa says on a video "People are not damned if they are not Catholics" (5:09).
This is factually incorrect since:-
1.According to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says all need to enter the Church 'as through a door', it also says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (CCC 1257).The video does not state this.
2.There is no Church-text, which states there are known exceptions, in the present times, to the Ad Gentes 7 teaching i.e all need faith and baptism.The video does not state this.So we have a personal view by a professor at the University of Bristol, which is being projected as official rational Catholic theology.
3.Gavin D'Costa does not know any one personally who does not need to enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell.There is no such case in Britain who will be saved without 'faith and baptism'.Yet he does not mention this.
As a professor of theology he uses the following irrational three points to reject the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.Professionally this is unethical.This would not be accepted by non Catholic academics in England.It is so far out.
1. The physically dead for us, who are now saved in Heaven in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire are considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Even though they are not known or visible to us on April 16,2015.Yet salvation in Heaven is objectively seen on earth for D'costa and others, to postulate these cases as living exceptions to the dogma.Ghosts are exceptions! Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2 etc ) cannot refer to exceptions since these cases would only be known to God.Yet they are exceptions for D'Costa and many other Catholics.
2. Similarly someone who allegedly died centuries back without the baptism of water would not be an explicit exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church today, April 16,2015.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto exception today.A theoretical case of the past cannot be objectively seen today.So D'Costa cannot consider a case of the past as being a defacto case and an exception in the present times.Yet he does. This would be philosophical reasoning gone wrong.Yet this is being done at the University of Bristol's Department of Religion and Theology.
3.Similarly the University of Bristol faculty would not personally know of someone today April 16, 2015 who would be saved in future, without faith and baptism and so would not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell as the dogma teaches.They cannot posit someone living today in Britain as being an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) and Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, which says outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).Yet this irrationality is maintained by the Faculty in this department.
This is a profesional, academic issue.It is not  just an issue of having different opinions or religious beliefs.Since last year I have been asking Gavin and the University to do something about this.2
In an e-mail I received from him he has said that no one at the university is interested in 'any of your thoughts'. These are not my thoughts only . This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church interpreted without the irrational premise ( the dead are visible on earth) and irrational inference ( these deceased in Heaven are explicit exceptions on earth to the traditional interpretation of the dogma).
Gavin D'Costa presents Muslims with a Vatican Council II, interpreted with an irrational premise and inference.This is not Catholic.All this academic and professional irrationaity is created with an irrational premise.It becomes the basis for his fantasy theology.This is unethical for a professor.
Instead of correcting the objective error he has written a book using this same irrational reasoning.This is bad theology. It also becomes a lie when it is repeated after being informed.-Lionel Andrades
1.Joseph Shaw is not going to tell Muslims at Oxford that the Chuch says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. Neither is Gavin D'Costa going to say this in Bristol.
When the University of Bristol permits Prof. Gavin D'Costa and the faculty to use an irrational premise, it is a secular lie.