Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Her father was expelled by Boston College because of the Magisterial Heresy

Sister Marie Thérèse, M.I.C.M.
Her father was expelled by Boston College because of the Magisterial Heresy.
Sr. Marie Therese, MICM is the eldest daughter of Dr. Fakhri Maluf a Catholic professor at Boston College. He was expelled by the Jesuits when the Jesuit Rector and Provinicial made a factual mistake - and the Magisterium in Rome supported them!
After some 70 years we now know that the Magisterium made a mistake.It was magisterial heresy in the Catholic Church from 1949.
Dr.Fakhri Maluf held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and was supported by Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Archbishop Richard Cushing approved the Boston College expulsion of the professors. For him there were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For Cardinal Cushing being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood, all referred to persons who were in Heaven without the baptism of water.This was also the understanding of the liberal Jesuit theologians in Boston.For them there were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
What they did not realize was that if there were exceptions to the dogma then these cases would be known and seen to be exceptions.
 They did not ask themself how could people in Heaven be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in the present times( 1940's).
How can non existing cases in their reality be exceptions to all needing to be 'card carrying members' of the Church for salvation?
But them perhaps they knew all this but went ahead with their irrationality.
The late Senator Edward Kennedy wrote in his memoirs that he was present when his brother Robert Kennedy phoned Archbiship Cushing and told him to do something about Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Pope Pius XII kept silent over this issue.
Sr.Marie Therese's father remained expelled by a Catholic college and Fr. Leonard Feeney remained excommunicated and the Magisterium did not announce that people in Heaven  could not be exceptions  to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Magisterium after 1949 made a factual mistake.An injustice was done to Sr. Marie Therese' father.
-Lionel Andrades


Blog: bishop orders Communion on tongue only in diocese of Medjugorje

The Medjugorje Message

Monday, September 28, 2015

Medjugorje pilgrims surprised by bishop’s order…

Fr Leon Pereira OP, the new pastor co-ordinating english-speaking Masses at Medjugorje, has informed pilgrims that the Mostar-Duvno bishop, Ratko Perić, has given orders for pilgrims to receive Holy Communion on the tongue only.
Making the announcement at midday Mass on Sunday, Fr Leon said: “The local bishop has given orders that Holy Communion is to be received on the tongue only, in his diocese. We must respect the local Bishop and I ask my brother priests to respect the authority of the local bishop and be obedient, as this is his directive and this is their local custom and we can’t do what we do back in our own countries.”

Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacrament

Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

91. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. [177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

92. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, [178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful. [179]

177: Code of Canon Law, can. 843 § 1; cf. can. 915.
178: Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 161.
179: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Dubium: Notitiae 35 (1999) pp. 160-161.

SSPX ask the CDF for an apology on this issue

Immagine correlataThe SSPX bishops still don't know that there was a precise doctrinal mistake made by the contemporary Magisterium. A wrong premise and inference was used,in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It resulted in the rejection of the Council by the SSPX.It was followed by the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops over this doctrinal issue.
Since 1949 the contemporary Magisterium is in heresy and the sedevacantists and traditionalists are correct doctrine-wise. Due  to the Magisterial Heresy, there is a break with the 'perennial Magisterium', the pre 1949 magisterium.
Pope John Paul II made a doctrinal mistake. He used an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and wanted Archbishop Lefebvre  to do the same.
He was interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism.He was using the irrational right hand column and wanted the archbishop to do the same.
The traditionalists and sedevacantists at that time were also using Cushingism, the irrational premise and inference and the right hand column  to interpret Vatican Council II- and they rejected Vatican Council , while Pope John Paul II accepted it.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger , Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), instead of clarifying all this,made the same error and then approved the excommunication.
This was Magisterial Heresy since they were rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.They were rejecting the Nicene Creed ( one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and not three) and the Athanasius Creed ( outside the Church there is no salvation).They were rejecting a Vatican Council II which is really  traditional and in agreement  with the old ecclesiology.
Today if the SSPX and the sedevacantists accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism, the Left Hand Column and without the irrational premise and inference, they can still hold on  to the old ecclesiology.They do not have to reject Vatican Council II.They can have it both ways.It can be Vatican Council II and the old ecclesiology.
The SSPX should ask the CDF for an apology on this issue.The CDF was not fair to Archbiship Lefebvre. It was their responsibility to explain what was correct doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades

LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict EENS : Abp. Lefebvre's excommunication was a mistake http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/09/lg16-lg-8-ur-3-na-2-etc-do-not.html