Sunday, June 5, 2016

A Marian apparition has been approved in Argentina - and it's a big deal

Statue of Mary. Credit: Myibean via www.shutterstock.com.











.-
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/a-marian-apparition-has-been
-approved-in-argentina---and-its-a-big-deal-31979/

VATICAN TRUMPS FILIPINO BISHOP, SAYS LIPA APPARITION NOT SUPERNATURAL

Vatican Trumps Filipino Bishop, Says Lipa Apparition Not Supernatural

AddThis Sharing Buttons
by Rodney Pelletier  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  June 3, 2016    

Declares last year's ruling "null and void"

LIPA CITY, Philippines (ChurchMilitant.com) - The Vatican is reversing a bishop's ruling on an alleged apparition in the Philippines. 
Archbishop Ramon Arguelles ruled in September 2015 the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mediatrix of All Grace to a Carmelite nun in a convent in Lipa in 1948 was "of supernatural origin" and "worthy of belief." Ordinarily, the bishop in whose diocese the apparition takes place is responsible for investigating the claims of visionaries and the subsequent judgment, but in this case the Vatican is stepping in.
In a letter to his flock on May 31, he explains the Vatican declared his ruling "null and void." The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) signed the decree on December 11 last year but for an unknown reason Abp. Arguelles saw a copy of the directive on Saturday May 28 and officially received it on May 30.
The document is signed by CDF Prefect Cdl. Gerhard Müller and his secretary Abp. Luis Ladaria.
The decision is based on an investigation and declaration released in 1951 signed by Pope Pius XII. It asserts the "the phenomena of Lipa were declared to lack supernatural origin. The Authority on which this declaration was made not that of the Bishop members of the Special Commission, but rather of the Supreme Pontiff [Pius XII]."
The directive further commands "any and all commissions studying the question of the alleged supernatural phenomenon of the alleged apparitions in the Carmel of Lipa be immediately disbanded."
A Special Commission of seven bishops was assembled to investigate events in 1948 where a Carmelite nun, Teresita Castillo, claimed to have seen the Blessed Mother. Others alleged to have seen the sun spinning and unexplainable showers of rose petals, some bearing holy images. In the seer's last vision she alleged the Blessed Virgin called herself the Mediatrix of All Grace.

After an initial investigation, the apparition was ruled to be fraudulent and the nuns commanded to destroy all items related to it, including a statue representing the apparition. However, instead of destroying the statue, the nuns hid it.
A seven-bishop committee ruled in 1951: "There was no supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings including the shower of rose petals in Lipa" and that the apparitions were to be disregarded "until a final decision on the matter [came] from the Holy See."
It is alleged that years later several of the bishops on the committee admitted — some on their deathbeds — they had been coerced to disavow the apparitions under threat of excommunication.
In 1992, Mariano Gaviola, archbishop of Lipa, lifted the ban on displaying the image of the Mediatrix of All Grace; the following year he declared his personal opinion that the Lipa apparitions were worthy of belief.
On November 12, 2009, Abp. Arguelles lifted the 1951 ban and formed a new commission to re-examine the alleged apparitions. In a 2010 statement he related,
Humbly, respectfully and joyfully, I must state that my November 12 decree does not in any way conflict with the final statement of the Holy See. ... First of all, the Holy See, while accepting officially the April 11, 1951 verdict about the Lipa apparitions, does not prohibit the spread of the devotion to Mary under the worthy title Mediatrix of All Grace.
He also maintained that new information that wasn't known or addressed in the earlier investigation has surfaced making the conclusions of the earlier commission "irrelevant."
Pope Francis is said to have venerated the statue on display at the archbishop's house when he visited the Philippines in January 2015.
Archbishop Arguelles finishes his letter: "My hope and prayer is that, this document notwithstanding, we will never doubt the love of God and the Blessed Mother for all of us, their zealous devotees from the entire world, but remain steadfast and determined to bring hope and blessings to many in this troubled world."
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-trumps-filipino-bishop-says-lipa-apparition-not-supernatural

Jesus Christ is Our Savior From Hell - Michael Voris




http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-remorse-of-the-damned


Bishop Fellay is a Cushingite with an irrational approach to LG 8 and UR 3. He mixes up what is invisible as being visible, implicit as explicit.He interprets Vatican Council II with an innovation and is not aware of it.



 MY APPROACH 
In a previous blog post I stated that I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).I then affirm it  in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). I say that EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions. This is the general rule, this is the de fide teaching.
Then I say that I personally I do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma  for me in 2016.
The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. For it to be an exception or relevant to EENS it would have to be explicit. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.
So the bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the Church for me. I cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water.This is physically impossible and so no one in the past could also have known of a case of someone saved outside the Church.
So this is my basic position. Then I wait for the questions to come.1
LAB_82
Here is Bishop Bernard Fellay saying Lumen Gentium 8 recognises the presence of "salvific elements" in non -Catholic Christian communities. 2
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries, Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Church Councils.I personally do not know of any salvific elements in non-Catholic Christian communities.No one can know. So there is nothing in LG 8 to contradict the dogma EENS for me.
____________________________
Image result for Logo of DICI SSPX
Bishop Fellay then states the decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), with the strict interpretation of the Church known for centuries.I personally do not know of  any non-Catholic Christian who will be saved or is saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. None of us can know of any one saved 'in churches and communities' and not in the Catholic Church.We cannot know of an explicit case of someone saved outside the Church, who has been saved by 'churches and communities' which 'derive there efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church'.So UR 3 would refer to a hypothetical case for us which could only be known to God.So UR 3 cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which I affirm.
___________________________

Image result for Logo of DICI SSPX
Bishop Fellay states such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949
I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The second part of the Letter of the Holy Office contradicts the first part.The second part assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , as it was known to the 16th century missionaries and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
So the Letter, approved by the magisterium, made an objective mistake. The baptism of desire and blood, with or without the baptism of water, cannot be explicit for us. So it cannot be an exception to the teaching on there being exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
The first part of the Letter is based on the traditional theology of Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS). The second part is an innovation. It is based on the new theology of Cushingism( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS).
Bishop Fellay is a Cushingite.He uses this same irrational approach in the interpretation of LG 8 and UR 3. He mixes up what is  invisible as being visible, what is implicit as being explicit.He interprets Vatican Council II with an innovation and is not aware of it.
The fault is not there with Vatican Council II. I interpret LG 8 and UR 3 as being hypothetical. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
My Approach : apologetics
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/my-approach-apologetics.html


2.
Image result for Logo of DICI SSPX
The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church.
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.
http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/

___________________________________________

April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX

 

April 13-August 24,2014 and still no correction or clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay 


There is no much doctrinal confusion on salvation theology and Bishop Schneider affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed with this doctrinal confusion

Bishop Athanasius Schneider 3

From the Remant Newspaper : Bishop Athanasius Schneider Replies to The Remnant’s Open Letter on Amoris Laetitia

Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist. -Bishop Athansius Schneider
From the Remant Newspaper : Bishop Athanasius Schneider Replies to The Remnant’s Open Letter on Amoris Laetitia
 
 
There is no much doctrinal confusion on salvation theology and Bishop Schneider is affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed with this doctrinal confusion. He will not comment on this issue.
-Lionel Andrades

Bishop Schneider like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX bishops and priests confuses what is invisible as being visible.Card. Gerhard Muller and Pope Francis do the same.So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/bishop-schneider-like-archbishop-marcel.html


 


Bishop Athanasius Schneider contradicted by Catholic religious
 
 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass in England: two question 

Expedient popes could disown Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Michael Voris unless they rubber stamped Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing nonsense


 

May be someone who is in contact with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could ask them these two questions and send me their response

 
Bishop Athanasius Schneider misses the bus again

 

Immagine Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider announcing in public that all non Catholics need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II

 

Bishop Schneider is not aware of the exact cause of the hermeneutic of continuity and rupture. He is not familiar with that one precise factor which is the cause of the rupture

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/bishop-schneider-is-not-aware-of-exact.html
 

 
 

Bishop Schneider let us know what you believe on exclusive salvation. You are a shepherd.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/bishop-schneider-let-us-know-what-you.html


 Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider could be asked," Can the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate offer the Traditional Latin Mass and affirm that LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases.Can the FSSP also avoid the premise?


Bishop  Schneider expediently does not comment on the error in the Baltimore Catechism and its link to Vatican Council II  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/bishop-schneider-expediently-does-not.html

Winter for the Catholic Faith in England

Traditionalists do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Another wasted conference in England today

Elementary My Dear Watson!

Expedient popes could disown Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Michael Voris unless they rubber stamped Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing nonsense

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/expedient-popes-could-disown-bishop.html
 
Cardinal Sarah and Bishop Schneider do not confess the Catholic Faith when they deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Joseph Shaw could discuss the theological difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism and its effect on the liturgy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/message-incomplete-can-traditional-mass.html

The issue of Cushingism as a theology, which is irrational, popular, heretical, based on a fantasy-but magisterial needs to be discussed by the Latin Mass Society http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/11/the-issue-of-cushingism-as-theology.html
 

SSPX has only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and there is no break with their traditional beliefs on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/sspx-has-only-to-interpret-vatican.html



April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX

 
April 13-August 24,2014 and still no correction or clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay
 
 

The influence of Americanism is so strong in the whole Church that the possibility of a Vatican Council II which is pro-Feeneyite seems inconceivable

pope leoComment from The Remnant Newspaper : Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae: Americanism and Pope Leo XIII
The writer has not addressed the specific cause of the problem. She has only indicated that the problem was recognised before the 1960's.She has not mentioned the confusion in the Baltimore Catechism which was repeated in the Catechism of St. Pius X. She recognises that the problem did not begin with Vatican Council II but it is expressed in Vatican Council II.

'At that time, 1899, Gibbons was the leading Catholic prelate of the US.' she says.
Yes and in 1891 he approved the Baltimore Catechism which created a new baptism and placed it in the Baptism  Section of the Catechism. No one can administer this baptism. No human has seen this baptism. No one in faith can know the results of this baptism. Yet it is accepted as a known baptism like the baptism of water.
Before 1891 this 'baptism' was always considered a hypothetical case.For Archbishop Gibbons it was a concrete baptism, like the baptism of water.
So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was rejected in 1949 Boston, since 1891 Baltimore said there are known exceptions to the traditional dogma.There  is a known baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.
Since the hypothetical baptism of desire without the baptism of water, was accepted in Baltimore and Boston, the Americanists placed this new discovery in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). They  said that Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
This was accepted by the traditionalists, i.e a hypothetical baptism of desire is a concrete exception to all needing to convert into the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted this. So did Michael Davies and the SSPX bishops.
Until today the writer cannot discuss if a Vatican Council II can be accepted in which hypothetical cases are only hypothetical and not objective.
The influence of Americanism is so strong in the whole Church that the possibility of a Vatican Council II which is pro-Feeneyite seems inconceivable.-Lionel Andrades

Proclaim the Catholic Faith: The Second Vatican Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion:Ask the CDF / Ecclesia Dei to affirm the Second Vatican Council (Feeneyite version)


The SSPX is not faithful to the Syllabus of Errors.Theologically, for SSPX bishops and many priests , there are exceptions to the Syllabus teachings on other religions and Christian communities.
 

SSPX in its theological and philosophical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theology
 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/sspx-in-its-theological-and.html
 

This error is being taught by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada at the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity seminary in Florida, USA.


Comments from the blog The Epoynmous Flower
Baptism of Desire can either be explicit or an implicit desire.
Lionel:
How can it be explicit for us ?

__________________


It is explicit in the case of a catechumin who dies before receiving the sacrament.
Lionel:
How could it be explicit? It can only be explicit for God.

______________________

St. Ambrose said that a catechumen he knew was martyred without water Baptism, yet he was saved by Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
How could he know this? This could only be known to God.
He could speculate and hope with good will.

_____________________

I can give other examples. And modernists have a false understanding of this doctrine so don't compare them with the sspx. Again, I have never seen a quote from any Saint say that Baptism of Desire is a false doctrine.
Lionel:
It only becomes a false doctrine if it assumed that the baptism of desire is not hypothetical for us but is explicit.
If it confused as being objective, then it is false.
This is exactly what the liberal theologians did. They re interpreted the hypothetical case of the catechumen as being explicit for us human beings.Then they speculated that this case was an explicit exception to EENS.
This was the mistake made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. Even Bishop Sanborn, the sedevacantist bishop has also accepted it.This error is being taught by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada at the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity seminary in Florida, USA.
Ps 1917 code of Canon law says unbaptized/martyred catechumens can get a Catholic berial.
Lionel:
How would they know of a case of an unbaptised/martyred catechumen?

-Lionel Andrades
p.s I agree with Tancred.



Without this irrationality the sedevacantists have no reason to reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism.


 
 


  1.