Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities : approved by the bishop of Worcester

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River, MA , an otherwise admirable community, accept novices who have to repeat the same irrationality as the liberal communities in the USA. This is approved by their bishop, the bishop of Worcester.

 

Novices have to allege that there are exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

They have to endorse that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to persons saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience and these persons are visible and known to us.To assume that the dead in Heaven are visible and known to us in particular cases is a false premise an irrational propostion.How can the dead be living exceptions? And if the dead are not living exceptions to the dogma then how can it be said that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

 

Then the novices have to endorse the false conclusion. They have to claim that these dead -and- visible- for- us people, now in Heaven, are visible exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2014-2015 for salvation.  So for the novices, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It contradicts the dogma, according to the founder of their community the late Fr.Leonard  Feeney, who held what the secular media calls the 'rigorist interpretation' .

 

The prior of this community, Brother Thomas Augustine MICM does not comment on this irrationality in e-mails I have sent to him over the last few years.

 

The irrational teaching given to the novices and held  by the rest of the community is supported by the priests of the diocese who offer the Traditional Latin Mass at the chapel in Still River, MA.

-Lionel Andrades

 

_____________________________________

 

 

In spite of all the problems, it is still the Church full of greatness and glory September 9, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo 

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Still River, MA shared a blessed event yesterday in the form of one of their novices making her first profession of vows. Sister Mary Imelda traded in the white veil of a novice for the black one of a professed sister.

I asked a while back why it seems this order gets disrespect at times from some traditional Catholics, and never really got an answer. I think it has to do with an assumption that because there was a problem, once, there must still be one. That’s a really unfair appreciation, to my mind. In my experience, and from all available evidence, this order (both male and female) is solidly orthodox, committed to Tradition, and doing great work. They have never offered anything other than the TLM, even in the darkest days of the 70s and 80s. That’s a testament right there.

Anyways, some photos of the blessed event. I was also so pleased to read that the Slaves received a new novice on Aug 22 of this year. I pray this order continues to grow, because they do such good work! Maybe we’ll get to have a camp with them again locally this year, God willing!

Look at them grow. God be praised! There are so few traditional women’s religious orders, each new professed soul represents a tremendous gift to the Church.

I really like this order on several levels. As much as I greatly appreciate and value cloistered contemplative orders like the Carmelites in Valparaiso and the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles, their very cloistered nature puts a limit on their presence in the lives of others. The Slaves run a school, a camp, and have traveled around the country giving other camps for children. That is a glorious experience for children to receive, especially in this age when habited religious are so rare many may go their entire childhood without ever meeting a discernible religious. The Church needs both Martha and Mary, and the Slaves practice much of the lives of both.

God bless Sister Mary Imelda and Sister Gabriel Marie, along with new brother postulant Michael Duffy. The Duffy family now has three children among the Slaves. What. A. Blessing!

Oh, while I’m at it singing the praises of the Slaves and the Saint Benedict Center, I should mention their gift shop, which has a whole lot of very cool Catholic items. I really like the many bumper stickers and decals for your car I really haven’t seen anywhere else! You can really Catholic your car up! My man TE has this one:

There are a wide variety of other items at the gift shop, from books to crucifixes to artwork and even tapestries, which I remember correctly the nuns make themselves! There is quite a bit of great stuff, it’s worthwhile checking out.

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/in-spite-of-all-the-problems-it-is-still-the-church-full-of-greatness-and-glory/

Here are Catholics who do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so do not come to the false conclusion

Here are Catholics who do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so do not come to the false conclusion.
Brother Andre Marie are you saying that they are wrong?

 

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errorshttp://eucharistandmission.blo...

 

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUShttp://eucharistandmission.blo...

 

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OFhttp://eucharistandmission.blo...

 

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blo...
Implicit intention, invincible ignoran

ce and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blo...

-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-241.html#comment-1762875514

If he was aware of the false premise, in future, he could reinterpret the Council in which there is no ambiguity with reference to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Steve Speray has placed a post on his website 1 and will not post my comments. He interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational inference, which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and he has accepted this hook, line and sinker. He still does not have a clue to what I am saying.-L.A

Speray:

To distinguish itself apart from all false churches, the Catholic Church teaches that it can be identified by four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

If the church under Francis I and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican 2) lack any one of the four marks, then it necessarily follows that Francis I and his church are counterfeit...

Lionel:

Now he sets out to interpret Vatican Council II assuming that UR 3 etc refer to visible and known cases in 2014-2105 and so are explicit for us. This is his false premise. Then he comes to a false conclusion. He assumed that these visible for us cases of persons in Heaven are explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in the present times. In other words they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.So he concludes that Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( The Council of Florence etc) and so goes into sedevacantism.

For me Vatican Council II is traditional and not in conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, since I did not use the false premise and do not come to a false conclusion.

Pope Francis is the pope for me.I accept whatever he says as long as it does not contradict Tradition and other popes.

At the same time I affirm the Catholic Church as being one, holy and Apostolic.

________________________________

Speray:

Vatican 2’s explanation is in line with the Protestant understanding of the profession of the Creed insofar as its teaching consists of a visibly divided Church unified in spirit only. It denies the mark of oneness as taught by the Roman Catechism and the popes and councils before the 1960’s...

The catechism makes special reference to UR3 of Vatican 2 supporting the above statement:

“It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

Of course, the Vatican 2 religion advocates that clinging and embracing its religion is best because it has the fullness of means, but it doesn’t teach that its membership is a necessary precept because non-Catholic churches have a means to salvation, just not the fullness thereof.

Lionel:

Steve Speray is referring to the common interpretation of Vatican Council(with the false premise). If he was aware of the false premise, in future, he could  reinterpret the Council in which there is no ambiguity with reference to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

-Lionel Andrades

_______________________________

Here are Catholics who do not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so do not come to the false conclusion as does Steve Speray.

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links

June 21, 2014

 

Catholic Religious indicate the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake :implicit desire etc is not visible to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-indicate-letter-of.html#links

Catholic religious contradict Bishop Fellay : Nostra Aetate is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/catholic-religious-contradict-bishop.html#links
______________________________________________


DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/irrespective-if-baptism-of-desie.html#linksImplicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links______________________________________________________________

1

Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2

http://stevensperay.wordpress.com/

25 dicembre: l’incanto del Santo Natale. Estratto da “La Memoria negata” – di Pucci Cipriani

25 dicembre: l’incanto del Santo Natale. Estratto da “La Memoria negata” – di Pucci Cipriani

http://www.riscossacristiana.it/25-dicembre-lincanto-del-santo-natale-estratto-da-la-memoria-negata-di-pucci-cipriani/

GENTLEMEN, THIS...IS STRENGTH

http://muniatintrantes.blogspot.it/

Apostasia dei pastori e dei teologi : Un pontificato per far emergere l'apostasia silenziosa

apostasia dei pastori e dei teologi

Un pontificato per far emergere l'apostasia silenziosa di Enrico Cattaneo

Si sente spesso dire che il Papa«non ha convocato due Sinodi sulla famiglia per ribadire l’esistente». Tutti si aspettano quindi dei cambiamenti, delle «aperture», ma a che cosa? In quale direzione? E poi qual è “l’esistente”? Se l’esistente è la dottrina, tutti hanno detto e ripetuto che «la dottrina non si tocca». Allora l’esistente è la pratica. …. La cosa più preoccupante, a mio avviso, non sono le mancanze in se stesse (sempre si è fatto fatica a osservare le norme morali), ma è la loro teorizzazione come qualcosa da riconsiderare in senso positivo. In effetti, buona parte di cattolici (e forse soprattutto tra gli intellettuali) segue per lo più la morale laica dominante, secondo la quale – per fare degli esempi concreti –usare i contraccettivi è normale; prendere le varie “pillole del giorno dopo” è pure cosa accettabile; l’aborto no, per carità, però se una donna lo chiede, perché negarglielo? E poi in alcuni casi ci vuole (come quando la diagnosi prenatale rivela qualche anomalia; o come in caso di stupro, ecc.). Quanto alla fecondazione artificiale, omologa o eterologa, essa è vista come un progresso. Non parliamo poi della cultura omosessualista, che ormai sembra accettata da molti anche nella Chiesa, almeno nei suoi presupposti generali, e cioè che l’omosessualità è un dato di natura, e quindi non ha nulla di peccaminoso, anzi è portatrice di valori positivi; e che le convivenze omosessuali vanno tutelate in qualche modo, se non proprio equiparate a “famiglie”.

Ora se questo è l’esistente, il Sinodo che cosa è chiamato a fare? È vero che Papa Francesco incoraggia la libera discussione. Ma che cosa significa affermare che dopo questo Sinodo«non si parlerà più come prima sulla famiglia»? Vuol dire che si deve parlare di “famiglie” al plurale, cioè vari tipi di famiglia (etero, omo, single, tripled, ecc.)? Vuol dire che si troverà una via per ammettere alla Comunione i divorziati risposati senza passare per una dichiarazione di nullità? Ma anche in questo campo, l’esistente in molti casi è già sfuggito di mano: in alcune parrocchie i divorziati risposati sono tranquillamente ammessi alla Comunione; in altre non si va più tanto per il sottile nel distinguere tra sposati, conviventi, divorziati risposati: tutti sono ammessi alla Comunione. Già che siamo nel campo liturgico, che dire di quelle parrocchie (non molte a dire il vero) dove ormai sono i laici (uomini e donne) che presiedono non solo la liturgia della Parola in mancanza di un presbitero, ma anche celebrano l’Eucaristia?

Ora il cambiamento auspicato potrebbe andare in due sensi: o legalizzare (per così dire) tutto questo scollamento, facendo una specie di“condono”, anzi giustificandolo con qualche piccolo aggiustamento (tutto, se si vuole, si può giustificare, ricorrendo all’ermeneutica); oppure dire: “Cari fratelli, ci siamo messi su una strada sbagliata, dobbiamo cambiare direzione, perché quella presa non porta da nessuna parte, anzi porta alla perdizione; dobbiamo tornare seriamente alla Parola di Dio, cominciando dai comandamenti; dobbiamo rincentrarci su Cristo e sulla sua grazia, senza la quale nulla è possibile. Questi sono i cambiamenti che il Signore ci chiede”. Secondo me il Papa non ha ancora preso posizione, come alcuni fanno credere, ma sta ponendo le basi senza le quali non è possibile nessun cammino, e cioè: Cristo, la sua grazia, lo Spirito Santo, la Parola, la Chiesa, i Sacramenti, il senso del peccato, la riscoperta della misericordia divina.

Anche sentendo l’aria che tirava al Sinodo, mi chiedo: ma siamo così accecati che non ci accorgiamo più di questa “apostasia silenziosa”, di questo “scisma sommerso” che ha intaccato il cattolicesimo? Ecco allora una possibile interpretazione di questo difficile pontificato, che è quello di Papa Francesco: forse il Signore gli ha dato la missione di far emergere questo male nascosto (chiamiamolo pure “marciume” come ha fatto il Card. Ratzinger), perché vuole purificare la sua Chiesa. Questa operazione comporta due momenti distinti, ma correlati: la diagnosi, che va fatta alla luce della Parola di Dio e del Magistero della Chiesa, non in base alla dottrina del mondo; la terapia, che è quella usata da Gesù nel Vangelo. La diagnosi, se vuole essere vera, va fatta senza sconti e, se non si hanno le fette di salame sugli occhi, è preoccupante. E verrà poi anche il momento di riaffermare la dottrina. Il problema vero però è la terapia. Oggi non basta più ripetere la dottrina, perché il popolo cristiano nella pratica non la recepisce più, è troppo debole, malato spiritualmente, stordito dalla logica del mondo, disorientato dalla cedevolezza dei pastori e dei teologi.

http://muniatintrantes.blogspot.it/2014/12/apostasia-teologica.html

 

Anti Catholic video targets extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is a new video put out by a person whose videos are anti Catholic and who supports modernists philosophers like Simone Weil.

 

He starts of the video by quoting the popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the traditional teaching on the dogma supported by Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

 

He then makes the wrong inference at Lumen Gentium 16 when he assumed that only those persons need to enter the Catholic Church who know about the Church, inferring that these cases who 'know' are exceptions to the dogma.ln other words they are explicit for us in the present times to be exceptions.

 

Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict the traditional teaching of the dogma which he has cited earlier in the video. Since those who 'know' or those who are in invincible ignorance, are known only to God. They are not visible or known to us. So they do not contradict the dogma which Pope Pius XII called 'an infallible teaching'. This wrong inference comes from the  first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supported Fr.Leonard Feeney and Tradition, on doctrine.

 

In the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there is a factual error.It is assumed that being saved with the baptism of desire/implicit desire and in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases.It is a fact of life that these persons would be in Heaven and would not be visible to us. So how can they be exceptions to the earlier part of the Letter which affirms Tradition?

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was made public by the Archdiocese of Boston after Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggini died.Reports say that the 'correction' in the second part of the Letter was made by a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston. This priest who became a cardinal, also supported the lifting of the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

 

The video then tries to show that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is non biblical.It does not quote John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc which support the dogma. Instead it quotes passages of the Bible which refer to Jesus as the Saviour. In other words Jesus is separated from the Church, and the Church is also separated from the Kingdom of God.These are both Protestant biblical interpretations.

 

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is biblical.It comes to us from Jesus.He offered salvation from Hell, to those who believed in him in the only Church he founded.

-Lionel Andrades

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS NOT IN HERESY BUT THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON SUSPENDED HIM http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/09/frleonard-feeney-was-not-in-heresy-but.html

EWTN REMOVES FR.CORAPI BUT CONTINUES TO TEACH HERESY ON FR.LEONARD FEENEY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BISHOP

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/09/ewtn-removes-frcorapi-but-continues-to.html

 

_____________________________________________________

 

 

 

Caution: the music could draw vibrations that fit in with evil influences.

However there would be tension with their bishops and others for whom the Council is a break with the dogma

Brother Andre Marie,

Do you'll still affirm the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and while doing so put aside Vatican Council II ?The Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( rigorist interpretation) are not compatible.

So how can you say that the St.Benedict Center accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus on your site?

You will not use my 'empiricist approach to theology' but will use 'a non empiricist approach', in which Lumen Gentium 16 etc are empirical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

________________________________

 

Joanie,
I consider myself a friend of the St.Benedict Centers,( with friends like these who needs enemies!!?? You must be thinking).
I just want them to understand that Vatican Council II supports their ( our) traditional position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So it does not have to be either Fr.Leonard Feeney or Vatican Council II.
However there would be tension with their bishops and others for whom the Council is a break with the dogma.I understand this.

-Lionel Andrades

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-241.html#comment-1761932548