Monday, June 14, 2021

Dithering Bishops Have to Have a Meeting to Admonish a Public Sinner

 Edit: did Saint Ambrose have to call  a synod to decide whether or not to admonish Theodosios? 

This is an unusual step, but then we recall what kind of men our bishops are.

This Neocon Boomer site has this take:

Biden likes to talk a big Catholic game when he’s campaigning, but like most Democrats, the moment power is achieved is the moment that Catholicism gets tossed out of the window. As a result, American bishops are going to have a meeting to discuss whether or not he should be denied Holy Communion.

AMDG

31 comments:

Mike Slater said...

The US bishops have been instructed by the CDF to develop policy based on consensus. Cordeleone, Pacprocki, Chaput, Olmsetead, Strickland, Aquila, Naumann and like minded don't stand a chance in hell of moving the US bishops' conference on this one.

Tancred said...

That’s because the Gaybrielle fembots have it locked up.

But they’ve been squandering their authority since they decided to consult with the ADL every time they make a move in the late 60s with Weakland and the rest of the gay disco.

Tom said...

If the bishops don’t act decisively and according to Catholic doctrine on this one, the day of the meeting will mark the beginning of the schism in the US as the USCCB follows in the footsteps of Marx in Germany.

Tancred said...

Dear Tom, thanks for continuing to contribute here, but the Bishops haven’t stood for Catholicism since 1963.

Anonymous said...

They received an instruction, and now a warning from the CDF of asshole Bergoglio NOT to deny Holy Communion to Biden, and by extension any pro-choice/abortion politician. God forbid the Bishops are instructed to uphold Catholic doctrine and perennial teaching. Absolutely typical of the Vatican of "pope" Francis. He does not really believe in Catholic doctrine, so therefore he is trying to force none of the worlds' bishops to believe in Catholic doctrine....in the USA, Germany, etc.
I remember that one of the first things that JPII did when he was elected to the papacy, was that in the following June, he inaugurated the first public, massive Corpus Christi procession thru the streets of Rome since the first 1-2 years of Paul VI, who dropped the ceremony after VAtican II and t's "reforms" June 1979, and JPII re-instituted it, and there was a massive turnout in Rome. And it continued every year of his reign....even in 2004. God bless him, even though slowly dying, and having only 10 months left to live, JPII was there, sitting in his wheelchair before the Blessed Sacrament. Benedict XVI continued it all thru his reign.
Bergoglio participated reluctantly in it for the first 2 years of his reign. Then he decided not to participate in it, but rather just to meet the procession when it reached it's destination of Santa Maria Maggiore basilica, where Benediction concluded it. The following 2 years, he decreed it be held in small backwater streets and alleys of Rome. Fewer came. Then, finally, it was done away with entirely. This year, there was nothing. It wasn't even mentioned, except by Bergoglio giving his weekly Angelus appearance at his study window, where he said to the crowd " by the way, today Corpus Christi is celebrated in Italy and Europe." Just a few words, but nothing in the Vatican. He doesn't really believe in the procession, and wants no one else to either.
So how can we expect the USA Catholic bishops to uphold Catholic doctrine and disipline on pro-choice politicians and Holy Communion, when the Pope himself obviously doesn't really believe in the Blessed Sacrament and respect for it himself, or his appointees ( and unfortunately there are 70+ of his worthless appointees as USA bishops).
It would be courageous and magnificent if the true Catholic bishops managed to stand up to the Bergoglio rot and uphold Catholic discipline on this issue. But don't count on it. Just as BLM, CRT and Woke is trying to destroy American history, culture and beliefs, so Bergoglio and his croud are trying to do the same to the CAtholic Faith.

Anonymous said...


Apparently there are those in the Vatican more Catholic than the Pope. See below. They know what a disaster it would have been if Bergoglio were to have given Biden Holy Communion.....and they know he would have done it. So they sabotaged the initiative behind Francis' back so that he couldn't do it.


(Copied from another news site)

"The president's entourage had originally requested for Biden to attend Mass with the pope early in the morning, but the proposal was nixed by the Vatican after considering the impact that Biden receiving Holy Communion from the pope would have on the discussions the USCCB is planning to have during their meeting starting Wednesday, June 16."


Damian M. Malliapalli

Mike Slater said...

Cancellation of a requested Biden Mass with Pope Francis was a very wise move. It will remove any sense of coercion on the members of the USCCB and force them to make their own decision on the euphemistically titled 'Eucharistic communion.'
Whatever they do as a Conference, any bishop remains free to do whatever he wants to and will.

BTW, Tancred, it was precisely in 1963 that the bishops stood up for Catholicism, showed nerve, vision and confidence and voted for reforms that the coward Councils of Trent and Vat I failed to enact. Read a few books that will challenge you.

Tancred said...

When the Rhenish queer faction quashed the condemnation of Communism, you facetious turd.

Mike Slater said...

Get help for anger management and ESL assistance. They can do wonders these days.

Anonymous said...

"BTW, Tancred, it was precisely in 1963 that the bishops stood up for Catholicism, showed nerve, vision and confidence and voted for reforms that the coward Councils of Trent and Vat I failed to enact. Read a few books that will challenge you."

Nothing voted on by the USA bishops in 1963, or any other of the bishops at VAtican II showed nerve,vision or confidence. The "reforms" voted on have been an absolute disaster for the Roman Catholic Faith. The Council of Trent was a brave and confident meeting of cardinals and bishops which as one body stood up against the tide of Protestant heresy and with one voice reaffirmed the CAtholic Faith, and all the traditions and beliefs that the Protestants were at that time denegrating and attempting to destroy (literally by smashing statues, burning monasteries, killing monks,nuns,priests and faithful Catholics, buring books, digging up and destroying the bodies of Saints, etc.).

The Council of Trent, almost immediatly, gave birth to a CAtholic restoration. It gave impetus to new religious Orders such as the Jesuits, Discalced CArmelite nuns of St. Teresa of Avila, and the Discalced Carmelite friars, the Oratorians, and others who took the reforms of the Council of Trent as their own, and carried the Faith once more andretook many countries back from the Protestants, who had made significant inroads (Hungary, parts of Poland, took back large parts of Germany(Bavaria), France, and even small sections of the Netherlands. Other religious Orders such as the Passionists,Redemptorists, Vincentians and Daughters of Charity and Visitation nuns came a century later, still on fire with the tradiitonal reforms of the Council of Trent and spread the Catholic Fiath even to Japan and China (the Jesuits under St. Francis Xavier and his successors). In art, painting, sculpture, music came the greatest master works of Western civilization, and the most beautiful of Churches and religious houses ( a large portion now closed and empty thanks to the disasterious "protestantized" reforms of VAtican II.)

So nothing the USA bishops in 1963 at Vatican II voted on was brave or courageous. It was a repudiation of the CAtholic Faith....and the Church as a whole has been paying or it since.

Damian M. Malliapalli

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

On November 21, 1948, the AmBishops issued "The Christian in action" in which they publicly surrendered to the American Heresy and Religious Liberty.

The text is not online. ABS got a PDF copy of it from an archivist at Catholic University of America.

The AmBishops have been in schism from Catholic Tradition and Catholic Church-State Doctrine since the 1940s and you think they will actualise Canon Law against the Dimwitted POTUS?

Ha...

Tancred said...

Well, the American Bishops were already bad in the 19th century, even persecuting actual Catholic clergy for teaching what the Church has always taught.

Anonymous said...

Nobody says it better than Tancred!

Anonymous said...

It fell to de Laire as judicial vicar to reinforce a Vatican decree that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could not present themselves as Catholic. According to the lawsuit, this resulted in "several articles [at Church Militant] not only criticizing the Diocese's decision to issue the Decree, but defaming Father de Laire, personally."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/media/church-militant-founder-may-face-legal-reckoning-defamation

BISHOP PETER LIBASCI AND FR. GEORGES DE LAIRE LIKE THE ECCLESIASTICS AT THE CDF,VATICAN ARE DISHONEST IN PUBLIC

The traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire, USA are still being told that they are not Catholic since they do not interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with the common irrationality, the false premise, used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican and the bishop and Curia of the Diocese of Manchester, USA.The use of the false premise to interpret Church documents and then project an alleged rupture with Tradition, is dishonest and unethical.
If Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican, would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise he would be called an ‘extremist’ by the Leftist media.Since without the false premise, the Council would be dogmatic. It would affirm the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,GS 22 etc would not be exceptions, as, it is wrongly be interpreted by the CDF today.
Similarly when Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester and Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, interpret Vatican Council II , the Creeds,Catechisms, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, being saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise, that they avoid being labelled traditionalists, extremists etc.
Presently Bishop Lbasci and Fr. Georges de Laire, like the ecclesiastics at the CDF, Vatican, are publically dishonest and are defaming the SBC.

Anonymous said...


THERE ARE GOOD PRIESTS IN MY PARISH BUT THEY DO NOT INTERPRET THE CREEDS AND MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS RATIONALLY : ST.ALPHONSUS LIGUORI SAYS DO NOT GO UP TO RECEIVE THE EUCHARIST FROM A PRIEST OR BISHOP IN PUBLIC MORTAL SIN
There are good priests in the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth,Casalotti, Boccea, Rome.However St.Alphonsus Liguori, father of Moral Theology says that if there is a priest in public mortal sin do not go up to receive the Eucharist from him. Since if you do so you would be telling him all is well even though his soul is oriented to Hell. St. Alphonsus says that if there is no other means to fulfill your Sunday obligation, then go up to him to receive the Eucharist at Mass ( Teologia Moralis, Bk.3,N.46).In my parish, like the rest of the diocese, the priest interpret the Creeds irrationally since it is politically correct with the Left and the Vatican.They reject the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors with the same false premise. Then they interpret the Catechisms and Vatican Council II with the same false premise creating a false rupture with Tradition(EENS etc).
How am I to go up to receive the Eucharist from them ?

Anonymous said...

“The Council and the Eclipse of God” Part XI “How the Council jettisoned true Catholic Evangelisation for shallow Ecumenism” by Don Pietro Leone,Rorate Caeili webblog

RORATE CAEILI AND DON PIETRO LEONE STILL INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II LIKE THE LIBERAL US BISHOPS.


Yes it is true that since the Council Fathers used the false premise to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and accepted this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, some of them chose to create a New Theology, a New Ecumenism and we can see the results in the Church, as Done Pietro Leone also has observed.
But Don Leone does not have to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the false premise as did the popes, the liberals and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
He can choose to interpret Unitatis Redintigratio, the Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II without the false premise, without confusing what is invisible as being visible. Then Vatican Council II is being interpreted without the New Theology and there is no rupture with the old ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.

Mira Collins said...

Lionel, God doesn't give a rat's ass for your obsessive compulsive fixation on Eeennss, false premises, correct premises, mangled syllogisms and the obscure opinions of neurotic saints and nutty hierarchs.

Tancred said...

It’s amazing how rude little aberrosexuals read so little scripture (at which they scoff anyway) and yet claim to speak for the Almighty Himself. A bit presumptuous, but no one would presume to think Feybrielle a humble or wise man, much less a Catholic.

MC said...

Out of your depth as usual.

Tancred said...

Is it your depthless wisdom that leads you to use an enormous plurality of screen names?

Is it the alcohol you use to cope with the symptoms of AIDS and loneliness of your chosen lifestyle?

MC said...

Do you have hubris with your cornflakes, Tucker? Have you ever attempted to deal constructively and intelligently with the accelerating demise of your tiny reactionary cosmos and its discredited heroes, Tucker?
Has it sunk in yet, Tucker, that Bonker Trump has finally admitted that he lost?
Get help with the depression, anger and paralysing resentment, Tucker.

Anonymous said...


That is just a cover (afterall it is just a hologram/avatar/cgi).

The real discussion of the Bishops was about the death Vaxx. Even they cannot ignore

the death facts anymore. They are too cowardly to come out against it. Shameful.

MC said...

Have a few shots of Dettol old chap. It did wonders from Bonker and family. If that fails, do a few lines of Ajax. McCarthy swears by it.

Catholic Mission said...


THIS VIDEO BRINGS OUT THE OBJECTIVE ERROR OF THE U.S BISHOPS : THEY CANNOT SORT OUT THE DOCTRINAL MESS IN THE CHURCH SINCE THEY ARE PART OF IT AND SO IS THE CDF

FEENEYITE-LEFEBVRIST/LIBERAL DOCTRINAL CONFLICT REVIVED WITH THE FALSE PREMISE : MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY VIDEO
The traditionalist-sedevacantist Peter Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery, New York has put out a new video on their website which is important for Catholics to study.In this video he cites the popes who held the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with no exceptions.But in the debate on the video, with Nick Santousso,he is asked about the exceptions.Nick cites the popes who mentioned the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism fo blood (BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). For Nick this was a rejection of the dogma EENS according to Peter Dimond and the MHFM website.
This is the old Feeneyite-Lefebvrist doctrinal conflict, which we have done away with, but now emerges anew.We have discovered the error and corrected the mistake and so it is no more an issue in the Church.
Peter and Nick needed to see BOD, BOB and I.I not as physically visible people on earth in 1949-2021 but as invisible cases.They are not visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.This is a fact of life. It is common sense.This is the point that needs to register.We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Catholic Church with BOD, BOB and I.I and without the baptism of water.We cannot meet or see an ‘exception’.There are no literal cases.Theoretically we can imagine someone but in reality there can be no such case.
Nick mentions explicit and implicit BOD but BOD is always implicit, subjective and theoretical.It is not explicit for us human beings. It can only be explicit for God.
So Peter and Nick were using the false premise.They were confusing what is invisible as being invisible and then making wrong inferences.In their mind they created ‘ exceptions’.Nick would cite them and Peter would reject them since they would contradict the dogma EENS.
We now know that it was possible for the Council of Trent to affirm the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation, with no known exceptions,and also to mention ‘the desirethereof’ which of course could only hypothetical and theoretical. There were no literal cases on earth.We cannot administer the BOD or judge that someone in particular will go to Heaven with BOD and without the baptism of water.So the Catechism of the Council of Trent does not mention any practical exceptions for EENS.
Also the Catechism of Pope Pius X affirms outside the Church there is no salvation (24Q,27Q) and mentions being saved in invincible ignorance, which has to be hypothetical always.Being saved in invincible ignorance can only be a possibility known to God.The norm for salvation is the baptism of water with Catholic faith,for adults.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney made a mistake. It used the false premise to project BOD and I.I as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Cushing and Archbishop Lefebvre over looked this mistake.
The popes today and the SSPX still accept the LOHO which brought in a New Theology into the Church. They use this New Theology to interpret Vatican Council II. The popes employ the false premise and accept the non traditional conclusion. The SSPX employs the same false premise and rejects the non traditional conclusion.
In the video Peter Dimond rejects the LOHO and Nick Santasuosso accepts it.-Lionel Andrades

Anonymous said...


BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS COULD BE PETITIONED TO AFFIRM THE OLD ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CHURCH AT HOLY MASS IN LATIN OR FRENCH. THIS WILL BE THE FORMAL OLD THEOLOGY OF THE 300 FAMILIES IN DIJON, FRANCE.HOW CAN THE BISHOP OFFER MASS AND DISTRIBUTE THE EUCHARIST WHEN HE IS FORMALLY CHANGING THE CREEDS AND CATECHISMS WITH A FALSE PREMISE ?

The 300 families who attended the Latin Mass with the FSSP at Dijon, France need to formerly tell Bishop Roland Minnerath, that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO) uses a false premise and so cannot be Magisterial. This has a bearing on the theology of the Holy Mass, lex orandi, lex credendi.A petition should be sent to him by the laity.
The New Theology also based upon the false premise, is not Magisterial, even though the present two popes support it.
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), an ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX or the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation and other religions are not paths to salvation, according to the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q).Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise ( with exceptions) is also not Magisterial.The Council has to be interpreted with the rational premise and in harmony with these Magisterial documents.
Those who went for Holy Mass in Latin with the FSSP priests, return to the Athansius Creed, which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation.There are no exceptions to the Athanasius Creed mentioned in Vatican Council II, for the Latin laity.The old ecclesiology is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, for them.
Since there are no practical exceptions to EENS there is no rational theological basis for the New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation and New Ecclesiology.
There is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church for them.Physically, they cannot meet or see someone saved without faith and the baptism of water.In 2021, they cannot meet any one saved outside the Church, as referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc or, the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) mentioned in the LOHO.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pius X affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and there are no exceptions for them.
Vatican Council II affirms the strict interpretation of EENS in Ad Gentes 7( all need faith and baptism for salvation)and there are no exceptions to AG 7 for them.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of EENS ( CCC 855,846,1257) and there are no practical exceptions.
So they would like Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to affirm the old ecclesiology of the Church at the Latin and Novus Ordo Mass. This will be the formal theology of the 300 families at the TLM and the Mass in the vernacular.
Religious communties and lay organisations are welcome to support them in France.

Anonymous said...

June 26, 2021
THE PROBLEM OF DIJON, FRANCE IS THE SAME AS THE DIOCESE IN WHICH I LIVE IN ROME,PORTA SANTA RUFINA. THERE THE LATIN MASS WAS STOPPED AND THE SEMINARY OF FR. STEFANO MANNELLI F.I REMAINS CLOSED.THE ISSUE FOR ME IS VATICAN COUNCIL II INTERPRETED WITH OR WITHOUT A FALSE PREMISE, AND NOT THE LITURGY.

The problem in Dijon, Franace is the same as the diocese in which I live in Rome, Porta Santa Rufina.Here the Latin Mass was stopped and the seminary of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i remains closed.The issue for me is Vatican Council II interpreted with or without a false premise, and not the liturgy.



The problem in Dijon, Franace is the same as the diocese in which I live in Rome, Porta Santa Rufina.Here the Latin Mass was stopped and the seminary of Fr. Stefano Mannelli f.i remains closed.The issue for me is Vatican Council II interpreted with or without a false premise, and not the liturgy. I have been going for Mass in Italian at the parish Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti, Boccea, and have been affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Syllabus of Errors with no exceptions.I did not have to reject Tradition.I would attend the Novus Ordo Mass and still affirm the Athansius Creed with no known exceptions.I could do all this without rejecting Vatican Council II, interpreted without the false premise.So the Council has no exceptions for EENS, for me.Vatican Council II is not a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries of the 16th century. There is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and no development of doctrine.

For me there is no New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger, since there is no false premise used.It's simple.

There is no development of doctrine possible, since I avoid the false premise, inference and conclusion.

Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and the cardinals and bishops are not Magisterial on Vatican Council II for me, since they use a fake premise, a lie, to interpret the Council and then create a false rupture with Tradition. It is the same in the other dioceses of Rome.

Anonymous said...

BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH IS EXPECTED TO APPROVE THE LATIN MASS FOR THE FSSP BUT ONLY IF THEY ACCEPT A THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS LIKE THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS.IT IS THE SAME WITH THE USCCB BISHOPS. THE FSSP AND LAITY MUST ASK THE BISHOP TO AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II AND MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS WITH THE RATIONAL PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION AND SO THEN REJECT ‘ THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS’.THE FSSP CULD REFUSE TO OFFER MASS WITH A NEW ECUMENISM CREATED WITH A FALSE PREMISE.THIS IS A REJECTION OF THE CREEDS, CATECHISMS ETC.THEY CAN ALSO REFUSE TO OFFER MASS UNTIL BISHOP MINNERATH RECITES THE ATHANASIUS CREED IN PUBLIC.

Bishop Roland Minnerath supports a theology of religions which Pope John Paul II rejected (CDF,Notification, Dupuis 2001) and which the FSSP reject, so they evangelize the non Catholics in Dijon,France.
Bishop Minnerath in his books can support the theology of religions since he has used the false premise to create exceptions for the teachings of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on ecumenism and no salvation outside the Church.There is a theology of religions for him,like for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria, in an ITC paper, since they assume that there are known exceptions for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed.
So the bishop is expected to approve the Latin Mass for the FSSP but only if they accept a theology of religions like the diocesan priests.
He will consider this obligatory and cite as a reference, Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, inference and conclusion.
The FSSP and the laity must ask the bishop to affirm Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and so then reject ‘a theology of religions’.
Do not allow him to cite Vatican Council II to justify ‘a theology of religions’ when he means Vatican Council II interpreted only with the false premise and not the rational, option.
The FSSP must not allow the bishop to cite Vatican Council Ii as a reason to support his liberalism since Vatican Council Ii is really, dogmatic, it supports Feeneyite EENS with Ad Gentes 7 while LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are not exceptions to AG 7 and EENS.
The bishop has to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( invisible cases are only invisible) and not Cushingism ( invisible cases must be seen as being visible).Otherwise the Cushingite irrationality will result in heresy and schism, like the LOHO. It is not Magisterial with the irrational premise.
AG 7 supports the strict interpretation of EENS and hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3 etc are not practical exceptions to AG7 in 2021.The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc.This is the Feeneyite and not Cushingite approach to Vatican Council II.
The bishop cannot tell the non Catholics in Dijon that AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions to AG 7 in Vatican Council II.Since LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR3, NA 2 etc can refer to only hypothetical cases for us humans.If any one is saved outside the Church it can only be known to God.The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 14, LG 16 etc. LG 14 etc are not even exceptions to the norm.Since there are no known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2021.
CONTINUED

Anonymous said...

CONTINUED

The New Ecumenism is division in the Church in Dijon based upon the false premise.The irrational premise is used to reject UR3 and suggest that there are known non Catholic Christians saved outside the Catholic Church, without Catholic faith.With this irrationality EENS is rejected by the bishop and he puts forward a theory of religious pluralism among Christians and non Christians.
The FSSP could refuse to offer Mass with a New Ecumenism created with a false premise.This is a rejection of the Creeds, Catechisms etc.They can also refuse to offer Mass until Bishop Minnerath recites the Athanasius Creed in public.
Bishop Minnerath promotes division in the Catholic Church when he interprets Magisterial documents with a fake premise and accepts the LOHO with its objective error.The Magisterium of the Church unlike LOHO, did not use the false premise over the centuries.They knew that BOD and I.I referred to invisible and hypothetical cases only. This is something obvious.

June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted.html

Anonymous said...


INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH/USCCB BISHOPS AND LIONEL ANDRADES
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error which now are obsolete. Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the fake premise, inference and conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.So there is a rupture with Tradition. If he used the rational premise, inference and conclusion there would be no rupture with Tradition.
So his books are obsolete. They were written with a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.
With the false premise he changes the original interpretation of the Creeds,Catechisms and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.With the rational premise he would emerge a traditionalist like the FSSP. The FSSP reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise and go back to traditional sources of the Catholic Church.
FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND USCCB BISHOPS.
Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND USCCB BISHOPS.
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND USCCB BISHOPS.
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.
Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.
RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades


June 29, 2021
Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted.html

Anonymous said...

They had their meeting and did not admonish the sinner

Anonymous said...


LAITY IN DIJON COULD PRODUCE ANOTHER VIDEO ASKING WHY SHOULD THE FSSP PRIESTS CONCELEBRATE HOLY MASS WITH BISHOP MINNERATH AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS WHEN THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE TO CREATE A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION AS HELD BY THE LAITY.THE USCCB BISHOPS DO THE SAME.

The lesamis basilique could produce another video affirming the Catholic faith and then see the reaction of Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP and diocesan priests. The video could ask – why should the FSSP priests concelebrate Holy Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath when they interpret Vatican Council II intentionally with a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition as known to the FSSP priests and the laity?
1. They could ask Bishop Minnerath to affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q) and also Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) with Vatican Council II ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc ) not being in conflict with AG 7.It would not contradict the de fide teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions.
2. They could ask the bishop to affirm Vatican Council II( Ad Gentes 7) with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc not being practical exceptions in 2021 to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return etc.
3. Ask the bishop to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which was defined by three Church Councils ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).The bishop must make it clear that the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO)1949 are not exceptions.The LOHO used a false premise.
The lesamisbasilique could produce another video but this one would be on the Catholic Church’s teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation (Quas Primas etc they could show how Quas Primas is supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
Bishop Minnerath has written about the Syllabus of Errors, Vatican Council II, the Concordats, the theology of religions and a rejection of an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.He could be asked to correct himself and interpret the Council in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius IX ( 24Q,27Q).
Since Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3 etc not being objective exceptions to AG 7 and EENS, all need to fomally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.So it is important that the political adminstrations and governments in Dijon and France be Catholic, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.It is imperative for the salvation of souls from going to Hell that the Social Reign of Christ the King be proclaimed once again in France.Jesus as he is known traditionally in the Catholic Church, should be the centre of all political legislation.
The bishop must be informed that he interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and expects the laity to do the same even though a rational option is available.The rational option would place the Council in harmony with Tradition ( EENS etc)? So the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church today would be the same as the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, at the time of St. Joan of Arc.
The bishop could be asked in the video,”Why should the FSSP priests concelebrate Mass with him and the diocesan priests who interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a fake rupture with the Tradition, which the FSSP and the laity uphold?.