Edit: among the very small number of regular church attendees, it should be pretty clear.
The Bishops will consult their Gaybrielle, who will inform them that regular attendees are slack-jawed troglodytes who probably voted for Trump, and that they are only a small number of Catholics and can be ignored. Besides, they likely place dogmatic rules above people.
[Life News] A new poll of faithful Catholics finds 74% of regular churchgoers say pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Joe Biden should not present themselves for communion.
The poll, conducted by the CRC Research polling firm for the pro-life group CatholicVote, found 74% of Catholics who attend mass regularly did not think pro-abortion politicians should show up for communion and another 83% of Catholics who regularly attend Mass say these pro-abortion politicians “create confusion and disunity” because they do not follow the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church.
According to the survey, 87% of Catholics agree that the Church has a longstanding pro-life position and has “has long taught that certain issues are of grave moral importance, such as abortion.” Another 83% say “Catholic bishops should publicly defend all Catholic teachings” and 90% agree the bishops “have an obligation to teach and lead others in matters of faith and moral.”
This is a good sign, yet I would dare wonder if there would be the similar majority if the questions also were regarding the reception of Holy Communion for the divorced/remarried, sodomites, etc.
I would certainly hope that the common denominator would be: Practising Catholics in the State of Grace, and knowing that the reception of Holy Communion requires being "in union" with Christ and all the Teachings of His Church.
Yawn. Fake news.
The only time I have heard Trump pronounce on the issue of abortion he said that he was in favour of a woman's right to choose.
You’re Fake News, Gabriella Miranda.
The bone headed right wing of the Catholic Church in the US were hoodwinked by Trump on almost every issue including abortion. He played the 'pro-life' game as if it were an adjunct to his business enterprises but privately considered it of little importance. He was and is the original Big Lie.
Spot on. I always wondered how he got away with it. Thd man didn't seem to have heard of most of the ten commandments.
How has the discussion on whether Catholics who contradict Church teaching can receive Holy Communion, turned into a Comment Fest of slamming the 45th President, who is not a Catholic and, therefore, not part of this post? Unless, of course, their hatred for the Republic is as strong as their trampling of Church discipline.
Only because I at least am mystified as to why traditional Catholics could bring themselves to support him.
They-many/most - traditional Catholics are the same ones who bet their hides on frauds like Vigano, poseur showboats like Cordileone, Aquila, Naumann, Strickland, Olmsted, Chaput, Paproki etc, etc. They are attracted to autocrats because that's the way they are themselves wired.
Most of the comments above are brought to you courtesy of the novus ordo homo mafia attacking and ridiculing anything resembling historic Catholicism since 1962.
Donald Trump's enormous popularity with dispossed and vilified Americans and Trads doesn't mystify me, but the lack of honesty or even situational awareness exhibited by haughty sodomites in this chat who invariably ignore the villainy of their own party in order to attack those who throw a light on the cockroaches and other seething coprophagic vermin.
Bonker Trump is an shallow opportunist, moral relativist, confected faker, serial liar and fraud. The courts, banks and crap detectors haven't done with him yet.
¨The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will gather virtually for the 2021 Spring General Assembly on June 16-18.¨
The real discussion was about the death Vaxx. Even they cannot ignore the death facts
anymore. Too bad they don´t have the guts to speak up about it even in this late stage
Anonymous 1:10 AM illustrates just how morally bankrupt a large percentage of the US population is in relation to civic responsibility in international and national health security. The rabid dog reactiveness to the COVID-19 vaccines has caused the US to forfeit respect and credibility on the international stage.
The Chinese are making you lot look morally backward.
At G7, Former UK PM Gordon Brown: "We will decide effectively, who lives and who dies"
But pro-vaccine Medical chief of Denmark passes out, did she survive?
Fake news, Genghis.
The problem is that the one with the oar in the canoe has a different mind set. He espouses the right of the people to decide right and wrong. "Rigid" bishops are just not acceptable for the "Church of the people".----The problem is that the leaders of the people are all like Gavin Newsom who has in-law connections to dear old Nance. He is literally dyslexic (check Wikipedia). He cannot read and has to have all of his legal work read to him.
The bishops voted nearly 170 to 55 to produce this document regarding Holy Communion and pro-abortion politicians.....regardless of what Bergoglio, his radical VAtican, and his 55 cohort trolls abong the USA bishops wanted. God forbid Pope Francis would stand up for the Faith, or his worthless bishops he has appointed.
I hope, in the end, in this documents both Biden himself, and by extension other politicians who support abortion, and censured in the document by name. Then, back in the Vatican Pope Francis and his people can work themselves up into good ol' fashioned gay "hissy-fits".
Damian M. Malliapalli
Not being very well-informed about China, Gaybrielle holds those Chicoms forth as an example to put Americans to shame in the Civic virtues department.
I’d concede this is so if we took into account the criminalization of Gaybrielle’s favorite vice.
Tucker is rattled.
Gaybrielle is seething.
QED and who's Gaybrielle, Tucker?
Gaybrielle, prove Tucker has received the Vaccine.
But you did, Tucker.
I’ll bet you used to believe in God before you decided you were gay.
Stop talking to yourself, “commenter” aka Gaybrielle. It doesn’t make your Orange Man Bad obsession any less irrelevant and cringeworthy.
I’m not a pre-programmed talking head or an NPC like you, Feybrielle.
Tancred is rattled, shaken and stirred. The ousting of Bonker Trump, his minions and the discrediting of those episcopal morons like Burke, Vigano and the Dubia Bros has completely eroded Tucker's confidence and security.
IN MY PARISH THE PRIESTS, CATECHISTS AND PARISHIONERS INTERPRET THE NICENE AND ATHANASIUS CREED IRRATIONALLY: THIS IS A PUBLIC MORTAL SIN,OUR PROFESSION OF FAITH IS DIFFERENT : AND I HAVE TO GO UP TO RECEIEVE THE EUCHARIST
In my parish the priests and catachists interpret unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being known people and objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions to the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation, and the Creed does not mention any exceptions.
For me unknown cases of the BOD and I.I cannot be known and objective exceptions to the Athanasius Creed.
The priests and catechists and the parishioners cannot affirm the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is first class heresy and a public mortal sin.They do not deny this.
In this condition, without their ending the scandal, I have to go up to receive the Eucharsit at Holy Mass in Italian.
Aside from the Athanasius Creed there is a problem also with the Nicene Creed.For me the Nicene Creed says “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”,it is a reference to the baptism of water.I don’t know of any one saved with the BOD or I.I.I don’t know of any one saved outside the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water.
But for the priests, catechists and parishioners of Santa Maria di Nazareth, Casalotti,Boccea,Rome,the Nicene Creeds really says, « I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, desire, blood , invincible ignorance etc and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( and so there are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them).So the understanding of the Nicene Creeds has been changed. This is public mortal sin.
The parish’s understanding of the Nicene Creed and my understanding is different.So our Profession of Faith at Holy Mass would also be different.
And I have to go up to receive the Eucharist at Mass without them recanting and correcting the error, whjch is common in this diocese of Porta Santa Rufina, now under the administration of the Archbishop of Civitavecchia and the Vatican.
Priests and lay people are expected to affirm the Creeds without any innovation.
God doesn't give two hoots, Lionel.
IN MY PARISH THE BRAZILIAN PRIESTS, ITALIAN CATECHISTS AND THE WHOLE PARISH WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BISHOP, RE-INTERPRET THE CREEDS,FIRST COMMANDMENT, THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, CATECHISMS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FAKE PREMISE AND CREATE A FAKE RUPTURE WITH TRADITION : HOW ARE THE NON BELIEVING PRIESTS ALLOWED TO GIVE THE EUCHARIST TO A NON BELIEVING PARISH ?
In my parish I look at the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood (BOB) and Invincible ignorance ( I.I) as being only hypothetical, they exist only in our mind - but for the Brazilian priests, Italian catechists and the parishioners, they are objective, known people, non Catholics, saved without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.So for every one else they become practical exceptions to the old teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation- but not for me.
The Athanasius Creed says all need Catholic faith for salvation and this Creed does not mention any exceptions but for the parish there are exceptions.There are exceptions since BOD, BOB and I.I are wrongly made into exceptions.So the parish has rejected the original Athanasius Creed and made it obsolete.This is approved by the bishop and the priests.
They have also changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed and rejected its original meaning.This is a sin of faith, it is a mortal sin of faith.
We are also obliged to believe in the First Commandment of Moses which says “I am the Lord your God you shall have no other God but me”.After the Coming of the Messiah and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus as prophesised by the Jewish prophets,God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845), the Church is Jesus’ Mystical Body and it is like the Ark of Noah that saves all from the flood, that saves all from going to Hell.Outside the Church there is no salvation( AG 7,CCC 846).The Jews were waiting for the Messiah but he came and they did not know it. He will come again.
So only in the Catholic Church there is true worship(UR 3) and Catholics are the new people of God(NA 4), the new Chosen People.But when BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted with a false premise( invisible people are visible examples of salvation outside the Church,people saved in Heaven are also physically visible on earth) the dogma EENS is rejected. So the parish believes outside the Catholic Church there is salvation and so there is true worship in other religions,non Christian religions and among pagans too, like in the Amazon.
This is first class heresy.It is also schism with the past popes and the Magisterium over the centuries.It is a rupture with Catholic Tradition created by intepreting BOD, BOB and I.I with a false premise and then extending the error to LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II.The parish would then claim that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition (Athanasius Creed,EENS etc).
So Catholic children are not taught in parish-Catechism that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics.
To be politically correct with the Left the Brazilian Joselitos Christo priests and the Italian Catechists,re-interpret the Creeds,Commandments, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Catechisms and Vatican Council II with a fake premise and create a fake rupture with Tradition.
They reject de fide teachings of the Catholic Church which cannot be changed and in which all need to believe in.They offer Holy Mass with this scandal and I have to go up to them to receive the Eucharist.
When the Comitato dell Immaculata,of Fr.Stefano Mannellii fi., founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, which oversees the parish property, permits all these non Catholic, doctrines and theology in the parish of Santa Maria di Nazareth,Casalotti,Rome,they condone sin and are part of the problem.
'Catholic bishops should publicly defend all Catholic teachings'.
THE LATIN LAITY AT DIJON, FRANCE CAN GET BACK THE OLD ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE TLM:THEY SIMPLY HAVE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II ETC WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE. THEY ARE BACK TO TRADITION.THIS IS THE MESSAGE THEY NEED TO GET ACROSS TO THE PEOPLE AND BISHOPS IN FRANCE.
The 300 families in Dijon, France will continue to have the Latin Mass but it will be offered by the diocesan priests and not the FSSP.It will be the Latin Mass without the ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM), of the missionaries in the 16th century.To get back the old ecclesiology which accompanied the TLM these families simply have to ask the bishop and diocesan priests to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.They are back to Tradition!
The bishop could say “No” since he wants Mass in Latin to be offered like Mass in French, without the past ecclesiology.He wants Mass to be offered with the New Theology.It is created with the false premise, inference and conclusion.
The 300 families, the Latin laity, must know that the issue really is not the Mass.They now have the Latin Mass offered by the Novus Ordo Mass priests.The real issue is Vatican Council II interpreted with or without the false premise.
The Novus Ordo and FSSP priests interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, like the 300 families.
If they all would interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, then doctrinally and theologically they are affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Since Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports 16th century EENS.While hypothetical and non-objective cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are not practical exceptions to any thing. They are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS.There are no exceptions in the Council text also for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q).
So the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church at Mass in French or Latin would be the same as in the past. It would be the same as that of the Catholic Church at the time of St. Joan of Arc.
Catechists at Dijon, France could once again teach, like over the centuries, that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and in Heaven there are only Catholics.This would be the theology of the Catholic Church’s documents, interpreted rationally.I am here interpreting Vatican Council II and EENS rationally.This is not just a personal approach and view but the teachings of the Catholic Church, past and present,with the old theology.I am drawing upon the teachings of the Church.
There cannot be a New Theology created with a false premise, it cannot be Magisterial.This is the message the 300 families must get across in the diocese and the rest of France.
Summorum Pontificum permitted the Latin Mass to be offered by priests who interpret the Creeds, the First Commandment of Moses, the dogma EENS and the Catechisms with a false premise.It permitted Vatican Council II, and the concept the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, to be interpretd with a false premise. This cannot be Magisterial even if it supported by the present two popes.The popes and cardinals need to interpret these documents rationally for them to be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
THE USCCB'S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IS ALSO POLITICAL.IT REJECTS THE ATHANASIUS CREED, CHANGES THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE NICENE CREED.HOW CAN THESE BISHOPS BE ALLOWED TO OFFER MASS?
LE PEN DEVE VEDERE CHE IL PROBLEMA A DIGIONE È POLITICO E NON SOLO RELIGIOSO: DEVE ESSERE CHIEDO AL VESCOVO MINNERATH DI INTERPRETARE IL CONCILIO VATICANO II SENZA LA FALSA PREMESSA NELLA SANTA MESSA.
Bisogna dimostrare a Le Pen che il problema di Digione non è solo religioso, ma anche politico. Il vescovo Minnerath vuole interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II come la Sinistra e creare una rottura tra Chiesa e Stato, fede e governo pratico.
Concilio Vaticano II viene interpretato con una falsa premessa per creare una rottura con la comprensione storica della fede e morale.Si potrebbe chiedere a Le Pen di commentare sulla problema della Messa in Latino/Concilio Vaticano II a Digione. Perché i Cattolici laici devono interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II con una premessa falsa e creare una rottura con la vecchia ecclesiologia e la teologia passata della Tradizionale Messa in Francia?.
La Lesamisdebasilique potrebbe appellarsi a Le Pen affinché la Messa Latina venga offerta da sacerdoti che interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II senza la falsa premessa.Pechè senza la falsa premessa,non ce una rottura con l'ecclesiologia (comprensione di Chiesa) della Chiesa Cattolica in Francia.
Il liberalismo in teologia e dottrina a Digione dipende dall'uso di una premessa falsa. Senza la falsa premessa, la Chiesa direbbe che non c'è salvezza conosciuta al di fuori della Chiesa nei tempi presenti. LG, LG 16, UR 3 ecc. non sarebbero esempi di persone conosciute salvate senza fede e il battesimo dell'acqua nel 2021. Quindi Concilio Vaticano II direbbe che fuori della Chiesa non c'è la salvezza (AG 7).
Per il vescovo Minnerath il Concilio Vaticano II dice invece che fuori della Chiesa c'è salvezza poiché interpretano il Concilio, confondendo LG 8, LG 16 etc come eccezioni al dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). È come se LG 8, LG 16 etc si riferissero a persone reali e non solo a casi ipotetici e speculativi. Senza questo inganno, il vescovo Roland Minnerath non può citare il Concilio Vaticano II, per sostenere il suo liberalismo.
Il vescovo ha scritto libri e articoli interpretando il Concilio Vaticano II e il Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX con la comune falsa premessa.Cosi lui ha creato una falsa nuova teologia, che è una rottura con la Tradizione. Questa falsa rottura con la Tradizione sarà la teologia degli sacerdoti diocesani alla Messa in Latino e del Novus Ordo(Francese), a Digione. Perché i sacerdoti diocesani devono offrire la Messa in Latino con la versione politica di sinistra del Concilio Vaticano II?
Le Pen potrebbe chiedere al vescovo Minnerath di interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II e il Sillabo degli Errori senza la falsa premessa e di interpretare il Primo Comandamento come il Magistero della Chiesa, nei secoli in Francia.
La differenza tra il Vescovo Minnerath e me è che considero il battesimo di desiderio(BOD), il battesimo di sangue(BDS) e l'ignoranza invincibile(I.I) come non eccezioni alla Feeneyite EENS. Non ci sono casi letterali nel 2021. Quindi il Concilio Vaticano II non è una rottura con la Tradizione per me . Ha una continuità con la tradizionale salvezza esclusiva. Ad Gente 7 dice che tutti hanno bisogno della fede e del battesimo per la salvezza. Quindi secondo il Concilio tutti hanno bisogno di convertirsi alla Chiesa Cattolica per la salvezza (AG 7) e non solo coloro che "sanno" (LG 14). Coloro che "sanno" e salvati e solo quelli che sono conosciuti solo da Dio. La norma per la salvezza è AG 7 e non LG 14. Mentre LG 14 non fa eccezione per AG 7. (Da blog Eucharistandmission)
LE PEN MUST SEE THAT THE PROBLEM IN DIJON IS POLITICAL AND NOT ONLY RELIGIOUS: BISHOP MINNERATH MUST BE ASKED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE AT HOLY MASS.
Le Pen must be shown that the Dijon problem is not only religious but also political. Bishop Minnerath wants to interpret Vatican Council II like the poltiical Left and so create a rupture between Church and State, faith and practical government.
Vatican Council II is interpreted with a false premise to create a break with the historical understanding of faith and morals. Le Pen could be asked to comment on the problem of the Latin Mass / Vatican Council II in Dijon. Why do lay Catholics have to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and create a break with the old ecclesiology and past theology of the Traditional Mass in France?
Lesamisdebasilique could appeal to Le Pen for the Latin Mass to be offered by priests who interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. Because without the false premise, there is no break with the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church in France. .
Liberalism in theology and doctrine in Dijon depends upon the use of a false premise. Without the false premise, the Church would say that there is no known salvation outside the Church in the present times. LG, LG 16, UR 3 etc. would not be examples of known people saved without faith and the baptism of water in 2021. Then Vatican Council II would be saying outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7).
For Bishop Minnerath the Second Vatican Council now says instead that outside the Church there is salvation.Since he interpret the Council, confusing LG 8, LG 16 etc as exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It is as if LG 8, LG 16 etc refer to real people and not only to hypothetical and speculative cases. Without this deception, Bishop Roland Minnerath cannot quote Vatican Council II to support his liberalism.
The bishop wrote books and articles interpreting the Second Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors with the common false premise.So he created a false new theology, which is a break with Tradition. This false break with Tradition will be the theology of diocesan priests at the Novus Ordo(French) and Latin Mass in Dijon. Why should diocesan priests offer the Mass in Latin with the left-wing political version of the Second Vatican Council?
Le Pen could ask Bishop Minnerath to interpret Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors without the false premise and to interpret the First Commandment as did the Magisterium of the Church over the centuries in France.
The difference between Bishop Minnerath and me is that I consider baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BDS) and invincible ignorance (I.I) as not being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. There are no literal cases in 2021. So the Second Vatican Council is not a break with Tradition for me. It has a continuity with the traditional exclusive salvation. Ad Gentes 7 says that everyone needs faith and baptism for salvation. Therefore according to the Council everyone needs to convert to the Catholic Church for salvation (AG 7) and not only those who "know" (LG 14). Those who "know" and who are saved,are known only to God. The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 14. While LG 14(invincible ignorance) is not exception for AG 7. (From the blog Eucharistandmission)
POPE FRANCIS AND BISHOP MINNERATH ARE CREATING DIVISION IN DIJON WITH THE NEW THEOLOGY WHICH THE FSSP WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT TO OFFER MASS IN FRENCH.
Pope Francis wants those priests who offer the Latin Mass like the FSSP, to also offer the Novus Ordo Mass with ‘the theology of religions’ and not the old ecclesiology of the Church, which did not use the common false premise.
Bishop Roland Minnerath, who has written a book on the Theology of Religions, also wants the FSSP priests to concelebrate at the Novus Ordo Mass and offer the Latin Mass with this theology, which is a rupture with the past.
This is not really an issue if the FSSP decides to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.It will be the end of the theology of religions since Vatican Council II will be dogmatic.It will support the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG16,UR 3,NA2, GS 22 etc, not being practical exceptions to EENS in 2021.So Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, will not be contradicted by LG 14( baptism of desire) and LG 16( invincible ignorance).The norm for salvation will be AG 7 and not NA 2 or LG 8 etc.
The FSSP priests and laity can then affirm the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic faith for salvation and ask Bishop Roland Minnerath and the diocesan priests to do the same.
With the theology of religions, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict and Bishop Minnerath, are bringing division into the Church at Dijon.We cannot throw away the old ecclesiology of the Church by re-interpreting Church documents, irrationally.
THE BOOKS OF BISHOP MINNERATH ARE OBSOLETE WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
The laity must note that Bishop Minnerath’s books on Vatican Council II, ecclesiology,concordats etc are obsolete.Since he has written them interpreting the Council and other Magisterial documents with the common false premise which creates a fake rupture with the Tradition, which they uphold.
Without the false premise, the Orthodox Christians, with whom the bishop dialogues for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), would be outside the Church without Catholic faith(AG 7).The Council would also not contradict the dogma EENS.
Even though there are good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) the religions are not paths to salvation (AG 7) and all need faith and baptism (AG 7) to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
CONCORDATS WITHOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In his books on Concordats, Bishop Minnerath has not stated that since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II and past Magisterial documents(Syllabus of Errors etc), the State should be Catholic with no separation of Church and State.Concordats must not support a secular and Satanic state.
THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass must affirm the dogma EENS since there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II but also because the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949, which made an objective error, is not a Magisterial document, even though it is referenced in Vatican Council II and inserted in the Denzinger.The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake.
The lay Catholics in Dijon must be allowed to affirm traditional ecclesiocentism without wrongly projecting Vatican Council II as being in conflict with it.
THEY NEED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE LIONEL ANDRADES
They must Vatican Council II according to Lionel Andrades, and there would no more be a theological division in the Church, now expressed by the Mass.The whole Church will have to return to Tradition.Since there would be only one option in the interpretation of Magisterial documents-the rational one.The traditional leftist/divsion will not be there since the Council will be dogmatic and traditional. This though could disappoint the progressivists, who depend on the irrationality to create a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.Cardinals Kasper and Koch will no more be able to cite Vatican Council II.
When the Council is traditional- and affirms the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and EENS- then collegiality, religious liberty and ecumenism are no more an issue for conservative Catholics.
THE NEW ECUMENISM IS THEOLOGICALLY CREATED ONLY WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
If the new bishop in Dijon continues to support the New Ecumenism and the New Theology then he is creating division.Since the New Ecumenism and the New Theology can only be created with the false premise.This is heretical.It is also schism with the past Magisterium.
THE BISHOP IS FOLLOWING THE LETTER 1949 WHICH IS HERETICAL AND OFFICIAL
The bishop will be following the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.Since, it is implied, that there are visible cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) who are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is specious reasoning.
According to the Letter the need for the baptism of water is not absolute always.Since there are practical exceptions of the BOD and I.I which make the baptism of water relative.The alleged ‘necessity of means’ depends upon a possibility which exists only in our mind and in reality is a ‘zero case’ but is projected as personally known and objective cases at Newton’s level of matter.
This is the fake reasoning of the LOHO which Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,CDF, used to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church and which is being followed today by Pope Francis, the CDF and Bishop Minnerath.
THE LAITY IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH, MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIBERAL BISHOP’S WEAK POINT IS THEOLOGY. THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIM AND THE PRESENT TWO POPES, IS NOT THE MASS BUT THE OLD THEOLOGY, THE OLD ECCLESIOCENTRISM.
The laity, if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop’s weak point is theology.The real issue for him and the present two popes, is not the Mass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism. The FSSP priests, are side stepping Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and are going back to the sources of Tradition This is the real problem for the bishop and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
1.The laity must know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II , one with the irrational premise and the other without it. They can choose the CDF interpretation of Vatican Council II or that of Lionel Andrades, without the irrationality.
2.There can also be two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). One, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as physically visible people saved outside the Church in 2021,or, as being only hypothetical and theoretical cases, which do not exist in our reality.So the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is rational and the other is irrational.Again the laity have to choose between the interpretations of the popes or Lionel Andrades.They, of course must choose the rational option and ask the bishop to do the same.
This has to be clear.
For it means that at Mass in Latin, French or that of the Orientals,the theology; the ecclesiology of all aspects of the Church will be traditional.There will be no rupture with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of Fr. Leonard Feeney, or the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catolic faith for salvation or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.This means that the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X will not contradict itself,when the strict interpretation of EENS is supported along with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND COHERENT BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II.
With the theology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II,being traditional and coherent, the bishop should be asked to affirm the faith.
If he refuses to affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed in public and cites Vatican Council II as a development of doctrine, he is interpreting the Council with the false premise.
Catholics of all Rites in France should be able to affirm Vatican Council II ( rational) and the Athanasius Creed (rational-with no known exceptions).
If the bishop affirms Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed with exceptions, it means he is using the false premise, and should be checked here.
If the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed is recited by the laity at Mass, in a Profession of Faith, it is meaningless, if they interpret the Creeds with the false premise instead of without it.If they interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I with the false premise, then they really change the interpretation of these two Creeds.One interpretation is rational and traditional and the other is irrational and a break with Tradition.
LAITY WILL OFTEN HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE INTERPRETATIONS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE AND WITHOUT IT SINCE THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT
Similarly if the Four Marks of the Church are affirmed ( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic), it can be meaningless and misleading, if the distinction is not made between the fake and the rational premise.Since with the premise the conclusion differs.So the laity will often have to choose between the interpretation of Bishop Minnerath and Lionel Andrades.
It must be remembered that the bishop’s weak point is theology.He has to use the false premise to support his liberalism, ‘the theology of religions’.
TODAY THE HERESY OF THE FALSE PREMISE IS LIKE THE ARIAN HERESY OF THE PAST.
The laity and the FSSP priests must know that like in the past there was the Arian heresy in the Church today there is the heresy of the false premise.It is like a theological virus which has become a spiritual epidemic in the Church.
So when they concelebrate Mass in Dijon, or elsewhere in France, the diocesan priest will not be a traditionalist,since he interprets Vatican Council II and other Church documents , with the false premise, which produces a non traditional conclusion.
Then because of the Leftist laws Bishop Roland Minnerath may want to intepret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the false premise.There is no tension or persecution.
THE BISHOP AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE IN AN ‘IRREGULAR SITUATION’.
The FSSP will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.I am identifying it and pointing out the original premise and inference which was responsable for the traditional conclusion.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon need an organisation or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
WE CAN PROCLAIM THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING BASED UPON THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN COUNCIUL II
The Latin laity could organise candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumeism, Mortal Sin etc.
The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progeressivists who will be upset.Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the Church.Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with colegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon and new rites, for the Mass and the ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.
THE UNA VOCE INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISEMENT IN THE ITALIAN NEWSPAPER DID NOT SAY THAT THE BISHOPS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THE LATIN MASS WHICH IS OFFERED WITH THE SAME ECCLESIOLOGY AS THE NOVUS ORDO MASS, WHEN VATICAN COUNCIL II IS INTERPRETED WITH THE FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION INSTEAD OF THE RATIONAL PREMISE, INFERENZE AND CONCLUSION : THEY WILL CONTINUE TO INTERPRET THE COUNCIL WITH THE COMMON IRRATIONALITY AND SO REJECT THE DE FIDE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH AND SO CHANGE THE LEX ORANDI AND LEX CREDENDI IN ALL RITES.
The Una Voce International advertisement in the Italian newspaper did not say that the bishops have nothing to fear from the Latin Mass which is offered with the same ecclesiology as the Novus Ordo Mass, when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the false premise, inference and conclusion instead of the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
Una Voce in future also will continue to interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance with the false premise and so reject the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was held by the missionaries during the 16th century, when they offered the Traditional Latin Mass.
Una Voce would assure the liberal bishops that the ancient Athansius Creed which said all need Catholic faith for salvation has been shelved, Since Una Voce accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, like the popes, in which the BOD and I.I were interpreted with the false premise to create a New Theology in the Catholic Church.
Una Voce will continue to cooperate with the cardinals and bishops in interpreting the Nicene and Apostles Creed and all the Catechisms with the fake premise to maintain the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.
So in the same spirit of Vatican Council II they will continue to interpret the Council with the common irrationality to reject de fide teachings of the Church and so change the lex orandi and lex credendi in all Rites.
Post a Comment