Michael a Catholic trade union leader from the Diocese of Paramatta and whose bishop is Anthony Fischer was responding to the report
REPORT ‘SYDNEY PRIEST SPOTS BAPTISM OF DESIRE CASES DOWNTOWN ?’ E-MAILED TO ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY: NO RESPONSE, ISSUE IS THE EUCHARIST
Michael says he notices 'similar charachteristics with my writing and that of schismatics, sedevacantists and the milder Feeneyities’
I responded : I accept Vatican Council II , the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Church documents. So your charge of schismatics, sedes, etc will not work here.
Michael then says that my report on Fr.John Gorge is false since he ‘has provided you with Church interpretation based on sould theology. Cardinal Pell of Sydney will rightly support Fr.George you ought to realize. So would Rome?'
Lionel’s response:
On the other hand I am aware of modernism in the present day of which you and Fr. George are a few cases among many.
I have quoted Ad Gentes 7, CCC 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20 and the ex cathedra dogma and have asked Fr.George to affirm them but you'll will not(on the Internet-board True Catholic).
Also he makes me laugh when he repeatedly indicated that we can know who has the baptism of desire.
Your claim that LG 16, CCC 847 etc (invincible ignorance, baptism of desire etc) is explicit has no basis in any Catholic Magisterial teaching. The documents are neutral with respect to Baptism (BOD) of desire, its you and and the other heretics, who claim it refers to 'explicit' BOD etc.
Common sense asks, aside from the faulty interpretation how can it be explicit for us?
So this is your 'church interpretation ' with 'sound theology'.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment