Cardinal Sarah: "You Are Not 'Traditionalists'"
Addressing a conference on the Latin Mass at the Angelicum in Rome on Thursday, Cardinal Robert Sarah told those in the audience to stop calling themselves “traditionalists,” and to stop allowing …
Addressing a conference on the Latin Mass at the Angelicum in Rome on Thursday, Cardinal Robert Sarah told those in the audience to stop calling themselves “traditionalists,” and to stop allowing …
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) and the sedevacantists are traditionalists since they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and then reject the conclusion which is a rupture with Tradition.So they reject Vatican Council II and admit it frankly.
Cardinal Sarah and the two living popes and the Vatican Curia also interpret Vatican Council II, assuming all hypothetical cases are visible examples of salvation outside the Church, even though they do not personally know of any case. So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They have used a false premise to elicit a non traditional conclusion which they accept unlike the SSPX and the traditionalists.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary also offer/attend the Traditional Latin Mass like the SSPX and the sedevacantists and they affirm the Feeenyite interpretation of the dogma EENS unlike the SSPX and Cardinal Sarah.However like the other two groups they interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to known people saved outside the Church in the present times. So the Council is a rupture with Tradition; a break with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and so they reject the Council on this point.
I affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases not being explicit and so there is nothing in the Council to contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS for me. The Council is not a rupture with Tradition. So I am different from the other three groups.I affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, like the St. Benedict Center, but do not interpret Vatican Council II like them, and the others.
Cardinal Sarah may not call me a traditionalist but then I am a Catholic, of the Roman Rite who attends Mass in Italian, Latin and Greek in Rome, but does not hold the same doctrines and theology as him.I affirm an exclusivist ecclesiology(without rejecting Vatican Council II) while he proclaims a vague Christology without the necessity of being a formal member of the Church for salvation.
I am affirming all magisterial documents but interpreting them with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible) and Cushingism ( invisible people are visible).
Cardinal Sarah would also be affirming all magisterial documents but he interprets them with Cushingism and so his conclusion is heretical and irrational for me.
Generally the secular media considers any one who affirms the dogma EENS as being a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Sarah and the two living popes and the Vatican Curia also interpret Vatican Council II, assuming all hypothetical cases are visible examples of salvation outside the Church, even though they do not personally know of any case. So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They have used a false premise to elicit a non traditional conclusion which they accept unlike the SSPX and the traditionalists.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary also offer/attend the Traditional Latin Mass like the SSPX and the sedevacantists and they affirm the Feeenyite interpretation of the dogma EENS unlike the SSPX and Cardinal Sarah.However like the other two groups they interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to known people saved outside the Church in the present times. So the Council is a rupture with Tradition; a break with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and so they reject the Council on this point.
I affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases not being explicit and so there is nothing in the Council to contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS for me. The Council is not a rupture with Tradition. So I am different from the other three groups.I affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS, like the St. Benedict Center, but do not interpret Vatican Council II like them, and the others.
Cardinal Sarah may not call me a traditionalist but then I am a Catholic, of the Roman Rite who attends Mass in Italian, Latin and Greek in Rome, but does not hold the same doctrines and theology as him.I affirm an exclusivist ecclesiology(without rejecting Vatican Council II) while he proclaims a vague Christology without the necessity of being a formal member of the Church for salvation.
I am affirming all magisterial documents but interpreting them with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible) and Cushingism ( invisible people are visible).
Cardinal Sarah would also be affirming all magisterial documents but he interprets them with Cushingism and so his conclusion is heretical and irrational for me.
Generally the secular media considers any one who affirms the dogma EENS as being a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades
https://www.gloria.tv/#2~language%3DS2mQ8XjTcSwL3q8noxk8XEbJo
Photo from Fr.Z's blog
http://wdtprs.com/blog/
Photo from Fr.Z's blog
http://wdtprs.com/blog/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment