Jim Russell and Michael Voris interpreted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) and Vatican Council II with a false premise and then criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney for not doing the same. If they did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and LOHO , there would be no rupture with Feeneyite EENS. Vatican Council II really supports the strict interpretation of EENS when the false premise is not used to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. -:Lionel Andrades
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Jim Russell and Michael Voris interpreted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO) and Vatican Council II with a false premise and then criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney for not doing the same. If they did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and LOHO , there would be no rupture with Feeneyite EENS. Vatican Council II really supports the strict interpretation of EENS when the false premise is not used to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment