LAITY
NEED TO DIALOGUE WITH BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH. WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE HE AND HIS CURIA BECOME
TRADITIONALISTS
The Lefebvrists gave Bishop Roland
Minnerath a free pass, was it to protect
their status and recognition by the Vatican ? They could have pointed to the
False Premise of the Curia in Dijone, France, with which they reject the old
theology of the Church.Then they could have discussed the faith point by point.
Orthodoxy is on the their side.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Taylor Marshall have found the Specific Error in Vatican Council II.They now know what creates the New Theology and the break with Tradition.It is the False Premise.
Vatican Council II's Specific Error the break with Tradition comes from the Red Right Hand Side Column.Without this Specific Error there is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Bishop Roland Minnerath uses the Red Right Hand Side column to interpret Vatican Council II and so creates the Specific Error.If he used the Blue Left Hand Side Column he becomes a traditionalist.
The FSSP priests left the diocese silently without discussing the Specific Error in Vatican Council II.
The Council Fathers( 1965) including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre used a False Premise from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
The Letter(LOHO) assumed that there were baptism of desire cases, for example, visible in Heaven and on earth at the same time.So they were made objective exceptions for Feeenyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is a violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction of Aristotle.Bishop Minnerath also violates Aristotle's logic.
So now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II one with the False Premise( invisible cases are physically visible,being saved with the baptism of desire is visible) and the other interpretation is with the Rational Premise ( invisible cases are always invisible, there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire in 2021 ).So now we have the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False Premise and the rational and traditional interpretation of mine (L.A) with the Rational Premise.
There is the non traditional interpretation of Bishop Minnerath and the FSSP and my traditional and rational conclusion.
It is the same Vatican Council II before us but there are two interpretations since I am avoiding the Specific Error.I do not criticize the Council in general. Neither do I speak vaguely of the extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium with reference to Vatican Council.
The FSSP Superior General and the Ecclesia Dei Communities choose not to interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and expose the bad theology of Bishop Minnerath.They want to remain politically correct with the error and not rock the boat.
The laity at Dijon don't know that without the False Premise, Minnerath would have to interpret the Council in harmony with Tradition.He would be a traditionalist.
Once Bishop Roland Minnerath does not choose to interpret the baptism of desire (LG 14), invincible ignorance (LG 16) and the baptism of blood with the invisible-visible mix up, he affirms 16th century EENS, with no exceptions.It was common sense at that time that being saved with the the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance were always invisible.
So with invisible BOD, BOB and I.i there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the past ecclesiocentrism. Minnerath becomes a Traditionalist.
He then has to interpret the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX with no exceptions.Now there are exceptions for him since he uses the False Premise, the Red Right Hand Side Column.
With the Rational Premise, the Blue Left Hand Side Column the Catechisms of Pope Pius X, 29 Q( invincible ignorance) does not contradict 24Q and 27Q( outside the Church no salvation).Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) does not contradict CCC 846( Outside the Church No Salvation), when it mentions Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation).
Then 'the desire thereof' mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent does not contradict that Catechism, when it affirms Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441 on EENS.
SUMMARY
1.The text of Vatican Council II is approved by ecclesiastics who used the Fake Premise from the LOHO to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and so change the understanding of the traditional strict interpretation of EENS.This is the Specific Error of Bishop Minnerath.
2.The text of Vatican Council II is still being interpreted by the popes, cardinals and bishops over looking this Specific Error. They interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise and accept the heretical, schismatic and non traditional conclusion.Those who do not do the same cannot offer/attend Holy Mass in Latin. It is the same for Holy Mass in French or other languages and Rites.
3.The laity at Dijon, France knowing about the Specific Error of the Council Fathers ( 1965) and the popes since Paul VI, can choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the Fake Premise. They must read LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being only hypothetical in 2021.They are not examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 1965-2021. That's al, with thise knowledge, they return to the old theology.
4.Then they must ask Bishop Minnerath and the Curia in Dijon to do the same. Why should Catholics in France, interpret Vatican Council II with a False Premise and not a Rational Premise ?
When Bishop Minnerath came out to meet the laity outside his office, he asked if they knew theology. He asked if they knew Canon Law.
In future he may not want to come out of his office to discuss theology.The laity could tell him that his theology depends upon a Fake Premise and that they can now interpret the Council with the Rational Premise.They have a choice. So they no more reject the Council, as the Lefebvrist traditionalists.Traditionalists do not any more have to reject Vatican Council II.Also with the Rational Premise, he will be one of them, a traditionalist. -Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 1, 2021
Ecclesia Dei communities demand that Bishop Roland Minnerath be rational. With the Red Right Hand Side Column he and Pope Francis create official heresy. This is schism with the past Magisterium ( Graphics )
OCTOBER 1, 2021
Ecclesia Dei communities demand that Bishop Roland Minnerath be rational. With the Red Right Hand Side Column he and Pope Francis create official heresy. This is schism with the past Magisterium ( Graphics )
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment