Wednesday, June 30, 2021

The Latin laity have to choose to interpret Vatican Council II not like Bishop Minnerath and the FSSP in Dijon, France but Lionel Andrades : otherwise they attend the Latin Mass with the New Ecclesiology, New Theology and New Ecumenism.



FAKE PREMISE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH

Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

 

FAKE INFERENCE OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH

They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

 

FAKE CONCLUSION OF BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH

Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

 

RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

 

RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES

They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

 

RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES

Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.

The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades


Vatican Council II is dogmatic

 




QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?

It does not use the common fake premise.It's a simple, rational and different way to read Vatican Council II.

2.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
It does not use the common false premise to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of blood(BOB).So there are no practical exceptions for EENS.EENS is traditonal and BOD, BOB and I.I are interpreted rationally.It's not EENS or BOB,BOB and I.I. Since the latter are not exceptions for the former.

3.Is the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Magisterial documents copy writed or trademarked? 
No. Any one can use it. There is no charge.It is simply going back to the traditiional interpretation of Church documents, without the false premise. The false premise came into the Church in a big way, with the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney(1949).

4.How did the Lionel Andrades interpretation of VC 2 emerge?
He kept writing on his blog on EENS and then discovered that Vatican Council II does not really contradict EENS if the false premise is avoided.

5.Is the LA interpretation of VC2 a new theology?
No. It is going back to the old, traditional theology of the Catholic Church by avoiding the false premise.It is the false premise which has created the New Theology.Without the false premise there cannot be the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation, New Ecclesiology etc.The New Theology is Cristocentric without the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.Since exceptions were created to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc, by projecting a false premise.The error was overlooked by the popes.

6.What about traditional, 16th century Mission doctrine?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II we return to traditional Mission doctrine. It is no more 'only they need to enter the Church who know about it', who are not in invincible ignorance(LG 14) Instead, it is all need to enter the Catholic Church with no known exception.Invincible ignorance is not an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and the baptism(LG 14).So we evangelize since all non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water( Ad Gentes 7/Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II. The norm for salvation is faith and baptism and not invincible ignorance.When I meet a non Catholic, I cannot assume or pretend to know, that he or she is an exception to the norm. If there is an exception it could be known only to God.I know that the non Catholic before me, is oriented to Hell( Athanasius Creed, Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14),Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257),Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, etc).

7.What about the hermeneutic of continuity or rupture with Tradition ?
With the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II there is no rupture with past Magisterium documents and neither do they contradict each other.We have to re-interpret past Magisterial documents though, which mention the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I), as being hypothetical and invisible always.Being saved with BOD and I.I are always physically invisible, when they are mentioned in the Catechisms( Trent, Pius X etc) and encyclicals and documents of the popes(Mystici Corporis etc).They always refer to hypothetical cases only and are not objectively known non Catholics.If someone is saved outside the Church he or she could only be known to God.This has to be clear when reading also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.There is also no confusion when reading the text of Vatican Council II.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc, refer always to only hypothetical cases and so they do not contradict the Athanasius Creed.


8.Should the popes use the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
YES! Since presently the two popes are schismatic, heretical, non Magisterial and non traditional on Vatican Council II.It has to be this way since they use the false premise.It is only with the false premise, inference and conclusion that they interpret Magisterial documents. This can be avoided with a rational premise, inference and traditional conclusion.The result is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.


9.What other advantage is there in knowing the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
We read the text of Vatican Council II in general differently with the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.
’The red is not an exception to the blue’.The hypothetical passages( marked in red on the blog Eucharist and Mission, are not practical exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support EENS, and are marked in blue.
For the present two popes and the traditionalists the red is an exception to the blue. This is irrational.

10.What bearing does it have on the liturgy ?
Without the false premise the Council is traditional. Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century.So we are back to the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. When the Council is traditional there is no 'development of doctrine' or 'sprit of Vatican Council II'. Collegiality, Religious Freedom and ecumenism are no more an issue. So receiving Holy Communion on the hand can no more be justified with Vatican Council II.Neither can the Eucharist be given to the divorced and re-married, in the name of the Council.
Neither can the German Synod be justified by citing Vatican Council II.There is no theological basis in the Council, any more, for given the Eucharist to Protestants during Holy Mass.


11.What is the essence of this interpretation?

It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies  two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.

Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.  

 Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.

12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?

Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). 

 Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc.  cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes  7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.

When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.

Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.

Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.

So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades


Fake premise

Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.


Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

Rational Premise
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades



Lionel Andrades
Promoter of the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
___________________

Posted by at No comments:

The ACIES Ordinata in Munich were interpreting Vatican Council II like Cardinal Marx and not like me.They are still doing the same.


The ACIES Ordinata in Munich were interpreting Vatican Council II like Cardinal Marx and not like me.They are still doing the same.

FAKE PREMISE OF CARDINAL MARX AND THE ACIES ORDINATA

 Lumen Gentium 8,Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

 


FAKE INFERENCE OF OF CARDINAL MARX AND THE ACIES ORDINATA

They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

 


FAKE CONCLUSION OF OF CARDINAL MARX AND THE ACIES ORDINATA

Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

 

Here is my interpretation of Vatican Council II in blue.

  

RATIONAL PREMISE OF LIONEL ANDRADES

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

RATIONAL INFERENCE OF LIONEL ANDRADES

They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.


RATIONAL CONCLUSION OF LIONEL ANDRADES

Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.

 

The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake it used the false premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades


JANUARY 25, 2020



When the popes and the traditionalists use a false premise and inference to interpret the Council it is not just another opinion or theology, it is subterfuge. It is telling a lie officially


JANUARY 25, 2020


What is being taught by the Faculty of Religious Education and the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of Eichstatt-Ingolstadt in Bavaria, is really deception and politically Left subterfuge.This is not Catholic- teaching.



JANUARY 23, 2020


Seminarians from the Eichstadt seminary study theology at the Catholic University of Eichstadt-Ingolstadt,Bavaria and they are taught to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally.Students from the seminary of St. Willibrand have to interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with a false premise and inference to study to become a priest.

ANUARY 23, 2020

Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Bavaria under Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with EENS, an ecumenism of return and the past ecclesiology.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/catholic-university-of-eichstatt.html
JANUARY 22, 2020

Acies Ordinata : Cardinal Reinhardt Marx was not challenged to remove books on Vatican Council II and not give the mandatum to professors of theology at Eichstatt-Ingolstadt https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/acies-ordinata-cardinal-reinhardt-marx.html
JANUARY 20, 2020
It is unfortunate that young Catholics in Germany, have to re-interpret Vatican Council II,in an irrational and compromised version to keep the German church away from schism https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/it-is-unfortunate-that-young-catholics.html
JANUARY 20, 2020
Traditionalists who are in schism with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB), invincible ignorance (I.I), the Athanasius Creed etc held an assembly prayer at Munich, Bavaria last Saturday against the 'schismatic' Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, Archbishop of Munich. https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/01/traditionalists-who-are-in-schism-with.htmlhttps://www.die-tagespost.de/kirche-aktuell/aktuell/Gebetswache-in-Muenchen-Dient-das-der-Kirche;art4874,204856


Posted by at No comments:

Il Vescovo Roland Minnerath approva la Santa Messa in Latina per la FSSP ma solo se accetta 'una teologia delle religioni' come i sacerdoti diocesani. La FSSP e i laici devono chiedere al vescovo di affermare il Concilio Vaticano II e Documenti Magisteriali , con la razionale premessa, inferenza, e conclusione e poi rifiutare la 'teologia delle religioni'. La FSSP puo rifiutare di offrire la Santa Messa fino a quando il vescovo affermara il Credo Atanasio in pubblico


Il vescovo Roland Minnerath sostiene ‘una teologia delle religioni’ che Papa Giovanni Paolo II ha rifiutato (CDF, Notificazione, Dupuis 2001) e che la FSSP rifiuta, così evangelizzano i non cattolici a Digione, Francia.

Il Vescovo Minnerath nei suoi libri può sostenere la teologia delle religioni poiché ha usato la falsa premessa per creare eccezioni agli insegnamenti del Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX sull'ecumenismo e nessuna salvezza al di fuori della Chiesa. C'è per lui ‘una teologia delle religioni’ ,come per il cardinale Ratzinger e padre Luiz Ladaria sj, in un documento di Commissione Teologica Internazionale,Vaticano poiché presumono che ci siano eccezioni note per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) e il Credo di Atanasio.

Quindi il vescovo dovrebbe approvare la Messa in Latino per le FSSP ma solo se accettano ‘una teologia delle religioni’ come i preti diocesani.

Lo considererà obbligatorio e citerò come riferimento, il Concilio Vaticano II interpretato con una premessa, un'inferenza e una conclusione falsa.


La FSSP e i laici devono chiedere al vescovo di affermare il Concilio Vaticano II e i documenti magisteriali con la premessa, l'inferenza e la conclusione razionali e quindi rifiutare "una teologia delle religioni".

Non permettetegli di citare il Concilio Vaticano II per giustificare “una teologia delle religioni” quando intende interpretare Concilio Vaticano II, solo con la falsa premessa e non con l'opzione razionale.

La FSSP non deve consentire al vescovo di citare il Concilio Vaticano II come motivo per sostenere il suo liberalismo poiché il Concilio Vaticano II è davvero, dogmatico, supporta Feeneyite EENS con Ad Gentes 7 mentre LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 ecc non contradice AG 7 e EENS.

Il vescovo deve interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II con il Feeneyismo (i casi invisibili sono solo invisibili) e non con il Cushingismo (i casi invisibili devono essere visti come visibili). Altrimenti l'irrazionalità di Cushingsmo si tradurrà in eresia e scisma, come il LOHO. Non è Magistrale con la premessa irrazionale che crea l'ermeneutica della rottura con la Tradizione.


AG 7 supporta l'interpretazione rigorosa di EENS e i casi ipotetici di LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 ecc. non sono eccezioni pratiche a AG7 nel 2021. La norma per la salvezza è AG 7 e non LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 ecc. Questo è l'approccio Feeneyita e non Cushingite al Concilio Vaticano II.

Il vescovo non può dire ai non cattolici di Digione che AG 7 dice che tutti hanno bisogno della fede e del battesimo per la salvezza, e non ci sono eccezioni all'AG 7 nel Concilio Vaticano II. Non ci sono eccezione perché LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR3, NA 2 ecc. a i soli casi ipotetici per noi umani. Se qualcuno si salva fuori della Chiesa lo può conoscere solo Dio. La norma per la salvezza è AG 7 e non LG 14, LG 16 ecc. LG 14 ecc non sono nemmeno eccezioni alla norma .Poiché non sono noti casi di non cattolici salvati fuori dalla Chiesa nel 1965-2021.Nel realità non ci sono tali casi.



Il Nuovo Ecumenismo è una divisione nella Chiesa di Digione, basata sulla falsa premessa. La premessa irrazionale è usata per riinteropretare Unitatis Redintigratio 3 e suggerire che ci sono noti Cristiani, non Cattolici salvati al di fuori della Chiesa Cattolica, senza fede Cattolica. Con questa irrazionalità EENS è rifiutato e il vescovo propone una teoria del pluralismo religioso tra cristiani e non cristiani.

La FSSP potrebbe rifiutarsi di offrire la Messa con un Nuovo Ecumenismo creato con una premessa falsa. Perché con la Nuova Ecumenismo or la Nuova Teologia ce un rifiuto dei Credo, Catechismi, ecc. Possono anche rifiutarsi di offrire la Messa fino a quando il Vescovo Minnerath non reciterà in pubblico il Credo di Atanasio.

Il vescovo Minnerath promuove la divisione nella Chiesa Cattolica quando interpreta i documenti del Magistero con una premessa falsa e accetta la Letter di Sant’ Ufficio 1949 con il suo errore oggettivo. Il Magistero della Chiesa non ha usato la falsa premessa nel corso dei secoli,come la Lettera di 1949 fa. I papi e santi nei secoli sapevanno che il battesimo di desiderio e salvezza con invincibile ignoranza riferiti solo a casi invisibili e ipotetici. Questo è qualcosa di ovvio.-Lionel Andrades

 

June 29, 2021

Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted.html

 

Posted by at No comments:

Bishop Roland Minnerath is expected to approve the Latin Mass for the FSSP but only if they accept a ' theology of religions' like the diocesan priests.The FSSP and laity must ask the bishop to affirm Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and so then reject 'the theology of religions'.The FSSP could refuse to offer Holy Mass with a New Ecumenism created with a false premise. This is a rejection of the Creeds, Catechisms etc. They can also refuse to offer Holy Mass until the bishop recites the Athanasius Creed in public

 

Bishop Roland Minnerath supports a theology of religions which Pope John Paul II rejected (CDF,Notification, Dupuis 2001) and which the FSSP reject, so they evangelize the non Catholics in Dijon,France.

Bishop Minnerath in his books can support the theology of religions since he has used the false premise to create exceptions for the teachings of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on ecumenism and no salvation outside the Church.There is a theology of religions for him,like for Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Luiz Ladaria, in an ITC paper, since they assume that there are known exceptions for the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed.

So the bishop is expected to approve the Latin Mass for the FSSP but only if they accept a theology of religions like the diocesan priests.

He will consider this obligatory and cite as a reference, Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise, inference and conclusion.


The FSSP and the laity must ask the bishop to affirm Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and so then reject ‘a theology of religions’.

Do not allow him to cite Vatican Council II to justify ‘a theology of religions’ when he means Vatican Council II interpreted only with the false premise and not the rational, option.

The FSSP must not allow the bishop to cite Vatican Council Ii as a reason to support his liberalism since Vatican Council Ii is really, dogmatic, it supports Feeneyite EENS with Ad Gentes 7 while LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are not exceptions to AG 7 and EENS.


The bishop has to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( invisible cases are only invisible) and not Cushingism ( invisible cases must be seen as being visible).Otherwise the Cushingite irrationality will result in heresy and schism, like the LOHO. It is not Magisterial with the irrational premise.

AG 7 supports the strict interpretation of EENS and hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG 16,UR 3 etc are not practical exceptions to AG7 in 2021.The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc.This is the Feeneyite and not Cushingite approach to Vatican Council II.

The bishop cannot tell the non Catholics in Dijon that AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions to AG 7 in Vatican Council II.Since LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR3, NA 2 etc can refer to only hypothetical cases for us humans.If any one is saved outside the Church it can only be known to God.The norm for salvation is AG 7 and not LG 14, LG 16 etc. LG 14 etc are not even exceptions to the norm.Since there are no known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1965-2021.


The New Ecumenism is division in the Church in Dijon based upon the false premise.The irrational premise is used to reject UR3 and suggest that there are known non Catholic Christians saved outside the Catholic Church, without Catholic faith.With this irrationality EENS is rejected by the bishop and he puts forward a theory of religious pluralism among Christians and non Christians.

The FSSP could refuse to offer Mass with a New Ecumenism created with a false premise.This is a rejection of the Creeds, Catechisms etc.They can also refuse to offer Mass until Bishop Minnerath recites the Athanasius Creed in public.

Bishop Minnerath promotes division in the Catholic Church when he interprets Magisterial documents with a fake premise and accepts the LOHO with its objective error.The Magisterium of the Church unlike LOHO, did not use the false premise over the centuries.They knew that BOD and I.I referred to invisible and hypothetical cases only. This is something obvious.

-Lionel Andrades

 

June 29, 2021


Bishop Roland Minnerath has interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and with this error has written a book on 'the theology of religions' he has also interpreted the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise and published books with this error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted.html


https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/laity-protest-latin-mass-hating-archbishop

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)