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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/06/bishop-roland-minnerath-has-interpreted.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment