There was no unity on Catholic doctrine and so the Fisher-More College
in the USA had to collapse. It was the bishop who should have been held accountable.
Legally, 1) he should have been asked to accept all Magisterial Documents and interpret them only rationally.2) He
should have been asked to identify the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy
Office to the Archbishop of Boston and reject it in public.
With Vatican Council II rational he would be affirming the ecclesiology
of the Roman Missal of the 16th century. - Lionel Andrades
There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyismhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/there-is-no-text-in-vatican-council-ii.html
2024
Definition : fake premise, inference and conclusion and the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
The common fake premise is – invisible people are physically visible in 2024.
The common fake inference is – there are physically visible non Catholics in 2024 saved outside the Catholic Church without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
So the conclusion; the expected false conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church. This is a New Theology in the Church. It says outside the Church there is known salvation.
All this reasoning I call Cushingism. This process of bad reasoning is common among the Cushingite popes, cardinals and bishops.
The rational premise is – invisible people are invisible in 2024. Lumen Gentium 16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.
The rational inference is – there are no physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in 2024 without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
The traditional and rational conclusion is that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. There are no objective exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence (1441), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition.We are back to the old theology of the Roman Missal.
I call this reasoning Feeneyism.
Feeneyism and Cushingism, for me, refer to a way of thinking and not the two well known persons, Cardinal Richard Cushing and Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with Feeneyism. Cardinal Richard Cushing and the popes from Pius XII interpreted them with Cushingism.
I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 etc are invisible in 2024). Pope Paul VI and the popes who followed used Cushingism ( invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 are physically visible in 1965-2024).
In the 1920s and 1930's the Catholic Church was Feeneyite. Today it is Cushingite.
-Lionel Andrades
Mary, Mother of the Church
NOVEMBER 3, 2020
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) was offiicially interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and they wanted the faculty at the Fischer More College to accept it. Bishop Olsen interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and allowed the college to collapse suggesting that the issue was doctrinal.He had approved the FSSP priests who were also interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise and were not rejecting the Council
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) was offiicially interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and they wanted the faculty at the Fischer More College to accept it. Bishop Olsen interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise and allowed the college to collapse suggesting that the issue was doctrinal.He had approved the FSSP priests who were also interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise and were not rejecting the Council.-Lionel Andrades
JULY 19, 2019
Repost : FIUV has been of no help to the Fischer More College and the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate
MARCH 15, 2016
The FIUV has been of no help to the Fischer More College and the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate
Fisher More College discriminated against by other Catholic universities : forced to tell a lie http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/fischer-more-college-discriminated.html#links
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2014
Fisher More College and the Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept these lies to be allowed the Traditional Latin Mass.
There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyismhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/there-is-no-text-in-vatican-council-ii.html
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2014
Ecclesia Dei considers the matter of the closure of the Tridentine Mass at Fischer More College closed -Bishop Olson
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/fw-bishop-olson-announces-he-is-moving-to-put-in-place-tlm-parish/
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014
AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY AND FISCHER MORE COLLEGE : THE DOCTRINAL DIVIDE
Fr.John Hunwicke and participants at the Roman Forum Meeting this summer will be unaware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error
Always in the interpretation of Vatican Council II we have to be aware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error
Dr.Dudley would be saying that he could accept Vatican Council II if these passages refer to cases invisible for us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/drdudley-would-be-saying-that-he-could.html#links
Dr.John Dudley and the schools in Dallas
Chaplains at FMC used the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : cause of tension with facultyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/chaplains-at-fmc-used-false-premise-in.html#links
Summorum Pontificum does not say if Vatican Council II is to be interpreted with or without the false premisehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/summorum-pontificum-does-not-say-if.html#links
Bishop Michael Olson wants faculty and students to accept a lie ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/bishop-michael-olson-could-be-assuming.html#links
Chaplains at FMC used the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : cause of tension with faculty http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/chaplains-at-fmc-used-false-premise-in.html#links
FRIDAY, APRIL 4, 2014
Bishop Michael Olson has faculties to offer Holy Mass while denying the Catholic Faith in public
In the Nicene Creed we pray, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'. This was not told to the Jewish professor . Neither did he tell the Christians there that they need Catholic Faith (AG 7), the Sacraments and the moral and faith teachings of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell .
http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/14_03_03_fortworth_01.jpg
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014
They are trying to crush the old Mass, and disperse a group of people who are living the traditional faith- Robert Drumm, former Fischer More College Board Member
AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY AND FISCHER MORE COLLEGE : THE DOCTRINAL DIVIDE
Fr.John Hunwicke and participants at the Roman Forum Meeting this summer will be unaware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error
Always in the interpretation of Vatican Council II we have to be aware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error
- Dr.Dudley would be saying that he could accept Vatican Council II if these passages refer to cases invisible for us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/drdudley-would-be-saying-that-he-could.html#links
Chaplains at FMC used the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : cause of tension with facultyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/chaplains-at-fmc-used-false-premise-in.html#links
Summorum Pontificum : those who do not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II are called reactionarieshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/summorum-pontificum-those-who-do-not.html#linksSummorum Pontificum does not say if Vatican Council II is to be interpreted with or without the false premisehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/summorum-pontificum-does-not-say-if.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/bishop-michael-olson-could-be-assuming.html#links
Summorum Pontificum : those who do not use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II are called reactionarieshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/summorum-pontificum-those-who-do-not.html#links
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014
Bishop Michael Olsen has to be asked if all salvation in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) when considered implicit and invisible for us, is no more a contradiction of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
On the blog Creative Minority Report I posted a link which mentions three heresies.
REJECTING THE NICENE CREED
REJECTION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
REJECTION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
He needs to clarify if Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?
This would mean that the baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
This would mean that those priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass can also hold the 'rigorist' and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,along with implcit for us baptism of desire, as did the saints Robert Bellarmine, Anthony Marie Claret, Francis of Assisi etc.
If he says that the Holy Office 1949 excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney for heresy then it means Bishop Olson is also assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
My name is..[Introduction Redacted]
Pursuant to your actions vis-à-vis the prohibition of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite from taking place at the chapel of Fisher More College, I have the following questions:
What problem is this prohibition intended to remedy?
Is this prohibition the least restrictive measure possible to effect that remedy?
What consultations, if any, were held with the school to avoid such actions?
Are there clear criteria or actions set out which, if followed, would allow for the restoration of permission for the public celebration of the EF at Fisher More College?
Since the offering of the Extraordinary Form is key to the mission of Fisher More College and is a particular attraction for many of its students and their families, is it of concern to you prohibiting the EF may undermine such attraction to the school and thereby precipitate its demise?
Since no public communication regarding this matter has been issued by your office, is it your position that the prohibition of the ongoing public celebration of the mass in the Extraordinary form does not require a reasonably adequate public explanation?
Pursuant to the rights and restrictions spelled out in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, could you please cite the canonical authority you relied on to implement the prohibition of one form of the Roman rite?
As this matter is of significant and legitimate concern beyond the campus of Fisher More College, any further information you could provide relevant to the questions above would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Patrick Archbold
MAY 10, 2024
The Fischer-More College interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Latin Mass was not really the issue.Bishop Olsen was a Cushngite. Without the False Premise he would be a traditionalist
JANUARY 6, 2022
The Fischer-More College interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Latin Mass was not really the issue.Bishop Olsen was a Cushngite. Without the False Premise he would be a traditionalist
JUNE 16, 2017
When we have a Catholic college which is Feeneyite, then we will have a truly Catholic college.It will have a Catholic identity
Update: March 4, 2014, 12:32 AM CST
Pat Archbold reports that Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the leader of the International Fatima Rosary Crusade (Catholic World News says "self-styled", but I see no reason to call that item into question), spoke at FMC(Fischer More College), but reportedly did not act as a priest. The information was obtained through the Fisher More website, where they've listed their guest speakers since 2012.3
Father Nicholas Gruner rejected Vatican Council II (Cushingite) while Bishop Olson and the USCCB affirm it.
Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was an issue at Fischer More College and this can be avoided at the Collegium.
Update: Same day, 10:05 AM CST
Doctor Taylor Marshall, former chancellor at Fisher More College and TLM devoté, released his statement on the controversy through his Facebook page. At risk of making an outrageously long post longer, here are some salient quotations [bold type my emphases]:
I resigned when moral, theological, and financial discrepancies came to light regarding the presidency of Michael King. I was an ex officio member of the Board so I knew what others did not. From May to early June of 2013, five of the eight College Board Members also resigned for two reasons:1) Mr. King refused to disassociate himself from the public statements of faculty member Dr. Dudley that claimed in his Year of Faith lecture that Catholic professors have the duty to teach young people that Vatican 2 is not a valid Council (he also endorsed other “resistance” positions regarding the Novus Ordo, John Paul II, etc.) 4
FAITHFUL TO THE NON TRADITIONAL MAGISTERIUM
Now Deacon Edward Schaefer's is expected to make the same mistake at the Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum in 2019,when he will be faithful to 'the magisterium',like the FSSP priests.He will then get an accreditation for the college and also be approved by the diocese.
The students will have to accept Vatican Council II Cushingite which will be a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.But it will be magisterial and in continuity with the liberals at the Vatican. It will not in continuity with Tradition and the Mass of All Ages.
They will have to accept EENS ( Cushingite) which Pope Benedict XVI affirmed in March 2016.They will have to proclaim Vatican Council II as a development of the dogma EENS, as Pope Benedict clarified heretically.
POPE FRANCIS WILL APPROVE THE IDEOLOGY OF THE COLLEGIUM
So like the FSSP they will offer the Latin Mass at the Collegium Sanctorum Angelicum with the new ecclesiology.They welcome Vatican Council II and EENS Cushingite and then claim that this is the old theology of the Latin Mass. Pope Francis will approve this 'ideology'.
They will be in line with the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome .There they interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism and it is supported by the two living popes.
The Jesuits at the Gregorian have the same theology as Bishop Donald Sanborn's sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity seminary in Florida. Bishop Sanborn interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and then rejects the conclusion while the Jesuits accept the heretical conclusion.Both infer invisible people are visible.
Both Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS can be interpreted with Feeneyism and it will not be a rupture with Catholicism as it was known and taught in the 16th century and his makes a college Catholic and traditional.
Instead they all follow the magisterium which is Cushingite. This is a theology which is irrational and heretical.
1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/all-board-members-of-collegium.html
2.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/0795b5dcc10f96c16d54412d9817d6c0-194.html
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/fisher-more-college-awaiting-answer.html
3.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU
4.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU
5.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU
6.
http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.it/2014/03/much-ado-over-something-at-fisher-more.html#.WUPoQJryjIU
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 )
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
___________________
OCTOBER 23, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and ecclesiocentric
JUNE 11, 2021
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
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/05/there-is-no-denial-from-congregation.html
_______________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment