The Nadir of American Catholicism

Russell Shaw at Catholic Answers Magazine.

"What was the worst year ever for the Catholic Church in the United States? A lot of people would call that a no-brainer. The hands-down worst year, they’d say, was 2002, when disclosures of clergy sex abuse and cover-up rocked the Church from top to bottom.

"Others would no doubt point to other years as real stinkers. For my money, though, the all-time winner as worst year was 1976. Let me tell you why. ..."

10 comments:

  1. LAITY IN DIJON COULD PRODUCE ANOTHER VIDEO ASKING WHY SHOULD THE FSSP PRIESTS CONCELEBRATE HOLY MASS WITH BISHOP MINNERATH AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS WHEN THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE TO CREATE A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION AS HELD BY THE LAITY.

    The lesamis basilique could produce another video affirming the Catholic faith and then see the reaction of Bishop Roland Minnerath and the FSSP and diocesan priests. The video could ask – why should the FSSP priests concelebrate Holy Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath when they interpret Vatican Council II intentionally with a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition as known to the FSSP priests and the laity?
    1. They could ask Bishop Minnerath to affirm the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q,27Q) and also Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) with Vatican Council II ( LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc ) not being in conflict with AG 7.It would not contradict the de fide teaching on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions.
    2. They could ask the bishop to affirm Vatican Council II( Ad Gentes 7) with LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc not being practical exceptions in 2021 to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return etc.
    3. Ask the bishop to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), which was defined by three Church Councils ( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).The bishop must make it clear that the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance (I.I) mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO)1949 are not exceptions.The LOHO used a false premise.
    The lesamisbasilique could produce another video but this one would be on the Catholic Church’s teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation (Quas Primas etc they could show how Quas Primas is supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
    Bishop Minnerath has written about the Syllabus of Errors, Vatican Council II, the Concordats, the theology of religions and a rejection of an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church.He could be asked to correct himself and interpret the Council in harmony with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius IX ( 24Q,27Q).
    Since Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3 etc not being objective exceptions to AG 7 and EENS, all need to fomally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.So it is important that the political adminstrations and governments in Dijon and France be Catholic, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.It is imperative for the salvation of souls from going to Hell that the Social Reign of Christ the King be proclaimed once again in France.Jesus as he is known traditionally in the Catholic Church, should be the centre of all political legislation.
    The bishop must be informed that he interprets Vatican Council II with a false premise and expects the laity to do the same even though a rational option is available.The rational option would place the Council in harmony with Tradition ( EENS etc)? So the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church today would be the same as the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, at the time of St. Joan of Arc.
    The bishop could be asked in the video,”Why should the FSSP priests concelebrate Mass with him and the diocesan priests who interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a fake rupture with the Tradition, which the FSSP and the laity uphold?.

    ReplyDelete
  2. FSSP PRIESTS IN ROME ARE ALLOWED TO OFFER THE LATIN MASS SINCE THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FALSE PREMISE
    The FSSP priests are allowed to offer Holy Mass, the ecclesiastics and secular authorities in Rome, since they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and not without it.I would go for the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in a small church in an alley in Rome.It was about the time Summorum Pontificum was issued.Fr.Kramer was the Rector.
    The FSSP now offers the Latin Mass at the parish-church Santissima Trinita dei Pellegrini, Rome.
    The FSSP priests would never affirm the exclusivist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and would use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II.So their Latin Mass with the New Theology created by the false premise, was not really the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century with its exclusivist interpretation of EENS.
    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

    ReplyDelete
  3. THE LAITY IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH, MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIBERAL BISHOP’S WEAK POINT IS THEOLOGY. THE REAL ISSUE FOR HIM AND THE PRESENT TWO POPES, IS NOT THE MASS BUT THE OLD THEOLOGY, THE OLD ECCLESIOCENTRISM.

    The laity, if they have another meeting with Bishop Roland Minnerath, must understand that the liberal bishop’s weak point is theology.The real issue for him and the present two popes, is not the Mass but the old theology, the old ecclesiocentrism. The FSSP priests, are side stepping Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise and are going back to the sources of Tradition This is the real problem for the bishop and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
    1.The laity must know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II , one with the irrational premise and the other without it. They can choose the CDF interpretation of Vatican Council II or that of Lionel Andrades, without the irrationality.
    2.There can also be two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). One, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are seen as physically visible people saved outside the Church in 2021,or, as being only hypothetical and theoretical cases, which do not exist in our reality.So the interpretation of BOD, BOB and I.I is rational and the other is irrational.Again the laity have to choose between the interpretations of the popes or Lionel Andrades.They, of course must choose the rational option and ask the bishop to do the same.
    This has to be clear.
    For it means that at Mass in Latin, French or that of the Orientals,the theology; the ecclesiology of all aspects of the Church will be traditional.There will be no rupture with the exclusivist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of Fr. Leonard Feeney, or the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catolic faith for salvation or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.This means that the Catechisms of the Council of Trent and Pius X will not contradict itself,when the strict interpretation of EENS is supported along with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
    THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND COHERENT BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN COUNCIL II.
    With the theology of the Church, before and after Vatican Council II,being traditional and coherent, the bishop should be asked to affirm the faith.
    If he refuses to affirm the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed in public and cites Vatican Council II as a development of doctrine, he is interpreting the Council with the false premise.
    Catholics of all Rites in France should be able to affirm Vatican Council II ( rational) and the Athanasius Creed (rational-with no known exceptions).
    If the bishop affirms Vatican Council II and the Athanasius Creed with exceptions, it means he is using the false premise, and should be checked here.
    If the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed is recited by the laity at Mass, in a Profession of Faith, it is meaningless, if they interpret the Creeds with the false premise instead of without it.If they interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I with the false premise, then they really change the interpretation of these two Creeds.One interpretation is rational and traditional and the other is irrational and a break with Tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. LAITY WILL OFTEN HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE INTERPRETATIONS WITH THE FALSE PREMISE AND WITHOUT IT SINCE THE CONCLUSION IS DIFFERENT
    Similarly if the Four Marks of the Church are affirmed ( one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic), it can be meaningless and misleading, if the distinction is not made between the fake and the rational premise.Since with the premise the conclusion differs.So the laity will often have to choose between the interpretation of Bishop Minnerath and Lionel Andrades.
    It must be remembered that the bishop’s weak point is theology.He has to use the false premise to support his liberalism, ‘the theology of religions’.


    TODAY THE HERESY OF THE FALSE PREMISE IS LIKE THE ARIAN HERESY OF THE PAST.
    The laity and the FSSP priests must know that like in the past there was the Arian heresy in the Church today there is the heresy of the false premise.It is like a theological virus which has become a spiritual epidemic in the Church.
    So when they concelebrate Mass in Dijon, or elsewhere in France, the diocesan priest will not be a traditionalist,since he interprets Vatican Council II and other Church documents , with the false premise, which produces a non traditional conclusion.
    Then because of the Leftist laws Bishop Roland Minnerath may want to intepret Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents with the false premise.There is no tension or persecution.
    THE BISHOP AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE IN AN ‘IRREGULAR SITUATION’.
    The FSSP will have to offer Mass with the diocesan priests and Bishop Minnerath who are in an ‘irregular situation’.The false premise puts them in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries and in first class heresy with the Creeds.
    When they choose the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II it is not something knew in the Church.The innovation and newness came into the Church with the false premise,inference and conclusion.I am identifying it and pointing out the original premise and inference which was responsable for the traditional conclusion.
    Since outside the Church there is no salvation according to Vatican Council II, the laity in Dijon need an organisation or office to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, in French politics.According to Vatican Council II membership in the Catholic Church is necessary to avoid Hell ( Ad Gentes 7- all need faith and baptism for salvation).They could name this organisation Only the Catholic Church, which until now is only a slogan.
    WE CAN PROCLAIM THE SOCIAL REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING BASED UPON THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY OF VATICAN COUNCIUL II
    The Latin laity could organise candidates for political office in France, who will proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, based upon the exclusive ecclesiology of Vatican Council II( interpreted with the rational premise) and Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX etc).Vatican Council II must no more seen as a break with the traditional understanding of Mission, Ecumeism, Mortal Sin etc.
    The Latin laity should not really be protesting outside the bishop’s office. They simply have to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and it is the progeressivists who will be upset.Since there could no more be a liberal catechesis, scout program etc, since the Council will have changed before their eyes.Change your premise and you change the Church.Ecclesiology depends upon the premise-used.So why protest if the ecclesiology of the Church today can only be traditional ? Where is the rupture with colegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty as in the past, when the Council is traditional, without the false premise ? Let the liberals come outside the bishop’s office with placards and banners, saying, ‘We don’t want to interpret VC2 rationally. Give us back our old Church of 1965’.
    Once we are aware of the false premise,Pope Francis can create the Amazon and new rites, for the Mass and the ecclesiology of the Church will not change.It will still be the same as the Traditional Latin Mass of the 16th century.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BISHOP ROLAND MINNERATH AND THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS ARE A SIGN OF DIUNITY WHEN THEY USE THE NEW THEOLOGY WITH A FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND NON TRADITIONAL CONCLUSION

    Bishop Roland Minnerath speaking to the laity said that the priest is a sign of unity.This is false. The bishop and the diocesan priests are a sign of disunity and rebellion.His New Theology has its foundation on a false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion.He does not choose to interpret the Council with the rational premise, inference and traditonal conclusion.He is politically correct with the Left in France and so supports a theology of religions.
    In John 3:5 and mark 16:16 Jesus tells us all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation.This is the only way God the Father chose for all to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.We need faith in Jesus in a Church, the Catholic Church.This was the only Church he founded.There were no Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals and Protestants with their doctrine at that time.The Church and its teachings do not change. But for Bishop Minnerath, they have changed.
    He could only change the old theology of the Catholic Church,and so also the doctrines, with the use of a fake premise.So he does not have unity with the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation. For Bishop Minnerath there are exceptions.
    He does not have unity with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return, since there are exceptions for him and not for me.
    He does not have unity with the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q, 27Q) since for him there are exceptions, while for me there are none.
    Neither can he affirm Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7 – all need faith and baptism for salvation) with no exceptions in Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( the baptism of desire).For him there are exceptions to AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in LG 16 and LG 14 and for me there are none.LG 16 and LG 14 are only hypothetical and invisible cases in 2021.
    Instead he has written a book promoting the theology of religions which Pope John Paul II condemned ( CDF, Notification, Dupuis 2001).
    Bishop Minnerath and the diocesan priests are a sign of disunity and the laity must not allow them to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, create disunity with Church teachings and then offer Holy Mass.
    I would like to be in unity with bishops and priests but when they use the false premise they are a sign of disunity with Jesus and His Church, outside of which there is no known salvation in 2021.

    ReplyDelete
  6. THE JESUITS IN ROME ARE USING THE FAKE PREMISE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AND SO AVOID BEING LABELLED ‘EXTREMIST’ BY THE LEFTIST ADMINISTRATION HERE. ALSO THEIR SPIRITUAL EXCERCISES OF ST. IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA, THIS SUMMER IN ITALY ARE BASED UPON CHURCH DOCUMENTS INTERPRETED WITH THE IRRATIONAL PREMISE,INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION.
    The Jesuits in Rome are using the fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so avoid being labelled ‘extremist’ by the Leftist Administration here. Also their Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, this summer in Italy are based upon Church documents interpreted with the irrational premise, inference and conclusion. So there is a theological and doctrinal rupture with St. Ignatius of Loyola’s concept of their being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
    It is unethical and dishonest for the Jesuits to interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds, Catechisms, baptism of desire, invincible ignorance and the baptism of blood and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with a fake premise and suggest that they are following St. Ignatius of Loyola.
    FAKE PREMISE OF THE JESUITS IN ROME
    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 THE JESUITS IN ROME
    They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.
    FAKE CONCLUSION OF THE JESUITS IN ROME
    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.
    CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  7. CONTINUED
    TWO COLUMN APPROACH
    Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column?
    LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN
    All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
    implicit or explicit for us.
    hypothetical or known in reality.
    invisible or visible in the flesh.
    dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).
    subjective or objective
    So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
    If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2021 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead-saved are visible.
    If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
    Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
    The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.-Lionel Andrades
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-jesuits-in-rome-are-using-fake.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. THE PONTIFICAL AND SECULAR UNIVERSITIES ARE INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH A FALSE PREMISE AND SO ARE GETTING FUNDS FROM LIBERAL ITALIAN AND US ORGANISATIONS.

    The pontifical and secular universities are interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and so are getting funds from liberal Italian organisations.

    The Franciscan universities and educational institutuions in Italy are all interpreting Vatican Council II with the fake premise to create a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the traditional ecclesiocentrism of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure and the Franciscans over the centuries, in order to receive funding from the Leftist government in Italy.
    Also German theologians approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger are still offering courses on line at the Pontifical John Lateran University Rome and the Pontificum Regina Apostolorum University, Rome, in which they interpret Vatican Council II with the fake premise and so get funding from the government and non organisations in Italy and Germany.
    The Legion of Christ universities in Rome get government and non government grants and scholarships from the Vatican, since they interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial documents with a fake premise, to create an artificial rupture with Tradition.They make the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) obsolete.Without this deception they would not be approved by Leftist organisations.Faculty and students who are not part of this deception cannot remain at the university.
    Since I do not interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the fake premise I cannot study theology or philosophy at the Regina Apostolorum University, Rome,nor at the Angelicum.Neither can I be a seminarian at the Pontificio Internationale Maria Mater Ecclesia seminary, Rome,of the Legion of Christ.
    CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  9. CONTINUED

    It is the same policy at other pontifical universities and seminaries in other parts of Europe under the European Economic Commission.
    Pontifical universities in Rome like the Jesuit Gregorian University,are being financed and supported by the Leftist government in Italy, and leftist organisations since the faculty interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion and so create a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
    Even the Redemptorist Fathers at their university in Rome are not allowed to affirm EENS and the salvation doctrines of the founder of their religious community,if they want to continue to receive funding from government and non government sources.
    They have to use the false premise, inference and non traditional conclusion to interpret Vatican Council II, EENS, the Creeds and Catechisms.They have to approve ‘the development of doctrine’ creatd with an irrationality.
    In Austria the teaching faculties at the Catholic universities and colleges in Vienna, are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a fake premise even after being informed.This is necessary to collect the grants and scholarships from government and non government agencies.So they are politically correct with the Left and do away with Catholic Tradition and this is approved by Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.
    The Russell Berry Foundation has been putting big money into the Angelicum University, Rome since the Dominican faculty interpret hypothetical cases, mentioned in Unitatitis Redintigratio, Decree on Ecumenism Vatican Council II,as being non hypothetical, objective examples of known salvation outside the Church in the present times. So the old ecumenism of return is made obsolete.
    The American Dean of Theology at the Angelicum University would be unable to talk basic theology since she has to use the fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS.Her teaching job depends upon this. So the Dominican faculty at the Angelicum keep receiving grants, fellowships, stipends etc from pro-Left organisations.The New Ecumenism at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome, is pegged upon the false premise,inference and conclusion used in the interpretation of Unitatis Redintigratio, Vatican Council II.
    The pontifical and secular universities are interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise and so are getting funds from liberal Italian organisations.(From the blog eucharistandmission)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyone who has not encountered the specific issues in the previous nine comments (or nine-part comment) might find helpful this on Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine from the US District of the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete

Please contact matt@badgercatholic.com if you have issues commenting.