Sunday, November 15, 2015

U.S. ‘Bishops’ ask Vatican for joint-reception of ‘Holy Communion’ with Lutherans

November 5, 2015 reports:
A U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops committee on ecumenical and interreligious affairs plans to send the Vatican a bold suggestion for “expansion of opportunities for Catholics and Lutherans to receive Holy Communion together.” The 118-page text of “Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry, and Eucharist [PDF],” unanimously affirmed by the committee in October, will be submitted to Cardinal Kurt Koch, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the Vatican.
Promotional materials call the declaration a “unique ecumenical text that draws on 50 years of Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in preparation for the 500th Reformation anniversary coming in 2017.” A news release from the bishops claims it “marks a pathway toward greater visible unity between Catholics and Lutherans.”
The Most Rev. Denis J. Madden, Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, has suggested the document stands in the service of what Pope Francis has called a “culture of encounter”: “This Declaration on the Way represents in concrete form an opportunity for Lutherans and Catholics to join together now in a unifying manner on a way finally to full communion.”…
MHFM Comment: This is just more proof, of course, that the ‘hierarchy’ of the Vatican II sect is not the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Please note: I am not a sedevacantist however it is clear that Pope Francis does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the MHFM allege.He also permits the sacrilege of the Eucharist . He does not affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is changing the Nicene Creed and ignoring the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.These are sins of faith. It is heresy.

Some of these errors were also endorsed by Pope Benedict and former popes. So some of these errors, like that of the irrational premise used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, could be unintentional and innocent.It could be simple ignorance. -L.A  

The MHTS sedevacantist position is heretical and they are unable to defend themself

The sedevacantist position is heretical and they are unable to defend themself.Here is a citation from a discusion with the blog owner of Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD) who has his back to the wall.

Here are the citations.I repeat them.
'A sedevacantist is saying I am outside the Church when I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, hypothetical and invisible for us baptism of desire and baptism of blood and a Vatican Council II in which LG 16 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases ? Which teaching have I rejected? You instead reject Vatican Council and invisible for us and known only to God BOD and BOB.For you BOD and BOB are explicit and so you reject the defined dogma EENS. So this is also a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.You have also changed the Nicene Creed with one baptism replaced by three, this is a first class heresy.' 1

For IAAD, Bishop Donald Salborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada and the faculty and seminarians at the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary(MHTS) Fl.,USA this is their heretical position. It all develops from a small irrationality. It shows that Catholic doctrine is like mathematics. It has a precision of its own.One small violation and the equation goes wrong.
 For the sedevacantist the baptism of desire (BOD)  and blood (BOB) , and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), refer to  personally known, objective cases in the present times and they exclude the baptism of water. Here is where the basic problem lies, here is where the equation goes off.
1. Since there is visible instead invisible for us, BOD, BOB and I.I they have an alleged explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). They reject the centuries old interpretation of EENS which does not mention any exceptions nor claims BOD, BOB or I.I as being relevant to EENS.Instead the text of the dogma accentuates the absence of exceptions. EENS is a defined dogma and the sedevacantists  have changed its meaning not aware of the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This is heresy. 
2.This is also a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. Three Church Councils defined EENS ex cathedra.
3.They are no more saying that there is one baptism for the forgiveness  of sin which is the baptism of water. The baptism of water unlike BOD,BOB and I.I  is known,visible and repeatable.Now for Bishop Donald Sanborn, Fr. Anthony Cekada, IAAD and the sedevacantists at CMRI, it is  " I believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sin. They are water, desire and blood and they are all known baptisms'. This is first class heresy.IAAD had nothing to say on all this.
4.Then since BOD, BOB and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) refer to known cases ,Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Creeds ( Nicene, Athanasius Creed). LG 16 being explicit would contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS. So we have the sedevacantists rejecting Vatican Council II.
There is a choice. If they consider BOD, BOB and Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to invisible- for- us cases, which would only be known to God, there are no explicit exceptions to Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition. This is not known to them. So they maintain their heretical interpretation of Church documents using the LG 16 is explicit premise.So their conclusion is non traditional , as it is that of the liberals.They reject Vatican Council II and the liberals accept it. Both are making the same factual error in their reasoning.
Since the sedevacantists ( including the Dimond brothers at the Most Holy Family Monastery,USA) are not aware of the visible-invisible distinction in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 they reject Vatican Council II and have gone into sedevacantism, blaming the popes, when it is the irrational premise which they use which is responsible for all the confusion and heresy.
-Lionel Andrades

The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing was in manifest heresy and the pope supported it and the sedevacantists have accepted it
Related image

There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio on ecumenism and other religions

There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Cantate Dominio on ecumenism and other religions - 2

Sedevacantist decides not to answer if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to explicit or implicit cases - 2

Sedevacantist will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 also refers to a visible for us case in 2015