From the blog The Eponymous Flower : Vatican Excommunicates Members of the "Bambinello of Gallinaro"Community
AthelstaneIs
there *any* blog post you can't derail with lengthy Feeneyite broadsides, Lionel?
Lionel:
It is based on reason, simple English, affirming traditional theology and Catholic doctrine.
It is based on a factual and public error made by three persons including Bishop Fellay.
You are unable to refute the rationality of the report nor question its orthodoxy. Neither are you able to defend Bishop Fellay.
All you can refer to is 'Feeneyism' which keeps you politically correct with the Left.
It's like Boniface on Unam Sanctam Catholicam who will comment on every thing else, with reference to me, except the subject in question: Catholic doctrine and theology.
You do not agree that Bishop Fellay, and the others, have a new theology based on hypothetical cases being objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla nulla salus?
You are aware, that I can affirm Vatican Council II without assuming hypothetical cases( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc) are objective in 2016 ? So then Vatican would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries?
Is it not a first class heresy for Archbishop Di Noia to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils and that too with an irrationality? Is this not heresy for you?
Is this not the stuff for excommunication?-Lionel Andrades
there *any* blog post you can't derail with lengthy Feeneyite broadsides, Lionel?
Lionel:
It is based on reason, simple English, affirming traditional theology and Catholic doctrine.
It is based on a factual and public error made by three persons including Bishop Fellay.
You are unable to refute the rationality of the report nor question its orthodoxy. Neither are you able to defend Bishop Fellay.
All you can refer to is 'Feeneyism' which keeps you politically correct with the Left.
It's like Boniface on Unam Sanctam Catholicam who will comment on every thing else, with reference to me, except the subject in question: Catholic doctrine and theology.
You do not agree that Bishop Fellay, and the others, have a new theology based on hypothetical cases being objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla nulla salus?
You are aware, that I can affirm Vatican Council II without assuming hypothetical cases( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc) are objective in 2016 ? So then Vatican would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries?
Is it not a first class heresy for Archbishop Di Noia to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils and that too with an irrationality? Is this not heresy for you?
Is this not the stuff for excommunication?-Lionel Andrades
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/06/cdf-community-is-contrary-to-catholic.html#comment-form
Posts
