| Our millstone award goes to the Catholic Press Association and the fishwrap! |
Let's start with the Catholic Press Association. For the 18th time in 20 years, that bogus Catholic group gave the fishwrap (aka National Catholic Reporter) first prize in the "best Catholic newspaper" category.
Now one is tempted to ask why they are even allowed to participate in nominations? In 2013, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, the diocese in which the fishwrap resides, attempted to engage the editors in a discussion of content inimical to Church teaching. He specifically called into question their editorial position of:
officially condemning Church teaching on the ordination of women, insistent undermining of Church teaching on artificial contraception and sexual morality in general, lionizing dissident theologies while rejecting established Magisterial teaching, and a litany of other issues.Not surprisingly the fishwrap staff rebuffed the bishop.
The Lepanto Institute points out that the fishwrap is in violation of Canon Law:
The Code of Canon Law, 831 forbids the faithful from writing anything for publications that openly attack the Catholic faith or good morals:
“CAN. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.”
Hichborn goes on to outline the many ways the fishwrap violates canon law. How anyone can call this a "Catholic" paper and actually award it as the leading Catholic newspaper in the country is shocking and astounding! They deserve an award all right -- giant millstones attached to the necks of their entire editorial team. And one big one for the Catholic Press Association as well!The fact of the matter is the National Catholic Reporter has a long history of spreading heresy and attacking the eternal Truths taught by Holy Mother Church. Here are a few examples of NCR’s vicious assaults on the Catholic Religion and good morals.
ReplyDeleteLefebvrists in crisis mode
The Lefebvrist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas, sedevacantists, are in a crisis mode today.But there problem is also that of Lefbvrists in general.
Sanborn and Pivarunas know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. If they do interpret the Council without the false premise, they would be supporting 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). There would be no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
But if they affirm Feeneyite EENS the Jewish Left will come after them. They will be labelled Anti Semetic etc and their websites will be targeted. There bank balances will be threatened and so also their seminary property.
It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei and Dr.Taylor Marshall for example. As long as they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, with Cushingite theology, the New Theology, there is a rupture with Tradition and Feeneyite EENS. The Jewish Left and the present two popes appreciate this.No problem.They are saying the same thing. Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for them too.
If Mattei and Marshall did not use the false premise to interpet Vatican Council II they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and this would not be allowed by the Left. This would be asking for trouble.So Mattei and Marshall use the Lefebvrist Theology to please the Jewish Left.
It is like Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery who affirm Feeneyite EENS, the strict interpretation of EENS. But they also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture created with EENS and the Athanasius Creed. So they are tolerated by the Left.
Similarly Vigano and Brandmuller will not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise; the Lefebvrist new theology. They are tolerated. They can have all the discussions they want.
As along as they critize Vatican Council II and project it as a rupture with Tradition the Vatican and the Left don't mind. Since this is what the Left and the Vatican also do.
However if they did not use the false premise they would be telling the average Catholic that they can interpret the Council in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS as in the 1930's and before.
This would be unacceptable for the Left. Why would they permit Taylor Marshall to have a website and Roberto dei Mattei to have his media in Italy ?
He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. The Internet is owned by those who oppose and hate the Church. So Michael Voris has to comply and Dr.Joseph Shaw and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf tow the line. The FIUV and Una Voce also interpret the Council as a rupture with Tradition.
So it is safe for Vigano, Brandmuller and Schneider to interpret Lumen Gentium 8 for example, as an exception to EENS. This is politically correct. However if they said that LG 8 was not an exception to EENS, since it referred to a hypothetical case, this would be a crisis for them.
Now Sanborn and Pivarunas know that there is no basis for sedevacantism with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. But they are not going to affirm the Council in harmony with Tradition. They need the hermeneutic of rupture.-Lionel Andrades
I have no idea how this relates to the blog post. I also have no idea what you're talking about. But if you comment again please make it shorter and clear. I doubt many of my blog readers will slog through this.
ReplyDelete