Saturday, 28 October 2017

Archbishop Paul Gallagher admits that the ecumenical movement is not about Christ!


Paul Gallagher is the Secretary for Relations with States at the Vatican's Secretariat of State. 

He is quoted as saying:
“Some have tended to see ecumenical endeavour as a question of church, or as an internal Christian affair in which our unity will be good for the growth or even survival of Christ’s church. Given all we face today, given the urgency and precariousness of our situation I would argue rather that ecumenical engagement is a moral imperative for all of us who are baptised in the name of the Blessed Trinity. We must proceed together as the one Body of Christ, not because it will be nice or cosy to do so but because we have to in response to the pressing needs of humanity.”

More false oecumenism for these modernists. If these Church leaders continue to refuse to make it clear to protestants that the goal must be their acceptance of the One, True, Church and the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the priesthood, then there can be no oecumenism. 

Barona at Witness has solid commentary.

Keep your wits about you, friend. It's going to get rough.

Next, the ecumenical "Mass" and the denial of Transubstantiation.




3 comments:

TLM said...

The total destruction of the Church of Christ is moving right along, eh Vox? The Satanists seem to be having great success in their 'endeavors' to remake the Church of Christ into the Church of Satan and they are moving at lightening speed. We will indeed be in the Catacombs a lot quicker than first anticipated. Michael Matt was ahead of his time making his 'down in the Catacombs' videos.

Eirene said...

The Ecumenical Mass and the denial of Transubstantiation
is well underway, Vox! I just read from 1Peter Five.
You might care to follow! Pretty disturbing stuff!

Catholic Mission said...

OCTOBER 30, 2017

Double- speak continues with Ecclesia Dei and the CDF : Vatican Council II is not the real issue for the SSPX reconciliation
Ecclesia Dei and I interpret Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents differently. What if I was an SSPX bishop for example, or what if an SSPX bishop interpreted the Council as I do, would it be acceptable for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
No.It would not be acceptable. Otherwise they would have informed me about it a long time back.
The issue was never Vatican Council II. The issue was always ideology.The SSPX had to accept the leftist ideology in the interpretation of magisterial documents and only then they could be given canonical status.
For me Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria it was always a rupture.
But they just couldn't create a rupture, there had to be a theological means.
So they accepted the false premise used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.This changed the traditional interpretation on EENS.
They then interpreted the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II as referring to known and objective people saved outside the Church.So LG 16 because a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries. It was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century Pope Benedict confirmed it last year for any one who still had doubts.
I however have found out their mistake. I am not going into sedevacantism and nor am I going to be a traditionalist who rejects the Council since he does not want to accept a breach with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors etc).
So now if there was an SSPX bishop or priest at the St. Benedict Center or an FSSP priest who announced that they accept Vatican Council II just as I do.....it will not be acceptable.
The SSPX could state that Pope Benedict said that the issue was doctrinal and so they are now affirming Vatican Council II and they have been given permission to offer the Latin Mass with Summorum Pontificum.
No way.
It has to be Vatican Council II in which LG 16 refers to visible people saved outside the Church even if practically there are no such cases.
So the Nicene Creed to has to be changed.
EENS has already been changed in the 1949 Letter with invisible for us baptism of desire etc being a visible exception to the dogma EENS.
This is how Cardinal Raymond Burke ,Joseph Shaw and the signatories of the Filial Correction interpret Vatican Council II.
In the 2012 General Chapter Statement the SSPX affirmed EENS without the irrational premise, it was a Feeneyite version of EENS and Ecclesia Dei did not announce that they had accepted it.
So now we know that Vatican Council II is not the real issue for the SSPX to receive canonical status.The SSPX has to interpret invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc as referring to known cases,visible people saved without 'faith and baptism'. So then LG 16 is a break with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS, it is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century.This is how they do it at the Bishops Conferences world wide.It is only then that Vatican Council II will be acceptable to Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishops Pozzo and Di Noia.There has to be a hermeneutic of rupture while they in public speak of a hermeneutic of continuity.
In March 2016 Pope Benedict announced that there was a hermeneutic of rupture with EENS (Avvenire) and it was caused by 'the development' in Vatican Council II and all along he has been speaking about a possible hermeneutic of continuity with Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades