A darne notizia è Gloria.tv, riportando LifeSiteNews.

In un suo recente intervento, Mons. Schneider riconosce l’origine vaticansecondista dell’apostasia di Abu Dhabi, ovvero la presenza di chiari errori nei “documenti conciliari”. Il vescovo kazako scrive, citando Dignitatis Humanae, del problema della libertĂ  religiosa.

In un passaggio, tuttavia, afferma che la definzione presente in questo testo “Questa unica vera religione crediamo che sussista nella Chiesa cattolica e apostolica”, sia conforme alla dottrina.

Qui, aggiungiamo noi, è necessaria una distinzione, apparentemente sottile ma fondamentale. In realtĂ  la formulazione cattolica sarebbe “Questa unica vera religione crediamo essere la Chiesa cattolica e apostolica”, non sussistere nella. Si tratta di una fine ambiguitĂ  testuale (rispresa poi nel pasticcio ratzingeriano della Dominus Iesus) che, come agevolmente dimostrato, ha spalancato la porta a gravissimi errori.

Per farla breve: Carlo è il marito di Sandra, non sussiste nel ruolo di marito di Sandra. Altrimenti in questo ruolo potrebbe sussistere anche Gigi.

Di seguito un estratto, grassettature nostre:


There is sufficient reason to suggest that a cause and effect relationship exists between the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, signed by Pope Francis and Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi, on February 4, 2019. On his return flight to Rome from the United Arab Emirates, Pope Francis himself told journalists: “There is one thing … I would like to say.  I openly reaffirm this: from the Catholic point of view the Document does not move one millimeter away from the Second Vatican Council.  It is even cited, several times.  The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.” 

Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms the Church’s traditional doctrine, stating: “We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and it reasserts the “moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (n.1). Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, “not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits” (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the “church of Satan.” Indeed, in some countries, the “church of Satan” is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.