Professors of Philosophy at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit have to teach irrational philosophy and heretical theology since it is magisterial

Dr.Eduardo J.Echeverria is a professor of Philosophy and Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary and his publications include 'Pope Francis and the Legacy of Vatican Council II'. He means Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise.This is the only Vatican Council II he knows. 

Victor and Elizabeth Sales, Associate Professors of Philosophy at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary Detroit, are in a philosophical soup too, ends don't tie up and they have to project confusion and irrationality as being Catholic philosophy.

Their reasoning is wrong and their philosophy is bad when they teach students that Vatican Council II is a rupture with  Tradition. They infer like the traditionalists that LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, AG 7, UR 3, GS 22, etc refer to concrete, known cases saved outside the Church.This is how the Archdiocese interprets the Council.

The motto of the Detroit seminary is 'forming Hearts and Minds. Proclaiming Jesus Christ'.They mean, with bad philosophy and theology they form hearts and minds and they proclaim Jesus Christ, without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.

So there is known salvation outside the Church for  Eduardo J.Echeverria and  Victor and Elizabeth Sales as a result of their  bad reasoning.This is bad philosophy and it is not Catholic. It is objectively wrong and so cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Forming Hearts and Minds. 

Proclaiming Jesus Christ.

With a foundation in bad philosophy they prepare Catholic students at the seminary to receive the bad theology they have personally received.

They have to teach irrational philosophy and heretical theology since it is magisterial.

So when I send them these blog posts they do not comment  since even though their  philosophy and theology is deceptive and the teaching dishonest they have to go through with it.

They give students a foundation in irrational reasoning, with the help of a false premise, which 'forms hearts and minds', to accept an innovative and new theology, which makes Vatican Council II a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

The two Associate Professors have to violate Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

How can people in Heaven, allegedly saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) be objective exceptions on earth to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation?

Would these professors of Philosophy be able to state as simple Catholics that they believe that the present reasoning in philosophy and theology at Sacred Heart Seminary  is not the work of the Holy Spirit. So they personally affirm all magisterial documents without the irrational premise which created the non traditional conclusion?

1.They could state instead, that they as professors of Philosophy at Sacred Heart Major Seminary affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the magisterium and missionaries in the 16 th century for example.

2.They affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and so the Council is in harmony with the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries.They reject Vatican Council II as a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church.

3.They affirm the Nicene Creed and understand that it means, we Catholics believe in only one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins and it is only the baptism of water. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire, blood and invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water.'

4.They could affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and interpret it with BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to only hypothetical cases. They cannot be anything else.So there is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to contradict the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries.

5.They could affirm the first past of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is traditional and they could reject the second part of the Letter, which contradicts the first part by making a philosophical error ;  by assuming BOD,BOB and I.I refer to visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

These five points would help them not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction in their teaching and personal beliefs as Catholics.

I have also asked Dr.Phillip Blosser, a professor of Philosophy at this seminary to affirm these five points as a Catholic, as I do, and I am waiting for his reply.

-Lionel Andrades