Christopher White at the National Catholic Reporter is not reporting that Fr. Georges de Laire Judicial Vicar in the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with the False Premise otherwise he would be affirming the same interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as the missionaries in the 16th century.

Christopher White at the National Catholic Reporter is not reporting that Fr. Georges de Laire  Judicial Vicar in the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets  the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with the False Premise otherwise he would be affirming the same interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as the missionaries in the 16th century. It is only because White and the NCR use the False Premise and not the Rational Premise that they are not Feeneyite.

Similarly if Vatican Council II was interpreted with the Rational Premise there would be no  ‘reforms of Vatican Council II ‘.  

If Christopher White interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS with the Rational Premise he would have the same theological position on other religions as Michael Voris and Brother Andre Marie MICM.

NO MORTAL SINS OF FAITH BECAUSE OF THE FALSE PREMISE

Now the NCR and the Curia in the Diocese of Manchester would not speak about mortal sins of faith because of the rupture with Tradition created by Vatican Council II interpreted only with the False Premise. There no more are mortal sins of faith for the Diocese of Manchester or the NCR since with Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise there are alleged exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are practical exceptions for extra ecclesiam nulla salus for the liberals, Lefebvrists, Thuc and others too.

So rejecting the Athanasius Creed and changing the understanding of the Nicene Creed is not a mortal sin of faith for them. It comes with ‘the reforms of Vatican Council II’ interpreted irrationally. This is official but it cannot be Magisterial.

When Massimo Faggioli, John Allen Jr, and other contributors/ correspondents for the National Catholic Reporter do not affirm the Athanasius Creed, and the Nicene Creed and Syllabus of Errors, rationally, then it is schism and heresy. Since now they can no more say that there are practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.

So the journalist Phil Lawler, or any Catholic  in New Hampshire could demand that Bishop Libasci interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Catholic Magisterial Documents  without the False Premise and ask all religious communities in the diocese to do the same.

How can the Paulist Fathers in Rome or the Diocese of Manchester reject the Athanasius Creed and re-interpret Vatican Council II and EENS irrationally? This is public schism with the past Magisterium, which was guided by the Holy Spirit.

In Rome, how can Cardinal Angelo Donatis, Vicar General, do the same and prohibit the Latin Mass for the Easter Triduum? The Novus Ordo Mass has the same ecclesiology as the Traditional Latin Mass when Vatican Council II and EENS are interpreted rationally.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. He agrees with Dr. Taylor Marshall who clarified that there are no explicit cases of St.Thomas Aquinas’s implicit baptism of desire. So this Good Friday if Bishop Athanasius Schneider is in Rome, he will offer the Mass in Latin or Italian, with Vatican Council II and EENS interpreted rationally.

So why is Pope Benedict allowed to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the common False Premise at Holy Mass in the vernacular? 

This is schism. It is the False Premise which 

creates schism and heresy even when it used by 

conservative Catholics.

-Lionel Andrades

NOVEMBER 27, 2021

If the National Catolic Reporter did not use the Fake Premise to interpret Church Documents Christopher White would be affirming the same strict interpretation of EENS as the St.Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/11/christopher-white-in-his-report-at.html

MISSING LINK DISCOVERED : WHAT CAUSES THE HERMENEUTIC OF RUPTURE

The fault is not there with Vatican Council II but his assuming that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Avoid the premise and the conclusion is traditional.This is the missing link in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.

To reiterate:

what premise ?

The irrational premise is "The dead are visible to us on earth".

what conclusion ?

The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

what theology,

So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.

Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

what Tradition.

Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils does not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.

Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.