Judge Andre K. Johnstone, U.S Magistrate Judge for the District Court in New Hampshire, who is hearing a case filed by Fr. Georges de Laire, must ask him if he affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) like Brother Andre Marie micm. He will say ‘no’. For him there are exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II, for EENS. So he would admit that he uses the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and so avoid the Decree of Prohibitions being issued against him .But this is unethical. It is dishonest.The exceptions for him include LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. So in ths way he does not affirm the strict interpretation of EENS like Brother Andre Marie, against whom he has issued a Decree of Prohibitions.
Then the Judge can ask
Fr.Georges de Laire if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican
Council II, refer to physically visible people. Are they objective examples of non
Catholics saved outside the Church without faith and the baptism of water (AG
7, LG 14) in 2022 ? Since if they are practical exceptions they cannot be invisible
cases.They have to be objective and visible cases, people personally known in the present times.
Here Fr. Georges de Laire would have to admit
that he is confusing what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being
explicit and subjective as being objective.
His premise is invisible people are visible, LG
16 etc refer to visible people in the present times. Then his inference is that
these visible people (for him) saved outside the Catholic Church, are practical exceptions
for Feeneyite EENS. So his conclusion is
that Vatican Council II is a break with the traditional interpretation of EENS( with no exceptions). It is also a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius
X and the rest of Tradition.
So it is only with the False Premise, confusing
invisible cases in the present times, as being objective exceptions to EENS, that
he can deny the strict interpretation of EENS. In this way he avoids the Decree of
Prohibitions of the CDF being applied to him.Even other membvers of the Curia in
the diocese of Manchester, in New Hampshire, avoid the sanctions placed on Brother Andre Marie. They do it by confusing what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit.
Similarly the free lance journalist in New Hampshire, Damien Fischer denies the strict interpretation of EENS by suggesting that there are physically visible exceptions, mentioned in Vatican Council II. This is dishonest. However with this ruse he avoids the Decree of Prohibitions being issued against him and his wife Simcha Fischer.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment