The New Hampshire Union Leader could clarify that the CDF uses a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS and there is no denial from the CDF.Why should the SBC use a False Premise too ? It is unethical.

 

Damien Fisher writing for the New Hampshire Union Leader calls the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA ‘ a sect’ and does not deny that he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so is in schism with the pre-1940 Magisterium  like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican.The St. Benedict Center instead affirms Vatican Council II ( Rational).

The New Hampshire Union Leader has not reported that the St. Benedict Center, NH accepts Vatican Council II interpreted rationally without the common False Premise.The CDF does not do this and neither does the diocese of Manchester, where the bishop is Peter Libasci.There is no comment from the Curia there since they are all choosing the False Premise for political reasons..

The SBC accepts EENS according to Vatican Council II interpreted with a Rational Premise. So Damien Fisher and Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar of the diocese, cannot call them ‘ a radical sect’.This needs to be clarified by Damien Fisher.

He needs to mention that Fr. Georges de Laire admits he used a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II otherwise he would have to affirm EENS like the SBC  against whom he has issued a harsh Decree of Prohibitions.

Simcha and Damien Fisher have written that the SBC do not accept Church teachings.This is not true.The SBC accepts Vatican Council II rationally. The Council interpreted rationally supports 16th century EENS.The Magisterium in the 16th century did not project unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being practical exceptions for the traditional strict interpertation of EENS.

The SBC accepts BOD, BOB and I.I which can only be hypothetical and speculative. It is the CDF which projects BOD, BOB and I.I as physically visible cases in the present times, known non Catholics now in Heaven saved without faith and baptism. This is irrational.There are no such people.However this irrationality is needed by them to avoid Feeneyite EENS.

The New Hampshire Union Leader could clarify that the CDF uses a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS and there is no denial from the CDF.Why should the SBC use a False Premise too ? It is unethical.

The CDF and Fr. Laire use a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. There is no denial from them.So is their Decree of Prohibitions coercion? They are trying to force the SBC to use the False Premise too ?

What if the SBC took all of them to court  to clear their name and stop this false campaign against them ? The diocese, the media and the CDF must be asked for a  correction. Since the SBC is faithful to Church teachings. They are interpreting Magisterial Documents with a Rational Premise and the CDF is choosing the Irrational Premise.

The SBC accepts the First Part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Feeneyite EENS and rejects the second part.It uses a False Premise to contradict the First Part.

The Curia in the diocese of Manchester are choosing a False Premise to change Church teachings, like the present two popes and the cardinals and bishops, and are maligning the SBC for not being dishonest too.So the catechesis and prepartion for First Holy Communion is Christocentric but not ecclesiocentric in New Hampshire diocese.

We can now interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise  and we are back to the pre-1949  Catholic Church in faith and morals,mission and ecumenism and the old Catechisms.The Council no more contradicts Tradition.  

-Lionel Andrades

JULY 14, 2022

The National Catholic Reporter does not state that if the Curia in the Diocese of Manchester, USA would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS like the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-national-catholic-reporter-does-not.html

___________________________

JUNE 17, 2022

Sister Maria Philomena MICM, Director, St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom interprets Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise but Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not informed about this possibility, by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/06/sister-maria-philomena-micm-director-st.html

JUNE 12, 2022

We have a new discovery on Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/06/we-have-new-discovery-on-vatican.html

WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF 

VATICAN COUNCIL II 

Lionel Andrades

Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.

 Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.

It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.

Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?

It is unethical to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.

Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)

E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/LionelAndrades1/status/1522311748379942912/video/1    https://twitter.com/i/status/1522311748379942912

https://twitter.com/LionelAndrades1/status/1522311748379942912

Twitter : @LionelAndrades1

___________________