Saturday, September 3, 2022
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is irrational, non traditional and unethical with the false premise ( invisible cases are visible). He is heretical when he projects practical exceptions for EENS and is schismatic with the past Magisterium which did not project objective exceptions for EENS based upon a false premise.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is irrational, non traditional and unethical with the false premise ( invisible cases are visible). He is heretical when he projects practical exceptions for EENS and is schismatic with the past Magisterium which did not project objective exceptions for EENS based upon a false premise.
Fr.JohnZuhsldorf told MSW that he
rejects Feeneyite extra ecclesiamnullasalus(EENS) so he infers that there are
visible cases of the baptism of desire(LG 14) and being saved in invincible
ignorance (LG 16) for there to be practical exceptions for EENS. Invisible
cases cannot be objective exceptions for the teaching on all needing to be
members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell ( for salvation).
So he assumes that what is invisible is
visible and then he creates objective exceptions for the dogma EENS which over
the centuries had no exceptions.
JESUIT MISSIONARIES REFERRED TO HYPOTHETICAL CASES OF BOD AND I.I
When the popes and saints mentioned BOD
and I.I they were referring to hypothetical cases only. This is a given.It is
something obvious.The baptism of desire (BOD)
and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) cannot be visible, seen in the flesh cases.
So the popes and the saint held the strict interpretation of EENS with no known
exceptions on earth.The Jesuit missionaries in the 16th century held
the strict interpretation of EENS with invisible cases of BOD and I.I.
WE CAN ALSO INTERPRET
VATICAN COUNCIL II RATIONALLY
In the same way we can interpret Vatican
Council II ( LG 8,14 and 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) as not having any
exceptions for EENS( with no exceptions). So we are rationally interpreting the
Council. We have a VC II and EENS with no exceptions.
WE MUST NOT INTERPRET
THE CREEDS WITH EXCEPTIONS
The baptism of desire etc are not
exceptions in the interpretation of the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed and the
Athanasius Creed. BOD and I.I are not an exceptions in the Catechisms which
affirm FeeneyiteEENS( CCC 845,846.Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q and 29 Q). So
there is no contradiction when CCC 1257, on the Necessity of Baptism, says all
need the baptism of water for salvation and mentions hypothetical cases of God
not being limited to the Sacraments.
THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN CCC 1257
If ‘God is not limited to the
Sacraments’ would be a visible person then CCC 1257 would contradict
itself.There would be an exception for EENS. Now there is no contradiction with
the rational premise i.e invisible cases are invisible.
THERE ARE OBJECTIVE
EXCEPTIONS FOR EENS FOR FR. ZUHLSDORF
So Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is irrational, non
traditional, unethical with the false premise ( invisible cases are visible).
He is heretical when he projects practical exceptions for EENS and is
schismatic with the past Magisterium which did not project objective exceptions
for EENS based upon a false premise.- Lionel Andrades
REPORTS DO NOT SAY THAT JUDICIAL VICAR
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WOULD BE AFFIRMING FEENEYITE EENS WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE HE
USED TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II : ESCAPES DECREE OF PROHBITIONS.
Mark Hayward, in The New Hampshire Union
Leader, Manchester, USA has a report (June 2022)1
in which he calls the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire, ‘ a
sect’. The report does not state that the SBC affirms all the teachings of the
Church.It interprets Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise.So Vatican
Council II (rational) is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiamnullasalus (EENS).It is Archbishop Augustine Di
Noia, Assistant Secretary, CDF and Fr. Georges de Laire Judicial Vicar of the
Diocese of Manchester,NH, who choose the
False Premise.In this way they avoid being called Feeneyite.This is unethical.
It is dishonest.
If Fr. De Lairehad chosen the Rational
Premise.to interpret Vatican Council II,the Decree of Prohibitions, which he
issued, against Brother Andre Marie MICM, would also apply to him.
The Catholic News Agency (CNA) also had
a report titled Vatican upholds
prohibitions placed on Feeneyite group ( Feb.4,2021).The CAN report did not
state that Fr.Georges de Laire and the CDF do not use a Rational Premise to
interpret Vatican Council II, as does Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior of the
St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire.
Also Christopher White in the National
Catholic Reporter (NCR) report, Church
Militant Founder may face legal reckoning for defamation (April 30,2021)
does not state that Fr. Georges de Laire
and theCDF ecclesiastics did not use the Rational Premise to interpret Vatican
Council II as does Brother Andre Marie MICM.
The report also did not state that if
all the Catholic religious communities in New Hampshire would interpret Vatican
Council II with the Rational Premise they would be affirming EENS like Brother
Andre Marie. Since there would not be any practical exception for EENS
mentioned in the Council-text. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22, NA 22 etc. in
Vatican Council II, would be only theoretical and speculative cases, when
interpreted rationally. So they would not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all
need faith and baptism for salvation (invincible ignorance and the baptism of
desire being hypothetical only).
Without the False Premise in the
interpretation of Vatican Council II, Fr. Georges de Laire would be
interpreting EENS like the SBC.Laire and Di Noia placed prohibitions, against
the religious community in New Hampshire for saying in Heaven there are only
Catholics (Ad Gentes 7, CCC 846 etc).
So the CDF and Fr.George de Laire
interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with an Irrational Premise and have
placed restrictions on the St. Benedict Center, NH for interpreting EENS and VC
II with the Rational Premise- and avoid restrictions on the Curia in New
Hampshire.
I repeat that in the NCR report by
Christopher White it was not mentioned that without the False Premise in the
interpretation of Vatican Council II, Fr. Georges de Laire would be
interpreting EENS like the SBC in NH.
Similarly in the interview given by
Fr.Georges de Laire to Michael Warren Davis for the Catholic Herald, U.K, Laire
did not say ( or know) that without the False Premise he would be affirming
Feeneyite EENS like the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, NH. This point was not
mentioned by the Catholic Herald U.K.
The use of the Fake Premise to interpret
the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is unethical. It
was an objective mistake in the Letter of
the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It was referenced in
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Catholics today can interpret Vatican Council
II not like the political Left but the past Magisterium which only used the
Rational Premise.
For years Reuters, Associated Press,
Crux etc have been churning out Fake News on Vatican Council II. They have been
interpreting the Council with an Irrational and not Rational Premise for
political-Left reasons and then refer to ‘the reforms’ and ‘revolution’ of the
Council.-Lionel
Andrades
1
Judge poised to add confidential
source/author to priest’s defamation suit (June 8,2022) Mark Hayward, The New
Hampshire Union Leader, Manchester
Mhaywardòunionleader.com
___________
Pope Francis’ TraditionisCustode, should only be
interpreted with generally acceptable reasoning.Otherwise it is dishonest and
unethical.
Governments must only interpret Vatican Council II
with the Rational Premise.This must be the norm in educational institutions
etc.
So the bishops have to permit the Latin Mass only for
those who interpret the Council rationally and so support the 1962 Roman
Missal.
Students and teachers must only interpret LG 8,LG
14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, as referring to
hypothetical and invisible cases in the present times ( 1965-2022).
Presently there is confusion with TraditionisCustode. Bishops interpret LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR3,NA 2, GS 22 etc as being exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors. So they imply that LG 8 etc refer to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church( they would have to be known to be exceptions). Invisible people cannot be exceptions.
For me LG 8 etc are not visible cases of non Catholics
saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) and the baptism of desire(LG 14) in 2022.
So for the bishops( but not me) there are practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).They are telling the world invisible people are visible.
But this is not our human reality. Invisible people
cannot be visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church last year
or this year.
This is irrational and even non Catholics, including
professors and politicians, are repeating this error at secular institutions.
The Federal Ministry of Education in Germany,Hungary,
Poland and France, for example, must show the Catholic bishops and people at
large that LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases in our reality, always.So always
they are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church.This must be
their official position.
This is a secular issue when invisible people are
assumed to be physically visible and new philosophies and a theology is created
based upon this objective error.The premise is irrational for everyone,
irrespective of his religion or education.
A person could be free to believe what he wants but
the government must not interpet Vatican Council II irrationally by confusing
what is invisible as being visible and hypothetical as being objective and then
projecting this objective mistake as being socially acceptable.
A pope is not Magisterial when he interprets Church
Documents with a False Premise and knows that there will be a rupture with the
past Magisterium of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
From the secular point of view an objective and
factual error must not be accepted in the schools, universities etc.
A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.- Letter of Pope Francis which accompanies TraditionisCustode
Every Catholic and both the popes must accept Vatican
Council II.They must only accept Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.The
Holy Spirit cannot teach error.But Pope Francis does not accept Vatican Council
II interpreted with a Ratonal Premise.
The Holy Spirit cannot guide the Church to use the
False Premise, ‘the Red Column’ to interpet the Council.
When Pope Francis cited Vatican Council II (
irrational) to justify AmorisLaetitia it was wrong.
When he cited Vatican Council II ( irrational) to
justify the Abu Dhabi Statement it was wrong.
When Pope Benedict cited Vatican Council II(
irrational) to reject Traditional Mission based upon exclusive salvation in the
Church, it was wrong.
Vatican Council II interpreted rationally takes the
Catholic Church back to the old theology upon which was based traditional faith
and morals. So we know that adultery, fornication, immodesty, abortion,
contraception, homosexual marriages, pornography,concubinage, divorce,
inter-faith marriages,drug abuse etc are still mortal sins and they take a
person to the fires of Hell for all eternity.There is no change in the
ecclesiology of the Catholic Church after Vatican Council II ( rational).The
effect of these sins are removed from the soul through repentance in the
Sacrament of Confession. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
