If Cardinal Luiz Ladaria did not use the Fake Premise then he would be
affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) like the St. Benedict
Center, Richmond, New Hampshire against whom he has issued a Decree of
Prohibitions, for affirming traditional EENS.
This is a legal issue since the CDF and the Diocese of Manchester, USA
on their website have placed conditions/restrictions on the SBC, like not to cite the
Catechism etc (which supports Feeneyite EENS when the Catechism is interpreted
rationally only) etc.
Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Secretary of the CDF, have not denied that they use a Fake Premise.They use it to avoid affirming the strict interpretation of EENS. This was also the ruse of Pope Benedict.So this could not be Magisterial. Only the Rational Premise would be Magisterial.
Without their Fake Premise and Inference the conclusion would be
traditional and they would be holding the same doctrinal and theological
position as the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the SBC in the
diocese of Manchester, NH.
Cardinal Ladaria needs to clarify his position on the SBC. What is his
doctrinal and theological position on EENS, Vatican Council II, BOD, BOB and I.I.? Is it Cushingism or Feeneyism ? Does he read Vatican Council II with the Red not being an exception for the Blue or with the Red being an exception for the Blue.There is much confusion.
He is still interpreting Vatican Council II with a False Premise (invisible
people are visible, LG 16 refers to physically visible cases) and does not deny
it. He does not choose the Rational Premise (invisible cases are invisible, LG
16 refers to an invisible person in 2023). Instead LG 16 refers to a visible person for him.This is unethical.
He and Fr. Charles Morerod op, were officials of the International
Theological Commission, Vatican, under Cardinal Ratzinger, when they inserted
this invisible-cases-are-visible-irrationality into two theological papers of the ITC. This was a secret.
They maintained the false narrative. Ladaria still does not deny that it was an error.
He will continue to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in
invincible ignorance(I.I), like the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the
Archbishop of Boston. He will not check the error. This means there is a new
version of the Nicene Creed, when it states, ‘I believe in one baptism for the
forgiveness of sins’. There is not one baptisms but three or more baptisms
which exclude the baptism of water. Only in this way can they be practical
exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.But the Creeds do not say that there are visible cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) etc.
The Athanasius Creed also has known exceptions for him and so does the
Syllabus of Errors (ecumenism of return etc).
At the Placquet Deo Press Conference , along with Archbishop Giacomo
Morandi, Cardinal Ladaria projected invisible and unknown cases as referred to in Lumen
Gentium 8 ( subsists it) as being known and objective exceptions for the dogma
EENS. So he told a lady reporter of the Associated Press, when asked if the Church still held that it
had a superiority in salvation, that the answer was no.He indicated there were exceptions with LG 8 etc. Since Vatican Council
II (LG 8 etc) was a break with traditional ecclsiocentrism for him.It is not for me.
Interpreting Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise (invisible cases
of LG 8, 14 and 16 are physically visible cases of non Catholics saves outside
the Catholic Church), produces modernism. He would be unable to recite the Oath
against Modernism. Since in general he interprets Magisterial Documents (Creeds,
Catechisms etc) with the Fake Premise to break with Tradition.
His Oath of Fidelity as a Bishop is a fidelity to modernism.
In an interview with the Catholic Herald, UK, Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, of the diocese of Manchester, did not mention the doctrinal and theological position of the CDF or the diocese of Manchester,NH, on EENS, Vatican Council II and BOD, BOB and I.I. Since in New Hampshire all the Catholic religious communities have to use the Fake Premise to avoid a harsh Decree of Prohibitions.Otherwise Bishop Peter Libasci , the bishop of Manchester, himself, would have to affirm EENS like Brother Andre Marie micm, the Prior at the SBC.The Catholic Herald, interveiw was deception. It was the same in media in New Hampshire and a report of the Catholic News Agency(CNA).
Also when Michael Voris was in NH he asked the diocese for an interview. It was refused. They wanted to maintain the false premise for poltiical reasons and then place unjust restrictions on the SBC. -Lionel Andrades
https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/About/FAQ/Decree-Precepts-StBenedictCtr.pdf
https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/About/FAQ/Ltr-CDF-SBC.pdf
https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/About/FAQ/Ltr-CDF-SBC.pdf
https://www.catholicnh.org//assets/extranet-documents/Memo-Re-St-Benedict-Center-01-01-19.pdf
__________________________________
Posts
