Archbishop Allen Vigneron in Detroit unethically interprets Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with a false premise, inference and conclusion : credibility poor

Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit interprets Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents  with a false premise, inference and conclusion and should not have the responsibility to decide where the Peter's Pence is sent.He also expects every one in the archdiocese to unethically use the irrational  premise, inference and conclusion as does Teresa Tomeo and the rest of EWTN.

Like EWTN and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) he chooses an irrational model, to interpret the Creeds and Catechisms, the Syllabus of Errors, Profession of Faith...

  

 

  

This is first class heresy and schism with the past popes. 

How can the parishioners allow Archbishop Vigneron to create a rupture with Tradition in such a crude and openly deceptive way?

He uses the false premise , inference and conclusion to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) and then projects them as practical exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

He considers unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being being known in 2020 and so projects them as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. What is invisible is visible for him. He sees what is implicit as being explicit, hypothetical as being objective.Then the policy in the archdiocese is that 'visible' cases' of BOD, BOB and I.I are objective exceptions to EENS. So there is a rupture with EENS as it was known in the Patristic period , when BOD, BOB and I.I were not mistaken to be objective cases.

In the same irrational way the Archbishop projects unknown cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc , as being known exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology, the Syllabus of Errors  and the Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation).This is his false  policiy on Vatican Council II.If he wante, he could interpret the Council with a rational premise and  inference to create a traditional conclusion on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION

What is the credibility of an Archbishop and Curia who consider people saved in Heaven to be visible on earth and that too without faith and the baptism of water ? How can the Curia in Detroit say that these alleged people saved outside the Church are in two places at the same time? This violates Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction.
 




   

If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and the USCCB assume that there are visible people on earth and in Heaven, who are exceptions to the past ecclesiology, and so we humans can see people on earth and in Heaven at the same time, it still is a violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction.

If a pope or archbishop contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction it still is a contradiction.

If Ralph Martin and Robert Fastiggi, professors of theology at the Detroit seminary, consider 'possibilities of salvation', which exist only in our human mind,  to be real and known people saved, it is irrational.This is no excuse or refuge to which the archbishop can go to.

The Archbishop must be asked to interpret magisterial documents rationally even if it would be saying that all the non Catholics in Detroit are oriented to Hell.Since they die without Catholic faith and the baptism of water in the Catholic Church (AG 7) - and there are no practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.None.

Here is the rational model the Archbishop and the Curia must choose to avoid being dishonest and unethical.

   

  

 With this rational model, the  Archbishop would not be contradicting the Athanasius Creed.

ATHANASIUS CREED

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly...

With this rational model he would also not be contradicting the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. 

 

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

Now Vatican Council II interpreted with his  irrational premise, inference and conclusion contradicts the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. 

With the rational model, Vatican Council II would not contradict the Catechism of Pope Pius X.

1.VATICAN COUNCIL II CONTRADICTS THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X ( 24 Q AND 27 Q ) WHEN THE FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION IS USED BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF DETROIT, ALLEN VIGNERON.

From the Catechism of Pope Pius X

16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: 

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into 

the Kingdom of God."

The Church in Particular

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and 

profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and

 to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?

A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic 

Church; it is necessary to be a living member.

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, 

just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, 

which was a figure of the Church.

 

2.VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL CONTRADICT THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ( 11 Q, 13 Q AND 14 Q ).

11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, 

schismatics, and the excommunicated.

13 Q. Who are the Jews?

A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received

 baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.

14 Q. Who are heretics?

A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some

 truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic 

Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

  29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
 A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

 

FOR THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT, THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE (INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ) AND VATICAN COUNCIL II ( LUMEN GENTIUM 16) WOULD CONTRADICT  THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X BUT ALSO 29 Q OF THE CATECHISM WOULD CONTRADICT 24 Q and 27 Q OF THE SAME CATECHISM.

Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) would contradict Tradition for the Archdiocese of Detroit, when a false premise, inference and conclusion is unethically used in the interpretation.

 

  

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 -Lionel Andrades

 TERMS CLARIFIED 

 BOD( Baptism of Desire . Case of the unknown cathechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is allegedly saved and now in Heaven)

BOB (Baptism of Blood. The case of unknown person who is in Heaven as a martyr without the baptism of water)

I.I (Invincible ignorance: The case of an unknown non Catholics who is in Heaven without faith and baptism and instead in invincible ignorance.)

LG 8 ( Lumen Gentium 8: The case of the unknown person saved outside the Church with 'elements of sanctification and truth' or where the true Church of Christ allegedly subsists.

 LG 14 (Lumen Gentium 14:  Baptism of Desire . Case of the unknown cathechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is allegedly saved and now in Heaven)

LG 16 ( Lumen Gentium 16: The case of the unknown person saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance and who is now in Heaven without faith and the baptism of water) 

UR 3 (Unitatitis Redintigratiio 3, Vatican Council II : The case of the unknown Christian, who is saved in his religions without Catholic faith or the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and is allegedly known to someone on earth who has seen him or her in Heaven).

NA 2(  Nostra Aetate 2: The case of  the unknown non Catholic saved outside the Catholic Church without faith and baptism. He or she is saved with good and holy things in other religion or with the a ray of that Truth which enlightens all mankind.

GS 22 (Gaudium et Specs 22. The case of the unknown non Catholic who is saved outside the Catholic Church. He or she is saved without faith and baptism but with goodwill.

FALSE PREMISE DEFINED 

Their false premise is:-

1. Invisible people are visible.

2.Unknown case of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are personally known.

3.The unknown case of the catechumen who desired the baptism of water but dies before he received it and is saved, is a personally known person.

4.There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church for us human beings.

5.We can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.

6.We can physically see non Catholics in Heaven and on earth who are saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).

7.There are non Catholics who are dead- men visible and walking  who are saved outside the Church.

8.There are known people in invincible ignorance through no fault of their own, who are saved.

9.There are some Anglicans and Protestants whom we know who are going to Heaven even though they are outside the Catholic Church.

10.There are some non Catholics whom we know, who are dead, and now are in Heaven, even though they were not Catholic.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/bradley-eli-at-church-militant-tv-uses.html

 With the false premise there are 'objective exceptions' to EENS. There are visible exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed is changed, there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed etc :-

1. The Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is contradicted.

2. The Nicene Creed in which we say, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' over the centuries referred  to only one known baptism, the baptism of water.The baptism of desire etc cannot be given to someone like the baptism of water.But now the understanding is ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( desire,blood and ignorance) and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.

3. The Apostles Creed says ' we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church'. Over the centuries it was understood that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church and taught that there was no salvation outside the Church.Now  unknown cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, and LG 8, UR 3, NA2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, are assumd to be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

4.In the past three Church Councils defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the extraordinary Magisterium .It was an 'infallible teaching' for Pope Pius X( Letter of the Holy Offie 1949).Now it is obsolete with their being alleged known salvation outside the Church.
5.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are interpreted with the false premise so they become a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc.

6.With the false premise the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradict itself. It affirms the strict interpretation of EENS while invincible invincible ignorance is intepreted as referring to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Chuch.Invincible ignorance is not seen as a hypothetical case only.

7.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, Ecclesia in Asia, Balamand Declaration  etc were all written upholding the false premise. They did not support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. So in a subtle way they contradicted EENS(Feeneyite), the Athanasius Creed etc. They did not support the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.They are Christological without the traditional ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. It's Christ without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.
8. Traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church is rejected. Since with the false premise, there is salvation outside the Church.
9.Inter faith marriages which are not Sacraments are common held.It is no more adultery. Since the non Catholic spouse could be saved outside the Church it is assumed. A posibility which could only be known to God is assumed to be a practical exception to EENS and a literally known case of salvation outside the Church in a personal case.
10. There is a new heretical ecclesiology at Holy Mass in all the rites and liturgies. The Latin Mass today does not have the same exclusivist ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass of the missionaries in the 16th century.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/08/cardinal-reinhold-marx-of-munich.html

Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)

EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

__________________________________

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OOF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(We do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)

2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(We do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)

3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( If there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)

4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(This is a reference to an unknown catechumen)

 5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( Again we have a theoretical and hypothetical reference. We do not know who is united to the Church only in desire and will be saved.) -Lionel Andrades

________________________________________

TERMS EXPLAINED 

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century. 

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS. 

Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times. 

It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality. 

Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS. 

Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known. 

Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used. 

Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational. 

Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free. 

Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise. 

Vatican Council II (with the premise): 

 It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS. 

Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell). 

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise) It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise. 

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the  the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise. 

Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter. 

Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free. 

Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free). 

Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding. 

Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water. 

New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise. 

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. 

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation. 

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise. 

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257). 

When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________

 

November 11, 2019

 

  The Oxford University Press has produced many books on Vatican Council II based upon a false premise. A deceptive rupture is created with Catholic Tradition   https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-oxford-university-press-has.html

  

 

JUNE 20, 2016

Prof.Phillip Blosser, a Professor of Philosophy at Musings of a Pertinacious Papist and Tancred at The Eponymous Flower agree with me : hypothetical cases (baptism of desire etc) cannot be explicit for us in 2016

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/profphillip-blosser-professor-of.html

_______________________________________