Christopher White at the National Catholic Reporter is not reporting that Fr. Georges de Laire Judicial Vicar in the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance with the False Premise otherwise he would be affirming the same interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as the missionaries in the 16th century. It is only because White and the NCR use the False Premise and not the Rational Premise that they are not Feeneyite.
Similarly if Vatican
Council II was interpreted with the Rational Premise there would be no ‘reforms of Vatican Council II ‘.
If Christopher White
interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS with the Rational Premise he would have
the same theological position on other religions as Michael Voris and Brother
Andre Marie MICM.
NO MORTAL SINS OF FAITH BECAUSE OF THE FALSE PREMISE
Now the NCR and the
Curia in the Diocese of Manchester would not speak about mortal sins of faith
because of the rupture with Tradition created by Vatican Council II interpreted
only with the False Premise. There no more are mortal sins of faith for the
Diocese of Manchester or the NCR since with Vatican Council II interpreted with
the False Premise there are alleged exceptions for the Athanasius Creed,
Syllabus of Errors etc. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are practical exceptions for
extra ecclesiam nulla salus for the liberals, Lefebvrists, Thuc and others too.
So rejecting the
Athanasius Creed and changing the understanding of the Nicene Creed is not a
mortal sin of faith for them. It comes with ‘the reforms of Vatican Council II’
interpreted irrationally. This is official but it cannot be Magisterial.
When Massimo Faggioli,
John Allen Jr, and other contributors/ correspondents for the National Catholic
Reporter do not affirm the Athanasius Creed, and the Nicene Creed and Syllabus
of Errors, rationally, then it is schism and heresy. Since now they can no more say
that there are practical exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the journalist Phil Lawler, or any Catholic in New Hampshire could demand that Bishop Libasci interpret Vatican Council II, EENS and other Catholic Magisterial Documents without the False Premise and ask all religious communities in the diocese to do the same.
How can the Paulist
Fathers in Rome or the Diocese of Manchester reject the Athanasius Creed and
re-interpret Vatican Council II and EENS irrationally? This is public schism
with the past Magisterium, which was guided by the Holy Spirit.
In Rome, how can
Cardinal Angelo Donatis, Vicar General, do the same and prohibit the Latin Mass
for the Easter Triduum? The Novus Ordo Mass has the same ecclesiology as the
Traditional Latin Mass when Vatican Council II and EENS are interpreted
rationally.
Bishop Athanasius
Schneider has said that there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire. He
agrees with Dr. Taylor Marshall who clarified that there are no explicit cases
of St.Thomas Aquinas’s implicit baptism of desire. So this Good Friday if
Bishop Athanasius Schneider is in Rome, he will offer the Mass in Latin or
Italian, with Vatican Council II and EENS interpreted rationally.
So why is Pope Benedict allowed to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the common False Premise at Holy Mass in the vernacular?
This is schism. It is the False Premise which
creates schism and heresy even when it used by
conservative Catholics.
-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 27, 2021
If the National Catolic Reporter did not use the Fake Premise to interpret Church Documents Christopher White would be affirming the same strict interpretation of EENS as the St.Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire
Posts
