Fisher was not the only media de Laire contacted. Emails from January 2019 show he also passed along tips about the SBC to Michael Davis, a writer for the Catholic Herald.
Davis emailed a copy of his article to de Laire for approval. He responded, "Well done," offering further tips and going on to thank the journalist "for his work and ministry."
De Laire's information was incorporated in the final version of the article published in the Catholic Herald on Jan. 17, 2019, which portrays the SBC in a negative light. - Christine Niles, E-mails show collusion between NH priest and media
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/emails-show-collusion-between-nh-priest-and-journalist
Davis wrote that biased report for the Catholic Herald and Fr.Georges de Laire approved it without asking Brother Andre Marie for his statement.
The Prior at the St.Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire would have said that he interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and so there are no exceptions mentioned in the text of the Council, for the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So he could affirm hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) along with 16th century EENS, which had no objective exceptions.BOD, BOB and I.I are theoretical cases only.Always.
They are not practical exceptions for EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.
But Bishop Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake and not Rational Premise.
If he used the Rational Premise it would mean that he affirms the same interpretation of EENS as Brother Andre Marie MICm and the St. Benedict Center.The Decree of Prohibitions would also apply to him.If he used the Rational and not False Premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and Vatican Council II ( LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) he would return to the old theology of the Church.
It is only because the Curia in the Diocese of Manchester, USA confuse what is invisible as being visible, that they can project false exceptions for the Athanasius Creed which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for everlasting life in Heaven.
So the Diocese of Manchester are supporting deception, a lie. They are faking it and not telling the truth about Vatican Council II and EENS. Also a Judicial Vicar and Chancellor who changes the interpretation of the Creeds with a False Premise, is not a Catholic.
The Nicene Creed has been changed by Bishop Libasci with the approval of the Archbishop Secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.It is the False Premise which creates first class heresy and schism and it is official, public and ecclesiastical.The objective error cannot be magisterial.
At the time Davies wrote his politically correct piece I e-mailed Fr. Laire and other members of the Curia in the diocese of Manchester.
They chose to continue with the False Premise and maintain the Prohbitions on the St. Benedict Center,for not doing the same. This was coercion and it is not Catholic. Is it legal?
Why must all the religious communities,organisations and Catholics in general in the diocese use a False Premise instead of a Rational Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents ? Why should the judiciary do the same ? They should interpret Vatican Council II with only the Rational Premise.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment