In ignorance the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial
Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, in New Hampshire, USA placed a Decree of
Prohibitions upon the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA. They were
rational and the CDF was irrational.
There still is no clarification from Fr. Georges de Laire saying that he interpreted Vatican Council II with an Irrational Premise and this was unethical. Brother Andre Marie MICM the Prior at the St, Benedict Cente, chooses the Rational Premise.
Fr. Georges de Laire did
not tell the National Catholic Reporter, which reported on the happenings
there, that he had used a False Premise to avoid being called a Feeneyite and
then placed sanctions on the St. Benedict Center, NH which used the Rational Premise and were ethical.
For years Reuters,
Associated Press, the NCR and other media have been churning out Fake News on
Vatican Council II, which they interpret politically and irrationally.
The NCR had a report by
Christopher White which did not say that Fr. Georges de Laire like Archbishop
Augustine di Noia, the Assistant Secretary of the CDF, did not use the Rational
Premise to interpret Vatican Council II as does Brother Andre Marie MICM.
The NCR did not say that the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, NH, interprets Vatican Council II in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla sales (EENS) while Fr. Georges de Laire did not use the Rational Premise- and neither did the CDF.
The CDF and Fr. Laire
interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the False
Premise and have faulted the St. Benedict Center for interpreting Vatican
Council II and EENS with the Rational Premise. This point was not mentioned by
Christopher White in his report on Fr. Laire filing a case against Michael
Voris. He also mentioned the St. Benedict Center.
He did not say that when the Fake and not Rational Premise is used to interpret Vatican Council II then the Council is politicized by Fr. Laire.
In the NCR report by Christopher White it was not mentioned that without the False Premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Judicial Vicar would be interpreting EENS like the SBC.
Similarly in an interview with Michael Warren
Davis for the Catholic Herald, U.K , the Judicial
Vicar did not seem to know that without the False Premise he would be affirming Feeneyite EENS like the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, NH. -Lionel Andrades
JULY 12, 2022
When the False and not Rational Premise is used to interpret Vatican Council II then the Council is politicized by the Left
NOVEMBER 27, 2021
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.
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
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
FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 2021
Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, like Bishop Peter Libasci and the rest of the Curia.I have e-mailed him and the other members of the Curia. There is no denial from them.
Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, like Bishop Peter Libasci and the rest of the Curia.I have e-mailed him and the other members of the Curia. There is no denial from them.
Officially, Fr. de Laire uses the false premise to interpret Magisterial documents , which is unethical and dishonest and he has issued a Decree of Prohibitions against the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire on a doctrinal issue.He has also entered into litigation with Michael Voris and Church Militant TV. - Lionel Andrades
JUNE 18, 2021
The Archdiiocese of Detroit officially uses a fake premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, to create a false rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) and their spokespersons would consider this official deception as being Catholic
The Archdiiocese of Detroit officially uses a fake premise to interpret Magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, to create a false rupture with Tradition ( EENS etc) and their spokespersons would consider this official deception as being Catholic. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 18, 2021
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'
Christopher White and the Staff at the National Catholic Reporter know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. I have e-mailed them many times. Yet they continue to interpret the Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the false premise, to create a false rupture with Tradition and so not be labelled 'extremists'. - Lionel Andrades
JUNE 17, 2021
Bishop Peter Libasci and Fr. Georges de Laire like the ecclesiastics at the CDF,Vatican are dishonest in public
It fell to de Laire as judicial vicar to reinforce a Vatican decree that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could not present themselves as Catholic. According to the lawsuit, this resulted in "several articles [at Church Militant] not only criticizing the Diocese's decision to issue the Decree, but defaming Father de Laire, personally."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/media/church-militant-founder-may-face-legal-reckoning-defamationJUNE 11, 2021
Vatican Council II is dogmatic
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE LIONEL ANDRADES INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.What's so special about the Lionel Andrades interpretation of Vatican Council II ?
It is the listing of the rational and irrational premise, inference and conclusion. It identifies two different premises with two different conclusions. So the rational premise produces a traditional conclusion and the Vatican Council II is in harmony with Tradition. It has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition even though Rahner, Congar, Rarzinger and Cushing were present at the Council in 1965.
Collegiality, ecumenism and religious liberty are no more an issue for the conservatives , when Vatican Council II is traditional.
Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16 ecc. oin Vatican Council II refer to only physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.
12.Vatican Council II is dogmatic ?
Yes. Pope Paul VI and the liberals call Vatican Council II "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Since they do not want to affirm the rigorous interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) while the hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc. cannot be objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in 1965-2021. So there is nothing in the text of the Council that contradicts 16th century EENS or the Athanasius Creed or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Second Vatican Council affirms the dogma EENS with Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 .While the Council does not contradict EENS or Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc. Since if someone was saved outside the Church, he would be known only to God. They are not part of our reality. They are invisible in 1965-2021.
When Pope Francis says that the Second Vatican Council is the Magisterium of the Church he must refer to a pro-EENS dogmatic Council with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
Without their false premise the Council is dogmatic. It supports the rigorous interpretation of EENS.This was EENS according to the missionaries and the Magisterium of the sixteenth century. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NS 2, GS 22 etc., in the Second Vatican Council, if interpreted rationally, cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. Invisible cases in our reality cannot be objective exceptions to EENS. For example, to get on the bus you have to be present at the bus station. If you are not physically at the bus stop it is not possible to get on the bus.
Another example is, if there is an apple in a box of oranges, the apple is an exception since it is there in the box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception. Similarly LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3 etc.,refer only to hypothetical cases. We cannot meet or see anyone saved outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So the Council is not referring to real people, known people in the present times.
Unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG 14) and of being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) cannot be objective exceptions for EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.There is no conflict.
So when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally it is dogmatic. -Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment