Damien Fisher writing for the New Hampshire Union Leader calls
the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA ‘ a sect’ and does not deny that he
interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so is in schism with the
pre-1940 Magisterium like the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican.The St. Benedict Center instead
affirms Vatican Council II ( Rational).
The New Hampshire Union Leader has not reported that the St.
Benedict Center, NH accepts Vatican Council II interpreted rationally without
the common False Premise.The CDF does not do this and neither does the diocese
of Manchester, where the bishop is Peter Libasci.There is no comment from the
Curia there since they are all choosing the False Premise for political reasons..
The SBC accepts EENS according to Vatican Council II interpreted
with a Rational Premise. So Damien Fisher and Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial
Vicar of the diocese, cannot call them ‘ a radical sect’.This needs to be
clarified by Damien Fisher.
He needs to mention that Fr. Georges de Laire admits he used a
False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II otherwise he would have to affirm
EENS like the SBC against whom he has
issued a harsh Decree of Prohibitions.
Simcha and Damien Fisher have written that the SBC do not accept
Church teachings.This is not true.The SBC accepts Vatican Council II
rationally. The Council interpreted rationally supports 16th century EENS.The
Magisterium in the 16th century did not project unknown cases of the baptism of
desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being practical exceptions
for the traditional strict interpertation of EENS.
The SBC accepts BOD, BOB and I.I which can only be hypothetical
and speculative. It is the CDF which projects BOD, BOB and I.I as physically
visible cases in the present times, known non Catholics now in Heaven saved
without faith and baptism. This is irrational.There are no such people.However this irrationality is needed by them to avoid Feeneyite EENS.
The New Hampshire Union Leader could clarify that the CDF uses a
False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS and there is no denial
from the CDF.Why should the SBC use a False Premise too ? It is unethical.
The CDF and Fr. Laire use a False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II. There is no denial from them.So is their Decree of Prohibitions coercion? They are trying to force the SBC to use the False Premise too ?
What if the SBC took all of them to court to clear their name and stop this false
campaign against them ? The diocese, the media and the CDF must be asked for
a correction. Since the SBC is faithful
to Church teachings. They are interpreting Magisterial Documents with a
Rational Premise and the CDF is choosing the Irrational Premise.
The SBC accepts the First Part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
which supports Feeneyite EENS and rejects the second part.It uses a False
Premise to contradict the First Part.
We can now interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational
Premise and we are back to the pre-1949 Catholic Church in faith and morals,mission
and ecumenism and the old Catechisms.The Council no more contradicts Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
JULY 14, 2022
The National Catholic Reporter does not state that if the Curia in the Diocese of Manchester, USA would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS like the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire
JUNE 17, 2022
Sister Maria Philomena MICM, Director, St. Augustine Institute of Wisdom interprets Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise but Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not informed about this possibility, by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
JUNE 12, 2022
We have a new discovery on Vatican Council II
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
It is unethical to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
https://twitter.com/LionelAndrades1/status/1522311748379942912/video/1 https://twitter.com/i/status/1522311748379942912https://twitter.com/LionelAndrades1/status/1522311748379942912
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome. Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.How can the Holy Spirit make an objective mistake ? So it is human error and not the Magisterium.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic and not only pastoral.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms. There can be two interpretations.Catholics must choose the rational option.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, nontraditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional?
It is unethical to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
No comments:
Post a Comment