The False Premise, Inference and Conclusion of Cardinal Muller and the Synods is not Apostolic.

 That’s not at all the case, the German prelate stressed:

The doctrine of the Apostles is a reflection and manifestation of the Revelation of the Word of God. We have to listen to the Word of God, but in the authority of the Holy Bible, of the Apostolic Tradition, and of the Magisterium, and all the councils said before that is not possible to substitute the Revelation given once and forever in Jesus Christ by another revelation.

Cardinal Müller says Pope Francis’ Synod is a ‘hostile takeover of the Church’ in explosive interview

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mueller-says-pope-francis-synod-is-a-hostile-takeover-of-the-church-in-explosive-interview/?utm_source=popular

It is not 'the doctrine of the Apostles'. Cardinals Gerhard Muller, the Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican are not Catholic on this issue- they are are not Magisterial. They interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion.They do this in public. In this way they give us their political version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS. 

This was the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO). It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being physically visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The dogma EENS defined by the Church Councils did not have any exceptions.The new version is human error.

The LOHO is not Apostolic.It is not Magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and contradict the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The CDF and the Bishop of the Diocese of Manchester,New Hampshire, USA, Bishop Peter Libasci, accepts this. They are also forcing Brother Andre Marie micm, and the St.Benedict Center(SBC) in New Hampshire, to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the error. They want the SBC to accept EENS and Vatican Council II with the common False Premise, Inference and Conclusion approved by the CDF and the two popes.This is obligatory for all the religious communities in New Hampshire. They have accepted the compromised version.

The SBC are refusing to do so. So they are being persecuted severely in the present times.

Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, has put out a Decree of Prohibitions. It places prohibitions on the, St.Benedict Center,for saying outside the Church there is no salvation and not using the False Premise, Inference and Conclusion.

For Bishop Libasci and Fr. Laire there are physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the present times(2022).This is irrational.But they have to go along with this political line in the diocese. This was also the official policy of the CDF when Cardinal Muller was the Prefect.

How can invisible cases of the BOD and I.I be visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS? But if Libasci and de Laire did not choose the False Premise to interpret BOD and I.I they would be affirming the strict interpretation of EENS like the St.Benedict Center. They would be Feeneyite.

It is only with the deception that they are not Feeneyite and do not have prohibitions imposed upon them by the CDF.In this way even Cardinal Muller escapes the prohibitions.

Brother Andre Marie interprets Vatican Council II and BOD and I.I with the Rational Premise, Inference and Conclusion. So Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.So there is no break with the Apostles and the Church Fathers.They did not interpret BOD and I.I irrationally.They did not have to be political.

The False Premise, Inference and Conclusion of Cardinal Muller and the Synods is not Apostolic. -Lionel Andrades