I am not against any religion or people.
I am affirming the Catholic Faith in Rome. I am citing Vatican Council II
interpreted rationally. I am quoting the Bible, Tradition and past Magisterium in harmony with Vatican Council II (Rational). So when the present two popes
interpret Vatican Council II rationally, then they both will be in harmony with
Tradition and the past Magisterium. My writings are in accord with the
centuries-old Magisterium and so in this sense they are Magisterial. When the
present two popes interpret Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise, they choose
the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. They
create an artificial break with Catholic Tradition (Syllabus of Errors of Pope
Pius IX, Athanasius Creed etc).
Other religions have good and holy things in them (Nostra Aetate 2) and theoretically could be paths to salvation (Unitatis Redintigratio 3) but practically, outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14). So all need faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell (for salvation).This is Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.
It is important to make the theoretical-practical distinction; otherwise the Council-text would be confusing. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, Bishop Peter Libasci the bishop of Manchester, USA and Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, diocese of Manchester, do not make this distinction.
So with this confusion they have issued a Decree of Precepts and Prohibition, against Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior, at the St. Benedict Center (SBC), New Hampshire, USA.
With the False Premise they have changed Catholic theology and doctrine, specifically, on Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Fr. Georges de Laire has also filed a
defamation case against Michael Voris
who visited New Hampshire and interviewed Brother Andre Marie, for
Church Militant TV. Voris was against the Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions.
The legal activity in New Hampshire is being reported by Christopher White for the National Catholic Reporter, Simcha and Damien Fischer in New Hampshire and the Catholic Herald, U.K. They use the same False Premise to interpret Magisterial Documents of the Catholic Church. The reports in the media criticize the St. Benedict Center. Since unlike the Society of St. Pius X and the sedevacantists CMRI etc who attend/ offer the Latin Mass only, the St.Benedict Center chooses the only the Rational Premise.
The Vortex: Attacking the Good Guys
All of the terms narrated in the bullet points you reference on page 3 of your aforesaid letter have indeed been reported to us by other canon lawyers, including one source
Brother Andre Marie interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with the Rational Premise and not the Irrational Premise. In an interview with Timothy Flanders of the blog 1Peter5, he said that we must not confuse speculative and practical theology. This was a common error today.
For Brother Andre Marie MICM there is no
change in Catholic theology and doctrine and the St. Benedict Center accepts Vatican
Council II ( Rational ).They have also posted their doctrinal beliefs on the Catholicism.org
website of the religious community,
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
For the founder of this community, Fr.
Leonard Feeney, unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in
invincible ignorance, were not known and practical exceptions for the
traditional, strict interpretation of EENS, according to the Patristic period.
The pope and saints over the centuries
used the Rational Premise in the interpretation of the Creeds, Catechisms, the
dogma EENS etc.
However the judiciary, secular and
religious organizations in Boston, and the rest of New England, USA, today, are
using the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS. So they
irrationally create a break with Catholic Tradition.
Now the Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions issued by Fr. Georges de Laire and also his statements given to the liberal media, can be questioned. Since he assumes that invisible cases referred to in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, etc in Vatican Council II, are physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. He then infers that since they are physically visible, they are practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, as held by the popes and saints over the centuries.
So Vatican Council II is a break and not continuity with Tradition, for him.
He is supported in this objective error by Pope Francis, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB). The lay people follow the factual error. They do not understand this complex and deceptive theology. The popes from Paul VI did not correct this mistake or clarify the teachings of Vatican Council II, interpreted with the Rational Premise. So there is confusion among the ecclesiastics.
It could be mentioned that when they assume that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible, it is a Fake Premise. If for example, they assumed that a white cat was a brown dog, their premise would be wrong.
The
False Premise however is a norm among the Curia and laity in the diocese of
Manchester. There is no denial from Mary Ellen Mahon, a member of the Curia and
Director of Education and Catechesis, New Hampshire. Similarly for Fr. Matthew
Mason, Director of Vocations, only those candidates are to be accepted, who interpret
Vatican Council II irrationally.
Young Catholics have to consider the
dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed, as being obsolete and then they can become priests or religious sisters.
But for Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson,
former American Nuncio to Switzerland, there are no known cases of the baptism
of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in our human reality. If
there was any such case it could only be known to God.
Similarly the apologist John Martignoni,
the Director at the Office of Evangelization and Stewardship, in the diocese of
Birmingham in Alabama, USA, says that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, are “zero cases”. They are not
practical exceptions for EENS.This is also the reasoning of Fr. Stefano
Visintin OSB, former Rector and Dean of Theology at the Benedictine, University
of St. Anselm, and Rome. This is something obvious said Fr. Aldo Rossi, the
Prior of the Society of St. Pius X, at Albano, Italy.
They indicate that the media reports on the
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center, New
Hampshire, were written with an objective and factual error. The reports confused
what is unknown and invisible as being known and visible. This was an objective
mistake. The same mistake was made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the
Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center
(LOHO). The LOHO confused unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible
ignorance as being known exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was the objective
mistake of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the archbishop of Boston, who placed sanctions
on Fr. Leonard Feeney.This was also the factual mistake of Boston College which
expelled Catholic professors who did not confuse what is invisible as being visible.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people saved with the baptism of
desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water,
in the Catholic Church. The American Jesuits also did an injustice to Fr.
Leonard Feeney when they expelled him from the community. They need to apologize
today.
So now all the religious communities (Franciscans,
Carmelites etc) and the sedevacantists (CMRI) in New Hampshire, have to
interpret Vatican Council II and EENS, with the False Premise to avoid a Decree
of Prohibition, being issued against them. Also married lay Catholics, who
consult the Judical Vicar and Tribunal, in New Hampshire, have to state that
invisible people are visible. This is the reasoning of Fr. Georges de Laire. It
is the ‘rational norm’ for the CDF and Bishop Libasci.It is being followed by
Phil Lawler and the faculty of the
How can the Judicial Vicar in Manchester, handle marriage cases when he assumes what is invisible is visible? His reality is not the same as the people in the city.
If he does not use the False Premise then he would be affirming EENS like Brother Andre Marie. So he continues with the deception and there is no Decree of Precepts issued against him.
Cardinal Sean O Malley and Bishop Peter
Libasci, are also promoting a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Evangelization
and New Canon Law, all based upon the False Premise, which creates alleged
exceptions, for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
The basic issue is not theology but an empirical objective observation which is common for all people, even non Catholics. We cannot see people saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance. Someone in Heaven is not physically visible on earth.This is something objective and factual.
When the diocese infers that there are exceptions, people visible in Heaven and on earth they contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction of Aristotle.
But this is the
norm for Fr. Laire who is unethical. He campaigns against conservative Catholic organizations
and communities, who do not reject Tradition, by using a Fake Premise, False
Inference and Non Traditional Conclusion. I have e-mailed him and the Curia in
the diocese of Manchester, including Meredith Cook, the Chancellor, and there
has been no response and no denial. –Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
FALSE PREMISE, INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION (GRAPHICS)
-Lionel Andrades
WE HAVE TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF
VATICAN COUNCIL II : YOURS AND MINE
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?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission)
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
Twitter : @LionelAndrades1
___________________
Posts
