Fr. Georges de Laire did not tell Michael Voris and Bro. Andre Marie micm that with LG 8,14,16 invisible Vatican Council II supports Feeneyite EENS. This was Ratzinger's Secret.
The Michael Voris-Fr. Georges de Laire case is still pending and has not been closed said Brother Andre Marie micm.Also the Decree of Prohbitions against the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire has not been lifted.
Now we have new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years. They were unknown in the case filed by Fr. Georges de Laire against Michael Voris and Church Militant TV.
1.When Michael Voris was in New Hampshire Fr.Georges de Laire declined to give him an interview. He wanted to maintain the political Left interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and Vatican Council II even though it is dishonest. He did not interpret Vatican Council II, the baptism of desire and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS) rationally and so honesetly. He was unethical.
2.Judge Joseph A. Diclerico Jr., in New Hampshire, considers invisible people as visible in 2021-2025.Is this a premise in any discussion, secular or religious ? Since this is the present reasoning of Fr.Georges de Laire when he objected to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as held by the St. Benedict Center. He wanted the St.Benedict Center to use the ‘nuanced version’ i.e he wanted them to consider invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the error of the 1949 Lettter of the Holy Office ( CDF/DDF) to the Archbishop of Boston.
3. Neither did The National Catholic Reporter or Fr. Georges de Laire and his attorneys mention that the St. Benedict Center interpret all Magisterial Documents rationally while Fr. Georges de Laire and Bishop Peter Libasci were irrational. The judge did not know.
4. Michael Voris, did not mention that Fr. Georges d Laire had interpreted Vatican Council II etc irrationally and so politically. He was forcing this false interpretation on the St. Benedict Center with legal prohibitions.
5. The original report on CMTV criticized the priest for confusing dogma as heresy.Fr. Laire still interprets all Church Documents unethically as he did during the case.
6.
Church Militant founder may face legal reckoning for defamation Apr 30, 2021 by Christopher White
This report by Christopher While is based upon the irrational and unethical interpretation of Vatican Council II, similar to that of Fr. Georges de Laire.
Now we have new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years. This changes Vatican Council II which now has a continuity with Tradition, especially with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
I
IF WE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AS NOT HAVING EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION.
It is said why have Traditional Mission, why should non-Catholics convert into the Catholic Church, when there is salvation outside the Church i.e. known salvation in particular cases in the present times.
So LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are projected as ‘known people’ physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2026. They are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
But LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA, 2 GS 22 etc are always physically invisible cases in 1949-2026.They are always only hypothetical cases. They exist only in our mind. They are theoretical. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
So in 2026-2027 outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake and that mistake is repeated in Vatican Council II. It is also repeated in the Creeds when the baptism of desire is mentioned. It is repeated in the interpretation of the old Church Councils and the Catechisms when the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned. We interpret these Magisterial Documents, with or without exceptions. So there are two different conclusions. If we choose to interpret them with exceptions then there is a break with Tradition (EENS etc). There is a development of doctrine and unlimited liberalism. If we choose to interpret these Magisterial Documents without exceptions, there is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition (Athanasius Creed, EENS, and Syllabus of Errors etc).
II
THE BLUE PASSAGES HAVE A HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION AND THE RED PASSAGES ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS.
LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc can now be referred to as the hypothetical cases or the red passages. They are not objective exceptions for the orthodox (blue) passages in Vatican Council II. The red passages refer to physically invisible cases in the present times (1949 to 1965 or 2026).
The orthodox (blue) passages are usually accompanied by the hypothetical (red) passages in Vatican Council II.
In principle, the concept of the red passages in Vatican Council II emerges from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. The 1949 LOHO confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council ( 1215), which did not mention any exceptions.
So when the Council Fathers ( 1965) inserted LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA ,2 GS 22 etc, in the text of Vatican Council II, they were inserting 'invisible cases', which did not really contradict EENS ( with no exceptions). There could only be invisible cases. They really had no choice. But they interpreted these invisible cases as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. This was their error.
The popes from Paul VI interpreted the red hypothetical passages as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. In other words, they were not hypothetical and invisible only. How could they be invisible for them ? Since only physically visible cases can be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They needed exceptions. They did not want to support Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they created their artifical exceptions. They implied that what was invisible was visible and then they concluded that there were practical exceptions for EENS, mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So they made a mistake. They interpreted 'the red passages' incorrectly. So for them, Vatican Council II made the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism, obsolete. This was how Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reasoned-wrongly.
This was how Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio reasoned wrongly on a Church Militant TV program. For them, Ad Gentes 7 contradicted itself since they interpreted 'the red passages' as being exceptions for the blue orthodox passages, which support EENS, in Ad Gentes 7.
So now, when we read Vatican Council II, we must note carefully that the red passages do not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the rest of Tradition. They are not exceptions for Traditional Mission.
So 'the blue passages' have a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and the 'the red passages ' are not exceptions.
CONCLUSION:
We can have Traditional Mission based upon there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, since Vatican Council II does not have any exceptions. Everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, with no known exceptions, mentioned in the Council-text.
A Catholic State is necessary, to save souls, since the Council is saying outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).We need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).
Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Magisterium over the centuries, including the missionaries in the 16th century.
So how can Fr. Georges de Laire, the Judicial Vicar in the Diocese of Manchester, USA, legally, interpret Vatican Council II etc, irrationally, confusing what is invisible as being visible, and then demand that the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire do the same and violate basic principles (honesty etc) as Catholics ?
When LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to invisible cases in 2026, in our reality, then the Council does not have exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).When EENS is intact and is the same as it was for example, for the missionaries in the 16th century, then proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, is a priority, to save souls from going to Hell. There must not be a separation of Church and State.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.But they are exceptions for Fr.Georges de Laire.
_____________________________________
From the Catholic Herald U.K (2019)
When I asked him about the penalties, Fr Georges de Laire, the vicar for canonical affairs for the Manchester diocese, said that he “met with the [current] Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [Fr Matteo Visioli] this past May, and upon that conversation the Congregation made recommendations to us for steps that should be imposed upon the Saint Benedict Center and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are included in the precepts imposed on Monday, January 7...”
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."
_________________________
The Catholics Church’s religious beliefs are criticized in a report supporting Fr. Georges de Laire.1 It is not being recognised that it is Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) which says all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation and so outside the Church there is no salvation (CCC 846) and this is not the private views of the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA which is being slandered.
Hypothetical cases of Lumen Gentium 16 ( LG 16) etc in Vatican Council II are not practical exceptions for AG 7.
So the St. Benedict Center is following Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents ( extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed etc).
But Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets LG 16 as being an exception to AG 7 and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. This is irrational.
How can he support this irrationality and judge marriage cases in the diocese tribunal ? He is unethical and dishonest to project non existing cases of being saved in invincible ignorance as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Fr.Georges de Laire will not respond to the many reports on this blog(Eucharist and Mission ) .Neither will the Chancellor Meredith Cook esq.,or the Director of Education and Catechesis, Mary Ellen Mohan.
Fr. Georges de Laire has not denied that he considers unknown cases of the baptism of desire as being known and objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so for him, the baptism of desire is a practical exception to the traditional exclusivist interpretation of salvation held by Brother Andre Marie MIM, Prior, at the SBC.
He has not denied that all the religious communities in New Hampshire must acccept his irrationality or be hit with a harsh Decree of Prohibitions.
This is an attack on Catholic religious beliefs held by Catholics in New Hampshire and it serves the political Left which supports Satanic values which lead to the fires of Hell.
He has not denied that he uses the Fake Premise to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II otherwise he would be affirming the same strict interpretation of EENS and rational interpretation of Vatican Council II as the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, SBC,N.H and would be considered a Feeneyite.-Lionel Andrades