Cardinal Raymond Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw assume hypothetical factors or theories are explicit exceptions to the traditional de fide teaching on faith and morals.

The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching...
In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.- Cardinal Raymond Burke, ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church, National Catholic Register 1

 

 Joseph Shaw says:

Cardinal Burke lays great stress on interpreting Church documents in light of the whole tradition of the Church...

 We are deeply interested in setting out our case in(sic) way which is comprehensible to mainstream Catholic theologians and people in the Roman Curia...

Our approach is, in fact, about looking at facts squarely in the face. These facts include the way the document is going to be understood by liberals and by the media. They also include the precise theological and canonical assertions a document is and is not making, and the light shed on the issues by the Church's whole teaching and tradition. Ignoring any of these facts cripples one's ability to deal rationally and appropriately with the situation.2

 

Cardinal Raymond Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw both assume hypothetical factors or theories are explicit exceptions to the traditional de fide teaching on faith and morals. So with this heretical theology they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.A rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

They also accept Amoris Laetitia n.301 when it is a break with Tradition.It is a rupture with the traditional understanding of mortal sin.

If they say hypothetical factors or theories are not explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and morals, they will be affirming the 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma EENS and also traditional mortal sin.

This would place them in conflict with the 'contemporary official magisterium' which also assumes hypothetical factors and theories, are objective.

This would be telling the whole world that non Catholics are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) in the Catholic Church and that so many well known people are in mortal sin and that there are so many ecclesiastics committing sacrilege.

So they will use the false reasoning, and accept the new theology, 'interpreting Church documents in light of the whole tradition of the Church...' which assumes hypothetical factors and theories are known exceptions to Tradition. They are a rupture with Tradition on faith and morals.In this way there is no tension with the magisterium and the influential political Left.

They appreciate Amoris Laetitia for 'its precise theological asssertion'  in harmony with 'the Church's whole teaching and tradition'.-Lionel Andrades

 

1

‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church  

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/

 

2.

Skojec and Burke on the significance of Amoris Laetitia

http://www.lmschairman.org/2016/04/skojec-and-burke-on-significance-of.html

______________________________

Exclusivist ecclesiology?
The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.

Who agrees with you?

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/contemporary-magisterium-is-in.html
____________________________

http://reader.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/05/bishop-dewane-families-have-right-to.html

ioceseofvenice.org/our-bishop/bishop-frank-j-dewane/