Amoris Laetitia (AL) has the error of subjectivism which is also there in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Letter of the Holy Office and the Baltimore and Pius X catechisms

Amoris Laetitia (AL)  has the error of subjectivism, the same error which is there in  catechisms and  Vatican Council II.

Amoris Laetitia(AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II. I mentioned his in a previous blog post.

KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO MORTAL SIN

AL assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin. It takes it for granted that we humans can know when a Catholic in manifest mortal sin will not go to Hell.It assumes we can judge case by case, when something subjective and known only to God is an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

This is the subjectivism referred to by  Fr.Matthias Gaudron of the SSPX, Germany.Subjectivism is assuming something which is known only to God is objective for us. It assumes in this case that we can judge subjective factors and so conclude that a person in mortal sin is not on the way to Hell but instead has Sanctifying Grace.

KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

 

The same subjectivism of AL is also there in the Baltimore Catechism which assumes that the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it, was a baptism. This is subjectivism.How could they assume this desire in an unknown person, was like the baptism of water, with the results of the baptism of water ? The desire or the person did not exist in their reality.How could they assume in Baltimore that a hypothetical case was a known case? This is reasoning which is irrational. Yet it was assumed that this new baptism was personally known and allegedly excluded the baptism of water.So it was considered relevant to all needing the baptism of water and was placed in the Baptism ( of water) Section of the Baltimore Catechism.No one in Baltimore could have seen such a case. Yet it was made a baptism like the baptism of water.

The mistake was then repeated in the Catechism of Pius X.It is important to note that the Catechism of the Council of Trent also mentions 'the desirethereof' but does not say it is a baptism.It does not imply that it is explicit or an exception to all needing the baptism of water.

THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The same subjectivism, the error of assuming what is subjective as being objective, is also there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter 1949  assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It would suppose that the baptism of desire would not be a hypothetical case, but a known case.

LG 14 EXPLICIT CASES OF PERSONS SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

This mistake would be repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14) . Since being saved in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water was assumed to be explicit and personally known, to be exceptions to the dogma EENS and to be relevant to all needing the baptism of water, LG 14 says not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know i.e those who are not in invincible ignorance and saved without the baptism of water.Invincible ignorance cases, allegedly without the baptism of water, is a reference to something subjective. It could only be known to God.

CATECHISM MENTIONS IRRELEVANT BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992) repeats the error in 846 and 1257. It assumes hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.There is a subjective interpretation of 846 and 1257 which implies implicitly, that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).CCC 846 does not affirm the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, since there subjective cases of the baptism of desire etc which could be identified for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

OBJECTIVE ERROR:INVISIBLE CASES ARE VISIBLE

So we have an objective error in Amoris Laetitia.We cannot physically see or know an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin, yet AL suggests we can.

We have an objective error in the Baltimore, Pius X and the 1992 Catechism since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire was not relevant to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.It should not have been mentioned.

We have the same objective error in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7). There are no exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism' for salvation. Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not visible and known in our reality. So they are not relevant to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.They should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is the error of subjectivism.-Lionel Andrades

Amoris Laetitia (AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-al-continues-with_3.html

We need to go back to the Council of Trent and its Catechism : factual, objective errors in other Catechisms and Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/we-need-to-go-back-to-council-of-trent.html