Wednesday, April 20, 2016

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.

National Catholic Register
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  
 
2.
Skojec and Burke on the significance of Amoris Laetitia

______________________________


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
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/ 

Cardinal Burke accepts the 'contemporary official magisterium' and does not consider Amoris Laetita heretical, since he uses the same heretical magisterial new moral theology

635787944691218460 EPA USA POPE FRANCIS VISIT

Comments from the Remnant Newspaper :   Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Débâcle

Notung:
But I think what you are saying is implicit in the general criticism of AL's subjectivism. None of us has the power to "discern" whether someone in an objective state of sin is actually in a state of grace due to invincible ignorance or some other cause, even if we admit the theoretical existence of such situation; therefore, we should act as if that hypothetical state of grace does not exist, since there is no certainty of salvation and the risk is too serious..
Lionel:
Yes!
'...AL's subjectivism. None of us has the power to "discern" whether someone in an objective state of sin is actually in a state of grace due to invincible ignorance or some other cause, even if we admit the theoretical existence of such situation;...'
Yet in the new moral theology it is assumed that we humans can discern whether someone in objective sin is not really in mortal sin because of some subjective factor or a hypothetical theory.
This is the moral theology accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke.
He says:-
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
 

Cardinal Burke does not have a problem with Amoris Laetitia N.301.
He does not even have a problem with magisterial documents suggesting that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.Hypothetical cases are objective exceptions! Pope Benedict in the interview published in Avvenire calls this 'a development of doctrine'.
Cardinal Burke  accepts the 'contemporary official magisterium' as does  Joseph Shaw, professor of theology at Oxford University.He does not consider Amoris Laetita heretical, since he and Cardinal Burke are also using a heretical moral theology.
They assume there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin and then accept AL 301 as referring to a general rule, a new doctrine and discipline.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Pope Francis and Cardinal Schonborn using the same moral theology as Cardinal Burke ?

Comment on the blog What's Up with Francis -Church : Pope Francis, narcissistic father: kids, never try
Lionel
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

How do you respond to Cardinal Burke's statement ?
Even Dr.Joseph Shaw at LMS Chairman says Pope Francis is not in heresy and that Amoris Laeitia is in accord with the contemporary official theology.
Could Pope Francis and Cardinal Schonborn be using the same moral theology as Cardinal Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw ( LMS Chairman)?
Would you agree with the following blog post ?
 
Cardinal Schonborn could respond to Christopher Ferrara saying,'You accept the new moral theology, like Cardinal Burke, so why are you complaining ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-schonborn-could-respond-to.html

-Lionel Andrades

This reasoning is irrational however it is being used in the new theology on faith and morals.This is the moral theology of Pope Francis.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/this-reasoning-is-irrational-however-it.html

Amoris Laetitia is based on personally knowing exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.This is objectively false.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-is-based-on-personally.html

Pope Francis is referring to Cardinal Schonborn as a theologian.So theology is important for him.This issue is theological
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/pope-francis-is-referring-to-cardinal.html

Amoris Laetitia is the official approval of the new moral theology based on hypothetical cases being objectively known exceptions and exceptions make the rule : it supports the errors of Fr.Charles Curran http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-is-official-approval-of.html


Steve Skojec, why do you say doctrine has not been changed?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/why-do-you-say-doctrine-has-not-been.html


National Catholic Register Cushingism is not part of the whole Tradition of the Church. Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with Cushingism: Amoris Laetitia is based on the new moral theology, the heretical theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cushingism-is-not-part-of-whole.html
 The two popes and most of the Jesuits assume there is known salvation outside the Church. Upon this irrationality(personally knowing people

 saved or about to be saved without Catholic faith and the baptism
of water) they have based their new theology in faith and morals
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-two-popes-and-most-of-jesuits.html


This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough

for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there

in Amoris Laetitia

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/this-error-is-all-over-vatican-councl.html

I want to read the Catechism of Trent.Too many factual
mistakes in other catechisms and Vatican Council II


Related image
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is free of the error
 of assuming hypothetical cases are general exceptions to the

traditional moral teachings of the Church: other catechisms

 have made a mistake




The present two popes are heretical and non traditional since
they interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
So Vatican Council II (Cushingite) emerges as a break with EENS

( Feeneyite). http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-present-two-popes-are-heretical-and.html

Image result for Photo of someone laughing

The precise trick: how it was applied in the Exhortation Amoris

 Laetitia  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-precise-trick-how-it-was-applied-in.html 

Heresy in Amoris Latitiae ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/heresy-in-amoris-latitiae.html



Amoris Laetitiae reflects the confusion and contradictions
 of the Catechism's liberal moral theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/amoris-laetitiae-reflects-confusion-and.html


Related image

Contradicts Pope John Paul II ? :

Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/contradicts-pope-john-paul-ii.html



 
__________________________
MARCH 31, 2015
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article

http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2016/04/20/13000-words-chris-seriously/

We cannot say in any specific case that one knows that someone living in mortal sin will not go to Hell and has Sanctifying Grace.

From the blog From Rome :Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Debacle
  1. How can the conditions for mortal sin or actual baptism of desire be explicit for us human beings? This is the flaw in the new theology, in faith and morals. This point is omitted in Ferrara’s critique
  2. The Editor says:
  3. A condition for mortal sin is 3 fold: knowledge that it is mortal, deliberation, and objectively immoral. If by explicit you mean, self-aware, then it depends on one’s self awareness, which is subjective; but if you mean objective, then one of the three is objective. Nevertheless, according to St. Alphonsus, deviations from the natural law, simply speaking, are impossible without deliberation and assent since no one can be ignorant of what is contrary to the manifest precepts of the natural law. For that reason, one does not need to address the issue directly in a critique of Amoris Laetitia, because it deals with such sins.
 
Editor:
A condition for mortal sin is 3 fold: knowledge that it is mortal, deliberation, and objectively immoral.
Lionel:
 These conditions are subjective.I cannot say that a case of manifest mortal sin is not a mortal sin since, there was no 'deliberation'.Only God can judge this.
Editor:
 If by explicit you mean, self-aware, then it depends on one’s self awareness, which is subjective;
Lionel:
I mean the three conditions of mortal sin would be subjective for the sinner.It is not explicit for the on looker.He cannot say that a particular case of mortal sin is not a mortal sin since he knows one or the more three conditions are missing.
Amoris Laetitia (301) says that there are exceptions to judging mortal sin, a mortal sin is not always a mortal sin.
So where are the exceptions and who can judge social or subjective conditions as exceptions?
I don't think any us has this ability to judge.We cannot assume that Jesus will say that there is an exception to his teaching in a particular case.
We can speculate in general about the conditions of mortal sin. This is hypothetical. However we cannot say in any specific case that one knows that someone living in mortal sin will not go to Hell and has Sanctifying Grace.
 
Similarly we cannot know of an actual case of the baptism of desire in 2016.So there is no explicit baptism of desire. We cannot know of someone saved without the baptism of water but with the baptism of desire. So how can the baptism of desire be relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney or the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.There are no explicit exceptions.
Chris Ferrara accepts that there are known exceptions as taught in the new moral and salvation theology.
Neither do you for example, deny that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS. You have the same position on this issue as the sedevacantists and SSPX traditionalists.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle/
 

 

Cardinal Schonborn could respond to Christopher Ferrara saying,'You accept the new moral theology, like Cardinal Burke, so why are you complaining ?'

635787944691218460 EPA USA POPE FRANCIS VISIT
from The Remnant Newspaper : Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Debacle
Christopher Ferrara :
But even if we assume that this document is apparently an act of the Magisterium, in reality it simply cannot be.
Lionel:
Cardinal Schonborn could respond saying, :'This document is based on the new moral theology which assumes there are known exceptions,subjective factors which are objectively known as exceptions to going to Hell.
So the old moral theology is superseded in practise, defacto, objectively.Theoretically, ideally, in principle (opposed to defacto, being in fact) it is accepted.
However de facto,objectively it is rejected.Since there are known exceptions to the general rule.'
He could further say 'Christopher Ferrara and Cardinal Burke among others,  accept the new moral theology, and the new salvation theology.They postulate,that  theoretical cases can be objective exceptions to traditional teaching.This is a given.No one contests this point'.
_________________________________

 Just as God cannot contradict Himself, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself.
Lionel:
However the Magisterium and the traditionalists and conservatives and Catholics in general accept that hypothetical cases  can be objective exceptions in the present times to the traditional de fide teachings on morals and faith.There is consensus here.This is a break with the 16th century Catholics.
Amoris Laetita(301) is based on this new moral theology.
National Catholic Register
Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts this new reasoning as being part of the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline.

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 Raymong Burke, ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church, National Catholic Register 1

I repeat ,that mortal sin or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) has known exceptions in the present times,for  Cardinal Burke,and this is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, for him. 
________________________________
 For the Magisterium is the teaching office the Church; it presents what the Church teaches, which is not determined by the latest utterance of the current Pope.
Lionel:
 Cardinal Schonborn would agree here.The new theology existed during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II when Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentioned the three conditions for mortal sin without clarifying that they were hypothetical cases and not known personally,objectively.

The Catechism also mentions being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance,without clarifying that they are hypothetical cases.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS according to the 16th missionaries.
So now to assume hypothetical cases are defacto, explicit exceptions to traditional teaching is official and magisterial.This is the reasoning in this new document.
______________________________

 Therefore, whatever contradicts the constant prior teaching of the Church cannot possibly belong to the Magisterium, no matter what formal appearances it has been given.
Lionel: To assume hypothetical cases are defacto exceptions to the constant prior teaching of the Church, creates a non traditional conclusion. Traditionalists can not say that this is irrational or heretical since they themself use this 'philosophical reasoning'and believe it has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.
______________________________

 Rather, it would constitute error, which is possible with any exercise of the “ordinary” Magisterium that involves true novelties.
Lionel: This 'philosophical reasoning' is a novelty and innovation but this is how Christopher Ferrara and Bishop Bernard Fellay, for example. interpret magisterial documents.'So why is there an objection from Chris Ferrara?", Cardinal Schonborn could ask.
_____________________________

 Otherwise, we would have to say that absolutely every papal pronouncement, no matter what novelty it contains, is infallible. Nor can we place the least reliance on the treacherous Cardinal Schönborn’sassurance, the usual Modernist doubletalk, that “There are true novelties in this document, but no ruptures.”
Lionel: The novelty is created by the new philosophical reasoning, which is accepted by the traditionalists including Cardinal Raymond Burke.There is no rupture in the hypothetical, theoretical sense but there is a rupture in praxis, in discipline, since there are known exceptions to the hypothetical, faith teachings.
___________________________

 True novelties in the Church’s moral theology and its bimillenial application to public adulterers and fornicators are ruptures by definition.
Lionel: Yes since the principle behind this new discipline is that there are known exceptions in the present times.There are known people living in manifest mortal sin and who will not be going to Hell.
One can hypothesize that there are exceptions(due to ignorance for example). But one has to leave it at that.You cannot say that they are exceptions in real life, for sure, since this would presume that you know what only God could know.
The moment you say there are exceptions in personal cases. you imply that these exceptions are objective.They would have to be known,objective to be exceptions  to going to Hell.This is not possible for us human beings to know objectively.
Who among us can say that a friend or family member,is an exception to the general teaching on mortal sin or exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, and so that person is not going to Hell?
__________________________



Amoris Laetitia clearly presents such a rupture in at least two respects: First, it purports to change, not a mere ecclesiastical positive law, but an unchangeable Eucharistic discipline rooted in divine law and intrinsically connected to the integrity of the revealed truth concerning both the Real Presence and the indissolubility of sacramental marriage.

Lionel:

Yes and they did it with the new philosophical reasoning, the irrational premise  ( there are known cases of Catholics in mortal sin who are in Heaven or, there are known cases of Catholics in mortal sin on earth, who we know will go to Heaven because of certain subjective factors) and inference ( so the old moral teachings on mortal sin do not apply in reality any more since there are known exceptions).So there are no 'black and white' cases of sacrilege they would say. Since we do not know the 'fundamential option' of a person or whether he is an exception according to the three conditions of mortal sin mentioned in the Catechism.The bottom line is that there are known, objectively visible exceptions in the new moral theology. This point is not contested per se by Chris Ferrara.

_____________________________

 Second, it attempts to introduce into Catholic moral theology an absolutely inadmissible form of situation ethics, which the Magisterium has always condemned. 

Lionel:

It wrongly postulates situations or social conditions as being known exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin.

___________________________________

Nor can it be argued that the faithful have no capacity to recognize these contradictions but rather must blindly presume that somehow they do not exist.

Lionel: Many of the faithful recognize it. Since they have not been trained at pontifical universities and seminaries in the new theology.They have not been 'conditioned'.

_________________________________________
Christopher A. Ferrara

 This is the Catholic Church, whose deposit of Faith is objectively knowable, not a gnostic sect headed by the Oracle of Rome, who announces what “Jesus wants” today.

Lionel:

'whose deposit of Faith is objectively knowable'?

For Chris Ferrara the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known cases in the present times of people saved without the baptism of water. So they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.

This is not true for me.

So the deposit of Faith is not objectively the same for the both of us.

For Chris Ferrara the three conditions of mortal sin mentioned in the Catechism edited by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn refer to hypothetical cases but which are objectively known .So they are exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

This is not true for me.

So the deposit of Faith is not objectively the same for the both of us.

I follow Catholic faith and moral theology but without any known exceptions.So I am back to the old ecclesiology.

Chris Ferrara and Cardinal Schonborn follow a faith and moral theology with known exceptions to the traditional teaching.

Why doesn't Chris Ferrara come out and say like the 16th century missionaries that we do not know any exception to the traditional teaching on faith and morals ?


This would be a break with Cardinal Schonborn, Pope Benedict and and Pope Francis.
-Lionel Andrades


1
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/#ixzz46Lu2aUR1


Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Debacle
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/en/articles/item/2464-amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle


Father Mathias Guadron, SSPX has got it right : there are no known exceptions to the traditional moral teachings.The new moral theology is based on an irrationality http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/father-mathias-guadron-sspx-has-got-it.html