Monday, May 2, 2016

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.


Copies of Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia ("The Joy of Love") (Photo: CNS)
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.

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.

KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE
Similarly the Baltimore Catechism assumes that the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it, was a baptism.It was like the baptism of water, with the results of the baptism of water.It assumed that a hypothetical case was a known case. But how can it be known to us humans ? Since it was assumed to be personally known and allegedly excluded the baptism of water, it was considered relevant to all needing the baptism of water.It 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.

THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 would assume 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.

CATECHISM MENTIONS IRRELEVANT BAPTISM OF DESIRE
The Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992)  repeats the error in 846 and 1257. It also assumes hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
Image result for pRESS CONFERENCE FOR aMORIS lAETITIA
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.
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.-Lionel Andrades

Related image

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

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

Related image
We need to go back to the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Council of Trent since there are objective and factual errors in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the catechisms of Pope Pius X and Baltimore.

Related image

MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II 1
1.LG 14 says only those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell. In other words not every non Catholic.Since those who are in invincible ignorance are assumed to be known, explicit in real life. They are assumed to be known exceptions of persons saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
This is false since no one could have physically seen these exceptions and no Church document before the Baltimore Catechism suggests these cases are objectively known.
2.LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2 etc are ALLhypothetical cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.So they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council with reference to orthodox passages on salvation.
3.Similarly it was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention those who would be saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which they could not receive in life or those who are saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention this in LG 14 and AG 14 which have orthodox pasages saying all need faith and baptism. It was a mistake since invisible cases are not relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.

It is with these objective mistakes in Vatican Council II , that the contemporary magisterium interprets the Council as a break with EENS. 1
__________________________________

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Why is the baptism of desire and blood mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) in the section on Outside the Church there is no salvation (846)? This was a mistake.

Why did Cardinal Ratzinger say in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) 1257, ' God is not limited to the Sacraments' ?. Does he know of any exception?
A non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ( followed by the baptism of water), hypothetically, but we do not know any explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.Does he assume that these cases are visible in the flesh? This is a mistake.He is implying that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.Really? Can he name someone in the present times who is saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14)? 2
__________________________________________________________

Related image
BALTIMORE CATECHISM

The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X also made the same mistake. They considered a hypothetical case as being explicit and personally known.Then it is was inferred to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It was inferred that the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen who dies before receiving it was like the baptism of water. It had the same results for them, as if they knew of a particular case.
Since the time of the Baltimore Catechism we see this pattern of error in the Catholic Church. Hypothetical cases are considered objectively known and then are presumed to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.

The Baltimore  Catechism misleads Catholics.They assume that the baptism of desire is 1) a known and physically visible baptism like the baptism of water. 2) The effects of the baptism of desire is that of the baptism of water.It is as if they knew or could know of a particular case now in Heaven saved as such.
The 'desire for the baptism of water ', which is theoretical for all of us and 'the catechuman who dies before receiving it', is a hypothetical case.Yet Catholics treat it as if it is objective.
_______________________________

CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X

Related image

CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905
Being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us .There should have been no reference to it here.It is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The same error of the Baltimore Catechism has been placed in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Since 29 Q does not refer to an explicit, objectively seen case, it does not contradict 27 Q which states ,' No, one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church'.
-Lionel Andrades
__________________
1

2.

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (N.1257)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-made.html
____________________________________________________________

THE BOSTON HERESY OF THE ARCHBISHOP INFLUENCED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/the-boston-heresy-of-archbishop-of.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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/i-want-to-read-catechism-of-trentto.html

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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-catechism-of-council-of-trent-is.html

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

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

Lumen Gentium was written assuming 'there are known cases of known salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church'! In this way there was a change in ecclesiology : Magisterial heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/lumen-gentium-16-was-written-assuming.html

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
 APRIL 6, 2016

Yes! I am glad you have understood what I have been saying! Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.The issue comes down to our having no known cases of known salvation outside formal membership in the RCC

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/yes-i-am-glad-you-have-understood-what.html

MARCH 29, 2016

"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says" http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/thanks-for-providing-this-god-bless.html

Related image
The initial fault of there being known salvation outside the Church is responsible for all this theological innovation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-initial-fault-of-there-being-known.html

TORONTO CATHOLIC WITNESS

Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when the irrational inference is avoided.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/catechism-of-catholic-church-affirms.html



I follow the Catechism of Trent in agreement with Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/i-follow-catechism-of-trent-in.html


We can interpret the Catechisms and Vatican Council II without the oversight of the magisterium http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/we-can-interpret-catechisms-and-vatican.html


The Catechism and Vatican Council II are Feeneyite if you avoid the false premise http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/the-catechism-and-vatican-council-ii.html
The Baltimore Catechism error is not just a theoretical oversight it had practical consequences, penalites were placed on Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center. There was an excommunication. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/the-baltimore-catechism-error-is-not.html

Related image
Development of an error in the Catholic Church 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/development-of-error-in-catholic-church.html

_____________________________________________________

At least before Fr.Hans Kung passes away an announcement should kindly be made

There were the old moral theology manuals, of St. Alphonsus Ligouri etc, which mentioned the different types of mortal sin and how they were committed. They have been discarded. Instead a new moral theology was created which mentions exceptions for mortal sin.With this two fold attack on traditional Catholic morality, approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Catholics do not know any more what is a mortal sin.They do not believe in a mortal sin.
Related imageSo when Amoris Laetiotia(AL) 301 says a mortal sin cannot always be called a mortal sin it is acceptable for Cardinal Raymond Burke. It is the familiar moral theology too for Joseph Shaw at the LMS Chairman blog.
So we have two well known traditionalists, advocates of the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) supporting the new moral theology based on known exceptions to mortal sin, even though we humans cannot judge any case as an exception.
We can go back to the old morality by recognising that there are no known exceptions to mortal sin, no subjectivism made objective in defacto cases.We can go back to traditional moral teachings associated with the TLM, the pre Council of Trent times. We can use the Catechism of the Council of Trent since it is error-free.
The contemporary magisterium cannot be trusted.Fr.Hans Kung S.J, friend and colleague  of Pope Benedict, said Fr.John Courtney Murray did away with the dogma on the infallibility of the pope, since Vatican Council II contradicted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). The magisterium actually agreed with him!.Fr.Hans Kung was using  subjectivism to interpret Vatican Council II. LG 16 for example, referred to known in the flesh  exceptions, visible cases on earth,  of persons saved without the baptism of water.LG 16 was an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS.No one contradicted Hans Kung on this point.Even today no one says LG 16 refers to hypothetical and not objective cases in 2016. So Fr.John C. Murray could not contradict the dogma EENS with anything in Vatican Council II.
The Vatican instead made Catholic universities have Fr. Kung's books placed in their libraries.The books did not contain a clarification or correction from Cardinal Ratzinger. He did not say LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases. He did not even say that the baptism of desire refers to an invisible instead of a visible case.Instead as head of the International Theological Commission, in the ITC  theological paper, Christianity and the World Religions(1997), he assumed that LG 16 refers to visible cases.He also approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which suggests that the baptism of desire refers to objective cases and so they were exceptions to the interpretation of EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Hypotethetical but visible in the flesh exceptions!
Even now after thousands,(literally a few thousand) of blog posts(euchartistandmission) on this subject on the Internet over the last few years no one at the Vatican wants to comment.
With known exceptions to the dogma EENS, known to human beings, the CDF changed traditional Catholic salvation theology.With power consolidiated in Cardinal Ratzinger , Pope John Paul II being ailing, the Catholic Church had new doctrines on morals and faith and it was being implemented at all levels of the Church.
So it would not be a surprise if Pope Benedict approved N.301 in Amoris Laetitia.Before AL was announced he issued a statement via Avvenire,confirming the official change in the Church's salvation theology, it's faith teaching. He said the dogma EENS was not more like in the 16 th century. Vatican Council II had changed( developed) it. He was clear.
We now know that with theology, faith and morals were changed in the Church during his tenure as Prefect of the CDF. A defined dogma like EENS was rejected and traditional mortal sin which was still there at the time of the Council of Trent, now had known exceptions.The exceptions can be judged case by case, AL says.
With this same new irrational theology Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with the dogma EENS and  Tradition in general.
Related image
Hopefully, before Fr.Hans Kung (88) passes away some one will announce in the Catholic Church that there are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and morals.All his work was a waste of time.
They could announce that Vatican Council II does not obviously contradict the dogma EENS, since LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases.Kung did not know. May be no one told him about this.-Lionel Andrades
 

Abp.Augustine Di Noia like Card. Burke uses subjectivism and known exceptions to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/abpaugustine-di-noia-like-cardinal.html

 
Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II like Fr.Hans Kung: contradicting the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra
 
 Related image
Fr.Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw does not see how judgement of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/father-matthias-gaudron-like-cardinal.html


For Burke and Shaw subjective cases are objective, this is the norm.So they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/for-burke-and-shaw-subjective-cases-are.html