Wednesday, May 4, 2016

The Download May 2, 2016—'Amoris Laetitia'

Ignoring Context in Pope’s Exhortation Leads to Sacrilegious Communion


Moral and faith teachings have been changed by the contemporary magisterium by assuming we can judge what only God can judge

And he continues: “To admit exceptions in individual cases is an impasse. I made this clear in my interpretation guide. What is impossible for reasons of Faith, is impossible also in the individual case. This was valid before the publication of Amoris Laetitia, just as it is valid thereafter.”- Cardinal Walter Brandmüller

author image

But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting.The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward. But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.-E. Christian Brugger,   Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia

Related image
Without reference to the “complexity of the different situations,” says Gaudron, the pope proposes to avoid judgments. One has now to regard the general norms in the face of “all the different particular situations.” However, says Gaudron, this might sometimes be applicable to human norms, but not to divine laws. No one, Gaudron reminds us, can dissolve a validly contracted and consummated sacramental marriage – “not even the pope.” And he continues: “These laws do not know or allow any exception and they are valid independent of the circumstances.” It has always been taught, according to the SSPX priest, that “the moral range of an action contains therefore something objective and does not finally depend only [or at all]upon the circumstances or the intention of the subject.” Whatever the circumstances or the intentions, to kill an innocent person deliberately “is always an evil deed,” says Father Gaudron.  Applied to a situation of adultery, the priest says: “One might well have a certain understanding for a woman who is engaged in a new relationship because of the infidelity or the hardness of heart of her husband, and one could admit that, in such a case, the fault is less grave, but nevertheless adultery remains an evil act in itself.”-Fr.Matthias Gaudron,SSPX: Amoris Laetitia a “Victory of Subjectivism”

The issue is the new theology, it is based on hypothetical exceptions being objective. It is based on being able to judge what cannot be humanly judged.This new theology is part of moral and salvation theology. It has created a new doctrine on morals and faith.It says we can judge exceptions to mortal sin when we know this is only possible for God.
It is with the new theology that Amoris Laeitita (AL) in N.301 says there are exceptions to saying mortal sin is always mortal sin.It says we can judge in individual cases.
The new theology says hypothetical cases are objective and so there is salvation outside the Church. EENS is written off.It judges non- existing- in- our- reality hypothetical cases as being objective,
It then says since subjective cases are objective, we can know exceptions to the traditional understanding of mortal sin.We can judge.
So in both cases, faith and morals in the Catholic Church, it is supposed that hypothetical, theoretical, subjective cases are explicit and personally known.A judgement has been made.
So Protestant Ethics is brought into the Catholic Church by assuming an extraordinary, complicated and theoretical case in moral theology is an exception to clearly saying what is a mortal sin. It is as if we can personally know such a complicated case in real life.It is as if we can identify and judge such a case.
So for example Cardinal Kasper will say that there is no change in doctrine and mean ideally, in principle there is no change in the Church's teachings on faith and morals.However when he applies the new theology to faith and morals he changes both.
For example Pope Benedict, who uses the new theology, may say that Vatican Council II is not a break with the past and it can be interpreted with the hermeneutic of continuity.But then he will interpret LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) as referring to not a subjective and invisible case for us, but as an objective case in 2016 and so it is a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition. He has judged. So with LG 16, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture.Since it was wrongly judged to be explicit, objective, seen in the flesh.
For me since LG 16 is invisible and not objective, there is no rupture with the dogma EENS and Tradition. So Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past.
The difference between Pope Benedict and me is that he is using the new theology which assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible. I am avoiding it.He is trying to identify, to judge, exceptions to EENS in the present times. I am not.
Similarly for Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw Vatican Council II is a break with the past and so unlike Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper, who also assume theoretical cases are objectively visible, they reject Vatican Council II and criticise it.They have judged invisible factors as being visible.
So now Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw say with the new moral theology that there is nothing new in AL.Since for them hypothetical cases, subjective factors, emotions and conditions are in one sense objective and so they are exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin (n.301, AL).This is how they judge. In another sense they are saying in agreement with the new moral theology being taught at pontifical universities, that we can never judge or understand the subjectivity of a person,and so we cannot judge mortal sin in all cases.Yet their faith and moral doctrines are based on an irrational judgement.
AL says that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin.It will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace and it will be judged that there could be some cases who subjectvely will be exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin, since this is something that we humans can judge i.e hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin.
So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which rejects traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.
So Cardinal Kasper will say doctrine has not been  changed in principle in theory but he knows very well that with the new theology, doctrine has been changed de jure and de facto, in principle and in fact.-
Lionel Andrades

R. de Mattei intervista il teologo Barthe: “Non si può interpretare secondo la tradizione il capitolo VIII di Amoris Laetitia”

R. de Mattei intervista il 

teologo Barthe: “Non si

 può interpretare secondo

 la tradizione il capitolo 

VIII di Amoris Laetitia”

Don Claude Barthe

Don Claude Barthe, teologo, autore di opere 
come La messe, une forêt de symboles(La messa 
una foresta di simboli), Les romanciers et le
 catholicisme (I romanzieri e il cattolicesimo),
 Penser l’œcuménisme autrement(Pensare
 l’ecumenismo diversamente) è stato uno dei 
primi, l’8 aprile, in Francia, ad esprimere sul 
blog L’Homme Nouveau le proprie riserve 
nei confronti del’esortazione Amoris lætitia 
appena pubblicata. Abbiamo approfittato di 
un viaggio in Francia per porgli alcune domande....
Corrispondenza Romana | Agenzia di informazione settimanale

Scary Hell Movie (Part 2)

St. Catherine of Siena On Hell And Catholic Youth Selling Souls To Illuminati

Hell Is For Real Promo

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and the catechisms : the Feeneyites were always correct.

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and the catechisms : the Feeneyites were always correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

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 in a previous blog  post.

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.The Feeneyites are correct. There is no known such case in 2016. We cannot meet or see someone who will be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The baptism of desire was placed in the Baptism ( of water) Section of the 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 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.This was an objective error. The Feeneyites were correct and the Holy Office was wrong in 1949. They made a factual mistake.

This mistake would be repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14) . Since being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water was assumed to be explicit and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So  Lumen Gentium  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.Vatican Council II made a mistake. The Feeenyites were correct. LG 14 could not be an exception to their 'rigorist' interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

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.There can be no exceptions known to us human beings to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.We have an error in the Catechism of Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn.
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.
The Feeneyites are still correct.
-Lionel Andrades
 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.