Roberto dei Mattei confirmed that he no more teaches at the European University in Rome (Universita Europa) however the reason was not because of any controversy over the LifeSites videos.He would not say why he was no more teaching or from when he stopped teaching.
I spoke with him personally about an hour and a half back at the Lepanto Foundation office, in Rome.
The LifeSites video in which he was interviewed mentioned that he was a professor at the Universita Europa, Roma. I went to the university off Via Auriela, Rome this morning and I was told he does not teach there any more.
I was not sure if he had stopped teaching due to some objections to the latest video in which he said Pope Francis was responsible for the confusion in Amoris Laeitia and the Church in general.He referred to a religious civil war in the Church and he supported the dubbia of the four cardinals.
I was not sure if his outspokenness had cost him his teaching position.
Recently Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli o.p had his program suspended on Radio Maria, Italy while two years back Father Livio removed Roberto dei Mattei from Radio Maria.
The well know historian would not say why he was not teaching at the university any more.I had not read any reports saying that he had resigned.
I told him that I agree with him on moral theology and Amoris Laeitia in which philosophical subjectivism is used to project an exception to the traditional teaching on morals. It is assumed that we can judge exceptions in morals; we can judge who in manifest mortal sin is not in mortal sin.
However the same mistake is made in salvation theology and he and just about every one else ignores it.
We do not know any exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known in the 16th century. We cannot judge any case of the baptism of desire. We cannot say that any particular person will go to Heaven without being a visible member of the Church.Yet this is a common doctrinal mistake in the Church and no one points it out.
So if this mistake, which comes from the Lettter of the Holy Office 1949, is changed, then the interpretation of Vatican Council II also changes.
I mentioned that Lumen Gentium 16 could be interpreted as being invisible in the present times,since it is actually invisible .However for Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX bishops Lumen Gentium 16 and Lumen Gentium 8 is wrongly inferred to be visible in the present times. In their mind they picture these cases as being objective. So they conclude that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and is a break with Tradition. The fault is not there with Vatican Council II but with their irrational interpretation.
Roberto dei Mattei said that this was a complicated subject and we could speak about it some other time. He was working on an article and was also expecting someone.
So I gave him my e-mail number. I hope at some time in the future he can tell me that Vatican Council II was really traditional and they had it wrong all long.For over 50 years they were using a false premise to create a non traditional interpretation of the Concil.
I have been living for a long time in Rome. This was the first time that I spoke to him and visited the Lepanto Foundation, Rome.
According to his official website :