Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Vatican Council II as interpreted by the two popes cannot be magisterial for Cardinal Burke since it is no different from the philosophical error in Amoris Laetitia

cardinal raymond burke
Cardinal Raymond Burke says Amoris Laetitia has an error and so it is not magisterial.However Vatican Council II also has the same error.So he could also say that Vatican Council II is not magisterial.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II.It is the same subjectivism of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Cardinal Burke: Well first of all, as I stated from the beginning, the very form of Amoris Laetitia, and, actually, the words of the Pope within the document, indicate that it is not an exercise of the papal magisterium. And the way the document necessarily is read, as with every document, is in the light of the constant teaching and practice of the Church. And so the statements in AL which are in accord with the Church's constant teaching and practice certainly are very fine...1

SUBJECTIVISM IN MORAL THEOLOGY
Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God can also be known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them.
SUBJECTIVISM IN SALVATION THEOLOGY
Similarly  salvation theology was changed with subjectivism.The magisterium in 1949 told Fr.Leonard Feeney  that there were known exceptions to his traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 boldly says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.While Fr. Leonard Feeney and the Council of Florence 1441 held every one needed to be a member of the Church for salvation.The Church was the Mystical Body of Jesus. There was no salvation outside of Jesus in the Catholic Church.
MAGISTERIAL MIX UP
However Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston,the liberal Jesuit theologians and Rome assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were subjectively known cases.Otherwise how could they be relevant? If they really were invisible cases for them they could not be exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.So for the ecclesiastics these cases could be judged in individual persons.This was their practical understanding of the issue.There were 'practical exceptions' to the dogma on exclusive salvation, for them.
With regard to the question of heresy, one has to be very attentive to material heresy and to formal heresy. In other words, material heresy: are there actual statements in the text which are materially heretical? Are they contradictory to the Catholic Faith? 

CONTRADICTORY TO CATHOLIC FAITH
So the centuries old dogma on outside the Church there is no salvation was eliminated.It was done with an irrational premise ( known cases of the baptism of desire etc without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church) and non traditional and heretical conclusion( every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation).This is contradictory to the Catholic Faith.This is heresy.

HERESY :NICENE CREED
The confusion is extended to the Nicene Creed.It is now 'I believe in three or more known baptisms without the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins. They are the baptism of desire, blood, elements of sanctification and truth, seeds of the Word,invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of the person etc.'

CONFUSION: RENEWAL OF BAPTISMAL VOWS
The confusion is extended to the Renewal of Baptismal Vows. 'I believe in the one, holy and Apostolic Church outside of which there is known salvation and so not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation'.Again we have the Catholic Faith contradicted here.It is with the same irrational premise.

CONFUSION IN CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
The confusion is extended to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846 and 1257) which tries to accomodate known cases of the baptism of desire  and being saved in invincible ignorance.So it states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and God is not limited to the Sacraments.

CONFUSION IN REDEMPTORIS MISSIO
The confusion is extended to Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus which rejects the 'ecclesiocentrism of the past'.
Now the Masons are officially trying to extend the same confusion to moral theology, with Amoris Laeititia and they want it made official.Assume what is unknown is known  and can be known.This is their policy.Fr.Charles Curran presents many cases and moral acts as if these theoretical cases are rally exceptions to traditional moral theology- he can judge!
So just as there are subjectively judgeable exceptions to moral theology for Fr.Curran, througout 1949 the  magisterium assumed there were subjectively known exceptions in salvation theology.They did not lift the excommunication of Fr. Leonard  Feeney right through Vatican Council II.It was assumed there was a new doctrine in the Church.Subjectively there were known exceptions discovered  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No pope said that this was a lot of nonsense.These invisible cases were judged to be visible and the cardinals accepted this.So the error was mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
REVELATION AND GOSPEL CHANGED
So phase one was complete.Salvation theology was changed. Phase two would be complete in 2016 when moral theology would also be officially changed.Revelation and the Gospel was also changed.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc.Yet it is mentioned in Vatican Council II.This was a mistake.Why is the baptism of desire (LG 14) mentioned in Vatican Council II with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation?  All need to formally enter the Church with faith and baptism and there cannot be any known exception.We cannot meet someone in 2017 saved without the baptism of water but instead with the baptism of desire. We cannot see or know of any one in Heaven saved without the baptism of water but instead with being in invincible ignorance.We cannot say that any particular saint was saved as such. Since there is no way of knowing.
But the Masonic subjectivism says there can be and there are known exceptions.So Ad Gentes 7 mentions those saved in invincible ignorance and  supposedly without the baptism of water.The 'explicit exception' is placed alongside the orthodox passage which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.So the cardinals inferred at the Council that being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to all needing faith and baptism to avoid Hell.They could judge individual cases, saved as such.
The mistake can be seen in Lumen Gentium 14. LG 14  does not state like Ad Gentes 7, that all need faith and baptism for salvation.It refers only to those who know. Only those who know and who are not in invincible ignorance are on the way to Hell,not every one outside the Church.
NO ECCLESIOCENTRISM OF THE PAST
Once again it was inferred that there were known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own. So the centuries- old teaching on all needing to enter the Church had become 'the ecclesiocentrism of the past'(Redemptoris Missio).
NEW THEOLOGY BASED ON ERROR
A new theology was created with philosophical subjectivism.It mixed up what is subjective as being objective, invisible as being visible, implicit as being explicit.
No one at Vatican Council II said there was a philosphical mistake,not even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The philosophical error of the visible for us baptism of desire cases, was  incorporated into Vatican Council II. It is there in so many passages.It is like a theme.
IN PRINCIPLE ERROR IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
Vatican Council II in principle accepts that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and  being saved in invincible ignorance are not hypothetical.This is an objective error.
Vatican Council II infers in principle that people in Heaven, known only to God are visible on earth and they are exceptions to the old ecclesiogy.This is a factual error.Yet this is how Pope Francis and Pope Benedict interpret Vatican Council II.
So the same subjectivism-error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and it is accepted by the magisterium which approves Amoris Laetitia.
There is also a choice, a rational interpretation of the Council in harmony with Tradition.This interpretation is not chosen by the present magisterium. This again cannot be the choice and action of the Holy Spirit.
Without philosophical subjectivism, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.So the baptism of desire (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) are not explicit exceptions, to all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7). Neither are they exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known, for example in the 16th century.
So my interpretation of Vatican Council II and that of the two popes is different.
VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE AND CUSHINGITE)
We have a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is my personal interpretation and we have a Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which is the official interpretation.Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is based on subjectivism and an irrational reasoning. It is heretical but also magisterial. It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Why does Cardinal Burke not consider the magisterial interpretation of the Council as non binding, irrational, non traditional and heretical ?
Why does he not state that Vatican Council II as interpreted by the two popes cannot be magisterial? It is no different from Amoris Laetitia.It is material heresy.-Lionel Andrades


1.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2980-the-remnant-interview-of-cardinal-raymond-burke

Leftist moral theology blessed in Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller

Cardinal Müller with the Pope (AP)
Yes there is an error in Amoris Laetitia however Vatican Council II also has the same error and so could not be considered magisterial by Cardinal Burke.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God is also known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them. It rejects Veritatis Splendor and Catholic morality as was taught by Pope John Paul and previous popes, based on the Bible.
In the document, the cardinal said, Pope Francis asks priests “to discern the situation of these persons living in an irregular union — that is, not in accordance with the doctrine of the church on marriage — and asks for help for these people to find a path for a new integration into the church according to the condition of the sacraments (and) the Christian message on matrimony.”1

SUBJECTIVISM IN SALVATION AND MORAL THEOLOGY
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston also has rejected traditional salvation theology with subjectivism .This error has been placed in Vatican Council II.The Letter 1949 in principle accepted that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were objectively visible in the present times. Then with this irrational premise it concluded that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II also suggests in principle that hypothetical cases are a rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.

SUBJECTIVISM IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
So not only the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) refer to exceptions to EENS but also ' being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8),known cases of salvation outside the visible body of the Church with the 'subsistit it' new theology(LG 8) etc.
MIX UP BETWEEN INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE CASES
This is bad philosophy. It has mixed up what is invisible as being visible, what is subjective as being defacto known, what is hypothetical as being objectively seen.
This is a factual and objective error in Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma EENS.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc. So why are they mentioned with reference to EENS? I accept them as hypothetical cases.So there is a choice.Vatican Council II chooses the irrational option.
With bad philosophy bad theology was created and accepted by the Council Fathers.The magisteriuam had already not corrected the error in the 1949 Letter.The Archbishop of Boston did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney. He was saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc and so there could not be salvation outside the Church.
Some of the Church Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted this error and inserted it in the text since they believed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in the present times.

NOT WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 
This is all an objective error.It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely not magisterial since it contradicts the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS by the past magisterium.It also does all this with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.This new theology is based on an irrational premise.

NO DUBBIA ON VATICAN COUNCIL II AND SALVATION THEOLOGY
So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ? Yes - if he would consider all this information.
According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external action indicates the subjective state.If a women is dressed immodestly it is a mortal sin.The outer action indicates the inner state of the soul.
If a couple are living together who are not married it is a mortal.There is scandal.
Father Bernard Haring and Fr.Richard Cushing both Redemptorist priests said NO.So does Amoris Laetitia.
In his letter on the family, Pope Francis affirmed Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, but he also urged pastors to provide spiritual guidance and assistance with discernment to Catholics who have married civilly without an annulment of their church marriage. A process of discernment, he has said, might eventually lead to a determination that access to the sacraments is possible.
The possibility reflects a change in church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the sinfulness of sexual relations outside a valid marriage, in the view of the document written by Cardinals Burke; Walter Brandmuller, a German and former president of the Pontifical Commission for Historical Sciences; Carlo Caffarra, retired archbishop of Bologna, Italy; and Joachim Meisner, retired archbishop of Cologne, Germany.

They presented many exceptions, theoretical possibilities which they considered exceptions to the tradtional moral understanding of the Catholic Church. For them the exception proved the rule wrong.So in Germany the Eucharist is being given to couples who had married and had divorced.

These liberals  also speculated that within each person there is a Fundamental Option for good and even though the external action was a mortal sin, interiorly the soul was not in sin or to blame.They called this the Fundamental Option Theory.It is specifically mentioned in Veritatis Splendor and is criticised.

So when Pope Francis supports the Fundamental Option Theory in Amoris Laetitia he is striking at the doctrine.There is a new doctrine which has a new application.The traditional doctrine has been changed by assuming we can judge individual exceptions.Pope Benedict approved this to be taught in moral and salvation theology at pontifical universities.

Even after Veritatis Splendor was issued the liberals and Masons continued to teach the Fundamental Option Theory at the Pontifical universities . The books of Fr. Charles Curran , I noticed, were available in the reference section of the University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.This is leftist moral theology blessed in Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller

-Lionel Andrades


1
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/09/cardinal-muller-no-need-to-correct-pope-francis-on-divorce/


___________________________________________________







May 17, 2016

Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laeitia is based upon this irrationality and innovation in Catholic morals : Fr.Thomas Rosica, says we may not judge individuals

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/pope-francis-exhortation-amoris-laeitia.html


May 14, 2016
May 13, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/cardinal-gerhard-muller-assumes-there.html
May 12, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/frfrancois-laisney-and-sspx-website.html

May 12, 2016
Chris Ferrara note how Amoris Laetitia has references from Vatican Council II in which subjectiveness is confused as being objective, what is implicit is considered explicit.An irrational premise is used to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/similarly-ferrara-must-note-that-amoris.html
May 11, 2016

Amoris Laetitia was written to create the impression of "exceptions" to absolute moral precepts - Christopher Ferrara http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-was-written-to-create.html


How can Amoris Laetitia (AL) use references from Vatican Council II which is largely based on an objective error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/how-can-amoris-laetitia-al-use.html

Related image
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


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

The Vatican is presenting a corrupt moral theology based on the Charles Curran and Richard Cushing errors.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/the-vatican-is-presenting-corrupt-moral.html


The Holy See's Press Office is promoting Fr.Charles Curran's moral theology.It is also making the same error as Cardinal Richard Cushing on the issue of salvation.
There are two views in moral theology.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/there-are-two-views-in-moral-theology.html#links

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

May 3, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-al-has-error-of.html

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





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

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

author image
April 29, 2016
Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II like Fr.Hans Kung: contradicting the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-burke-interprets-vatican.html

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-kasper-will-say-doctrine-has.html




We cannot a create a new moral or salvation theology based on an irrationality.Pope Benedict has done this.


July 12, 2016

Anonymous Catholics object to Amoris Laeitia : Pope not in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/anonymous-catholics-object-to-amoris.html