Amoris Laetitia is based on the new doctrine in moral theology i.e known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

Important analysis of #AmorisLaetitia : Who won the battle? (Seminarians – ALERT!)

What I have been trying to get across is that 1) Amoris did not change Catholic doctrine or law...Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (14th April 2016)

 

Lionel:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has changed doctrine for most Catholics.Have a look at this.

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."

 

 'which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent'.This can refer to a hypothetical OR a defacto case. Either way the meaning will change.

 

1. If it  is hypothetical and known only to God then 'full knowledge and deliberate consent' refer to possibilities known only to God. They are invisible for us. So these cases are not relevant to mortal sin. They cannot be used to identify or deny mortal sin. This should have been clarified in the Catechism but it was not.

 

2. If it is an objective case, defacto, known for example in 2016 then this is an explicit negation of the traditional understanding of mortal sin. There are exceptions.This is the interpretation used by the liberals and it is there in Amoris Laetitia.

Traditional doctrine has been changed on mortal sin by assuming '  full knowledge and deliberate consent' refer to known cases, seen in the flesh.

This is irrational. Since how can we humans judge some one living in manifest mortal sin as having or not having full knowledge and acting with deliberate consent?

_______________________________________

 

Here is another example of a change in doctrine on faith, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church edited by Cardinal Ratzinger and the liberal Cardinal Schonborn.
 

THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 

'all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.'

Note here, Cardinal Ratzinger does not affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known in the 16th century.Why ? Since he had a choice. He could have assumed that being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance referred to invisible or visible cases, hypothetical or objectively known cases.

Cardinal Ratzinger made the choice.He chose the irrational option. 

 

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the  dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 'those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church'

Those who do not know Christ and his Church and who are saved are known only to God. So why does he mention it here?

He mentions it here since he considers these cases as being explicit for us humans. So for him and Cardinal Schonborn this is a reference to an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Every one does not need the baptism of water for salvation for the cardinals. There are exceptions.

Are there really explicit  exceptions for us?

No.

However in this way he has changed the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He bluntly confirmed it last month in the interview published in the daily Avvenire.

_______________________

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

 

'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel...'

Whom do the two cardinals know who have been saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water?

No one.

Yet they assume there is salvation outside the Church.

Then then infer that this non existing case, is de facto known and is a defacto exception to the dogma EENS.

So they have changed Church doctrine on the Faith ( salvation) with allegedly known exceptions.

_____________________________

Now when Catholics say that Amoris Laetitie has not changed doctrine they are not aware that the old theology, the old ecclesiology said mortal sin is objective and there are no exceptions (known or unknown) while the new moral theology indicates that there are known exceptions in the present times.
I repeat the old ecclesiology taught that  mortal sin is objective and there are no exceptions  while the new moral theology assumes there are known exceptions in the present times.
 So we have:-

Hence it is (sic) can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace." - Amoris Laetitie  (#301).

 

This is the new moral theology with the 'known- exceptions  theory' added to it.

 

What if we avoid it?
Can we avoid it?
Yes. Simply assume there are no known exceptions.This is rational. It is common sense. Hypothetical cases cannot be known exceptions to the old moral and faith theology.Invisible people cannot be exceptions.

Then there is no change in the moral and salvation theology. We are back to the old ecclesiology.We return to the old theology without doing any thing new,without adding any thing new.

 

What about Vatican Council II ?

It means Lumen Gentium  16, Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium  14 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases.So Vatican Council II ( without known exceptions) does not contradict the dogma EENS ( without known exceptions.The baptism of desire is  invisible and hypothetical).

So Vatican Council II supports the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.

 

What about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Since there are no known exceptions CCC 1257 affirms the traditional teaching on the baptism of water ( all need it and we do not know of any exception) and CCC 846 says outside the Church there is no salvation, as the dogma was interpreted over the years. All who are saved, are saved only by being formal members of the Church.There are no known exceptions outside the Church.

So in faith and morals we can now undo the change in doctrine made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

Amoris Laetitia is based on the new doctrine in moral theology i.e known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

So Fr.John Zuhlsdorf made a mistake. He did not understand the mechanics of change over the years, the official magisterial heresy.Doctrine has been changed!

-Lionel Andrades

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

Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians are taught the new moral and salvation theology based on known exceptions, visible in Heaven

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/franciscans-of-immaculate-seminarians.html

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

"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

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/04/important-analysis-of-amorislaetitia-who-won-the-battle-seminarians-alert/