Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.

His Eminence has chosen to focus on the nature of an exhortation-- according to Cardinal Burke, quoting the pope, it is "not an act of the magisterium"; it is a "personal" document.  Hence, nothing in it changes doctrine, and no pastoral practice that would change or defy doctrine can be divined from it.

http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.it/2016/04/a-brief-word-on-cardinal-burkes-response.html

On  other blog postS over the years I have mentioned that Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.John Hardon were also interpreting hypothetical cases as being exceptions to the traditional teachings on salvation and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So  he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.

Cardinal Burke does not note that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church doctrine had been changed on faith ( salvation) and morals( mortal sin) with alleged known exceptions? The new theology which he affirms is based on this irrationality. 

So Amoris Laetitia for me does not contradict the 16th century, understanding of mortal sin since for me there are no hypothetical exceptions to the old moral teaching on sin.However for the cardinals hypothetical cases are exceptions to the old moral law. So Amoris Laetitia has to be a confusing and heretical document, I mentioned in a previous blog post.

So as a Catholic I affirm the traditional moral and salvation theology of the Church in accord with the Council of Trent and without rejecting Vatican Council II and the other Catechisms, since I do not confuse what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being objective.

If there is a hypothetical case and the pope considers it a concrete case of knowing someone who is living in concubinage and will not be going to Heaven, this is his perspective.This is something only God can judge. I know that he cannot say that any person, due to a circumstance, or a situation, will not go to Hell and is not living in mortal sin.He cannot know.Presently this is his irrational reasoning. So for him a hypothetical case is objectively known and so is an exception to the traditional moral law.

The two popes confuse what is subjective as being objective.Then they infer that these so called objective cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.This factual error is the basis of the new liberal moral and faith theology, the new theology, the new ecclesiology.

We have to be aware of this error when reading Vatican Council II and the catechisms which followed the Council of Trent.It is based on this error, this 'development' in the Catechism(1992) that so many wrong inferences were made in Amoris Laetitiae to support adultery and condone mortal sin and sacrilege.1

In another blog post I mentioned I need a personal copy of the Cathechism of the Council of Trent.Since in the catechisms which followed Trent there is a factual error. They have mixed up what is hypothetical as being explicit.The same mistake is there in Vatican Council II.There are entire passages based on this mistake.There are so many superflous references which should not have been there.They are meaningless.The Catechism(1992) says God is not limited to the Sacraments.Then there are the three hypothetical conditions of mortal sin.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned, as if they are known in the flesh cases in the present times.This is all deadwood.They have nothing to do with the passages they are associated with.The same confusion, mixing up what is invisible as being visible is there in the text of Vatican Council II.

Why did cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn have to refer to God not being limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) ? Why was the case of the catechumen saved with the baptism of desire placed in  Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism' for salvation? Who is this catechumen? Do we know the name and surname of any one saved without the baptism of water since 1992-2016?

Similarly why did the Baltimore Catechism have to place, in the Baptism Section,  the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it ?  Who in Baltimore knew of someone saved without the baptism of water but with this new baptism ? Is the baptism of desire really like the baptism of water? Can we repeat the baptism of desire and give it to someone?

Vatican Council II is full of this mistake. I repeat ,there are entire passages based on this mistake.'Seeds of the Word'(AG 11) , 'imperfect communion with the Church', 'elements of sanctification and truth' found outside the Church, ' a ray of that Truth' which saves, saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience(LG 16) etc. 2

On  other blog posts over the years I have mentioned that Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr.John Hardon were also interpreting hypothetical cases as being exceptions to the traditional teachings on salvation and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since Cardinal Raymond Burke accepts the liberal moral theology, which affirms known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.So  he will not have noticed this error in Amoris Laetitia.

Cardinal Burke does not note that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church doctrine had been changed on faith ( salvation) and morals( mortal sin) with alleged known exceptions. The new theology which he affirms is based on this irrationality. It is heretical.

-Lionel Andrades

1

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

2.
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

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/

__________________________

MARCH 31, 2015

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-article.html

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html

What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/what-was-fr-hardons-error-that-cardinal.html

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html

Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html

March for Life 2015 : double standards
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/march-for-life-2015-double-standards.html