In the past when a Catholic married a non Catholic it was considered a mortal sin. They were living in adultery.Then liberals/Masons, with the 'known exceptions theory' changed the traditional teachings on salvation and mortal sin.
Since there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and since Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong according to the magisterium for saying he did not know of any exceptions to the dogma in Boston, there was a new doctrine in the Church.It was not every one needs to convert into the Church.Or, every one needs to convert into the Church except for...
There were exceptions.This was the case of those persons saved in invncible ignorance or the baptism of desire all without the baptism of water.It was as if these cases were known personally in real life.If these cases were not known personally, of course they would not be an exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church with no exceptions.
So inter faith marriages were no more a mortal sin. Since the couple could be a 'known exception' to the traditional salvation and moral teachings.The teachings on salvation was changed ( non Catholics could be saved since there was salvation outside the Church and so they did not have to convert) and since they could be saved in their religion they were not in mortal sin.
Then with the approval of the contemporary magisterium they began freely issuing dispensations.The dispensation meant that the Church recognised the inter faith marriage as being like one a sacrament .The Catholic in the marriage could receive the Eucharist. He or she would not be in adultery.
This was the Church long before Amoris Laetitia ,calling mortal sin not a mortal sin. It was saying through the dispensation that a mortal sin is not always a mortal sin.
So Amoris Laetitia says ' Hence it is 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.'(301)
Louie Verrecchio has been critical of this point in Amoris Laeitia.
But Louie has received a dispensation to marry a non Jew. He received it at a Novus Ordo Church.For him the dispensation allows him to live with his wife and have children and also receive the Eucharist.
So with the dispensation,from a liberal parish,at a Novus Ordo Mass he can believe that he is not living in mortal sin.
But according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is wife is outside the Church and is on the way to Hell. She has not converted and they have children.According to the traditional moral teaching, with no known exceptions of 'situation ethics', 'subjectivism' or 'known exceptions to the dogma, Louie is living in adultery.
The U.S bishops will deny this. They also reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which has been defined by three Church Councils and is a de fide teaching.Since they heretically reject the dogma they churn out dispensations for those who want them.This was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Recently Pope Benedict confirmed on Avvenire that the doctrine on salvation had developed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like in the 16th century.
The contemporary magisterium was rejecting the teachings of the past on faith.This is the magisterium,' as opposed to what the Church has always said'.
Louie Verrecchio too accepts the magisterium and the dispensation given to him as opposed to what the Church has always taught.
He is rejecting what the Church has always said about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, adultery in marriage and sacrilegiously receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin. Instead he prefers the dispensation, of the popes and the magisterium , the Novus Ordo magisterium which he otherwise criticizes.
Now that we have that cleared up, Fr. Murray continued:
I don’t judge, but what I will say is when you do something in public that contradicts what your predecessor did, there has to be an accounting for it and a responsibility to upholding the gospel and I think that’s what many bishops, cardinals and priests will call for.
First, not only did Francis contradict what a predecessor did (presumably in this case he is referring to Pope John Paul the Great Ecumenist and Familiaris Consortio); he contradicted nearly two thousand years of Catholic teaching and practice. In truth, Francis could contradict John Paul II in a hundred different ways and his reward would be great in Heaven for doing so!
Now, I don’t want to read too much into this, but one discerns in Fr. Murray’s comment one of the fundamental errors of the neo-cons. You see, for them, “Magisterium” is frequently misunderstood as whatever the pope happens to say, or what the Council said, as opposed to being what the Church has always said.
In other words, while they sometimes do well to recognize certain problems (like Amoris Laetitia), they all-too-often view matters through the wrong lens.
In any case, I find it curious that Fr. Murray is looking forward to seeing Francis held to account by “bishops, cardinals, and priests.”
I mean, he’s a priest, isn’t he?.- Louie Verrechio