From the blogpost 1Peter5 : Video: Pope Francis’ Comments on Divorced & Remarried
Note.He is referring to Cardinal Schonborn as a theologian.
So theology is important for him.This issue is theological.
When will you all see that it was through theology, based on an an irrationality,based on false reasoning, that they did away with traditional Catholic moral doctrine?
So many people are saying that the discipline of the Church has changed but are not explaining themself theologically.How was it changed?
Cardinal Kaspar knows doctrine on morals and salvation has been changed and it has been done theologically but he is not going to explain it for you.Neither is Pope Benedict going to explain it. He did not explain it to Archbishop Lefebvre and instead approved the excommunication.
Theologically there are two ways in which you can interpret Vatican Council II. One is with LG 16 etc being explicit and objective and the other is with LG 16 being hypothetical and known only to God.Cardinals Kaspar and Schonborn like Cardinal Ratzinger ( Prefect,CDF) chose LG 16 as being visible. So did Archbishop Lefebvre. The CDF did not tell him that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc could be interpreted as being invisible for us. So there was nothing in Vatican Council II ( LG 16 invisible) which contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there would be no change in the Church's old ecclesiology on other religions and exclusive salvation in the Church.
With LG 16 being visible there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there is salvation outside the Church and so not all non Catholics it is assumed need to convert into the Church.
Similarly in moral theology, with mortal sin. When there are conditions for mortal sin and there are exceptions to knowing or judging mortal sin, it is implied that there are known exceptions to the tradtional doctrine on mortal sin.An exception would have to be known to be an exception.It means not only God can judge who is living in mortal sin and will NOT go to Hell but also of us human beings.
Upon this error the new moral theology was being taught at Catholic universities and seminaries.
This is the new moral theology used in Amoris Leatitia.
In the new moral theology, the view is, it cannot always be said that a couple is living in mortal sin even though it seems manifest.Since that couple could be one of the many 'exceptions' and we humans can judge the exceptions.We know who will not go to Hell.
This is the theology of Cardinal Schonborn.
We now need to approach the problem knowing the basis ( irrationality) of the new theology in morals and salvation of the Vatican Curia, supported by the Left.
Once we identify the problem ( irrational premise and inference) we need to avoid it and re-interpret magisterial documents, without assuming there are known exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and morals.
I have watched the video clip in Italian.
Nothing has changed for me. They have changed doctrine and praxis through theology. They used an irrational premise and inference to change salvation theology and then used the same 'trick' with morals.
We need to start discussing this issue theologically and not just criticise Amoris Laetitia because it seems to change discipline without changing doctrine.When writers make such comments, they should be asked to explain themself theologically.
For Pope Francis and Cardinal Schonborn the change was not made 'out of the blue'.They used theology to do it.Theology based on a philosophical error.Cardinal Burke, Fr.Z and Joseph Shaw (LMS Chairman) use the same theology based on the irrationality. So there is nothing new or heretical about Amoris Laetitia for them.