Are we really in the same Church whose teachings do not change?
For Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw doctrinally and theologically Amoris Laetitia is nothing new.There is no change in moral theology for them. They have no problem also with the new salvation theology.
Note: When a new theology is created it is based on rational constructs.It is based on a common reality, the generally accepted laws of nature.
I cannot imagine there are people on the moon ( whom I have never seen) and then create a new theology for the men on the moon and the earth.This would be absurd.
I cannot imagine or postulate that man has evolved from the monkey and is further evolving, this would be wrong. Since there is no proof for this.It could be that the monkey has devolved from man, in a deviant strain, and the 'evolutionists' are not aware of it.Any way there is no scientific proof to create a new theology assuming man has evolved from the ape.
Similarly I cannot imagine that we humans can see people in Heaven and talk to them.Then I cannot use this premise to create a new theology.This would not be acceptable.Since in our reality we cannot see people in Heaven and we cannot talk to them in 2016.
So if a theology is created whose initial reasoning is being able to see people in Heaven in general, it would be un -real and non traditional.
Similarly I cannot postulate that all men can physically fly like birds,and then with this premise create a theology.This would be absurd.It is irrational to assume that men and women on earth can fly like birds.
It is irrational to assume that we humans in general can see people in Heaven physically.
Yet literally this is what happened in the Church.
A theology was created upon an irrationality.It is supported by Cardinal Burke and taught by Joseph Shaw.It is the theology of Pope Benedict.It is the theology of Cardinal Schonborn, who was praised by Pope Francis as being a great theologian.This is cardinals Koch and Kasper's common theology.
It is based on being able to physically see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the traditional salvation and moral theology of the Church.
Since I cannot physically see people I do not use this premise to mis- interpret traditional moral and salvation theology in the Church.
So even though the Church's teachings ideally, in theory, in principle, do not change, they are changed when this new theology, based upon an irrationality, is applied to them.
So moral and salvation theology is different for Cardinal Burke and me.
Joseph Shaw and I do not interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed....in the same way.
There are no known exceptions for me to the general understanding of mortal sin.I do not know of any de facto exception. If there would be an exception it would only be known to God.
Pope Francis cannot say that a particular couple who is living in manifest mortal sin according to traditional moral theology, would be an exception and would not go to Hell if they died immediately.He couldn't know. He cannot physically see or know exceptions in Heaven.
Yet his moral theology is based upon being able to see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the general rule on mortal sin.It is the same with Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw.
Their salvation theology is also based upon being able to see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the general teaching on exclusive salvation i.e the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So for them there are known exceptions to EENS while for me there are no known exceptions to EENS.
For them Vatican Council II is a break with EENs according to the 16 century missionaries.This is not so for me.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider also uses this same theology based on an irrationality.However he rejects Amoris Laetitia based on the teachings of Trent, Veritatis Splendor and tradtional moral theology.
Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw are not rejecting AL since for them the new theology, moral and salvation, is the normal theology and it has been in use for a long time.AL is explained away with the new moral theology. So theologically there is nothing new for them and Amoria Laeitia has not directly,contradicted traditional moral theology.However implicitly it is understood that we humans can see and talk to people in Heaven in 2016.So there are known of exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation and mortal sin.So implicitly a new doctrine has been created in faith (salvation) and morals( mortal sin).
Meanwhile no one is telling Cardinal Burke that he has changed moral theology by using an irrational premise to create an irrational, non traditional and heretical inference.So in this way doctrine has been changed in the Church.AL's 301 is based on the new heretical moral theology.
-Lionel Andrades
Cardinal Raymond Burke and Prof. Joseph Shaw assume hypothetical factors or theories are explicit exceptions to the traditional de fide teaching on faith and morals.
This is all accepted by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw. They offer/ attend the Traditional Latin Mass with this official heresy
_____________________________________________________________
Exclusivist ecclesiology?
The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.
Who agrees with you?
The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.
Who agrees with you?
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/contemporary-magisterium-is-in.html
http://reader.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/05/bishop-dewane-families-have-right-to.html
http://reader.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/05/bishop-dewane-families-have-right-to.html
ioceseofvenice.org/our-bishop/bishop-frank-j-dewane/
____________________________
____________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment