Monday, May 2, 2016

Amoris Laetitia (AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II.


Copies of Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia ("The Joy of Love") (Photo: CNS)
Amoris Laetitia(AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II.

KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO MORTAL SIN
AL assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin. It takes it for granted that we humans can know when a Catholic in manifest mortal sin will not go to Hell.It assumes we can judge case by case, when something subjective and known only to God is an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE
Similarly the Baltimore Catechism assumes that the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it, was a baptism.It was like the baptism of water, with the results of the baptism of water.It assumed that a hypothetical case was a known case. But how can it be known to us humans ? Since it was assumed to be personally known and allegedly excluded the baptism of water, it was considered relevant to all needing the baptism of water.It was placed in the Baptism ( of water) Section of the Baltimore Catechism.No one in Baltimore could have seen such a case. Yet it was made a baptism like the baptism of water.
The mistake was then repeated in the Catechism of Pius X.

THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 would assume there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It would suppose that the baptism of desire would not be a hypothetical case, but a known case.

LG 14 EXPLICIT CASES OF PERSONS SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
This mistake would be repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14) . Since being saved in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water was assumed to be explicit and personally known, to be exceptions to the dogma EENS and to be relevant to all needing the baptism of water, LG 14 says not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know i.e those who are not in invincible ignorance and saved without the baptism of water.

CATECHISM MENTIONS IRRELEVANT BAPTISM OF DESIRE
The Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992)  repeats the error in 846 and 1257. It also assumes hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
Image result for pRESS CONFERENCE FOR aMORIS lAETITIA
OBJECTIVE ERROR:INVISIBLE CASES ARE VISIBLE
So we have an objective error in Amoris Laetitia.We cannot physically see or know an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.
We have an objective error in the Baltimore, Pius X and  the 1992 Catechism since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire was not relevant to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.It should not have been mentioned.
We have the same objective error in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7). There are no exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism' for salvation. Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not visible and known in our reality. So they are not relevant to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.They should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

Related image

We need to go back to the Council of Trent and its Catechism : factual, objective errors in other Catechisms and Vatican Council II


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/we-need-to-go-back-to-council-of-trent.html

No comments: