How can Amoris Laetitia (AL) use references from Vatican Council II which is largely based on an objective error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,subjectiveness is confused as being objective, what is implicit is considered explicit, invisible cases are interpreted as being objective.An irrational premise is used to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.
How can seminarians and priests be encouraged to accept the philosophy of Vatican Council II based on a false premise i.e unknown cases of the baptism of desire and blood are (1) personally known and (2) they exclude the baptism of water.This irrational theme runs throughout Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc).
The philosophy of subjectivism, to which Fr. Matthias Gaudron, SSPX (Germany)1 referred to with reference to AL is also there is Vatican Council II.It is assumed that the baptism of desire, for example, is subjectively known and so contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS(AG 7, LG 14), so all do not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
So the Catechism (1992) is telling us that EENS is an 'aphorism' ( and not a dogma defined three times) and there are relevant exceptions. This is irrational philosophy. How can we judge a baptism of desire case? How can we read any one's conscience? We cannot!
But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting.The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward. But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.-E. Christian Brugger, Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris LaetitiaThe mistake which was there in the Letter (1949) is also there in Vatican Council II and the Catechism (1992).
So how can AL reference Vatican Council II which has an objective mistake?
We do not know any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) . So why should we accept this premise? If we assume UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case then we are not using the premise and then UR 3 will not be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. However, since they they have included UR 3 in Vatican Council II it indicates they made a mistake. It was an objective error. They assumed there is known salvation outside the Church even though no one could have known of any one saved outside the Church. Then they asssumed that these explicit cases, which really are implicit for us, were exceptions to the traditional dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Implicitly UR 3 is saying there is known salvation outside the Church otherwise it should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.Smilarly we cannot know any case of someone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8). Vatican Council II implies there are known cases as such.Objectively we know this is not possible.So why was 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8), 'invincible ignorance' (LG 16), 'a ray of that Truth'(NA 2) mentioned in Vatican Council II?
AL references Vatican Council II and the Catechism, which has mistakes.AL itself has made a mistake in N.301 when suggests that we can know subjective cases or factors which would indicate that a person living in manifest mortal sin is not in mortal sin.It suggests that there are subjective cases which can be judged as objectively contradicting , the traditional teaching on mortal sin.
So in morals and faith ( salvation) the new theology is saying that there are known exceptions; known subjective conditions, which contradict the traditional teaching on mortal sin and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades
Father Mathias Guadron, SSPX has got it right : there are no known exceptions to the traditional moral teachings.The new moral theology is based on an irrationality
Fr.Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw does not see how judgement of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II