Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Moral and faith teachings have been changed by the contemporary magisterium by assuming we can judge what only God can judge

And he continues: “To admit exceptions in individual cases is an impasse. I made this clear in my interpretation guide. What is impossible for reasons of Faith, is impossible also in the individual case. This was valid before the publication of Amoris Laetitia, just as it is valid thereafter.”- Cardinal Walter Brandmüller

author image

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 Laetitia

Related image
Without reference to the “complexity of the different situations,” says Gaudron, the pope proposes to avoid judgments. One has now to regard the general norms in the face of “all the different particular situations.” However, says Gaudron, this might sometimes be applicable to human norms, but not to divine laws. No one, Gaudron reminds us, can dissolve a validly contracted and consummated sacramental marriage – “not even the pope.” And he continues: “These laws do not know or allow any exception and they are valid independent of the circumstances.” It has always been taught, according to the SSPX priest, that “the moral range of an action contains therefore something objective and does not finally depend only [or at all]upon the circumstances or the intention of the subject.” Whatever the circumstances or the intentions, to kill an innocent person deliberately “is always an evil deed,” says Father Gaudron.  Applied to a situation of adultery, the priest says: “One might well have a certain understanding for a woman who is engaged in a new relationship because of the infidelity or the hardness of heart of her husband, and one could admit that, in such a case, the fault is less grave, but nevertheless adultery remains an evil act in itself.”-Fr.Matthias Gaudron,SSPX: Amoris Laetitia a “Victory of Subjectivism”

The issue is the new theology, it is based on hypothetical exceptions being objective. It is based on being able to judge what cannot be humanly judged.This new theology is part of moral and salvation theology. It has created a new doctrine on morals and faith.It says we can judge exceptions to mortal sin when we know this is only possible for God.
It is with the new theology that Amoris Laeitita (AL) in N.301 says there are exceptions to saying mortal sin is always mortal sin.It says we can judge in individual cases.
The new theology says hypothetical cases are objective and so there is salvation outside the Church. EENS is written off.It judges non- existing- in- our- reality hypothetical cases as being objective,
It then says since subjective cases are objective, we can know exceptions to the traditional understanding of mortal sin.We can judge.
So in both cases, faith and morals in the Catholic Church, it is supposed that hypothetical, theoretical, subjective cases are explicit and personally known.A judgement has been made.
So Protestant Ethics is brought into the Catholic Church by assuming an extraordinary, complicated and theoretical case in moral theology is an exception to clearly saying what is a mortal sin. It is as if we can personally know such a complicated case in real life.It is as if we can identify and judge such a case.
So for example Cardinal Kasper will say that there is no change in doctrine and mean ideally, in principle there is no change in the Church's teachings on faith and morals.However when he applies the new theology to faith and morals he changes both.
For example Pope Benedict, who uses the new theology, may say that Vatican Council II is not a break with the past and it can be interpreted with the hermeneutic of continuity.But then he will interpret LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) as referring to not a subjective and invisible case for us, but as an objective case in 2016 and so it is a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition. He has judged. So with LG 16, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture.Since it was wrongly judged to be explicit, objective, seen in the flesh.
For me since LG 16 is invisible and not objective, there is no rupture with the dogma EENS and Tradition. So Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past.
The difference between Pope Benedict and me is that he is using the new theology which assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible. I am avoiding it.He is trying to identify, to judge, exceptions to EENS in the present times. I am not.
Similarly for Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw Vatican Council II is a break with the past and so unlike Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper, who also assume theoretical cases are objectively visible, they reject Vatican Council II and criticise it.They have judged invisible factors as being visible.
So now Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw say with the new moral theology that there is nothing new in AL.Since for them hypothetical cases, subjective factors, emotions and conditions are in one sense objective and so they are exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin (n.301, AL).This is how they judge. In another sense they are saying in agreement with the new moral theology being taught at pontifical universities, that we can never judge or understand the subjectivity of a person,and so we cannot judge mortal sin in all cases.Yet their faith and moral doctrines are based on an irrational judgement.
AL says that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin.It will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace and it will be judged that there could be some cases who subjectvely will be exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin, since this is something that we humans can judge i.e hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin.
So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which rejects traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.
So Cardinal Kasper will say doctrine has not been  changed in principle in theory but he knows very well that with the new theology, doctrine has been changed de jure and de facto, in principle and in fact.-
Lionel Andrades

No comments: