Yet there is no question that AL was written ambiguously, but with relentless consistency, precisely to create the impression of “exceptions” to absolute moral precepts which the document tendentiously describes throughout its text as merely “general rules (2, 300, 304)”, a “general principle,” “rules (3, 35, 288)”, “a set of rules” (49, 201, 305)”, “a rule (300, 301, 304)”, “the rule (301 & note 348)”, “a general rule (301)” and “a general law or rule (301).”- Christopher Ferrara.
Similarly Ferrara must note that
Amoris Laetitia (AL) uses references from Vatican Council II in which 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.
IRRATIONAL THEME IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
So much of Vatican Council II is 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) referred to with reference to AL is also there is Vatican Council II I mentioned in a previous blog post.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.
The mistake which was there in the Letter (1949) is also there in Vatican Council II and the Catechism (1992).So why does Chris Ferrara not complain when AL references Vatican Council II which has an objective mistake?
We do not know any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) .Period. 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 it 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.Christopher Ferrara has noticed this.
N.301 suggests that there are subjective cases which can be judged as objectively contradicting , the traditional teaching on mortal sin.There are exceptions to the general rule.
So in morals and faith ( salvation) the new theology is saying that there are known exceptions to the general rule; known subjective conditions, which contradict the traditional teaching on mortal sin and exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Chris Ferrara has noted this error in AL now he needs to observe the same error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).
OBJECTIVE MISTAKE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
There is a factual mistake in Vatican Council II. It's an objective mistake in LG 14.
They made the original objective error in the Letter (1949) based on an irrational premise.Then they inserted the line in LG 14 which says only those who 'know' need to enter the Church.
In Boston and Rome in 1949 they reasoned that there is salvation outside the Church. This was the premise. For there to be salvation outside the Church it would have meant someone in the past or present, should have seen someone saved without the baptism of water in the Church.They went ahead and assumed there was someone.Even though this was physically impossible.The popes accepted it.
After assuming there were physically visible cases of salvation outside the Church,they postulated that not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church.Then they went ahead and said that only those who are not in invincible ignorance of the Gospel ; only those who know about Jesus and the Church would be damned if they did not enter the Church. Not every one but only those who know.So with the irrational premise they did aware with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , according to Fr.Leonard Feeney, which says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
They placed this new doctrine based on the non- real reasoning, in Vatican Council II. The principle was hypothetical cases are explicit for us human beings and there are hypothetical-explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. They came to this conclusion by using the false premise, of knowing salvation outside the Church, or seeing people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.-Lionel Andrades