They objected to subjectivism in Amoris Laetitia and moral theology but ignore their own subjectivism in the interpretation of salvation theology.
When Pope Francis reportedly responded to their dubia and cited Vatican Council II he was interpreting Vatican Council II with the same subjectivism.
The four cardinals assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.Pope Francis does the same when he interprets Vatican Council II.
The four cardinals have in principle accepted that hypothetical cases can be non hypothetical but explicit and this is how they see Vatican Council II. This is non traditional and irrational. If they can accept this then why cannot Pope Francis break with tradition in his interpretation of Vatican Council II, moral theology and salvation theology?
Before the first Synod Cardinal Kasper said clearly that if ecclesiology can be changed in the Church then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorced and remarried.He is correct in the sense that ecclesiology has been changed with Vatican Council II.It was done in a stupid, crude way and they got away with it. They just assumed what was invisible was objective and no one in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith corrected the error. Even the traditionalists repeated the same nonsense. Traditional theology was replaced with fantasy theology.
Ecclesiology was changed when hypothetical and invisible cases were considered visible and personally known.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were postulated to be known in personal cases, visible and all without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So they then inferred that these cases were known exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II being visible and known was a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition. So there was now known salvation outside the Church. This was a new doctrine. The old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite EENS was buried.
So Pope Francis is referring to this new ecclesiology in Vatican Council II which comes from mixing up subjectivity with objectivity, invisiblity with being visible.And no one complains. No one says that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with invisible cases just being invisible and so then there is no clash with the old ecclesiology.
And if there is no clash with the old ecclesiology then on the feast of Christ the King we can once again affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation. This is a priority since outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation, there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and so all need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.This must be expressed in political and social legisalation for the common good.
But the four cardinals did not say this.
They have restricted themselves to only moral theology.
Pope Francis responded with the traditional error and deception on Vatican Council II and no one pointed out the objective error in Vatican Council II.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has said that Amoris Laetitia cannot be magisterial since there is confusion and ambiguity. What about Vatican Council II? Why does the Council mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the need for 'faith and baptism' for all for salvation.(AG 7, LG 14).The baptism of desire etc are invisible cases and have no relevance to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.They do not exist in our reality. They are 'zero cases' in the words of the apologist John Martignoni. They are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla says Fr. S.Visintin osb, Dean of Theology, Pontifical University of San Anselm, Rome.
But 'zero cases' are not 'zero cases' for the four cardinals.This is the new theology which has been accepted in principle. It is based on the irrational premise ( visible cases of the baptism of desire) and inference( visible baptism of desire is an explicit exception to Feeneyite EENS).Why do the four cardinal follow this new theology, the Rahnerian theology?
If they avoid this new theology and correct the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is there in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 then Pope Francis cannot cite Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and Cardinal Walter Kasper cannot cite Vatican Council II as the cause of a change in ecclesiology.
There is no change in ecclesiology without the irrational inference from the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in Boston.It was in 1949 Boston that the Church took a new theological route. It was irrational,non traditional and heretical.
It still is magisterial and accepted by all the cardinals.-Lionel Andrades