Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Amoris Laetitia is based on personally knowing exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.This is objectively false.

Amoris Laetitia (301)  is based on personally knowing exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.This is objectively false.


Who can see someone in Heaven saved with mortal sin on their soul?

Who knows of someone in April 2016 who is living in manifest mortal sin but will go to Heaven since they do not have 'full knowledge' or 'deliberate consent'  1

Can any one objectively say that they will know how Jesus will judge a person now living in concubinage? Will Jesus consider some subjective factor or some social factor as making a mortal sin not a mortal sin ?

None of us can say that they personally know someone living in mortal sin  who has sanctifying grace and will go to Heaven if he dies immediately.

Amoris Laeitita has the same objective error of the new moral theology.

In the  new moral theology, which is part of Amoris Laetitia it is assumed  that we humans can judge when a Catholic living in adultery ( concubinage) will not go to Hell, if they die immediately.So there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.


Similarly for Cardinal Schonborn the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known exceptions to the 16th century missionaries interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY
In the new moral theology it is assumed that there are known exceptions, to Catholics living in mortal sin,there is a hermeneutic of rupture with the traditional teaching on mortal sin which did not mention any personally known exceptions.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
Since there are known exceptions to traditional mortal sin there is a development of doctrine on mortal sin.Theoretically mortal sin is accepted  but in practise it is believed we cannot always judge  any case, because of subjective factors, which are always known exceptions, to saying someone in particular is in mortal sin.

Theoretically Cardinal Schonborn will postulate that there are exceptions but in reality, pastorally he will not say that any couple is an exception according to the new theology.

In the new salvation theology the baptism of desire is theoretical.However when the Letter of the Holy Office (1949) considered it an exception to EENS it became explicit and personally known. It would have to be personally known to be an exception to EENS.
Similarly in the new moral theology the exceptions to mortal sin mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are theoretical.However when Amoris Laeitia considers them as being exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin, they become explicit.

How can the conditions for mortal sin or actual baptism of desire be explicit for us human beings?This is the flaw in the new theology, in faith and morals. This flaw is there in Amoris Laetitia 301
 Hence it is (sic) can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace." (#301)

-Lionel Andrades


1
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."-Catechism of the Catholic Church 



Cardinal Schonborn would say there is a development since there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are exceptions to mortal sin.Chris Ferrara and Patrick Archbald would agree with him http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-schonborn-would-say-there-is.html


How can the conditions for mortal sin or actual baptism of desire be explicit for us human beings? This is the flaw in the new theology, in faith and morals. This point is omitted in Ferrara's critique

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/how-can-conditions-for-mortal-sin-and.html

Cardinal Schonborn would say there is a development since there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are exceptions to mortal sin.Chris Ferrara and Patrick Archbald would agree with him


635787944691218460 EPA USA POPE FRANCIS VISIT

Related image
Comments from the blog Vox Cantoris :Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Debacle 
Anonymous:
Patrick Archbold also had an article on the Remnant website. This may help you:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2453-the-joy-of-love-truth-in-the-service-of-a-lie

Lionel:
Patrick Archbald  too(like Chris Ferrara)  has missed the point.
He says the document is a lie.
But why is it a lie,what is the precise theological error to make it a lie?
Schonborn would say there is a development since there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are exceptions to mortal sin.
Both Patrick and Chris would agree with him!
There are exceptions for all of them!
There were exceptions for Archbishop Lefebvre. There are still exceptions for the SSPX bishop.
Did you notice that Cardinal Burke said that AL was based on the general teachings of the Church.
While Pope Francis praised Cardinal Schonborn for his theology.
Patrick Archbold and Chris Ferrara are using the new theology.
So they cannot see through the basic error.
AL says there are known exceptions to the traditional understanding of mortal sin (301).
I say there are no known exceptions. There cannot be known exceptions for us human beings.
Similarly on faith ( salvation) I say there are no known exceptions in 2016 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is not a personal view. This is common sense.
Here are in this link some of the people who agree with me.

Related imageRelated image
Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, John Martigioni and Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm agree with me : there are no visible exceptions.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/archbishop-thomas-gullickson-john.html

-Lionel Andrades


Fr.Hunwicke and Pat Archbald are not aware of the irrational premise and conclusion in Amoris Laeitia 301.
Fr.John Hunwicke and Patrick Archbold expect the SSPX to also compromise the Faith with the irrational premise and conclusion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frjohn-hunwicke-and-patrick-archbold.html


Without the irrational premise i.e known exceptions to mortal sin, knowing who will go to Heaven inspite of being in mortal sin.
So the real issue with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II is whether you are interpreting them with or without the irrational premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/so-real-issue-with-extra-ecclesiam.html


Amoris Laetitia's known-exceptions- moral theology is part of the policy at EWTN and NCR. Even Cardinal Burke, Fr.Z  and Joseph Shaw (LMS Chairman) accept it.
EWTN's website like the NCR editorial policy assumes the dead in Heaven are living and visible exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/ewtns-website-like-ncr-editorial-policy.html


It's a lie to say that there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation and morals and then to make a new theology based on this lie.
Dan Burke,Jeanette DeMelo' s NCR Editorial policy promotes a lie
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/dan-burkejeanette-demelo-s-ncr.html


Bishop Robert J.Baker approves the irrational interpretation of EWTN/NCR speakers and writers ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/bishop-robert-jbaker-approves.html

How can the conditions for mortal sin or actual baptism of desire be explicit for us human beings? This is the flaw in the new theology, in faith and morals. This point is omitted in Ferrara's critique

635787944691218460 EPA USA POPE FRANCIS VISIT

Lionel:
Christopher Ferrara who knows Italian may have watched the Press Conference  for Amoris Laetitia when Cardinal Schonborn referred to 1) the hermeneutic of continuity of Pope Benedict and 2) the development of doctrine.
He was referring to a specific moral theology which has a particular form of reasoning.
Christopher A. Ferrara
There is no reference to this in this article by Ferrara.
Cardinal Schonborn was drawing upon the same error in salvation theology, which is accepted by the traditionalists and conservative Catholics, including Chris Ferrara.
So Ferrara may have not noticed the new theology which the liberals use and is the basis of the new doctrines in Amoris Laetitia.

In the  new moral theology, which is part of Amoris Laetitia it is assumed  that we humans can judge when a Catholic living in adultery ( concubinage) will not go to Hell, if they die immediately.So there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

Similarly for Chris Ferrara and Cardinal Schonborn the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known exceptions to the 16th century missionaries interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
____________________

Ferrara has not said that if a Catholic priest assumes we cannot know of any case of a couple living in mortal sin,who would be an exception, who would not go to Hell,this would be the end of the new moral theology,it would not apply any more.

HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY
1.Since in the new moral theology it is assumed that there are known exceptions, to Catholics living in mortal sin( concubinage, adultery) there is a hermeneutic of rupture with the traditional teaching on mortal sin, which did not mention any personally known exceptions.This point is omitted by Ferrara.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
Since there are known exceptions to traditional mortal sin there is a development of doctrine on mortal sin.Theoretically mortal sin is accepted  but in practise it is believed we cannot always judge  any case, because of subjective factors, which are always known exceptions, to saying someone in particular is in mortal sin.This point is covered in the article.However it is not seen by Chris Ferrara that the real problem is with known exceptions.
Theoretically we can postulate that there are exceptions but in reality, pastorally we cannot say that any couple is an exception according to the new theology.
In the new salvation theology the baptism of desire is theoretical.However when the Letter of the Holy Office (1949) considered it an exception to EENS it became explicit and personally known. It would have to be personally known to be an exception to EENS.
Similarly in the new moral theology the exceptions to mortal sin mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are theoretical.However when Amoris Laeitia considers them as being exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin, they become explicit.They are assumed to be explicit.

But how can the conditions for mortal sin or actual baptism of desire be explicit for us human beings?

This is the flaw in the new theology, in faith and morals. This point is omitted in Ferrara's critique.

So if Cardinal Schonborn did not assume that there were 'subjectively visible exceptions', i.e you could see through the mind and heart of someone,as if you were God, then there would not be any known-to-you-exceptions to mortal sin?

AMORIS LAEITIA
Amoris Laetitia (301)  is based on personally knowing exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin and this point has not been noticed by Chris  Ferrara.
-Lionel Andrades



http://voxcantor.blogspot.it/2016/04/christopher-ferraras-devastating.html
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2464-amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle

If I was there at Cardinal Schonborn's Press Conference

At the Press Conference  for Amoris Laetitia Cardinal Schonborn speaking in Italian, referred to 1) the hermeneutic of continuity of Pope Benedict and 2) the development of doctrine.
Since I am aware of the false premise he uses in his new moral theology, I could see the deception in what he said.
The reporters there, judging from their questions, realized that there was a discontinuity with past moral theology.There was a contradiction with Veritatis Splendor.Cardinal Schonborn admitted that there was an innovation.But the journalists could not pin down the exact flaw in the new moral theology.So there were no questions on this point.
If I was there I would have asked the following questions:
1.Your Eminence in the new moral theology, which is part of Amoris Laetitia you have assumed that we humans can judge when a Catholic couple living in adultery ( concubinage) will not go to Hell, if they die immediately?
So for you there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin?
2.So if a Catholic priest assumes we cannot know of any case of a couple living in mortal sin,who would be an exception, who would not go to Hell,this would be the end of the new moral theology? It would not apply any more?

HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY
1.Since in the new moral theology it is assumed that there are known exceptions, to Catholics living in mortal sin( concubinage, adultery) there is a hermeneutic of rupture with the traditional teaching on mortal sin, which did not mention any personally known exceptions?

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
1.Since there are known exceptions to traditional mortal sin there is a development of doctrine on mortal sin.You theoretically accept mortal sin but in practise you cannot always judge  any case, because of subjective factors, known to you, which are always known exceptions, to saying someone in particular is in mortal sin?
2.So if you did not assume that there were 'subjectively visible exceptions', i.e you could see through the mind and heart of someone,as if you were God, then there would not be known-to-you-exceptions of mortal sin?

AMORIS LAEITIA
3.So Amoris Laetitia (301)  is based on you and others personally knowing exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin?
-Lionel Andrades



This reasoning is irrational however it is being used in the new theology on faith and morals.This is the moral theology of Pope Francis.

 
Image courtesy of the Benedictines of Norcia

THE HOLY innocence were saved without" faith and or baptism
 

Lionel:
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. All with no exceptions. Vatican Council II also says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).So if some one died without faith and baptism in the past, it would not be a known exception to the dogma EENS in 2016.
It would not be relevant to the dogma EENS in 2016. Since,for there to be an exception to EENs, that is for there to be somebody who is saved without faith and baptism, this person would have to be known. An invisible case cannot be an exception. Someone in the past who allegedly died as a saint in the Catholic Church,without the baptism of water, cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS in 2016.
Similarly the Holy Innocents or the prophets Abraham and Moses who died before the birth of Jesus cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS.
This was the mistake they made in the Baltimore Catechism.1 They assumed that we know of that famous catechumen who desired the baptism of water but who died before receiving it.This was a theoretical case. No one in Baltimore could know of any such case.But they made it relevant to all needing the baptism of water.They postulated that it was a known case and so it was an exception to the dogma EENS. So there is a baptism of desire and this baptism of desire is similar to the baptism of water in its appearance and effects, for them.This was false.Since there is no known case of the baptism of desire.
 
SIMILARLY IN MORAL THEOLOGY
Similarly in moral theology, they assume there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sins.Then they suppose that these theoretical cases are known in real life. Then it is assumed that there are known exceptions to mortal sins. Since there are known exceptions, it is said that we cannot always say a mortal sin is a mortal sin in practical cases.
 
HOW CAN WE KNOW?
But how can we know all this as human beings? How can we say that a particular couple living in mortal sin will not go to Hell but will go to Heaved? How can we read the mind and heart of someone to say that he or she is an exception?
Yet this is the new moral theology and it has been used in Amoris Laetitia. Just as you suggest that the Holy Innocents are exceptions to the dogma EENS, something that happened in the past, is a known exception in the present times to the dogma EENS, they say that if there was only one case of a couple living in mortal sin, in the past who is now in Heaven, it means there are exceptions to the general rule on mortal sin.This is irrational.
 
ERROR PATTERN
Here is the pattern:
1.First they assume there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and mortals, when in reality, this can only be known to God.
2.Then they postulate that these theoretical cases,possibilities only known to God, are defacto exceptions in the present times to traditional moral theology. For them it is something that we can judge with our reasoning.So no more can be it said authoritatively that someone is in mortal sin as it was done in past centuries.
 
AMORIS LAETITIA
So Number 301 in Amoris Laetitia says that we cannot always say that a person is in mortal sin.
Let me give you an another example, when Cardinal Donald Wuerl would allow the U.S Catholic politician Nancy Pelosi, who supports abortion, to receive the Eucharist, he was asked if he believed in mortal sin.He answered in the affirmative.
 
DONALD WUERL/NANCY PELOSI
According to the new moral theology, theoretically , he could affirm mortal sin and its conditions - but in practise he could not judge if Pelosi or some one else was in mortal sin.Subjective or social factors are considered known exceptions.They are then considered known exceptions in general to traditional mortal sin.This is the philosphical reasoning in Catholic seminaries. This is the new moral theology taught at Catholic universities.
This reasoning is irrational however it is being used in the new theology on faith and morals.This is the moral theology of Pope Francis.
-Lionel Andrades


1.
BALTIMORE CATECHISM
BALTIMORE CATECHISM #3
LESSON 14 - ON BAPTISM
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Lionel: Fine as a theoretical possibility.But why is it mentioned in this section of the Catechism? Were these cases known to someone in Baltimore?
No it was not possible!
____________________________________

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?

A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Lionel: O.K the baptism of blood is a new name for martyrdom. It is being suggested here that it happens without the baptism of water.But how could someone know of a particular case saved as such? How could someone say that the baptism of blood was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No human being could have physically seen any such case in Heaven.No could personally know of any such case.
___________________________________

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Lionel: This is theoretical speculation.
Yet in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney, these cases are considered exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For them to be exceptions they would have to be explicit, seen in the flesh.Invisible cases could not be exceptions to the centuries -old interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So there was a factual mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office and the seeds of the error were there in the Baltimore Catechism.
So now we have 'a development of doctrine' according to Pope Benedict according to the recent interview in Avvenire, before the Synod Exhortation was announced.Hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) are explicit for Pope Benedict. So they are known exception to the dogma EENS, as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.
This is heresy based on an irrationality.
_______________________________

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Lionel: 'which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins', yes theoretically but practically we cannot know of any such case.
'Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.'
Yes, theoretically, practically we cannot know of any such case which is an explicit exception to the dogma EENS.-L.A http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm