Philosophy and law in the Catholic Church

That a cardinal, bishop or priest interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so dishonestly cannot be a normative principle in Italian jurisprudence. They cannot continue to project invisible cases of the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church in 2024 and so are alleged practical exceptions for the traditional ecclesiocentrism, which is made obsolete.

There is a certainty in Italian law, civil law, it would be the same for Church Law.

When a cardinal or priest interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, it is subjective, it is not the norm according to secular law or according to the Magisterium; the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

How can there be a hermeneutic or epistemology of Vatican Council II by confusing what is subjective as being objective, unseen as being seen and implicit as explicit ? Lumen Gentium 16 always refers to a hypothetical, theoretical and implicit case. Always.

There cannot be jurisprudence rules based upon bad philosophy. Empirically, we cannot see someone on earth or in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire (LG 14) or in invincible ignorance (LG 16), or with elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8), or in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) or with goodwill (GS 22).

There must not be a separation of law and morals.These are problems in philosophy and law with reference to Church texts; Magisterial Documents, including Vatican Council II, the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney etc.

There needs to be a general concept or principle which says that a Catholic Rector or Parish Priest must not create uncontrolled liberalism in the Church by interpreting Magisterial Documents ( Creeds, Councils and Catechisms) irrationally, intentionally, to produce a break with traditional norms.

There must be coherence in what is subjective judgment and its practical implementation. The premise must be rational so that the conclusion is normal. There must be a consensus on ‘general points’. A consensus on general facts. There cannot be a dialogue or judgment, if for example; one person sees a window as a chair and the other, a window, as only a window.

This has a direct connection with proof or evidence in a juridical sense.There are facts in public which show Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are being interpreted irrationally and so unethically.

The juridical norm, with consequences must be that Vatican Council II should only be interpreted rationally. Morally the irrational interpretation, which is common, today, must not be the moral norm.

There must be a juridical hermeneutic which permits a cardinal, bishop and priest, from seeing, what is implicit as being explicit. The norm today in the Catholic Church, is to interpret Lumen Gentium 16 etc, as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. In this way the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the rest of Tradition are made obsolete - and the people remain ignorant about this.

There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider when he was interviewed by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Marshall confirmed that there are no explicit cases of St.Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire. This means Vatican Council II, when interpreted rationally has a continuity with Tradition, there is a continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. This must be the only hermeneutic.  - Lionel Andrades

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-03/pope-francis-look-to-heaven-for-true-justice.html

https://www.facebook.com/vaticannews/posts/pope-francis-met-with-prelate-auditors-and-collaborators-of-the-apostolic-tribun/6248683541809864/