THREE CONDITIONS OF MORTAL SIN SUPERFLOUS
The Catechism mentions three conditions to determine a mortal sin.But they are not really conditions.Since they can only be known to God with reference to salvation.So they are irrelevant to judgeing mortal sin.They are not exceptions to the traditional teachings on morals and mortal sin.
Similarly on salvation, the Catechism mentions being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, which really refer to invisible and unknown cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So there really is no change on the traditional teachings on morals and salvation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for me.
However with the present magisterium considering invisible cases as being visible( unlike me) we now don't just have morals and salvation.We now have 'moral theology' and 'salvation theology.' Since we have a new theology based on invisible cases being visible.Theoretical cases are now considered practical exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith( salvation) and morals.
So this new theology on morals which is an innovation and is irrational has been placed in Amoris Laetitia, of course with the approval of the two liberal popes.
Amoris Laetitia suggests that a priest or bishop could know of a few cases, extraordinary cases of a couple who have divorced and remarried and who are not in mortal sin and who can be given the Eucharist.This can be judged!It can be subjectively known by a priest or bishop.The couple also can subjectively know it by following their individual conscience.
So the old 'fixed' objective teaching on morals and faith no more exists in Amoris Laetitia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church for those who can judge conditions and exceptions, which would only be known to God.
What is interesting about the Catechism is that it can be interpreted in two ways.
If you consider the three conditions for mortal sin as objective,judgeable and manifest then the Catechism is a rupture with the old 'fixed' teachings on morals. There is a new moral theology. A mortal sin is not aways a mortal sin.
If you consider the three conditions as subjective,non judgeable and invisible for us human beings, then the Catechism is not a rupture with the traditional teachings on morals. It is irrelevant to mortal sin. A mortal sin is always a mortal sin and the outward action indicates the subjective state of sin(Veritatis Splendor).
Similarly if you consider CCC 846( Outside the Church No Salvation) as referring to known cases of the baoptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, then the Catechism is a rupture with the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS. Since there are exceptions and so every one does not need to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.This was said boldly and heretically in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
If you consider them as being hypothetical, theoretical and invisible for us human beings then the Catechism(846) is not a rupture with the dogma WEENS according to the 16th century missionaries.It does not contradict St. Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius of Loyola.
This same reasoning can be used with CCC 1257 on the necessity of the baptism of water for all for salvation.
If there are personally known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since God is not limited to the Sacraments, then the Catechism is a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.There is an exception.
If you consider them as being hypothetical, theoretical and invisible for us human beings then the Catechism(846) is not a rupture with the dogma WEENS according to the 16th century missionaries.It does not contradict St. Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius of Loyola.
This same reasoning can be used with CCC 1257 on the necessity of the baptism of water for all for salvation.
If there are personally known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since God is not limited to the Sacraments, then the Catechism is a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.There is an exception.
If you consider being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire(without the baptism of water) or because God is not limited to the Sacraments, as referring to hypothetical, speculative and personally unknown cases in our reality in 2017,then the Catechism is not a rupture with the dogma EENS.
Then CCC 846 and 1257 support the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.There can be no known exceptions to the dogma.
This is why I often affirm Feeneyite EENS and use CCC 846 and 1257 as a supporting reference.
For many readers all this could be new and hard to believe.'It could not be all that simple '' they ask.'Why didn't someone mention this before?'.
Yet the proof is there before our very eyes.We can check it out.
Cardinal Ratzinger and Schonborn assumed what is invisible is visible, since this was the reasoning in Vatican Council II(1965) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.There was no correction or clarification in the Catechism which they approved.
Now if you consider what is invisible as just being invisible you neutralize their error and have a hermeneutic of continuity.The same approach can be used with Vatican Council II.
We have to be aware of the new philosophical subjectivism in faith and morals.The same subjectivism is there in Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia.
The Catechism should not have mentioned the three conditions of mortal sin nor being saved in invincible ignorance the baptism of desire.
In the past they(three conditions/invincible ignorance etc) have been referred to by popes and catechisms in answer to questions from persons, who were a part of a long campaign, by enemies of the Church, to change the basic teachings of the Catholic Church.
They succeeded with philosophical subjectivism.
-Lionel Andrades
January 23, 2017
La Stampa still trying to white wash the error of Amoris Laetitia http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/la-stampa-still-trying-to-white-wash.html
January 23, 2017
Bloggers are not discussing the real issue in the Rockford diocese http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/bloggers-are-not-discussing-real-issue.html
January 21, 2017
By now the CDF should have been able to accept that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and one has the hermeneutic of continuity and the other does not. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/by-now-cdf-should-have-been-able-to.html
January 21, 2017
All non Catholic immigrants in Rome, Italy are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church: this is Catholic teaching according to Lega Nord?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment