Nachrichten
2739

Prominent professors: These are the eight errors from ‘misuse’ of Amoris Laetitia

The Misuse of Amoris Laetitia to Support Errors against the Catholic Faith:
A Letter to the Supreme Pontiff Francis, to all bishops in communion with him, and to the rest of the Christian faithful


In this letter, John Finnis [philosophy] and Germain Grisez [ethics] request Pope Francis to condemn eight positions against the Catholic faith that are being supported, or likely will be, by the misuse of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. They ask all bishops to join in this request and to issue their own condemnations of the erroneous positions, while reaffirming the Catholic teachings these positions contradict.

The eight positions are these.

Position A:
A priest administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation may sometimes absolve a penitent who lacks a purpose of amendment with respect to a sin in grave matter that either pertains to his or her ongoing form of life or is habitually repetitive.

Position B:
Some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments; though resigned to committing ongoing and habitual sins in grave matter, they can live in grace.

Position C:
No general moral rule is exceptionless. Even divine commandments forbidding specific kinds of actions are subject to exceptions in some situations.

Position D:
While some of God’s commandments or precepts seem to require that one never choose an act of one of the kinds to which they refer, those commandments and precepts actually are rules that express ideals and identify goods that one should always serve and strive after as best one can, given one’s weaknesses and one’s complex, concrete situation, which may require one to choose an act at odds with the letter of the rule.

Position E:
If one bears in mind one’s concrete situation and personal limitations, one’s conscience may at times discern that doing an act of a kind contrary even to divine commandment will be doing one’s best to respond to God, which is all that he asks, and then one ought to choose to do that act but also be ready to conform fully to the divine commandment if and when one can do so.

Position F:
Choosing to bring about one’s own, another’s, or others’ sexual arousal and/or satisfaction is morally acceptable provided only that (1) no adult has bodily contact with a child; (2) no participant’s body is contacted without his or her free and clear consent to both the mode and the extent of contact; (3) nothing done knowingly brings about or unduly risks significant physical harm, disease transmission, or unwanted pregnancy; and (4) no moral norm governing behavior in general is violated.

Position G:
A consummated, sacramental marriage is indissoluble in the sense that spouses ought always to foster marital love and ought never to choose to dissolve their marriage. But by causes beyond the spouses’ control and/or by grave faults of at least one of them, their human relationship as a married couple sometimes deteriorates until it ceases to exist. When a couple’s marriage relationship no longer exists, their marriage has dissolved, and at least one of the parties may rightly obtain a divorce and remarry.

Position H:
A Catholic need not believe that many human beings will end in hell.

The letter is copyright © John Finnis and Germain Grisez; Notre Dame, Indiana; 21 November 2016. Permission is hereby given to everyone to publish electronically or otherwise this entire letter as a unit or the entire treatment of any one or more of the eight positions dealt with in it provided this copyright notice is included in the publication; all other rights reserved.
Lionel L. Andrades
DECEMBER 10, 2016
Scholars supporting four cardinals in major philosophical mistake
The 23 Scholars who have signed a Statement in support of the four cardinals and the Dubbia like the present magisterium have made a major philosophical mistake.They include Dr.Joseph Shaw a professor of philosophy.
Like the four cardinals the Catholic scholars have overlooked an error which would be obvious to a …
More
DECEMBER 10, 2016

Scholars supporting four cardinals in major philosophical mistake

The 23 Scholars who have signed a Statement in support of the four cardinals and the Dubbia like the present magisterium have made a major philosophical mistake.They include Dr.Joseph Shaw a professor of philosophy.

Like the four cardinals the Catholic scholars have overlooked an error which would be obvious to a school boy or a non Catholic who is not educated.

As I mentioned in a previous blog post the following four errors are made by the present magisterium.
They are also made by the four cardinals and the 23 scholars who support them.
1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen who desires to receive the baptism of water but dies before he can receive it, is a hypothetical case for us?
My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.
The scholars and the cardinals infer that it is not a hypothetical, for them it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the theological position of the Letter of the Holy Office 194 9 which they all support. The error of the Letter was based on this philosophical reasoning.
2.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.
The cardinals and scholars over looked Vatican Council II(AG 7 and LG 14) making this same error.
3.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contrradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?
My answer Yes.
So we have cardinals and scholars violating the Principle of Non Contradiction and acting as if all is normal.
Since it is being assumed that something invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and known, someone who is not concrete and tangible it is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.

4.Similarly this case of a catechumen in the past too would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases?
My answer is YES.

Yet some of the traditionalists assume that there is a St. Emerentiana in Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.This is as if someone saw her physically in Heaven.Or it is as if the Church has made an official pronouncement that she went to Heaven without the baptism of water.It is made to appear that this was personally known to someone in the Catholic Church and so this announcement was made.
TWO QUESTIONS WHICH THE TRADITIONALISTS AND SEDEVACANTISTS REFUSE TO ANSWER

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?
My answer is that they we cannot see them. They are not physically visible and personally known in our time and space.

The cardinals, including the four mentioned here, will not answer or broach this question.

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . They were never exceptions in the first place. Rome made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
However the new theology of the four cardinals and the 23 scholars is based upon this error and they do not want to talk about it or admit it.
-Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________

DECEMBER 10, 2016

The present magisterium has made a major philosophical mistake
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/the-present-mag…

DECEMBER 10, 2016

The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is a philosophy which interprets invisible persons as being visible and so a non traditional conclusion is created
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/the-source-of-p…
Lionel L. Andrades
DECEMBER 10, 2016
The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is a philosophy which interprets invisible persons as being visible and so a non traditional conclusion is created
The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is due to the following points.
1.Rejecting the baptism of desire etc as being invisible and known only to God.
2.Assuming that the …More
DECEMBER 10, 2016

The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is a philosophy which interprets invisible persons as being visible and so a non traditional conclusion is created

The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is due to the following points.

1.Rejecting the baptism of desire etc as being invisible and known only to God.
2.Assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in in invincible ignorance refers to known cases in the present times.
3.In principle assuming hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are objectively visible in the present times and then interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
4.Being unaware of this error of assuming the baptism of desire refers to invisible instead of visible cases was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 by the magisterium. It was then repeated in Vatican Council II by the Council Fathers.

Once this error is corrected, and it is simple to correct it, then this Arian-like heresy in the Catholic Church, a type of schism for Archbishop Athanasius Schneider, ends.
The error has to be identified and then Church documents, especially Vatican Council II, be re-interpreted.Invisible cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc must be identified as being invisible only in 2016.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 must not be considered explicit and objective cases in our time and space.
-Lionel Andrades