Saturday, April 30, 2016

What was Cardinal Schönborn thinking?

Edward Pentin, "VIDEO — Schönborn: 'Amoris Laetitia' Needs Serious Theological Discussion" (National Catholic Register, April 12, 2016).

Sometimes the implications of an event don't quite come into focus until you encounter the raw visceral reaction of someone who tells you what he, at least, thinks of it. This was the case when a reader emailed me something responding to Cardinal Schönborn's statement (quoted in the above-linked article) that, in response to the Pope's new document, "There will be a 'big theological discussion.'" The emailer asked: "Is that a promise or a threat?" and then continued:
More 'Theology on Tap!'

The takeaway, again, is that little is certain and nothing black and white.

"With this approach, the sacraments “come into another light...”

Beautiful. Move along, no change of doctrine to be seen here.

It's Vatican II all over again. These men can't get enough of these sorts of things.

For all the veneration of the papacy, you have to stop in disturbed amazement to consider its late 20th century legacy:
  • PAUL VI let go of the liturgy
  • JPII redefined the exclusivity of salvation
  • BXVI redefined original sin
    and now
  • FRANCIS lets go of Indissolubility of Marriage
Seriously, is it just me? You don't have to be a sedevacantist -- I'm not -- to say the Chair of Peter is not empty but increasingly think it might as well be. I guess I should shut up and be grateful we don't have female priests or any unions.
Well, the Apostolic Exhortation has certainly received its share of theological discussion in the seminary community of which I am a part, with no sign of abating. I'm not sure whether this is good or bad, but it certainly does strike me as anomalous that so much energy and time should be expended on trying to figure out what the Holy Father said or meant to say.


16 comments:








ALG Bass

said...

And how did BXVI redefine original sin?





Catholic Mission

said...

Amoris Laetitia (AL) has the error of subjectivism which is also there in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Letter of the Holy Office and the Baltimore and Pius X catechisms.

Amoris Laetitia (AL) has the error of subjectivism, the same error which is there in catechisms and Vatican Council II.

Amoris Laetitia(AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II. I mentioned his in a previous blog post.

KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO MORTAL SIN

AL assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin. It takes it for granted that we humans can know when a Catholic in manifest mortal sin will not go to Hell.It assumes we can judge case by case, when something subjective and known only to God is an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.

This is the subjectivism referred to by Fr.Matthias Gaudron of the SSPX, Germany.Subjectivism is assuming something which is known only to God is objective for us. It assumes in this case that we can judge subjective factors and so conclude that a person in mortal sin is not on the way to Hell but instead has Sanctifying Grace.

KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The same subjectivism of AL is also there in the Baltimore Catechism which assumes that the desire for the baptism of water by an unknown catechumen who dies before receiving it, was a baptism. This is subjectivism.How could they assume this desire in an unknown person, was like the baptism of water, with the results of the baptism of water ? The desire or the person did not exist in their reality.How could they assume in Baltimore that a hypothetical case was a known case? This is reasoning which is irrational. Yet it was assumed that this new baptism was personally known and allegedly excluded the baptism of water.So it was considered relevant to all needing the baptism of water and was placed in the Baptism ( of water) Section of the Baltimore Catechism.No one in Baltimore could have seen such a case. Yet it was made a baptism like the baptism of water.

The mistake was then repeated in the Catechism of Pius X.It is important to note that the Catechism of the Council of Trent also mentions 'the desirethereof' but does not say it is a baptism.It does not imply that it is explicit or an exception to all needing the baptism of water.

CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/amoris-laetitia-al-has-error-of.html





Catholic Mission

said...

CONTINUED

THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The same subjectivism, the error of assuming what is subjective as being objective, is also there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter 1949 assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It would suppose that the baptism of desire would not be a hypothetical case, but a known case.

LG 14 EXPLICIT CASES OF PERSONS SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

This mistake would be repeated in Vatican Council II (LG 14) . Since being saved in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water was assumed to be explicit and personally known, to be exceptions to the dogma EENS and to be relevant to all needing the baptism of water, LG 14 says not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know i.e those who are not in invincible ignorance and saved without the baptism of water.Invincible ignorance cases, allegedly without the baptism of water, is a reference to something subjective. It could only be known to God.

CATECHISM MENTIONS IRRELEVANT BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992) repeats the error in 846 and 1257. It assumes hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.There is a subjective interpretation of 846 and 1257 which implies implicitly, that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).CCC 846 does not affirm the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, since there subjective cases of the baptism of desire etc which could be identified for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

OBJECTIVE ERROR:INVISIBLE CASES ARE VISIBLE

So we have an objective error in Amoris Laetitia.We cannot physically see or know an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin, yet AL suggests we can.

We have an objective error in the Baltimore, Pius X and the 1992 Catechism since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire was not relevant to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.It should not have been mentioned.

We have the same objective error in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7). There are no exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism' for salvation. Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not visible and known in our reality. So they are not relevant to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.They should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is the error of subjectivism.-Lionel Andrades





Amateur Brain Surgeon

said...

Hey, Lionel. You are not a Catholic for you deny that which axiomatically incurs ANATHEMA, , Capiche?



The Council of Trent
The Sixth Session
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent,

Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.

DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION


CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.





Amateur Brain Surgeon

said...

Lionel. Cite just one ONE infallible teaching having to do with your visible/invisible obsession.

You can't and we all know you can't.

You have picked-up this crap from sources other then the Magisterium (Prolly Diamon brothers). It is Feeneyism and it is fetid and prolly everyone knows why he was reconciled to the Church; it was for reasons purely out of compassion extended to a dying man and his personal opinions of theology have NOTHING to do with Catholic Tradition. NOTHING



Pssst, ABS...

What?

What are you doing?

Wasting my time





Anonymous

said...


ALG Bass:

Here you go, if you have the stomach for it...

http://www.waragainstbeing.com

Of course it is along, since every ... single ... explanation form modern theologians is long. Ratzinger included.





JM

said...

"his personal opinions of theology have NOTHING to do with Catholic Tradition. NOTHING"

You are kidding, right? Fenney was more in line with tradition than the recent popes, uncomfortable as the fact might be. Those pining for popes who are prophets ... Francis is imploding their certainties. "Chaos has been erected as a principle with the stroke of a pen." By a pope. And you want to laugh at Feeney. Right. The Church is the one home of certainty. In what decade are you living?





Catholic Mission

said...

Hey, Lionel. You are not a Catholic for you deny that which axiomatically incurs ANATHEMA, , Capiche?

Lionel:
'The desire thereof' does not refer to a personally known, objective case.So it is not an explicit exception to EENS. For you it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
For me it is a hypothetical case. For you it is an objective case and so is relevant to EENS.
I can affirm 'the desiretherof' and also EENS according to the 16th century missionaries. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
For you 'the desirethereof' refers to explicit cases, this is irrational, objectively false and contradicts EENS as it was known over the centuries.
You have to interpret EENS with Cushingism ( the desire thereof is visible ) instead of Feeneyism( the desire thereof is invisible and hypothetical). This is HERESY.
_______________________



The Council of Trent
The Sixth Session
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent,

Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.

DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION


CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.


cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,
Lionel.
Which in all cases would include the laver of regeneration i.e the baptism of water.
You do not know of any exception and the text here does not state that 'the desire thereof' is an exception.It has to be wrongly inferred by you that the desire thereof refers to an explicit case and is not hypothetical. It then becomes an exception to all needing the laver of regeneration.You have to interpret it irrationally to make it an exception.Fundamental philosophy!
_____________________________





JM

said...


ABS, you make me laugh. I am in sympathy with you, truly, but.... "anathema"?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

What Church do you belong to? Do you honestly think any Pope now believes in anathemas? They don't even believe in the laws of non-contradiction. You are a victim of cognitive dissonance brother.





Catholic Mission

said...

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...
Lionel. Cite just one ONE infallible teaching having to do with your visible/invisible obsession.
You can't and we all know you can't.

Lionel:
Here are the teachings of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium interpreted with the visible/invisible pèrspective.
1.Dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.Vatican Council II.
3.De fide moral teachings on mortal sin.
4.Marriage annulments
Etc, etc,
These teachings of the Church are changed with a theology which mixes up the visible/invisible distinction. Theology is the lens, it is the prism, through which we see something, a concept, a faith-teaching. It is like using different coloured lens to see an object.
For example there is a different perspective of the Basilica of St. Peter if you are on a plane looking down at the Vatican or in a car driving in Rome.It is the same basilica but it is viewed differently. Similarly, it is the same Vatican Council II for example, but with two different perspectives.

Theology decides who is a Catholic, Protestant or something else.In Boston in 1949 Fr.Leonard Feeney case theology was changed in the Catholic Church.Similarly during the Reformation Martin Luther chose a new theology.
Pope Francis' exhortation Amoris Laetitia presents a new theology on morals in N.301. It is a theology whose foundation is subjectivism made objective.The invisible is judged to be visible.
You and I as Catholics may say that we accept the Nicene Creed but this is meaningless today. It is important to know what theology is being used. Since the Nicene Creed for me says 'I beleive in one baptism 'and it refers only to the baptism of water. For you it could be 'I believe in three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water, and they are the baptisms of desire, blood , seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church etc.'

You may say that you believe in the baptism of desire. But so what? You are only making an unclear statement. You have to clarify your theology.Are you saying like me that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases and so it is not relevant or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known in the 16th century? Of course not. You are not saying the same thing. For you the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So for you the baptism of desire refers to explicit cases.It would have to be an objective case for it to be an exception. This is your new theology, Cushingite theology.
You may say that you affirm the dogma EENS.But are you saying that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church and these cases are known to us, or do you mean it as it was understood by the 16th century missionaries ?

CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/theology-decides.html





Catholic Mission

said...

Continued
I would say that your theology, your 'Catholic' beliefs like those of many traditionalists ( and also the contemporary magisterium) is an innovation.It is irrational. It's non traditional.It is heretical.
May be it's something innocent on your part. You overlooked something important. You accepted what the liberal theologians taught. Since there was no correction or contradiction by the teaching authority of the Church; the magisterium, you accepted the error uncritically.
The liberal theologians ( Rahner-Ratzinger) made the invisible/visible, implicit/explicit distinction. I am only pointing it out.
They obscured doctrine. They coloured it differently.They used a false lens.
They assumed that what is objective and known to God only is also objective and known to man on earth. This irrational reasoning is 'new'.This makes their 'new 'theology, new.
So they have changed the lens when looking at Vatican Council II. They say Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) is an exception to EENS.So implicitly they are telling you that LG 16 refers to visible cases in the present times (2016).There are visible cases of persons saved without the baptism of water.But we know that these persons are in Heaven. They cannot be visible for us.So they have confused what is invisible as being visible.
They cannot say that any one on earth whom they personally know will be saved without the baptism of water but instead with the baptism of desire or with 'elements of sanctification and truth', seeds of the Word etc.No human can make this claim. Yet the theologians have mixed up what is hypothetical as being objectively known.
For me LG 16 refers to invisible cases.So I have changed the lens.I cannot see anything in Vatican Council II contradicting EENS.
By using the visible/invisible distinction they (Rahner-Ratzinger and numerous others) make changes with extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Vatican Council II, mortal sin and
marriage annulments.They are presented in a different light.It is a non traditional perspective.
For them:-
1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been changed since there are visible cases of persons saved without the baptism of water.
2.Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma EENS since LG 16 etc refer to visible and not invisible cases.
3.Moral teachings on mortal sin have been changes since there are subjective factors which are objective indications for them.So it cannot be said that a person in manifest mortal sin is in mortal sin and on the way to Hell. It cannot be said as such any more since there are objectively known factors like ignorance etc.These factors are visible and judgeable enough to say that someone has Sanctifying Grace and will not be going to Hell.
4.Marriage annulments are possible since it can be assumed that there are known subjective factors which indicate the marriage, though a Sacrament, was not valid in the first place.The couples can judge and the priest or bishop can respect their conscience.So whom God has joined together in a Catholic marriage, they can put asunder with a huuman, subjective judgement.
They have created a new theology, a new lens, by confusing what is invisible as being visible and then they have applied it to faith and moral teachings of the Church.
-Lionel Andrades





Anonymous

said...

Meanwhile Ignatius Press, conservative standard bearer, hearts Cardinal Chris a lot. Priests are the leaders, and Fr. Joe Fessio needs to wake up and smell the coffee. If a lifelong priest in AmChurch even can. I love IP, but here they are part of the problem.





Anonymous

said...

"However, since promulgation of the Gospel, this translation cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire . . ."

The emphasis on missionary zeal in the sixteenth century Church, in view of the dire threat of protestantism, seems to me to account for the inclusion of the troublesome three words above. A pagan in some far flung corner of the world wants to be baptized. But he worries over the fates of his mother and father, and all his forebears. Are they all in hell because they did not receive baptism of water, or even realize that they should have? Is this the judgment of an all merciful God? For crying out loud, how is a missionary supposed to "make the sale" in view of EENS?

The Church is driven by numbers, no less than General Motors. This is the so-called organic development from which oozed the concepts of baptism of desire and "invincible ignorance." Toothpaste out of the tube.

Five centuries later, there is no way to put it back in the tube. The logical distinction drawn by Feeneyites may be unassailable in itself, but it is still "anathema" in view of the continuing need to make the sale. Of course, there is so much doctrinal "toothpaste" laying around these days soiled and unused that all of us poor schmucks must question if there is any doctrinal dentifrice left in the tube to which prospective converts might be attracted. What in fact does "conversion" even mean, how can such a concept possibly be relevant in the day of Pope Helterskelter I?

So perhaps the next stage of "organic development" is to accept the fact that conversion is an outmoded concept in the salvation biz. The doctrinal tube is empty. There is nothing left to be converted to: do what you want, just be smooth, easy and non-confrontational about it, and always always always give generously to Catholic Charities. One might just as intelligently describe the joys of conversion from Banquet to Swanson, or from McDonalds to Burger King. Such is the state of Christianity today, the paradisiacal state toward which the leaders of V2 pushed the Church headlong, and Pope Helterskelter I is the perfect pope for it.

And Ignatius the perfect press





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Thanks so much, R. I've always been wondering how I slipped and fell. It was all that toothpaste underfoot. Damn.





Anonymous

said...

Sigh. I guess the toothpaste is out of the tube in more ways than one.





Catholic Mission

said...






The doctrinal tube is not empty if the premises are avoided
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/the-doctrinal-tube-is-not-empty-if.html