Sandro Magister, "The German Option of the Argentine Pope" (www.chiesa, April 28, 2016): "Cardinal Kasper and the progressive wing of the Church of Germany have gotten what they wanted. On communion for the divorced and remarried, Francis is on their side. He made up his mind a while ago, and has acted accordingly."
15 comments:
Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw agree with them?
The mad theology
Are we really in the same Church whose teachings do not change?
National Catholic RegisterFor Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw doctrinally and theologically Amoris Laetitia is nothing new.There is no change in moral theology for them. They have no problem also with the new salvation theology.
Note: When a new theology is created it is based on rational constructs.It is based on a common reality, the generally accepted laws of nature.
I cannot imagine there are people on the moon ( whom I have never seen) and then create a new theology for the men on the moon and the earth.This would be absurd.
I cannot imagine or postulate that man has evolved from the monkey and is further evolving, this would be wrong. Since there is no proof for this.It could be that the monkey has devolved from man, in a deviant strain, and the 'evolutionists' are not aware of it.Any way there is no scientific proof to create a new theology assuming man has evolved from the ape.
Similarly I cannot imagine that we humans can see people in Heaven and talk to them.Then I cannot use this premise to create a new theology.This would not be acceptable.Since in our reality we cannot see people in Heaven and we cannot talk to them in 2016.
So if a theology is created whose initial reasoning is being able to see people in Heaven in general, it would be un -real and non traditional.
Similarly I cannot postulate that all men can physically fly like birds,and then with this premise create a theology.This would be absurd.It is irrational to assume that men and women on earth can fly like birds.
It is irrational to assume that we humans in general can see people in Heaven physically.
Yet literally this is what happened in the Church.
A theology was created upon an irrationality.It is supported by Cardinal Burke and taught by Joseph Shaw.It is the theology of Pope Benedict.It is the theology of Cardinal Schonborn, who was praised by Pope Francis as being a great theologian.This is cardinals Koch and Kasper's common theology.
It is based on being able to physically see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the traditional salvation and moral theology of the Church.
Since I cannot physically see people I do not use this premise to mis- interpret traditional moral and salvation theology in the Church.
So even though the Church's teachings ideally, in theory, in principle, do not change, they are changed when this new theology, based upon an irrationality, is applied to them.
So moral and salvation theology is different for Cardinal Burke and me.
Joseph Shaw and I do not interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed....in the same way.
There are no known exceptions for me to the general understanding of mortal sin.I do not know of any de facto exception. If there would be an exception it would only be known to God.
Continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/the-mad-theology.html
CM,
Of course the dogma of EENS may impinge at points on the issue of divorce, re-marriage, sodomite relationships and Communion for those in such 'irregular' relationships as well as heretics; but still, they are not quite the same thing, don't you agree?
The issue is the new theology, it is based on hypothetical exceptions being objective. This new theology is part of moral and salvation theology. It has created a new doctrine on morals and faith.
It is with the new theology that Amoris Laeitita in N.301 says there are exceptions to saying mortal sin is always mortal sin.
The new theology says hypothetical cases are objective and so there is salvation outside the Church. EENS is written off.
It then says since subjective cases are objective, we can know exceptions to the traditional understanding of mortal sin.
So in both cases, faith and morals in the Catholic Church, it is supposed that hypothetical, theoretical, subjective cases cases are explicit and personally known.
So Protestant Ethics is brought into the Catholic Church by assiming an extraordinary, complicated and theoretical case in moral theology is an exception to clearly saying what is a mortal sin. It is as if we can personally know such a complicated case in real life.
So for example Cardinal Kasper will say that there is no change in doctrine and mean ideally, in principle there is no change in the Church's teachings on faith and morals.However when he applies the new theology to faith and morals he changes both.
For example Pope Benedict, who uses the new theology, may say that Vatican Council II is not a break with the past and it can be interpreted with the hermeneutic of continuity.But them he will interpret LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) as referring to not a subjective and invisible case for us, but as an objective case in 2016 and so it is a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition. So with LG 16, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture.
For me since LG 16 is invisible and not objective, there is no rupture with the dogma EENS and Tradition. So Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past.
The difference between Pope Benedict and me is that he is using the new theology which assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible. I am avoiding it.
Similarly for Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw Vatican Council II is a break with the past and so unlike Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper, who also assume theoretical cases are objectively visible, they reject Vatican Council II and criticise it.
So now Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw say with the new moral theology that there is nothing new in AL.Since for them hypothetical cases, subjective factors, emotions and conditions are in one sense objective and so they are exceptions to the traditional teachings on mortal sin (n301 Al). In another sense they are saying in agreement with the new moral theology being taught at pontifical universities, that we cannot never judge or understand the subjectivity of a person,and so we cannot judge mortal sin in all cases.
AL says there will be case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin.It will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace and it will be judged that there could be some cases who subjectvely will be exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin, since this is something that we humans can judge i.e hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin.
So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which rejects traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.
So Cardinal Kasper will say doctrine has not changed in principle in theory but he knows very well that with the new theology, doctrine has been changed de jure and de facto, in principle and in fact.
CM,
Thanks. Helpful detail! But here's a question: So as to Burke and Shaw, do you think they see V2 and AL as involving rupture because they assume the V2 and AL WRONGLY interpret subjective cases as objective? And, if so, then how do they reconcile this with their alleged agreement with the new theological principle that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards?
So as to Burke and Shaw, do you think they see V2 and AL as involving rupture because they assume the V2 and AL WRONGLY interpret subjective cases as objective? And, if so, then how do they reconcile this with their alleged agreement with the new theological principle that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards?
Lionel:
So as to Burke and Shaw, do you think they see V2 and AL as involving rupture because they assume the V2 and AL WRONGLY interpret subjective cases as objective?
Yes for Burke and Shaw subjective cases are objective, this is the norm.So they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS. Since LG 16 refers to known, objective cases. For them the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS. In other words the baptism of desire is not hypothetical but objective to be an exception.This is the new salvation theology for them.
Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin.So for them AL 301 is saying nothing knew.It is based on the new moral theology which they have accepted for a long time.
______________________________
And, if so, then how do they reconcile this with their alleged agreement with the new theological principle that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards?
Lionel:
I hope they allegedly agree that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards to postulate exceptions to traditional moral and salvation theology.
However in the case of the new salvation theology for example, perhaps they just assume that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma EENS. This is common throughout the Church. Catholics just accept it without thinking since it is magisterial.
I was talking to an American priest here. I asked ,"Father we do not know anyone in particualr saved with the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance. I mean we cannot meet someone on the street who would be saved with the baptism of desire for example. I cannot say that someone will be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water".
He said with a smile "Yes.We cannot know any such case."
I asked, "So these cases cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation"
He was quiet for a few seconds and then said "No they cannot be exceptions."Then he added." But this is what the Church teaches and we must follow it"
Possibly Burke and Shaw have not really thought this out too.No one has discussed it with them one to one.
CM,
Maybe I've misread you and the Lionhearted Cardinal... but when Cardinal Burke says that AL is not magisterial, he says, in effect, that it can't be binding -- it has no binding authority because lack of clarity and exhortatory observations can't bind. A definition which doesn't define anything, but merely hints at it, CAN'T bind. If the Pope were to say "it would be nice if.....", this is interesting, but it lacks magisterial strength.
This is where I find a struggle with Laudato Si, but am much consoled with AL.
An encyclical is a teaching document, by the nature of the document, but I can't identify anything to finish this sentence:" As a result of LS, Catholics must believe........ and act ..........."
AL merely proves that the Infallability of the Holy Father, as guaranteed by God Himself, won't allow His Holiness to teach truth as error or error as truth. The document isn't a magisterial document. Even with hand-picked bishops, hand-picked 'ghost-writers' and all that, His Holiness couldn't TEACH on faith and morals that which was false. Hinting at something isn't teaching.
Fr.Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw does not see how judgement of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II
Father Matthias Gaudron, a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, comments on the subjectivism of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) but along with the SSPX priests who comment on AL he does not see the subjectivism in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Similarly for Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw subjective cases are objective.So they interpret Vatican Council II,like Fr.Gaudron, as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). For them LG 16 refers to objective persons.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS. It is not hypothetical but objective.This is the new salvation theology for them for the SSPX and for Fr. Gaudron.
Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin.So for Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw AL 301 is based upon the new moral theology which they have accepted.
But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting.The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward. But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.-E. Christian Brugger, Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/but-if-we-shouldntand-indeed-cantrender.html
CASE BY CASE JUDGEMENT
AL says that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin, meaning it will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace. It will be judged that there could be some persons whose subjectivity can be judged .So it will be concluded that they are exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin.This is something, not only for God, according to AL, but also for humans to judge i.e hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin.
So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.
With the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin, to judge hypothetical cases as being objective, doctrine has been changed de jure (there are judgeable exceptions to mortal sin) and de facto ( there are judgeable known exceptions to persons living in mortal sin).The change is there in principle and in fact in morals.
Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism fo desire and being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) and so de facto there are judgeable, known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So there is a new doctrine in principle and in fact on faith(salvation).
So by assuming we can judge subjective cases there are exceptions projected to the traditional teaching on morals and faith.The doctrinal change based on a theological innovation can be known implicitly in Amoris Laetitia.Since AL 301 explicity tells us what was the theology used. Implicitly we know that the new theology was used based on being able to judge subjective or social factors and then concluding that there are objective exceptions to mortal sin.
Father Matthias Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw, does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He notices this subjectivism in AL but does not see this same subjectivism in the SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
Dear Chris,
I haven't resolved the issue in my own mind, though I understand the perspective (defended by Cardinal Burke) you express here.
For the record, my colleague and former consultor to the Vatican under B16, Canonist Ed Peters, offers an alternative view here: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/a-non-magisterial-magisterial-statement/
As I say, I haven't had time to think the matter through to my own satisfaction yet, but it's helpful to know what esteemed allies think on all sides.
Chris Garton-Zavesky :
Maybe I've misread you and the Lionhearted Cardinal... but when Cardinal Burke says that AL is not magisterial, he says, in effect, that it can't be binding -- it has no binding authority because lack of clarity and exhortatory observations can't bind...
Lionel :
Cardinal Burke has also said that the 'only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching'. He continues : 'In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.'
'does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.'
For Cardinal Raymond Burke, Catholic theology must assume subjective cases are objective. It must mix up and confuse what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible. It must negate standard forms of philosophical reasoning, contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction and reject magisterial documents with an irrational premise and inference to create a non traditional theology.
For the cardinal, whom I still admire and respect, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to objective persons.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 is not hypothetical for him as it is for me.Instead it is an objective exception to the perennial doctrine on exclusive salvation in the Church.This is his new salvation theology.
Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin for Cardinal Burke.Since he approves the moral theology expressed in AL 301.He approves AL saying that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin, meaning it will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace.He is saying that he can judge who is living in mortal sin and will not go to Hell.
This is contrary to the Council of Trent and Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul II. He is saying it is possible to judge.There could be some Catholics, for him, whose subjectivity can be judged.So it will be concluded that they are exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin.Hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin !
So in , morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology and this is fine with him.The new doctrine says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation since there are known exceptions and every one who is living in traditional manifest mortal sin may not be in mortal sin, since there are known exceptions.
So with the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin) doctrine has been changed de jure (there are judgeable exceptions to mortal sin) and de facto ( there are judgeable known exceptions to persons living in mortal sin).The change is there in principle and in fact in morals and this is the new doctrine accepted by Cardinal Burke.
Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water).This is accepted by Cardinal Burke. It is nothing new.So de facto there are judgeable, known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So there is a new doctrine in principle and in fact on faith (salvation).Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for Cardinal Burke is no more like it was in the 16th century....
Continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-burke-interprets-vatican.html
.
continued :
So we have Cardinal Burke assuming we can judge subjective cases with Protestant situation ethics, a subjectivism made objective. This is not humanly possible. Since only God can judge if someone in mortal sin will not be going to Hell or has Sanctifying Grace.However for the cardinal there can be known exceptions projected against the traditional teaching on morals and faith.The doctrinal change based on a theological innovation can be known implicitly in Amoris Laetitia.Since AL 301 explicity tells us what was the theology used. Implicitly we know that the new theology was used based on being able to judge subjective or social factors and then concluding that there are objective exceptions to mortal sin.This is normal for Cardinal Burke.
He does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He mixes up what is hypothetical as being objective and known. It is with this subjectivism that he interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition in general. With his subjectivism he changes the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms and they include the baptism of desire and blood...'With known exceptions to the dogma EENS he has rejected the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS itself, defined by three Church Councils. He is contradicting the pope being infallible ex cathedra, especially when the Church Councils defined EENS.
He interprets Vatican Council II like Fr. Hans Kung S.J who assumes LG 16 refers to known cases, objectively saved without the baptism of water. So LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS for Fr. Kung. So with invisible cases being visible, Vatican Council II contradicts the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra, in defining EENS, according to some of his early writings.He said Fr. John Courtney Murray did what no one in Church history could do i.e refute the teaching in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. He does not realize that this is only possible by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known to be exceptions to EENS.
For me this is all heresy. We cannot in principle and in fact change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, reject a defined dogma, interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and project exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and morals. This is a break with 'the perennial doctrine and discipline'.It contradicts 'the constant teaching of the Church'.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-burke-interprets-vatican.html
I remember hearing Fr. Augustin DiNoia speaking at the Aquinas-Luther Conference in North Carolina years ago and saying that Catholics had to re-think their understanding of doctrines like EENS in light of their experience of non-Catholics who were known to be virtual 'saints'. His response was not to dismiss EENS but in effect to re-interpret it in the way that V2 documents typically seem to.
Abp.Augustine Di Noia like Card. Burke uses subjectivism and known exceptions to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS according to the 16th century missionaries
Pertinacious Papist said...
I remember hearing Fr. Augustin DiNoia speaking at the Aquinas-Luther Conference in North Carolina years ago and saying that Catholics had to re-think their understanding of doctrines like EENS in light of their experience of non-Catholics who were known to be virtual 'saints'. His response was not to dismiss EENS but in effect to re-interpret it in the way that V2 documents typically seem to.
Lionel:
In these comments I have mentioned that there are no known exceptions in the present times (2016) to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). We cannot meet or see any one saved without the baptism of water.
I have also mentioned that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water, refers to hypothetical cases.They are accepted in theory, in principle. It is clear that these cases cannot be defacto known in personally.Defacto, only God can know them.
So we do not confuse what is hypothetical as being objective.Neither do we assume that every one does not need to formally enter the Church in 2016 for salvation,since there are known exceptions in the baptism of desire etc.These cases are invisible and do not exist in our reality.So they cannot be exceptions to the traditional teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Liberal theologians over time however have assumed that the hypothetical case of the baptism of desire was a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.This can be read clearly in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter was critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney who refused to say there were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been affirmed by the International Theological Commission whose members include Archbishop Augustine Di Noia.
They use subjectivism, situation ethics and known exceptions to reject the dogma EENS as it was known in the 16th century.They also apply this subjectivism to the interpretation of Vatican Council II (LG 16 is visible and not invisible, it is objective and not hypothetical for them).So their interpretation of Vatican Council II is different from mine. LG 16 refers to invisible cases for me. So it is not an exception to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.
In an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register1 Archbishop Augustine Di Noia indicated that he could judge when a Christian known to him would be going to Heaven.He was saying that he knew that this particular Christian was on the way to Heaven and would die without mortal sin on his soul.He could judge that in future too this Christian would not commit a moral, mortal sin. Also for him this Christian had not committed a mortal sin of faith.
Even though this impressive Christian friend of the Archbishop knew about Jesus and the Church and yet did not enter, Di Noia was sure he would make it to Heaven. Lumen Gentium 14 (those who know) indicates this non Catholic friend of Archbishop Di Noia was on the way to Hell.Yet this was not a factor in judging this Christian.
The Archbishop was also indicating that we humans can know of people who will go to Heaven even though they are outside the Church i.e they do not have Catholic Faith (AG 14).Catholic Faith includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church.
Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
How could Archbishop Di Noia know all this, when we generally presume this would only be known to God ? How could he personally know that this person is an exception to the dogma EENS?
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/abpaugustine-di-noia-like-cardinal.html
Continued
Similarly how can he identify that someone he knows has the 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) needed for salvation, outside the Church? Is this a charism of the Archbishop ?
So like Cardinal Burke or Fr.Hans Kung, who assume there are known exceptions to the dogma EENs , Archbishop Di Noia would probably also say that there known exceptions in moral theology.So he would have no problem with Amoris Laetitia(301).He is a conservative liberal and Cardinal Burke is a liberal traditionalist.
For both of them LG 8 refers to visible and not invisble cases, known instead of unknown cases in real life.
The traditional teaching on faith and morals has been changed by the CDF, through theology; the new theology. The new theology irrationally assumes subjective, hypothetical cases are objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to traditional teachings on faith and morals.
The mistake was clearly made in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.The same mistake of assuming hypothetical cases are explicit, was incorporated in Vatican Council II.
MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II 2
1.LG 14 says only those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell. In other words not every non Catholic.Since those who are in invincible ignorance are assumed to be known, explicit in real life. They are assumed to be known exceptions of persons saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
This is false since no one could have physically seen these exceptions and no Church document before the Baltimore Catechism suggests these cases are objectively known.
2.LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2 etc are ALL hypothetical cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.So they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council with reference to orthodox passages on salvation.
3.Similarly it was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention those who would be saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which they could not receive in life or those who are saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention this in LG 14 and AG 14 which have orthodox pasages saying all need faith and baptism. It was a mistake since invisible cases are not relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni.
It is with these objective mistakes in Vatican Council II , that the contemporary magisterium interprets the Council as a break with EENS.
If Archbishop Augustine di Noia assumes hypothetical cases are only hypothetical cases LG 8, LG 16 etc would not contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of EENS which is opposed by the Jewish Left who dictate what theology in the Catholic Church is acceptable to them and the CDF keeps silent.-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/abpaugustine-di-noia-like-cardinal.html
At least before Fr.Hans Kung passes away an announcement should kindly be made
There were the old moral theology manuals, of St. Alphonsus Ligouri etc, which mentioned the different types of mortal sin and how they were committed. They have been discarded. Instead a new moral theology was created which mentions exceptions for mortal sin.With this two fold attack on traditional Catholic morality, approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Catholics do not know any more what is a mortal sin.They do not believe in a mortal sin.
So when Amoris Laetiotia(AL) 301 says a mortal sin cannot always be called a mortal sin it is acceptable for Cardinal Raymond Burke. It is the familiar moral theology too for Joseph Shaw at the LMS Chairman blog.
So we have two well known traditionalists, advocates of the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) supporting the new moral theology based on known exceptions to mortal sin, even though we humans cannot judge any case as an exception.
We can go back to the old morality by recognising that there are no known exceptions to mortal sin, no subjectivism made objective in defacto cases.We can go back to traditional moral teachings associated with the TLM, the pre Council of Trent times. We can use the Catechism of the Council of Trent since it is error-free.
The contemporary magisterium cannot be trusted.Fr.Hans Kung S.J, friend and colleague of Pope Benedict, said Fr.John Courtney Murray did away with the dogma on the infallibility of the pope, since Vatican Council II contradicted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). The magisterium actually agreed with him!.Fr.Hans Kung was using subjectivism to interpret Vatican Council II. LG 16 for example, referred to known in the flesh exceptions, visible cases on earth, of persons saved without the baptism of water.LG 16 was an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS.No one contradicted Hans Kung on this point.Even today no one says LG 16 refers to hypothetical and not objective cases in 2016. So Fr.John C. Murray could not contradict the dogma EENS with anything in Vatican Council II.
The Vatican instead made Catholic universities have Fr. Kung's books placed in their libraries.The books did not contain a clarification or correction from Cardinal Ratzinger. He did not say LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases. He did not even say that the baptism of desire refers to an invisible instead of a visible case.Instead as head of the International Theological Commission, in the ITC theological paper, Christianity and the World Religions(1997), he assumed that LG 16 refers to visible cases.He also approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which suggests that the baptism of desire refers to objective cases and so they were exceptions to the interpretation of EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Hypotethetical but visible in the flesh exceptions!
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/at-least-before-frhans-kung-passes-away.html
CONTINUED
Even now after thousands,(literally a few thousand) of blog posts(euchartistandmission) on this subject on the Internet over the last few years no one at the Vatican wants to comment.
With known exceptions to the dogma EENS, known to human beings, the CDF changed traditional Catholic salvation theology.With power consolidiated in Cardinal Ratzinger , Pope John Paul II being ailing, the Catholic Church had new doctrines on morals and faith and it was being implemented at all levels of the Church.
So it would not be a surprise if Pope Benedict approved N.301 in Amoris Laetitia.Before AL was announced he issued a statement via Avvenire,confirming the official change in the Church's salvation theology, it's faith teaching. He said the dogma EENS was not more like in the 16 th century. Vatican Council II had changed( developed) it. He was clear.
We now know that with theology, faith and morals were changed in the Church during his tenure as Prefect of the CDF. A defined dogma like EENS was rejected and traditional mortal sin which was still there at the time of the Council of Trent, now had known exceptions.The exceptions can be judged case by case, AL says.
With this same new irrational theology Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition in general.
Hopefully, before Fr.Hans Kung (88) passes away some one will announce in the Catholic Church that there are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and morals.All his work was a waste of time.
They could announce that Vatican Council II does not obviously contradict the dogma EENS, since LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases.Kung did not know. May be no one told him about this.-Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment