Three days ago, I contacted Cardinal Müller’s secretary and asked him for some further clarifications as to whether or not the cardinal did actually vote to support the German-speaking group’s purportedly unanimous, final vote of concord. Should I receive a response from him, I shall update this post. I have also contacted Matthias Kopp, the press speaker of Cardinal Marx. He answered back by saying that I should, instead, now turn to the Secretariat of the Synods; and he thus declined my request to Cardinal Marx that he confirm his earlier public statement about unanimity. However, in a second answer a couple hours later, Mr. Kopp pointed out to me the official statement from Archbishop Heiner Koch – who was the relator of the German-speaking group at the 2015 Synod – in which Koch himself also states that the final report was unanimously approved by the members of the group. This makes a clarifying statement from Cardinal Müller himself even more urgent.-Maike Hickson, Cardinal Müller Suggests He Had Not Voted for the Unanimous German Report at 2015 Family Synod from the blog 1Peter5
Maike Hickson is in contact with the Secretary of Cardinal Gerhard Muller.
She could ask the cardinal's secretary to clarify the theology and doctrine of the Church which it is claimed(by me) that he rejected in the interview with Edward Pentin when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Could he explain how could Lumen Gentium 14 be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) ? How can hypothetical cases mentioned in LG 14 be relevant or an exception to EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century?
This issue has a bearing on the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) and all religious communities' interpretation of magisterial documents.
Here is the citation.
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur 1
OCT. 2, 2012
Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress'
Cardinal Muller must be asked why did he cite this passage when asked about EENS 'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” ? Does he assume this is a reference to a known person, past or present, saved outside the Church? Does he know any one as such saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church? How could any one in the past see someone in Heaven saved without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) in the Catholic Church? How could this person allegedly seen in Heaven also be on earth to be an exception to EENS? Finally, the person now saved in Heaven who was outside the church would have to be on earth too, to be an exception to EENS?
Dr.Maike Hickson could ask Cardinal Muller why does he state ' He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.'? What has this to do with the dogma EENS? Is he referring to someone known to be saved outside the Church just by following his conscience? There is no such person in 2012-2017.So to whom is he referring to ?How can he theologically suggest that there is known salvation outside the Church and then reject the dogma EENS as it was interpreted throughout the century? Where is the practical exception in the present times to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church?
Why does he mention theoretical and hypothetical cases with reference to the dogma EENS? 'But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.' This is vague speculation with goodwill. Finally only God will judge.The Holy Spirit has told the Church that they all, who are outside, are on the way to Hell. But what has this to do with EENS? Is Cardinal Muller philosophically suggesting that there is a defacto known case and so he mentions this new doctrine? Upon this 'unknown people are known', irrationality he has created a new theology on outside the Church there is salvation ? He has used this ruse to reject exclusive salvation in the Church? Yes!
He says 'We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. ' He can hope so but do not posit this as an exception to the dogma EENS.This is what he has wrongly done in this interview.
Do not mention this when asked about EENS.Since we do not know of any one saved outside the Church who followed the dictates of their God-given conscience.Practically there are no such cases and so theologically this should not be mentioned as an exception.
FOR US
For me there is nothing in Lumen Gentium 14 to contradict the dogma EENS as it was traditionally interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.Since we do not know, who 'knows' or 'does not know' about Jesus and the Church, and will be saved or not saved.This would be known to only Jesus.Cardinal Muller cannot name any such person.
MISTAKE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II ALSO
This was originally a mistake in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers including Cardinal Cushing, should not have mentioned it.The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were not exceptions to the dogma EENS as the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 states.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member -Letter of the Holy Office 1949
So when the Council Fathers mentioned this error in the text of Vatican Council II, it was a human error and not the work of the Holy Spirit.
No one at Vatican Council II (1965) could say that someone in particular will be saved or not saved outside the Church who is in ignorance or has a good conscience.
MANY PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH ME
So for me LG 14 is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. There are no theological exceptions possible, there are no practical exceptions known in 2017.Many priests in Rome agree with me.
Maika Hickson could ask Cardinal Muller's Secretary to please let us know how can invisible people in 2017 be visible exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, and the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Similarly she is asking today, with reference to Amoris Laetitia,how can we know when people in manifest mortal sin are not in mortal sin and so can be allowed to continue in their life style and also be given the Eucharist and it will not be a sacrilege?How can we know that an umarried couple is living as brother and sister just because they say so?
We humans cannot know.So there should be no change in the moral teachings of the Church.
Similarly we cannot know any case of a person with BOD,BOB and I.I or LG 16, LG 8 or LG 14. We cannot state that these are references to physically visible and known people in the present times. We cannot state that any one in particular will be saved outside the Church, without having to be a member with faith and baptism.
HYPOTHETICAL CASES ARE HYPOTHETICAL ONLY
Maike Hickson could inform Cardinal Muller that there are Catholics, me (Lionel) included, who say that hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are hypothetical only.So there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS. People who do not exist in our reality cannot be exceptions.So we reject the new theology based on hypothetical cases being explicitly visible to the human eye.
We affirm Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.I am not only following my conscience but also the traditional teachings of the Church interpreted without an irrational conscience.
We do not reject Vatican Council II and neither do we reject EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century.What does Cardinal Muller have to say about this?
Does he think that the SSPX accept this interpretation of Vatican Council II for canonical status? Can the SSPX accept LG 14 as referring to a hypothetical case only?
Can it be done also with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22,AG 11 etc? May be he thinks the SSPX can receive canonical status with this interpretation of Vatican Council II, which is rational, traditional and not heretical.-Lionel Andrades
1.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/there-are-two-interpretations-of.html
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise) It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________
Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Instead they assume hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.
EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.
HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)
2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)
3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)
4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)
5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________
Posts
