The General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in Switzerland has just released an interview granted by the Superior-General of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay, on the meaning of the meeting held with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Gerhard Müller, on September 23.
In this section of the interview on the subject of doctrine Cardinal Walter Kaspar and Bishop Bernard Fellay are ignorant of how 'new princioples', doctrinal changes, are based on the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth.They infer that these these deceased are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation. This irrationality is now being adapted to marriage.
In the proposals of Cardinal Kasper, where do you see a pastoral application that makes more evident a doctrinal change introduced during the Council? Where do you see a “time bomb?”
Bishop Fellay:
In the interview that he (Cardinal Kaspar) granted to the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on September 18th, the Cardinal says: “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further.
In the interview that he (Cardinal Kaspar) granted to the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on September 18th, the Cardinal says: “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further.
Lionel: When he refers to a development in ecclesiology he is going back to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visble, known in the present times.So they are exceptions for him to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 1 So Vatican Council II has 'developed' when Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) etc are visible for him.They(LG 16 etc) refer, for Cardinal Kaspar, to known in 2014 exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible in this case (i.e. that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly).
Lionel: By a deeper understanding in ecclesiology he means there is known salvation outside the Church, since the deceased now saved and who are in Heaven are also visible and known on earth in 2014.He concludes that these deceased-visible for him are known exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too.
Lionel: And these cases are visible and known for him in 2014 to be exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology. So there is 'a development of docrine' for him with this irrationality.This is the interpretation acceptable to the Jewish Left.
Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages.”
Lionel:He does not know any exception to the rule, yet he will assume that the exception must now be the rule.Similarly he does not know of any non Catholic saved outside the visible limits of the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, but he willl assume that there is a defacto case in 2014 and so the traditional teaching has changed, for him.
Cardinal Kasper is quite logical and perfectly consistent: he proposes applying pastorally to marriage the new principles concerning the Church that were spelled out at the Council in the name of ecumenism:
Lionel: These 'new principles' have not come into the Church at Vatican Council II. They came into the Church in 1949 at Boston. They were accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and priests.
Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were assumed to be visible and known exceptions, to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words the deceased-saved were objectively seen to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church. They accepted this irrationality and did not know that this was a contradiction of the Catholic Church's traditonal teaching on ecumenism and other religions.So Vatican Council II emerged as a break with the past for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who did not know what caused this break.They were not aware of the irrational premise being used in the interpretation. Any magisterial document interpreted, while assuming the dead are visible, will emerge non traditional.
there are elements of ecclesiality outside the Church. He moves logically from ecclesial ecumenism to matrimonial ecumenism.
Lionel: It should be logical for Bishop Bernard Fellay since he too, interprets Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the same way as Cardinal Walter Kaspar.
Thus, in his opinion, there are elements of Christian marriage outside of the sacrament.
Lionel: Which he knows personally and which can be verified! These known cases are once again exceptions to the rule.
Cardinal Cushing got away with it once , with reference to salvation. He is trying to see if he can get away with it a second time, this time with marriage.
In both cases the theological error is based on non existent cases. Hypothetical cases are considered defacto exceptions to Tradition.
What is pathetic is that the SSPX makes the same mistake.
To look at things concretely, just ask spouses what they would think of “ecumenical” marital fidelity or fidelity in diversity! Similarly, what are we supposed to think about a so-called “ecumenical” doctrinal unity that is united in diversity? This sort of result is what we denounce, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either does not see it or else does not accept it.
Lionel:
The Holy Office in 1949 made an objecive mistake and the Holy Office today (CDF) does not want to acknowledge it.-Lionel Andrades
1.
In the course of the Council the “subsistit in” took the place of the previous “est”. It contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem. The “est” claimed that the church of Christ Jesus “is” the Catholic Church. This strict identification of the church of Christ Jesus with the Catholic Church had been represented most recently in the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950). But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921). Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.- Cardinal Walter Kaspar, on the website of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity
January 31, 2014
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment