Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!

The Holy See
INTERVIEW WITH H.E. ARCHBISHOP GERHARD LUDWIG MÜLLER
13 September 2012
National Catholic Register / The Catholic Herald

Edward Pentin:
But do you feel there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology. One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent. Can that be attributed to the Council in your view?
 
Cardinal Gerhard Muller:
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 3rd century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the 3rd 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. However, if a Catholic says today: “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church, that person is in danger of losing salvation. Therefore we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts – and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
Lionel:
Cardinal Muller has denied the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version, what the secular media calls ' the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.He has supported the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Cardinal Marchetti suggested that being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.It implied that these cases were personally known and visible to be exceptions. This was an objective error. How can the deceased who are now in Heaven be visible on earth to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation ?.They would have to be visible for Cardinal Marchetti, for them, to be objective exceptions.This factual error was supporterd by Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit community there. They inserted the confusion in Vatican Council II. (AG 7,LG 14).
So 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'.But he who is aware or in inculpable ignorance is known only to God.So what has this to do with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We cannot meet someone who has been saved or will be saved without the baptism of water in 2015!
For Cardinal Gerhard Muller we can! So he considers this 'a development' of the dogma.The dogma has known and visible exceptions as Cardinal Marchetti believed.
'But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.'
Lionel:
What has this to do with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Obviously Cardinal Gerhard Muller is referring to a hypothetical case.How can hypothetical cases be defacto exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation ?
Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience.
Lionel:
Again, why mention this with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? We do not know of any one saved by acting according to his or her conscience and who did not need the baptism of water in the present times.So how is  following one's conscience(LG 16) an exception to the traditional 'rigorist'interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican once again assumes that these cases are objectively known to us.Since they are explicit for him they are exceptions to the dogma.This is  irrational.
We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation
Lionel:
Cardinal Gerhard Muller first assumes that the dead-saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and who are in Heaven are visible to us ( false proposition). He then concludes that these visble-dead are explicit exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of the dogma ( false conclusion). He then concludes that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church and all do not need to defacto become formal members of the Church to avoid Hell.This is a new theology based on an irrational premise.It is also a break with Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius XII etc. 
but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
Lionel:
True interpretation must not change the content of the teaching but obviously he is not promoting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.He is a Cushingite.For him there are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the content of the teaching has been changed.
Where are these explicit exceptions? In the Vatican ? Rome ? Can he give us their names and surnames?
the perspective is different between then and now
Lionel:
Yes. Since he like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing is using a false premise with a false conclusion to change the meaning of the dogma. 
-Lionel Andrades
  
June 5, 2013
Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof!
ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview
 
 

No comments: