by EDWARD PENTIN10/04/2012, National Catholic Register
The Vatican headquarters of the Congregation f or the Doctrine of the Faith |
What stage have we reached in the dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X?
I wouldn’t call it a dialogue between two Church partners. This was a brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine. This authentic interpretation is guaranteed by the Pope. The SSPX must accept the Holy Father, the Pope, as the visible head of the Church. They have a great respect for Tradition. They must, therefore, accept the position of the Pope as stated in the First Vatican Council. They must also accept the doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been authorized officially by the Pope.
Part of the problem is that, after 30 or more years of separation from the Church, some groups or persons can be very closed in their own dynamic, in their own groups, and very fixed on these points. I believe that these questions will be resolved in the long term.
Is it possible for reconciliation with Bishop Richard Williamson within the society?
Williamson is a separate problem to this reconciliation process. It is simply unacceptable that a Christian or even more a bishop — of course he is not a Catholic bishop, as a bishop is only Catholic when he is in full communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter, which Williamson is not — denies all that the Nazis had done against the Jewish people, their exterminations. How is it possible to be so cold-hearted about this? It is absolutely unacceptable, but this is a separate problem.
They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.
In view of all this, are you nevertheless confident and optimistic there will be reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X?
I’m always confident in our faith and optimistic. We have to pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church. The SSPX is not the only breakaway group in the Church. There are worse ones on the opposite side, too. These movements are worse because they are often denying essentials of Christianity. We must work for unity, and so it is also my task to invite all to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, which is led by the supreme shepherd, the pope — who is the Vicar of Christ.
If they do come back, what positive aspects could they bring to the Church?
They could underline what Tradition is, but they also must become broader in their perspective, because the apostolic Tradition of the Church is not only about a few elements. The Tradition of the Church is large and wide. On the other hand, there must also be a renewal in the celebration of the liturgy, because we have had a lot of abuses of the liturgy, which have damaged the faith of many people.
Could they perhaps help correct some of the abuses?
That is not their task, but ours. One extreme cannot be the equivalent of the other. The extremes must be corrected by the center.
There were some controversies surrounding your appointment regarding your previous teachings on Mary and the Eucharist. Could you tell us more about this?
Editor’s note: On the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Archbishop Müller wrote that the doctrine is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.” On the Eucharist, he stated: “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”)
These were not so much criticisms as baseless provocations aimed at discrediting me, but everyone can read what I have written in context and systematically. Why should I deny the doctrines of transubstantiation or the perpetual virginity of Mary? I have written whole books in defense of these doctrines. Concerning miracles, we have to remember that the primary object of our faith is the action of God; the secondary object is what God did inclusively in the material dimension. It is not enough to say that miracles are an inexplicable action — something totally exceptional within the material world — that prove God’s existence. Rather, the miracles performed by Jesus reveal that he is our divine Savior who came to heal a world wounded by sin.
So, for instance, when Jesus performed a miracle, such as the healing of the sick man, the first aspect to look at is not the mere suspension of the natural order. The first priority is to examine the fact that God has healed this person who needed to be healed; the suspension of the laws of nature are a consequence of this divine intervention. Often, people don’t understand this perspective of the faith.
Some have suggested you were trying to push the boundaries, to come up with new thinking, as scholars often do. Does this have something to do with the controversy?
Look, the basis of our faith is revelation. But we need theological explanations, interpretation, to explain the historical truth of revelation and to present and defend it against errors and heresy. So, for instance, the Christological dogmas of the early councils were absolutely necessary to explain in another way the truths about Christ witnessed to and contained in the New Testament. If you want to conserve the content of the truth in other contexts, you must sometimes explain it in other categories.
In the Gospel, Jesus said: “This is my blood; this is my body.” What is the meaning of this? It refers to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but in the New Testament, you don’t find this expression — “Real Presence.” It is a later theological term used to explain the truth contained in the Gospel. Then, in the context of the 12th and 13th centuries, the Church had to defend the doctrine of the Real Presence, and she did this by expressing it in philosophical terms to explain the difference between substance and appearance. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation — a word which you will not find in the New Testament but which was necessary in order to explain and defend what had been revealed in the New Testament. Often, people do not understand the relationship between revelation and theology.
Finally, what is the situation regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)? The congregation recently issued a doctrinal assessment calling for a renewal of this American organization. Is there a continuing struggle between the CDF and the organization?
There is no struggle between the Holy See and this organization, but we do want to help the LCWR in its renewal of religious life — precisely because of the importance of religious life for the Church. In our times, such renewal will only be possible if there is a renewed commitment to the three vows [chastity, poverty and obedience] and a new identification with our Catholic faith and life. We cannot fulfill our mission if we are split, everyone speaking against one another, working against one another, or accepting ideas from outside that don’t belong to our faith. And we cannot accept doctrines about sexuality that don’t respect the fundamental essentials of revealed anthropology. So we must find new ways to serve the society of today, not waste our time with “civil wars” inside the Catholic Church. We must work together and have confidence.
But it is important to remember that at no time in the history of the Church has a group or a movement in one country ever been successful when it has taken an attitude against Rome, when it has been “anti-Rome.” Setting oneself up against “Rome” has never brought authentic reform or renewal to the Church. Only through a renewed commitment to the full teaching of Christ and his Church, and through a renewed spirit of collaboration with the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him, will there be renewal and new life in the Catholic Church and a new evangelization of our society. Preaching the Gospel of Christ to a weary world so desperately in need of its liberating truth — this must be our priority.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.
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
ReplyDeleteHe cites Lumen Gentium 14 implying that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us and every one needs not to enter the Church for salvation in the present times but only those who 'know' and who are known to us.The Prefect of the Congregation succumbs to the Richard Cushing virus.
Both Archbishop Muller and Di Noia in interviews to the National Catholic Register have assumed that there are known exceptions on earth to the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Di Noia indicates we know exceptions of those saved with grace 'elements of sanctification'(LG 14) and for the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is those in invincible ignorance etc.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-gerhard-muller-assumes-that.html#links
continued
ReplyDeleteThat we can see the dead saved who are exceptions to a dogma defined by three Councils, the new CDF Prefect calls a 'development'.
Archbishop Muller , the Prefect of the CDF when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus (which Pope Pius XII called' the dogma' , the 'infallible statement' in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston), says:
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
True, and we do not know these cases in the present times. We cannot judge who knows and is saved and who does not know. So this reasoning is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.The exceptions emerged in the 1940's.
He continues:
— 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.
A Catholic ' in his conscience, in his heart' can affirm implicit baptism of desire and being saved implicitly in invincible ignorance alongwith the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Fathers, Church Councils, popes and saints.There is no contradiction.
Where is the contradiction ? Why has he to mention this?. He has to since for him those saved in invincible ignorance are not implicit but explicit.
As a Catholic I am in communion with the Pope, Pope Benedict XVI is my pope and I affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with being saved implicitly in invincible ignorance etc.Can Archbishops Muller and Di Noia say the same? No. Since they assume that we can see the dead who are exceptions.
Archbsihop Muller continues:
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.
We do not know who is 'inculpably ignorant of this truth' and ' are necessarily condemned for that reason' so this is a non issue. It is not related to the dogma and the saints who supported the dogma, in its traditonal sense, including St.Maximillian Kolbe in the 1930's.
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.
Yes.However this should not be posited as an exception to the dogma.Since we do not know any of these cases.The dead and saved are known only to God in 2012.
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.
True - and this is not a contradiction to the literal interpretation of the dogma which says all need to convert for salvation .
Archbishop Muller's position is irrational, non traditional and sadly heretical. He is denying an ex cathedra dogma with alleged exceptions, none of whom he can name in the present times. He is using a hermeneutic which is a break from tradition.He is using the false premise of the dead who are saved are visible to us in the present times.This error comes from Boston in the 1940's and the CDF has still not identified it.-Lionel Andrades
continued
POPE JOHN XXIII, POPE PAUL VI AND POPE JOHN PAUL II NEVER IDENTIFIED THE VISIBLE DEAD SAVED MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH CAME FROM THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY ERA
ReplyDeleteThere is no statement from any of the popes which show that they knew of the irrationality.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not directly state that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma.One has to imply it.
Pope John Paul II indirectly affirmed the dogma on salvation but never directly dealt with the baptism of desire and the issue of being saved with invincible ignorance. Similarly Pope Paul VI held the traditional teaching of the church with respect to the salvation dogma(Evangelii Nuntiandi) (1). He never confronted the false premise. This premise led Catholics to assume that the baptism of desire etc were not only just possibilities known to God. They assumed that they were defacto exceptions to the defined dogma. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may have known that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.It's not clear. Vatican Council II does not make this error directly. It has to be implied by the reader.Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church claim that the visible dead are exceptions to the dogma. One has to wrongly assume it.
The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) could only see the Council with a false premise. So they criticize Vatican Council in general and not the false premise in particular. There is a blanket criticism of Vatican Council II without identifying the premise of the visible dead saved on earth, which is a complete irrationality and is responsible for the interpretation of the Council which the SSPX criticizes.
Well known apologists like Monsgr. Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr.John Hardon S.J followed the popes assuming invincible ignorance and implicit desire were exceptions to the dogma. They all took it for granted that this was the new teaching from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Pope Pius XII.
If the Letter assumes that those who are in invincible ignorance are de facto known and so are exceptions this would be an objective error of the cardinals who issued the Letter.
For over 20 years the archbishops of Boston did not lift the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney assuming that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. Even Fr. Schmaruk who represented the bishops and announced the lifting of the excommunication at a press conference, did not seem to know that the baptism of desire was never ever an exception to the dogma.It was not an issue.It was irrelevant.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/pope-john-xxiii-pope-paul-vi-and-pope.html#links
continued
ReplyDeleteThe real controversy and confusion has not been on the dogma itself but on the baptism of desire being exceptions to the dogma because there are alleged known cases in the present times. No one told the popes that the baptism of desire was not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Even if the popes were informed the issue had become so complicated they would not know from where to start to correct it.Pope Pius XII may be knew about it but could not do anything because of the complications with the Archbishop of Boston from where the problem surfaced. It was Archbishop Humberto Medeiros, the Archbishop who replaced Cardinal Cushing, who seemed to understand that an injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney.-Lionel Andrades
1.
In other words, our religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven.-Evangelii Nuntindi,Pope Paul VI .N.53
IF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA IT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE
The Letter from the Holy Office 1949 clearly affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/if-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html
DID THE CARDINAL WHO ISSUED THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 ASSUME THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WAS VISIBLE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/11/did-cardinal-who-issued-letter-of-holy.html
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/did-letter-of-holy-office-1949.html
ROBERTO de MATTEI’S RADICI CRISTIANI ENDORSES LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SALVATION DOGMA BUT DOES NOT INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II ACCORDING TO THE DOGMA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/roberto-de-matteis-radici-cristiani.html#links
LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html
CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Corrado%20Gnerre
CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholic%20priests
Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/did-archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-know.html#links
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-gerhard-muller-assumes-that.html#links
SSPX IDENTIFY THE FALSE PREMISE IN PUBLIC AND YOU WILL HAVE CREATED AN INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II IN ACCORD WITH TRADITION
You cannot be excommunicated for affirming a Vatican Council II in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/sspx-identify-false-premise-in-public.html#links
ROME SACRED LITURGY CONFERENCE NEXT YEAR AND HERESY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/rome-sacred-liturgy-conference-next.html