Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Cardinal Sarah, Bishop Schneider Respond to Pope’s Comment on Intercommunion

Cardinal Sarah, Bishop Schneider Respond to Pope’s Comment on Intercommunion

http://aleteia.org/2015/11/30/cardinal-sarah-and-bishop-schneider-respond-to-pope-francis-comments-on-intercommunion/

Joseph Shaw could discuss the theological difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism and its effect on the liturgy

On the LMS Chairman blog Dr. Joseph Shaw asks : Can  the Traditional Mass preserve orthodoxy?


IMG_9152
High Mass in Oxburgh Hall Chapel, for the LMS Pilgrimage to Walsingham
for the Conversion of England.
Dr.Joseph Shaw:
Michael Dougherty has written (in The Week, largely reproduced on 1 Peter 5) that the current crisis in the Church arises out of a failure to centre the Faith on Christ.
Lionel:
 It is a failure to centre the Mass on Christ in only the Catholic Church. It is Christocentric , as is the Novus Ordo Mass, but it is not ecclesiocentric.
 The Traditional Mass is Christ-centric, and in the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger we find powerful arguments that the Ordinary Form is much less so.
Lionel:
 In one of the theological papers of the International Theological Commission (Christianity and the World Religions)   approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger it is said that after the decision of Pope Pius XII regarding Fr. Leonard Feeney the Church is no more exclusivist ecclesiocentric.
Centuries-old Feeneyism has been replaced by Cushingism.
'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 

Ratzinger explains the Christocentric meaning and influence of a series of features of the Traditional Mass which have been lost, or usually lost: the silent canon, the priestly prayers, and celebration ad orientem.
Lionel:
Also missing is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the old ecclesiology.

The solution to the dogmatic crisis, then, is connected with the solution to the liturgical crisis. Indeed, everyone by now knows the passage from Cardinal Ratzinger:
“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur:as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us."
Lionel: The 'solution to the dogmatic crisis' ! The dogmatic crisis arose in 1949 when the Church switched from Feeneyism to Cushingism and gave up the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

In short, the Traditional Mass can help to restore the Church's lost balance.
Lionel:
Not with Cushingism.

The response to this in the com box is largely the same as the response to this idea made recently by Michael Voris in an interview with the Latin Mass Society which you can read here (see p8):



He doesn't actually answer the question, but makes a perfectly valid point: the rot was setting in a long time before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. As regular readers know, I am in complete agreement about that. But we need to make a crucial distinction.
Lionel:
 The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was a turning point towards irrationality, heresy and innovation. The Magisterium made a public mistake. It was an objective mistake.It was an error in reasoning. Technically the error was there in philosophy first and then theology.
It was 'reasoned' that there were people in Heaven, non Catholics who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and these persons were seen and known, even though they were in Heaven. This was the false premise, the  irrational thinking. Then it was inferred that these cases saved since they  were explicit, seen in the flesh, they were exceptions to the Feeneyite, traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is was fantasy.It still is fantasy theology used with the liturgt. So first there was an irrational premise, then followed an irrational inference. Then was created the new theology, Cushingism, supported by Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston , the Jesuits and Pope Pius XII and his Curia.
Since there were allegedly known exceptions of people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water,it was reasoned that not every one needed to enter the Church for salvation but only those who knew ( those who were not in ignorance).Don't try to make sense of this!  So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 gave the Catholic Church a new doctrine based on non-sense. Not every one needs to enter the Church according to Lumen Gentium 14 while Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism.Due to the mistake in 1949 LG 14 says only those who know need to enter the Church while AG 7 supports the dogma EENS and says all need to enter the Catholic Church. LG 14 says (because of the objective error in 1949) that those who know ( as opposed to known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance) and who do not enter are on the way to Hell  while AG 7 says all need to enter for salvation.
So at Vatican Council II the Church was no more ecclesiocentric  but remained vaguely Christocentric like the Protestants.The confusion was brought in with so called known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. There was salvation outside the Church according to 1949 Boston and this factual error was incorporated in Vatican Council II.

The Modernist heresy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the heresy of an intellectual elite.
Lionel:
Cushingism is a modernist heresy. It is still not acknowledged by the Latin Mass Society.The Latin Mass is offered today, with a modernist ecclesiology which is a break with the past.The Cushing Additions should not have been there in Vatican Council II. Since they are hypothetical cases they are not relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages.They cannot be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church, for example in 2015, for salvation.


ORTHODOX PASSAGES
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

CUSHING ADDITIONS
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
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.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

It had no popular roots or manifestation. It opposed, in fact, popular Catholicism: it sought to ridicule the traditional stories of the saints, popular devotions, and the faith of the simple believer.
Lionel:
The simple believer was spared. He or she was not exposed to the new theology in the Catholic universities and seminaries.This was the theology Joseph Shaw has to learn as a student.He now teaches it to others.

 When Pope Pius X suppressed it, as far as open discussion went, it famously went 'underground'; this meant its proponents often conformed outwardly but continued to spread their ideas on the quiet, in intellectual institutions - seminaries and Catholic universities. Modernists were so successful in capturing these institutions, in fact, that by the time of the Council a very large number of theologians and even bishops had been influenced decisively by ideas connected with Modernism.
Lionel:
They incorporated Cushingism all over Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11 etc).Hypothetical cases were mentioned in Vatican Council II as if they were explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Then the new doctrine of 'only those who know' was inserted in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7 etc).Also there are references to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, which are theoretical possibilities only and not relevant to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology, the ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.So they should not have been placed in Vatican Council II.

But it still was not a popular movement. This is made perfectly clear in the writings of the liturgical reformers, who again and again lament the liturgical and devotional preferences of the laity, as had the more progressive members of the Liturgical Movement in the preceding decades. From the 1950s attacks were increasingly made on popular devotions and beliefs from sophomoric clergy and forward-thinking journalists, and of course they have been at it ever since.

What has happened after the Council is a mind-bending collapse in belief and practise by the ordinary laity.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II is Cristocentric and not ecclesiocentric. This is a big shift.Ecclesioology was changed with the premise and inference and not really with the text. I can interpret the same Vatican Council II without the premise and inference and the ecclesiology of the Council would be ecclesiocentric.I would be using Feeneyism.

Here is an example:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. - 1

 There is certainly a story to be told about the 'new catechesis' imposed after the Council, but the liturgical reform also had a part to play. The connection of either of these with the documents of the Council, of course, is a complex question.
Lionel:
Catechesis had to change with the new ecclesiology and the objective error in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston. The error  was inserted into Vatican Council II. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) did not correct the error but repeated it.
However since the error is there in the premise and inference it can be avoided.
Here is an example.




CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

FEENEYISM (rational): The orange text does not contradict the text in yellow since the cases referred to are not known to us, personally .We do not know and cannot know these cases. So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CUSHINGISM( irrational): The orange text contradicts the text in yellow .It is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times. We can see the dead who are known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. -

So yes, there was a long period of preparation, but something huge happened in the wake of the Council. The interested question, which I have discussed more than once on this blog, is the relationship between liturgy and catechesis. Could the old catechesis have held things together with the New Mass?
Lionel:
If you avoid the irrational premise and inference then you change theology, you do away with the present fantasy theology. Then with the old or the new Mass, the ecclesiology is 'exclusivist ecclesiocentrism'.
 We certainly hear a lot in official documents about post-Conciliar problems arising from liturgical reforms because of a 'failure of catechesis'. But the fact is that the liturgy is a supremely powerful means of conveying the fundamental theological orientation of the Church to the Faithful.
Lionel:
No it is not.The present theological orientation is Cushingism.
 If the liturgy is strongly Christocentric, our weekly liturgical experience will embed that in our hearts and souls: unless we are intellectuals consciously fighting against that.
Lionel:
In Britain the liturgy presently is Christocentric, as it is in the rest of the Church. It is Jesus without the necessity of the Church for salvation.

 If it is not strongly Christocentric, then it won't. If, as Cardinal Ratzinger suggested, typical Novus Ordo celebrations can end up looking as though it is the community, and not God, which is being worshiped, then clearly we have a problem.
Lionel:
Without the old ecclesiology; the exclusivist ecclesiocentric traditional model, without Feeneyism, the Traditional Latin Mass remains the same as the Novus Ordo Mass for me.This is welcomed by the Vatican since it is not 'ideological'.
However I attend the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, keeping in mind, that the old ecclesiology has not been replaced by the new ecclesiology.I am a Feeneyite.

The basic theological orientation of the ancient liturgy is a massive fact which effects even the most unsophisticated church-goer.
Lionel:
Agreed.There is a power in it! I am referring to the ancient liturgy with the ancient ecclesiology.
 There are a number of other connections between the Traditional Mass and orthodoxy, some of which I explored in a series under this label.

There is matter of the orthodoxy of the texts, which speak to us from the age of the Fathers of the Church. I wonder if in the crisis of today more orthodox Catholics can see that the systematic elimination from the Ordinary Form of theological themes at odds with the tenor of the modern world was not such a great idea. The themes included grace, penance, sin, judgment, and the intercession of the saints.
Lionel:
They were linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You cannot put aside the dogma and have orthodoxy.

Then there is the issue of continuity and the prestige of the past. It is impossible to take seriously the claim that the Church's teachings are irreformable if the most sacred monument of the Church's life from the past is ridiculed and swept aside.
Lionel:
Agreed.
We can bring back the change by theologically switching back to Feeneyism.

 As I expressed it here, following an argument made by Anne Roche Muggeridge:

It is not that people are incapable of distinguishing doctrine from liturgy, or are ignorant that the liturgy of the mid 20th century was not identical to that celebrated by the Apostles. ...
Lionel:
They are incapable of distinguishing doctrine from liturgy because Cushingism, the new theology, was a subtle error which was not noticed by even the traditionalists priests and bishops.

 It is, rather, that the institution they want us to believe in doctrinally also brought us this ancient liturgy.
Lionel:
The institution discarded the dogma and the old ecclesiology by using an irrationality ( the dead-saved now in Heaven are visible.They are exceptions to the old ecclesiology and the old dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church). 

If the liturgy is rubbished, then the Church is rubbished.
Lionel:
If the dogma is discarded, then the liturgy is changed.
 The Church loses her credibility. If you lose your credibility, you don't lose it selectively: people say, 'if he was deluded or a liar about that, I won't believe anything he says any more.'
Lionel:
The Church taught exclusive salvation. Then the doctrine was changed.The Magisterium accepted Cushingism and rejected Feeneyism.

 That's what the liberals wanted people to say about the Church, and to a tragically large extent they succeeded.
Lionel:
They succeeded since the traditionalists did not notice the error. Even  today they are ignorant! There was an objective mistake made in 1949.
In the Boston Case it was Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.For the secular media and the ecclesiastical hierarchy it was the opposite.

And there is the issue of the conversion of hearts which the ancient liturgy can bring about.

There are, in fact, endless things to say on this topic. I might say a few more of them in future posts.
Lionel:
I hope Joseph Shaw will discuss the theological difference between Cushingism and Feeneyism and its effect on the liturgy.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.lmschairman.org/2015/10/can-traditional-mass-preserve-orthodoxy.html

1.

APRIL 7, 2014


Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Pope Benedict XVI made a factual error : Analysis


There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyism



DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html#links


Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was doctrinally wrong his spiritual heirs must admit for a reconciliation with the truth
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-was.html


Will there be a schism over the Cushingism issue?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/will-there-be-schism-over-cushingism.html


We have two options. We can interpret the text either way. One way is traditional and the other is irrational
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/wineinthewater-lumen-gentium-14.html

St.Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/stthomas-aquinas-was-feeneyite.html

So if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are not explicit for us in 2015 ( and they are not) then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/so-if-lg-16-lg-8-ur-3-na-2-are-not.html


VATICAN COUNCIL II CAN BE READ ACCORDING TO CUSHINGISM OR FEENEYISM. THE TEXT IS NEUTRAL

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/vatican-council-ii-can-be-read.html


IMG_2635
Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/ecclesiology-is-not-changed-with-ii-and.html
Joseph Shaw is not going to tell Muslims at Oxford that the Chuch says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. Neither is Gavin D'Costa going to say this in Bristol
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/joseph-shaw-is-not-going-to-tell.html


Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology.Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/joseph-shaw-would-not-say-that-all-need.html
Magisterium: it all depends on how you look at it!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/magisterium-it-all-depends-on-how-you.html


Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits made a mistake when they inserted two superflous paragraphs in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) : until today Catholics are misled http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/cardinal-richard-cushing-and-jesuits.html

Pope Benedict expected the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism. This is doctrinal heresyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/pope-benedict-was-expecting-society-of.html


Fr.John Hunwicke and Patrick Archbold expect the SSPX to also compromise the Faith with the irrational premise and conclusion http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frjohn-hunwicke-and-patrick-archbold.html