Saturday, April 30, 2016

Cardinal Burke interprets Vatican Council II like Fr.Hans Kung: contradicting the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra

 Delete BloggerMusings of a Pertinacious Papist Comments from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist:  "Just what the German hierarchy has been waiting for"
Related image 
Maybe I've misread you and the Lionhearted Cardinal... but when Cardinal Burke says that AL is not magisterial, he says, in effect, that it can't be binding -- it has no binding authority because lack of clarity and exhortatory observations can't bind...

Lionel :
Cardinal Burke has also said that the 'only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching'. He continues   : 'In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.'
'does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.'
For  Cardinal Raymond Burke, Catholic theology must assume subjective cases  are objective. It must mix up and confuse what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible. It must negate standard forms of philosophical reasoning, contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction and reject magisterial documents with an irrational premise and inference to create a non traditional theology.
 For the cardinal, whom I still admire and respect, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to objective persons.The baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 is not  hypothetical for him as it is for me.Instead it is an objective exception to the perennial doctrine on exclusive salvation in the Church.This is his new salvation theology.

Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin for Cardinal Burke.Since he approves the moral theology expressed in  AL 301.
He approves  AL saying that there will be a case by case study of people living in manifest mortal sin, meaning it will be judged who is not in mortal sin and is on the way to Heaven with Sanctifying Grace.He is saying that he can judge who is living in mortal sin and will not go to Hell.
This is contrary to the Council of Trent and Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul II. He is saying it is possible to  judge.There could be some Catholics, for him,  whose subjectivity can be judged.So it will be concluded that they are exceptions to the teachings on mortal sin.Hypothetical, subjective factors are explicitly knowable to determine, when God will not condemn a person living in mortal sin !
So in , morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology and this is fine with him.The new doctrine says that every one does not need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation since there are known exceptions and every one who is living in traditional manifest mortal sin may not be in mortal sin, since there are known exceptions. 

So with the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin) doctrine has been changed de jure (there are judgeable exceptions to mortal sin) and de facto ( there are judgeable known exceptions to persons living in mortal sin).The change is there in principle and in fact in morals and this is the new doctrine accepted by Cardinal Burke.

Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water).This is accepted by Cardinal Burke. It is nothing new.So de facto there are judgeable, known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church.So there is a new doctrine in principle and in fact on faith (salvation).Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for Cardinal Burke is no more like it was in the 16th century.

So we have Cardinal Burke assuming we can judge subjective cases with Protestant situation ethics, a subjectivism made objective. This  is not humanly possible. Since only God can judge if someone in mortal sin will not be going to Hell or has Sanctifying Grace.However for the cardinal  there can be known exceptions projected against the traditional teaching on morals and faith.The doctrinal change based on a theological innovation can be known implicitly in Amoris Laetitia.Since AL 301 explicity tells us what was the theology used. Implicitly we know that the new theology was used based on being able to judge subjective or social factors and then concluding that there are objective exceptions to mortal sin.This is normal for Cardinal Burke.

He does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He mixes up what is hypothetical as being objective and known. It is with this subjectivism that he interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS and Tradition in general. With his subjectivism he changes the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms and they include the baptism of desire and blood...'With known exceptions to the dogma EENS he has rejected the Athanasius Creed and the dogma EENS itself, defined by three Church Councils. He is contradicting the pope being infallible ex cathedra, especially when the Church Councils defined EENS.Related image
He interprets Vatican Council II like Fr. Hans Kung S.J who assumes LG 16 refers to known cases, objectively saved without the baptism of water. So LG 16 is a break with the dogma EENS for Fr. Kung. So with invisible cases being visible, Vatican Council II contradicts the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra, in defining EENS,  according to  some of his early writings.He said Fr. John Courtney Murray did what no one in Church history could do i.e refute the teaching in the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. He does not realize that this is only possible by assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known to be exceptions to EENS.
For me this is all heresy. We cannot in principle and in fact change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, reject a defined dogma, interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference  and project exceptions to the traditional teachings on faith and morals. This is a break with  'the perennial doctrine and discipline'.It contradicts 'the constant teaching of the Church'.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw does not see how judgement of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional conclusion in Vatican Council II

For Burke and Shaw subjective cases are objective, this is the norm.So they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus


No comments: