Years ago, in fact, about 2003, as the culmination of a long period of research (on the religious life) I realized that the rift in the Church was worse than I had been led to believe from what we then categorized as the “conservative” Catholic writers. This was the uncomfortable moment that I “tradded,” and though I’ve never wished I could go back to not knowing what I know, the understanding hasn’t come without a cost. I’m not a Trad because I want to be. I’m a Trad because I can’t ever un-know things I now know.
Lionel:You still do not know that your a Trad who rubber stamps a non traditional theology on faith and morals.Here are objective mistakes in Vatican Council II which are never discussed.
MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
1.LG 14 says only those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell. In other words not every non Catholic.Since those who are in invincible ignorance are assumed to be known, explicit in real life. They are assumed to be known exceptions of persons saved outside the Church i.e without faith and baptism.
This is false since no one could have physically seen these exceptions and no Church document before the Baltimore Catechism suggests these cases are objectively known.
2.LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2 etc are ALLhypothetical cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.So they should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council with reference to orthodox passages on salvation.
3.Similarly it was a mistake for Vatican Council II to mention those who would be saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which they could not receive in life or those who are saved in invincible ignorance.It was a mistake to mention this in LG 14 and AG 14 which have orthodox pasages saying all need faith and baptism. It was a mistake since invisible cases are not relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
It is with these objective mistakes in Vatican Council II , that the contemporary magisterium interprets the Council as a break with EENS.
I had started from a position of believing in the simplistic conservative narrative. It goes something like this: there had been a group of “liberal” prelates at the Council and afterwards who had tried to “hijack” the conciliar documents and the subsequent acts for their own purposes. This had met with quite a lot of success and things had been pretty bad until the 80s and 90s, particularly with the bad bishops under Paul VI. But then the “conservative” pope John Paul II thwarted them, “cleaning up” seminaries and appointing (mostly) “conservative” new bishops. The attempt to hijack the Barque had, in the main, failed and things were returning slowly to the natural course of the Church. There were lots of signs that this younger “conservative” movement – particularly among seminarians – was the future. New(ish) Catholic colleges were consciously self-identifying as “Ex corde ecclesiae” colleges; parishes and some whole dioceses were getting rid of the bongos and retiring the guitars and puppets and balloons in the Mass… it was all slowly returning to normal.
Lionel:Those who are using the bongos and those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass are using an irrational inference to interpret faith and morals. The result is a break with Tradition. So even with kneeling at the altar rails and receiving the Eucharist on the tongue your ecclesiology is a break with the 16 century ecclesiology at the Latin Mass.They accept the Catechism with its mistakes.
MISTAKES IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Why is the baptism of desire and blood mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) in the section on Outside the Church there is no salvation (846)? This was a mistake.
Why did Cardinal Ratzinger say in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) 1257, ' God is not limited to the Sacraments' ?. Does he know of any exception?
A non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ( followed by the baptism of water), hypothetically, but we do not know any explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.Does he assume that these cases are visible in the flesh? This is a mistake.He is implying that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.Really? Can he name someone in the present times who is saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism' ( AG 7, LG 14)?
It sounds great. Good guys win. The trouble is that it wasn’t true. The foundation of “normal,” that is, of “orthodoxy,” was in fact a false floor.
Lionel:Correct. There was no orthodoxy. It is not there de jure or defacto.The 16th century orthodoxy for example, was wiped out.The Baltimore Catechism is a break with the Council of Trent.
The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X also made the same mistake. They considered a hypothetical case as being explicit and personally known.Then it is was inferred to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). It was inferred that the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen who dies before receiving it was like the baptism of water.It had the same results for them, as if they knew of a particular case.
Since the time of the Baltimore Catechism we see this pattern of error in the Catholic Church. Hypothetical cases are considered objectively known and then are presumed to be exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS.
The Baltimore Catechism misleads Catholics.They assume that the baptism of desire is 1) a known and physically visible baptism like the baptism of water. 2) The effects of the baptism of desire is that of the baptism of water.It is as if they knew or could know of a particular case now in Heaven saved as such.
The 'desire for the baptism of water ', which is theoretical for all of us and 'the catechuman who dies before receiving it', is a hypothetical case.Yet Catholics treat it as if it is objective.
The same error is there un-noticed in the Catechism of Pope St.Pius X.
MISTAKE IN THE CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
27 Q.Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
29 Q.But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905
Being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us .There should have been no reference to it here.It is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.The same error of the Baltimore Catechism has been placed in the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
Since 29 Q does not refer to an explicit, objectively seen case, it does not contradict 27 Qwhich states ,' No, one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church'.
The reality of the Church was that under that false floor there was a vast edifice, a lost Church, that had been buried and nearly forgotten, and about which it was strictly forbidden to talk. Moreover, that false floor was movable.
There were the old moral theology manuals, of St. Alphonsus Ligouri etc, which mentioned the different types of mortal sin and how they were committed. They have been discarded. Instead a new moral theology was created which mentions exceptions for mortal sin.With this two fold attack on traditional Catholic morality, approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Catholics do not know any more what is a mortal sin.They do not believe in a mortal sin.
So when Amoris Laetiotia(AL) 301 says a mortal sin cannot always be called a mortal sin it is acceptable for Cardinal Raymond Burke. It is the familiar moral theology too for Joseph Shaw at the LMS Chairman blog.
So we have two well known traditionalists, advocates of the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) supporting the new moral theology based on known exceptions to mortal sin, even though we humans cannot judge any case as an exception.
The research I was doing was for a book that would have worked within this narrative to demonstrate that a big part of the “JPII revival” was happening in the religious life.
Even if it was happening the Vatican would have squashed it.
The contemporary magisterium cannot be trusted.Fr.Hans Kung S.J, friend and colleague of Pope Benedict, said Fr.John Courtney Murray did away with the dogma on the infallibility of the pope, since Vatican Council II contradicted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The magisterium actually agreed with him!.Fr.Hans Kung was using subjectivism to interpret Vatican Council II. LG 16 for example, referred to known in the flesh exceptions, visible cases on earth, of persons saved without the baptism of water.LG 16 was an exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS.No one contradicted Hans Kung on this point.Even today no one says LG 16 refers to hypothetical and not objective cases in 2016. So Fr.John C. Murray could not contradict the dogma EENS with anything in Vatican Council II.
The Vatican instead made Catholic universities have Fr. Kung's books placed in their libraries.The books did not contain a clarification or correction from Cardinal Ratzinger. He did not say LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases. He did not even say that the baptism of desire refers to an invisible instead of a visible case.Instead as head of the International Theological Commission, in the ITC theological paper, Christianity and the World Religions(1997), he assumed that LG 16 refers to visible cases.He also approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which suggests that the baptism of desire refers to objective cases and so they were exceptions to the interpretation of EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Hypotethetical but visible in the flesh exceptions!
There were, it was held, new “conservative” communities of nuns being founded that were attracting large numbers of vocations. These, so the story went, were all working against the big catastrophe that happened in the 60s that saw the almost complete collapse of the active religious life. Things like habits, prayer in common, Eucharistic adoration and a unified apostolate of teaching or nursing, were all the rage.
But they had to use the new theology controlled by the CDF. So Vatican Council II instead of being interpreted as supporting the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) , was really interpreted as a break with the past. All religious communities had to follow this interpretation based on an irrational premise and inference.This was magisterial heresy and it was being implemented in the Church by the CDF.
Liberal theologians over time however have assumed that the hypothetical case of the baptism of desire was a defacto exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.This can be read clearly in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The Letter was critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney who refused to say there were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been affirmed by the International Theological Commission whose members include Archbishop Augustine Di Noia.
They use subjectivism, situation ethics and known exceptions to reject the dogma EENS as it was known in the 16th century.They also apply this subjectivism to the interpretation of Vatican Council II (LG 16 is visible and not invisible, it is objective and not hypothetical for them).So their interpretation of Vatican Council II is different from mine. LG 16 refers to invisible cases for me. So it is not an exception to the dogma EENS according to the 16th century Jesuit missionaries.
But it was when I looked more closely at these communities, that is, went to visit them, that this happy, fluffy-bunny narrative stopped matching the increasingly insidious and alarming reality. It’s a long story that I’ll save for another time, but suffice to say that my experiences in the pro-life movement in Canada, the US and Britain and my personal research into these “new conservative religious communities” made me understand that things were much, much… MUCH worse than I had previously been lead to believe. It came to a head in 2003 when I went to visit a community of sisters in the northern US who have made quite a splash in the media and are supposed to be a bastion of this burgeoning new conservative US Catholic Church. What I found there… well… let’s just say that I didn’t stay for the whole long weekend, but got straight back onto a bus for Toronto the next day.
I went to see a priest I knew – who had been trying to tell me that my search was going to be in vain – and told him what I had found. He was sympathetic but asked me, “Hilary, what did you expect to find?” I told him what I had expected and to my surprise, he laughed. “You don’t imagine you’re a conservative, do you?” I was taken aback, and said something to the effect of, “What else is there to be?” He said, “You have told me that you can’t support the argument that everything is fine under John Paul II, that the Church is getting back on course. This visit has confirmed that what you have been suspecting all along is actually true. Hilary, I’m sorry to have to tell you; you’re not a conservative. You’re a Traditionalist.”
Lionel:Traditionalists and conservatives are both using the new theology in faith and morals which is a break with Catholic doctrines before the Baltimore Catechism was issued.
If we identify the precise theological error and avoid it both traditionalists and conservatives can return to the old ecclesiology.
Traditionalists did not criticize Archbishop Augustine Di Noia statement in the National Catholic Register on EENS.
In an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register1 Archbishop Augustine Di Noia indicated that he could judge when a Christian known to him would be going to Heaven.He was saying that he knew that this particular Christian was on the way to Heaven and would die without mortal sin on his soul.He could judge that in future too this Christian would not commit a moral, mortal sin. Also for him this Christian had not committed a mortal sin of faith.
Even though this impressive Christian friend of the Archbishop knew about Jesus and the Church and yet did not enter, Di Noia was sure he would make it to Heaven. Lumen Gentium 14 (those who know) indicates this non Catholic friend of Archbishop Di Noia was on the way to Hell.Yet this was not a factor in judging this Christian.
The Archbishop was also indicating that we humans can know of people who will go to Heaven even though they are outside the Church i.e they do not have Catholic Faith (AG 14).Catholic Faith includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church.
How could Archbishop Di Noia know all this, when we generally presume this would only be known to God ? How could he personally know that this person is an exception to the dogma EENS?
Similarly how can he identify that someone he knows has the 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) needed for salvation, outside the Church? Is this a charism of the Archbishop ?
I literally didn’t know what he was talking about. He emailed me later with some things to look up on the internet and a few book recommendations. I’m a pretty quick study, and it quickly became clear that this position – the most despised and persecuted within the Church, as it turns out – is the only one that fits all the observable facts. I was quite depressed by this revelation, mainly because it meant that I was (again!) not going to be an easy fit in any of the institutions of the Church.
The alternative now is to affirm the old faith and moral teachings by avoiding the irrational interpretation and then 'change them all out there'.Once the simple lay man understands for example, that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally as supporting EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, it's a big 'shift' in the Church.
But it was inescapable: there was and is a vast cleavage in the Catholic Church that amounted to ade facto schism. A new and false religion was being produced, like the toxins from a bacterial infection that sickens the body, inside all the institutions of the Church, and hardly anyone had noticed.
And the cause is still not identified or discussed by Hilary.
The traditional teaching on faith and morals has been changed by the CDF, through theology; the new theology. The new theology irrationally assumes subjective, hypothetical cases are objective, seen in the flesh exceptions to traditional teachings on faith and morals.
The mistake was clearly made in the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston.The same mistake of assuming hypothetical cases are explicit, was incorporated in Vatican Council II.
It was a hidden schism that had been nesting within the Catholic institution entirely uncorrected, since the close of Vatican II.
Lionel:It was there in 1949 Boston and in 1891 Baltimore.The new doctrines were placed in Vatican Council II.
Neo-modernism had succeeded in replacing authentic Catholic teaching to the point where to hold the doctrines of the Faith in certain areas and profess them out loud was enough to have you ostracized from this “conservative Catholic revival”. The New Modernism had, in fact, become the new conservatism.
Lionel: Yes since it was accepted by the traditionalists, sedevacantists and conservatives that there was known salvation outside the Church.This was enough for the liberals and Masons.There was no opposition, accept, from the small group of 'Feeneyites'. Even Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were on the side of the enemy.
Thirteen years is a long time and since then, particularly in the last three years, the false categories of this simplistic “conservative/liberal” narrative are rapidly becoming obsolete. The contradictions are finally becoming inescapable to a vast swathe of Catholics. And it didn’t start with Francis.
Lionel:And it didn't start with Pope Francis, correct.
John Paul II pushed along its long decline when he approved the use of female servers at Mass, and a great many of these “conservatives” in the Church (including Cardinal Ambrozic of Toronto btw,) who had been loudly calling for restoration of the norm were suddenly undermined by their darling “conservative” pope.
Lionel:Pope John Paul II was using the new irrational theology in faith and morals too.The error was there clearly even during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
This blow to the carefully constructed public image of John Paul II as the “conservative” icon (thanks in large part to George Weigel’s bizarre pre-humous canonization) was a severe dent in their entire worldview and could not be encompassed. They took the only solution they could, and simply redefined orthodoxy to include whatever theological or disciplinary novelty a pope was willing to install.
Lionel:Correct. They redefined orthodoxy. There was a theological and disciplinary novelty approved by Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the CDF, or just allowed it to flourish without being able to control it. But the innovation was there officially and on a world wide scale in the Catholic Church.
Papolatry or Papal Positivism, as we’ve started to call it, was born. The person of the pope, the man himself, became the new orthodoxy, a kind of semi-divine oracle who brings us either the old or the new doctrine, as the mood strikes, straight from the mouth of the “Spirit” whispering in his ear. “Altar girls” were fine, just fine, and anyone who continued to call for their abolition were extremists. Reactionaries! Rad Trads! Schismatics! etc…
But slowly, the ground on which these “neoCatholics” stand was being chipped away, until the only metric left to them has been the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. As long as the pope continues to defend and uphold these, the narrative tells them, it doesn’t matter how many Korans he kisses. All that stuff is open to debate. Sex, marriage and babies is the bottom line. Except that this bottom line has been drawn in chalk on the false floor. And Francis has begun to erase it. The “conservative Catholic” position had been safe in this demarcation zone, at least until Amoris Laetitia.
Lionel:Amoris Laeitita exposed the new moral theology.It came out in the open. All this time it was being taught at pontifical universities.Now it is clear that the contemporary magisterium supports it.
The contemporary magisterium is saying that we can know exceptions to traditional mortal sin.We can judge. Subjectivism is objective. It is similar to the Protestant Situation Ethics.It is no more just Fr. Bernard Haring and Fr. Charles Curran and their supporters.It is now official and magisterial.
____________________________ (Ironically, perhaps, hooking Catholic orthodoxy exclusively to the Church’s teaching on sexual morality has meant that they have taken precisely the line of the mainstream media: Catholicism is all about the “pelvic issues”. Neither a Catholic neoconservative nor the religion editor of the NYT has ever heard of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Lionel: They have not heard of the Social Reign of Christ the King since the Vatican has changed traditional Catholic salvation theology.There is no more the dogma EENS as it was in the 16th century. So since there is alleged salvation outside the Church why do non Catholics need to enter the Church or why should they accept the Social Reign of Christ the King?. ____________________________________
This large blank space where the Catholic religion used to be, is why the novus ordo-apologists continue to say that they “like traditionalists” but only as long as they are the kind that personally prefer the Old Mass. Those other ones, the ones always going on about the Syllabus of Errors, are labelled “radical Catholic reactionaries,” because we challenge an entire paradigm... Lionel: They challenge the new paradigm, the new ecclesiology based on known exceptions to traditional moral and faith teachings.It is the new paradigm which is supported by the traditionalists who use the irrational reasoning to reject the old ecclesiology. Theologically the traditionalists support the new paradigm.The traditionalists reject the old ecclesiology by using the new theology.They are not aware of it. While at the same time they know the teachings of the old ecclesiology and they know things are different now. So they accept the old ecclesiology because of their knowledge of past teachings.However they do not know the exact cause for the new doctrines on faith and morals. They wrongly think that the issue is the liturgy. However now we have Cardinal Raymond Burke and Joseph Shaw (LMS Chairman blog) traditionalists, who are using the liberal ecclesiology in faith and morals. So they have the old liturgy with a new ecclesiology. Liberal traditionalists!
... How do you tell people that things are, indeed, much worse than even their darkest imaginings and, more importantly, aren’t getting better? I figured we were going to need an act of God for that. (You can see where this is going, right?)... Lionel: 'we were going to need an act of God' all the same. Things could get better. Hopefully, before Fr.Hans Kung (88) passes away some one will announce in the Catholic Church that there are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on faith and morals.All his work was a waste of time. They could announce that Vatican Council II does not obviously contradict the dogma EENS, since LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases.Kung did not know. May be no one told him about this. Things could get better.
Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni.
It is with these objective mistakes in Vatican Council II , that the contemporary magisterium interprets the Council as a break with EENS.
If Archbishop Augustine di Noia assumes hypothetical cases are only hypothetical cases LG 8, LG 16 etc would not contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of EENS.
The facade of unity, one that irritated me for years because of its obvious falsity, is finally falling irrevocably into ruins.
Lionel: The traditionalists,sedevacantists and conservatives were in unity with the liberals theologically.
Cardinal Burke 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'
If Muller is “against the pope,” it is because the pope is against the Faith.
Lionel: How exactly he is against the faith? I mentioned it in a previous blog post. Amoris Laetitia (AL) has the error of subjectivism, the same error which is there in catechisms and Vatican Council II.
Amoris Laetitia(AL) continues with the factual error in the catechisms after the Catechism of the Council of Trent.The error is also there in Vatican Council II.
The schism that we have been pretending did not exist, is finally becoming so evident, so many are falling into the gulf and hitting the rocky bottom, that it can no longer be wished away.
We have an objective errorin Amoris Laetitia.We cannot physically see or know an exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin, yet AL suggests we can.
We have an objective error in the Baltimore, Pius X and the 1992 Catechism since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire was not relevant to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.It should not have been mentioned.
We have the same objective error in Vatican Council II(LG 14, AG 7). There are no exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism' for salvation. Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire are not visible and known in our reality. So they are not relevant to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.They should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.This is the error of subjectivism.
Neo-Catholics are going to have to either revamp their ideology to conform with the new Franciscan paradigm – which will be fine, since their ideology is simply “the pope,” – or if they have retained a shred of Catholicity, they are going to have to start facing some uncomfortable facts about the condition of the Church. The middle ground on which they have been standing, rooted, since the 80s, is gone.
Lionel:Traditionalists have still not identified the error.
So in both cases, morals and faith, there is a new doctrine, a heretical one, which changes traditional Catholic faith and moral theology.
With the new theology ( based on being able to judge subjective factors as being sufficient to reject mortal sin, to judge hypothetical cases as being objective, 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.
Similarly with the new theology, doctrine has been changed also on faith. De jure ( there are judgeable cases of the baptism fo desire and being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) and 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).
So by assuming we can judge subjective cases there are exceptions projected to 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.
Father Matthias Gaudron, like Cardinal Burke and Joseph Shaw, does not see how judgements of hypothetical cases result in a non traditional and heretical conclusion.He notices this subjectivism in AL but does not see this same subjectivism in the SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II.
But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting.The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward. But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.-E. Christian Brugger, Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia
Amoris Laetitia is the official approval of the new moral theology based on hypothetical cases being objectively known exceptions and exceptions make the rule : it supports the errors of Fr.Charles Curran