LifeSiteNews interviewed five Catholic academics on how the Catholic Church has understood the development of doctrine. The five are:
- Dr. Josef Seifert, founding rector of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein (read full interview here)
- Dr. Joseph Shaw, Oxford professor (read full interview here)
- Dr. Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the University of Chile (read full interview here)
- John Paul Meenan, Professor of Theology and Natural Science at Our Lady Seat of Wisdom College (read full interview here)
- Dr. Scott M. Sullivan, President of the Aquinas School of Theology and Philosophy
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-academics-raise-alarm-over-pope-franciss-teaching-on-doctrine
All the five names here have accepted the development of doctrine on salvation. Pope Benedict confirmed it in March 2016.He said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century. He said there was 'a development' with Vatican Council II. All the five names above have accepted this development. No one has objected.
Dr.Joseph Shaw does not object when Catholics have to accept that invisible for us baptism of desire etc is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known in the 16th century.This is also his official position.
This is the deposit of faith for him.
Yet he objects,correctly, when Amoris Laetitia assumes that we can know when a Catholic in manifest mortal sin is not in mortal sin and the divorced and remarried can be given the Eucharist.
So he has rejected the centuries old ecclesiology of the Church with the false premise of invisible people being visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church.He has accepted this 'development'.There is a new EENS for him. It is EENS with exceptions. This is all normal.
In principle he accepts that there can be a development of doctrine in salvation theology.He did not object to Pope Benedict's statement in March 2016 in the Avvenire interview.
None of the five names are going to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
None of them are saying that invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible.They are not known exceptions to the dogma EENS .So the magisterium made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
They have all accepted the development of doctrine on EENS.
None of them are saying that Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance), like UR 3, NA 2 ,GS 22, LG 8 etc refer to invisible cases and so there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the stict interpretation of the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries.
They accept the development of doctrine on EENS when Vatican Council II is interpreted with the false premise ( invisible cases are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS).
So they accept the development of doctrine with Vatican Council II. They do not state that the Council can be interpreted without the false premise.
So is it any surprise when Cardinal Walter Kasper before the Synod said in an interview, that if ecclesiology could be changed ( could be developed!) then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorced and remarried.
Dr.Joseph Shaw attends the Tridentine Rite Mass with the new ecclesiology.He does not affirm the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Latin and Greek Mass.He is politically correct and comfortable with the English Bishops and Ecclesia Dei.They approve Una Voce and the Latin Mass Societies.None of them will state that all Jews and Muslims in Britain need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation with no exceptions.This was the old exclusivist ecclesiology. Now there is a development.
Joseph Shaw is looking after his career and personal interests.So he is not going to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II without 'the development' i.e without the false premise.
For me there is no development of doctrine in salvation or morals.Since BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, AG 7, AG 11, GS 22, UR 3, NA 2 etc all refer to hypothetical cases and not objectively visible people saved outside the Church.So no exception to the dogma EENS exists in 2017.
Similarly there is no development of doctrine for me on mortal sin.So we cannot say that someone living in manifest adultery is not in adultery and is an exception to the general rule. We cannot say that a divorced and remarried couple living together or a young couple living in concubinage, who claim they are living as brother and sister are really doing so. Even if it was true it would be known only to God. A priest cannot say that a couple living together are not in scandal.He simply cannot know of any exception.If they are living together there still is the sin of scandal.For people in general it would be an example of adultery.Now they are being given the Eucharist in Malta, Italy, Germany etc since there is a new doctrine created with Amoris Laetitia, its ' a development'.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment