Second Vatican Council II does not agree with Tradition for Archbishop Gerhard Muller

Hi Columba,

Lionel didn't post it, but I am sure that he would agree, also! As for the CCC, it's ambiguous; the operative word which the CCC uses is "may".

Let's try and look at it this way.

There is a Hindu and you tell him that we cannot physically see any one saved with the bpatism of desire or in invincible ignorance. These cases are now in Heaven.
He will answer yes.He cannot see them.
He does not need to know Catholic theology or philosophy to answer.

Then you remind him that he is saying that these cases are invisible.
He will agree.He cannot see them.

Then you tell him that if his cousin or someone else said that they could see these cases.So then it would not be invisible for him.

He would agree. This is logic and simple reasoning. It has nothing to do with the dogma or the Catechism.

Then you ask him if it would still be invisible for his his friends when his friends mentioned them in relation to something else.

He would think it out and probably say that if his friend mentioned these cases as being relevant to something else then it would mean that for his friend these cases are visible.
Simple. One does not have to be a Catholic or know the teachings of the Catholic Church to make this observation.

Lionel,

If these "cases" are, in fact, "null sets," then they simply never happen, which means that they are not "visible" to us, right? That's a possibility, right? Or, is it de fide that there are individuals in Paradise (or, on their way there) who have died without Baptism:

If anyone says that there are no individuals in Paradise who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism in Water, let him be anathema.

Simply to define, and yet so absent from the 125 anathemas at Trent. In short, we cannot "see" Baptism of Desire vis-à-vis invincible ignorance because we cannot for certain even say that Baptism of Desire ever happens in the complete absence of sacramental Baptism of Water.

The Hindu does not know Catholic theology of philosophy. He has not read Vatican Council II or the Catechism.

He knows that he cannot see any one in Heaven,

If you ask him if those who are saved with the baptism of desire and who are now in Heaven are visible to him. He will say no.

If you tell him that the Church teaches that every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation but those who are now saved with the baptism of desire etc and who are in Heaven are exceptions, i.e they do not have to enter the Church.

He could ask why are they exceptions ? Are they visible to some people on earth to be an exception to the rule that all need to be visible members of the Church ?

So if I tell him that the Archbishop mentions those saved in invincible ignorance he will ask if these cases are visible to the Archbishop.

If they are not visible to him then why does he have to mention it.

He does not know anything about Trent or teachings of the encyclicals etc. He would understand what I am saying, the point I am trying to make.

Lionel A wrote:He knows that he cannot see any one in Heaven,

Lionel,

This statement is false; our good Hindu friend can see people in Heaven, those whom the Catholic Church has canonized.

Code:

our good Hindu friend can see people in Heaven

He says he physically cannot see any one in Heaven.He cannot see any one with the naked eye. And neither can any of his family members.
And neither can I. With the naked eye I cannot see St.Francis Xavier in Heaven. Evem when I had 20/20 vision it was not possible to physically see them.
Can you ?

March 4, 2013
Clear thinking
There could be a non Catholic in a remote village in Asia, who is uneducated .Of course he has not read Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He does not know of Catholic theology and of philosophical reasoning.

If he was asked if he could see the dead in Heaven he would answer that they are not visible to him. Some question!?

Then it could be explained to him that some people who want to receive the Christian baptism of water, cannot do so because they die before it happens. They are now in Heaven and can he see them? He says he cannot.

Then it would be explained to him that the Catholic Church teaches that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church, to avoid Hell and to go to Heaven.

Though there are many Catholics who believe that every person in 2013 does not have to be a visible member of the Church. Why? Since there are people in Heaven without the baptism of water. Would you agree I would ask him? This is very important I would tell him. His answer would be appreciated.

No. He would say that he does not agree. Why? Since these people in Heaven are not visible to us. They cannot be exceptions to every one needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

Only if they were visible to us would they be exceptions. Only if they were personally known they would be relevant. Invisible cases in Heaven cannot be exceptions.

So every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation since there are no known exceptions.

And so what if there are people in Heaven who have not received the baptism of water? They are invisible to us. So they are not relevant to the Catholic teaching that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation.

I would praise him for his clear thinking.
-Lionel Andrades

Lionel A wrote:Can you ?

Yes, absolutely! Not with my physical eyes, of course, but by the infallible declaration by the Catholic Church that these individuals are in Paradise, as attested by their miracles which occurred here on earth.

Can you ?

Not with my physical eyes, of course

Yes so we agree that we cannot see them with our physical eyes.
We agree that we cannot see them in Heaven, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water, in Heaven.
We agree that these cases are invisible to us on earth.

So when the Archbishop mentions invincible ignorance we would agree that he personally cannot see these cases in Heaven.

So when he does mention invincible ignorance with respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is he saying that these cases are invisible for him?

You should probably ask him!

I ask you because the Archbishop is making an error based on a common principle.

If you are clear on the principle then you know what is the error.

Perhaps I am not "clear" on it, however, you claim that the Archbishop is saying that BoD vis-a-vis "invincible ignorance" is, in fact, visible to us (and, apparently, to him, also), and if such is, indeed, the case then the Archbishop could give some concrete examples of these "visible exceptions," shouldn't he? What am I "missing" here?

In a mathematical equation you start with a given number or value or equation and then use laws which are common to all to reach a result.There is the Principle of Non Contradiction which you have explained well once before.So let's apply all this.

We agree that all who are dead and now are in Heaven are physically invisible to us. We cannot see them with the naked eye.
We also agree that those persons saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are not visible to us.

We agree that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma which indicates all need to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

So if any one says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would mean that these cases are not invisible for him or her.

These cases can either be invisible or visible to us.
So the conclusion is that this person is saying that these cases in Heaven are visible to him or her.
To imply or say as such would be a negation of the dogma and Tradition.
So would the Archbishop be implying that invincible ignorance cases are visible to him ?

Lionel,

Point of clarification before proceeding here -- "Those whom the Catholic Church has canonized, where are they?" And, what "theological note" can you give with your answer?

"Those whom the Catholic Church has canonized, where are they?" And, what "theological note" can you give with your answer?.

They are in Heaven. We accept this in faith. We do not have to be able to see them physically and we cannot.

And, what "theological note" can you give with your answer?.

The Catholic Church is the one true Church, it has apostolic succession.It is the sole moral authority.Only it has the 'keys'. Through its Sacraments it has the God- given right and ability to forgive sins. It is able to canonize a holy person as a saint.It alone can state with authority that someone is in Heaven and is a saint.

_________________________________________________
Whatever be your theology or that of the SBC it does not clash with the following.

The following is in response to the error that emerged in the 1940's when it was assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation implying that that these cases were physically visible to us.

We agree that all who are dead and now are in Heaven are physically invisible to us. We cannot see them with the naked eye.
We also agree that those persons saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are not visible to us.

We agree that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma which indicates all need to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

So if any one says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would mean that these cases are not invisible for him or her.

These cases can either be invisible or visible to us.
So the conclusion is that this person is saying that these cases in Heaven are visible to him or her.
To imply or say as such would be a negation of the dogma and Tradition.
So would the Archbishop be implying that invincible ignorance cases are visible to him ?.

Lionel A wrote:It alone can state with authority that someone is in Heaven and is a saint.

With infallible authority.

Lionel A wrote:So would the Archbishop be implying that invincible ignorance cases are visible to him ?.

Who knows? Who cares? Unless he can give some concrete examples, his "implied words" are meaningless.

So would the Archbishop be implying that invincible ignorance cases are visible to him ?.

Who knows? Who cares? Unless he can give some concrete examples, his "implied words" are meaningless..

His implied words are not meaningless.
There is a principle involved here.I gave you the example of the non Catholic villager .So it is independent of theology or any religion.

It does not contradict your theology.

Whenever someone says that invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma they imply that these cases now in Heaven, are visible to them.
This is an important point. Since once you and Rasha assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This would mean those saved with elements of sanctification (LG etc are visible to you and Rasha and so it is a contradiction of the dogma.

Unless the Archbishop was speaking of a "null set" which, even though it is well defined, still consists of zero members.

Unless the Archbishop was speaking of a "null set" which, even though it is well defined, still consists of zero members..

I am referring to invincible ignorance being an exception to the dogma.

If it's a "null set," how could it be an "exception"?

I am referring to invincible ignorance being an exception to the dogma.

We agreed that we cannot see these cases so they are invisible to us.
They are physically invisible to us.

When I learnt sets in mathematics it was with reference to intellectual activity.So I don't see what is the relation between seeing or not seeing something with the physical eye and your definition of null sets.

See my other post in the "Fifth Lateran Council."