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

It's irrelevant. What the Catholic Church has defined is the following:

1) Everyone must end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." No exceptions whatsoever whether "invincibly ignorant" or not.

2) Everyone must be "submissive to the Roman Pontiff." No exceptions whatsoever whether "invincibly ignorant" or not.

3) Baptism is "not optional." No one whatsoever can choose not to be Baptized. No exceptions whatsoever whether "invincibly ignorant" or not.

Agreed.
It's irrelevant. It is not an issue for us.
Why was it an issue for him that he had to mention it ?

The context was that of an interview; the interviewer asked him about it, so he was obligated, as part of the interview, to answer the question.

The interviewer asked him about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, why did he have to mention invincible ignorance etc.

Invincible ignorance etc was a non issue. It is irrelevant to the dogma.

If you were interviewed and asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus you would not mention invincible ignorance ?

Why not ?

What do you know and which he does not, for you not to mention invincible ignorance and for him to do so, in the context of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

To not mention "invincible ignorance" is to at least imply a "Turn or burn" mentality. "You either convert or else!" To make such an assertion is also, at least implicitly, to make a judgment about the interior disposition of another person's soul, something, of course, which no one, yourself included, can do.

This is not to say that a "turn or burn" mentality is always wrong, but you're not going to make many friends amongst non-Catholics with that mentality, and with the exception of pagans, not many non-Catholics have responded to that approach over the centuries. Besides, do you want to see Jews, pagans, infidels, heretics (e.g., Protestants), schismatics (e.g., Orthodox), etc., all burn in Hell???

Have a look at the following video, ignoring its materialistic overtones:



It's complete fiction, of course, completely bogus. Point is that Spock & Scotty just did not "give up" because the first attempt failed. So, if we truly hope for the conversion of non-Catholics to the One True Faith, is there a "Plan B," "Plan C," etc., for those who end their lives outside the visible "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, we all ought to hope that there is, at least, such a "plan," even if it turns out that no such plan(s) even exist. For, in not hoping, not only are we making judgments about the interior dispositions of other individuals' souls (which, of course, we cannot make), but we, ourselves, may be guilty of mortal sin for "not having hope" for the salvation of every human being, which, of course, is the One and Triune God's will. And, of course, "having hope" means having a theological foundation for that hope.

In spite of the modernism which so very much pervades the Church today, what we're seeing is "Good Cop, Bad Cop." Plenty of groups (such as the SBCs) are out there saying "Turn or burn"; others are saying, "Be a good Jew, Muslim, etc." In the end, everyone, without any exceptions whatsoever, will know the Truth, as we will all, on the Last Day, stand before the King of Heaven to each render an account of our lives. As for me, I hope that the Blessed Virgin Mary will be there to intercede upon my behalf, as I have placed hope in my daily devotions to Her, and in Her intercession on my behalf before the One and Only Son of God, Her Son. As for those who are, ultimately, condemned to the everlasting fires of eternal Hell, I shall pity them, and no doubt, I shall weep.

The Last Day will be both a terrifying and awesome moment, but a glorious one as well.

Let's try and look at it another way.

In Mystici Corporis (1943) why did Pope Pius XII mention 'by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer'. Was it an issue at that time ? Did some one make it an issue? Why had he even to mention it ?

Then in 1949 he mentions it again in the Letter of the Holy Office. At that time(1949) it was clear that the Archbishop, Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there had made it an issue. They were saying that it was relevant to the dogma. Meanwhile Fr.Leonard Feeney was critiicizing them for claiming that there was known salvation outside the church. So in Mystici Corporis the pope was probably already responding to this thinking i.e invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are relevant to the centuries- old interpretation of the dogma.

So why was it relevant for the Archbishop and is not relevant for you and me ?
We have agreed that these cases are always invisible to us and so it is not an issue to the dogma. It is not relevant to the dogma.

103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.[194] Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ"[195] and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.[196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.[197] Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.

It's not the fact that they/the Pope mentioned it or not; question is, "Is it true or not?" After all, why "mention" the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or even, Papal Primacy? Here's my fundamental understanding:

Theology is a lot like geometry.

The Church began with some fundamental revealed truths, which closed with the death of the last Apostle. In much the same way, geometry began with some fundamental axioms, most of which remain as fundamentally true to this very day. As geometry, from its fundamental axioms, developed over time to more and more theorems, lemmas, proofs, etc., so, too, Catholic theology has deepened its understanding of the Revelation given to it, the Church, by her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This is, of course, not to say that everything that is being taught in the "theological schools" of our day is correct! Fact is quite the opposite; however, with respect to the question of "implicit faith" and/or "implicit desire", Saint Thomas openly taught both ideas in his Summa and did so without generating any controversy whatsoever, unlike, some of his other teachings, which did generate controversy, at least for a time.

Yes Catholic doctrine is like mathematics.

Doctrine is like mathematics.
If something is implicit and you say it is explicit it knocks off the mathematics of everything.

We both agree that the baptism of desire is always implicit. It is invisible to us.That's a constant.

Now the Archdbishop suggests that it is explicit and visible to us. This would be an error in reason and logic. It would be a new doctrine.

Lionel A wrote:Yes Catholic doctrine is like mathematics.

Both, of course, come from the One and Triune God, however, I would place Catholic revelation as being the highest form of Truth which God has revealed to Us, His Creation. On my blog, I have listed a number of proofs for the Catholic Faith:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/miracle-of-sun-proves-that-catholic.html

The fact that we live in such an ordered Cosmos, and in the realm of science, as in theology, that we are able to deduce certain truths, especially, truths which depend upon other truths, is a testimony to the existence of a Creator.

Lionel A wrote:Now the Archdbishop suggests that it is explicit and visible to us. This would be an error in reason and logic. It would be a new doctrine.

Agreed; it would be a new doctrine, if the Archbishop had, in fact, suggested it. However, if it is "visible" to us, then, as I have asked ad nauseam, who, exactly, are these people? And, why is the Catholic Church not in the process of canonizing any of these folks?

if the Archbishop had, in fact

You doubt it?

I don't read his words that way. In any case, does it matter? Is some interview an official teaching of the Church's Magisterium? What was defined at the Council of Florence in Cantata Domino was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium, 51. All human beings must end their lives "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." No exceptions.

Nothing that the Archbishop or anyone else (including, the future Pope) could say would or could change this fundamental truth.

I don't read his words that way. In any case, does it matter? Is some interview an official teaching of the Church's Magisterium?

In any 'mathematical equation' the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance must be considered invisible. We agree it is not physically visible to us.

So then it is irrelevent , a non issue with respect to the dogma.

When it is not considered invisible then it wrongly is considered an exception to the dogma. It becomes an issue. It is relevant.(Irrespective of who believes or says whatever on this issue, a pope or a cardinal).

Do you think in the Archbishop's equation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus it was invisible?

Sure, why not? Unless he can "name some names," we have no choice but to conclude that he was describing a "hypothetical" scenario which may never even occur. I agree that BoB/BoD are "invisible" in the sense that they are "null sets" that may simply never happen; in other words, the One and Triune God, through His omnipotence, may ensure that each and every one of His Elect receives the character of Baptism prior to being accepted into Paradise.

Do you think in the Archbishop's equation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus it was invisible?

Sure, why not?

But if it was invisible, why did he mention it?

If it was visible and he mentioned it then it would be understandable.He would be saying it is relevant.

Sedevacantists and traditionalists are again churning out the same ignorance on Vatican Council II, while they assume people saved and now in Heaven are not invisible to us but visible in the flesh. The same irrationality of the liberals.They can allegedly see the dead.

The sedevacantists are ready to begin speculation on the new sede vacante and a criticism of the Council.They will take it for granted that salvation referred to in the Council,is physically visible to us.This premise they do not realize actually creates the Council as modernist.

The Council becomes a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus , and the Syllabus of Errors because of the premise used.Something new has been added to the Deposit of Faith.Something irrational .

If we cannot physically see the dead who are now in Heaven, then those saved with a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctification (LG , seeds of the Word , imperfect communion with the Church etc are not known exceptions to the dogma which says all need to be visible members of the Church for salvation.So if there are no known exceptions , to every one needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441) Vatican Council II is not a break with the past on other religions and ecumenism. The fault is not with the Council but with the premise used by the sedevacantists in the interpretation of the Council.

Traditionalists and liberals also cannot see that when someone claims there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,then, he is also saying that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are not invisible to us but visible to us!How can what is invisible for us and only visible for God be an exception? If it is invisible then can it be an exception?

Even the leaders of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) take it for granted that there are visible cases of the dead who are now saved and are in Heaven.While there are Catholic priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Rome who know that these cases, known only to God, are not exceptions to the dogma, since they are invisible.

So the fault is not with the Mass or the Council, but with the person interpreting the Council.The fault is with the person and the premise he uses.

Sedevacantists MHFM and CMRI ,Bishop Richard Williamson and the SSPX-SO have the same understanding of the Council as the liberals and modernists.Some of the liberals must be laughing up their sleeve seeing that traditionalists agree with them.

Irrespective of what every one believes and says( theories, opinions, faith) and irrespective of the Church document (Council, Catechism etc), if for you the dead who are saved (baptism of desire etc) are not invisible, but visible (physically seen with the naked eye) you have a modernist Church document.
Beauty,like error, is in the eye of the beholder.

Lionel A wrote:

Do you think in the Archbishop's equation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus it was invisible?

Sure, why not?

But if it was invisible, why did he mention it?

If it was visible and he mentioned it then it would be understandable.He would be saying it is relevant.

Lionel,

We're playing "Ring Around the Rosie" here. First off, he was in an interview, and he was asked, by an interviewer, about EENS. What should he have said? And, once again, you or anyone else cannot accuse him of saying that "the dead are visible to us," when, in fact, he cannot name any of "the dead". Right? Besides, nothing which he said (or did not say) could ever change the Catholic dogma of EENS.

Lionel A wrote:Even the leaders of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) take it for granted that there are visible cases of the dead who are now saved and are in Heaven.While there are Catholic priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Rome who know that these cases, known only to God, are not exceptions to the dogma, since they are invisible.

I don't think that they do, Lionel; if they did, they could give some examples, right? Just name a single person? Can you? Can they? Can anyone else?

Lionel A wrote:And suppose if there was a case of someone 'in a state of "invincible ignorance"... saved solely through the merits of Jesus Christ and the graces which He alone bestows', unknown to you and me, then could he be an exception to the teaching on every one needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

That's the problem when one even hypothetically allows for non-Catholics receiving salvation known only to God. It is divine teaching (as in the dogma, truth fallen from heaven) that those existing outside the Church cannot be saved; therefore if God does save such souls (known only to Him) He is contradicting is own word which would be impossible. That's why I can't see the difference between "known only to God" and "visible exceptions;" Both, in their own way, contradict dogma.

Columba,

There's always salutary repentance, that is, repentance at "death's door," and, of course, we can't "see" that, can we?!

Admin wrote:Columba,

There's always salutary repentance, that is, repentance at "death's door," and, of course, we can't "see" that, can we?!

Of course not Lionel.
But if that's what the issue is then there is no issue at all. We would merely be stating that God gave a death-bed conversion to a particular soul unknown to us and thus this particular soul entered the Church before departing this world. This would of course involve sacramental Baptism for as the Truth says, "Unless a man be born again of water etc.."

The problem is, those who say that God works such eleventh-hour conversions, does so not by making the soul a member of the Church, but by saving that soul outside the Church.

If what you mean Lionel is the same as what I mean then we are in total agreement.
But what we mean would not be what the CCC means because the CCC says they can be saved through their desire for Baptism without its actual reception.