 |
| Controversial Core Document of the Swiss Bishops in Rome |
(Zurich) Cristina Vonzun, editor of the daily newspaper Giornale del Popolo for Italian-speaking Switzerland, told the Catholic weekly magazine Tempi, why there is a gap between what the majority of Swiss Catholics think and what the magisterium says. The daily newspaper 51 percent the property of the Diocese of Lugano.
"The exclusion of remarried divorcees from the sacraments must cease"; "The sponsorship of gays and lesbians must be possible in the Church"; "The Holy Family is by no means an ideal example", such similar and the like are the opinions of Swiss Catholics, mainly German-speaking Catholics have reached the ear of the media. 6,000 have participated in numerous dialogue sessions in preparation for the Synod of Bishops in the autumn.
The occasion was the questionnaire, which was sent by the Synod Secretariat to all Bishops' Conferences. The Swiss Bishops' Conference handed it on to all the faithful in order to obtain the "widest possible" mood. The procedure is not without controversy. Among the participants were many church functionaries who often informed the discussion. Faithful Catholics have been marginalized for decades and stay away from official church activities.
Controversial Pastoral Sociological Institute Authored Core Document of the Swiss Bishops' Conference for Synod
In total 570 submissions were received, which were summarized in a "core document", which was transmitted by the Episcopal Conference to the Vatican. This corresponds to the Synod of Bishops in 2014.
Bishop Markus Büchel: has established the SPI in his diocese
In 2014 the Swiss Pastoral Sociological Institute (SPI) of the Swiss Bishops' Conference got in the headlines. Philip Good, deputy chief editor of the Weltwoche accused the Institute of having distorted the Vatican's survey by tendentious questions "in a political statement against the official Vatican doctrine." SPI questions were suggestively reformulated and additional questions for acceptance of homosexuality and other issues were arbitrarily inserted in open contradiction to the Catholic marriage and morality. The Bishop of Chur, Vitus Huonder, then addressed the Core Document of the Bishops' Conference earlier by publishing a document on his own, which significantly differed from the Core Document. Despite the allegation of manipulation, the Bishops' Conference retained SPI and has commissioned it in 2015 again to write the Swiss unit report to Rome. The result was actually clear from the beginning.
The Swiss Pastoral Sociological Institute has its seat in the diocese of Sankt Gallen, whose Bishop is Markus Büchel, President of the Swiss Bishops' Conference.
38 percent, the majority of Swiss are Roman Catholic. 26 percent are reformed, 22 percent are no religion, 6 percent belong to other Christian denominations, 5 percent are Muslims, 1 percent belong to other religions, 0.25 percent are Jewish, 2 percent offered no details in the 2013 census of the Federal Statistical Office.
"Protestant Influence and Decades of Secularisation"
The majority of the Swiss population is still Catholic. But if you read the report of the Episcopal Conference, there seems to be a Catholicism that is very different from the one that is taught in the Catechism.
The report speaks mainly of "wider appreciation, enjoying the ideals of marriage proclaimed by the Church of marriage and family". However, he also emphasized that there are "limits in the implementation".
But there are significant differences between the Swiss document and the Magisterium of the Church to almost all thorny issues which are dealt with by the Synod.
On various issues, the gap is clearly visible, but this is not an exclusive phenomenon of Switzerland. This applies to the entirety of central and northern European Catholicism.
What are the reasons in Switzerland?
Over the years, the phenomenon has developed mainly north of the Alps. I think that the Protestant influence felt here, for example, where the Reformed Church's Canton approves the blessing of homosexual couples. But the main problem is that decades of secularization that lead to this gap between the believed Catholic values, the practical life and to the privatization of faith. The faith is not recognized as a real thing, but only on a personal level. A third motive is the increasing pressure on the family and which may lead to a failure of a marriage.
Which?
The present socio-economic conditions, including the intense working hours, put family living in distress and complicate married life. Especially if the couples are alone and have no one who shows them a path of faith.
The consequences can then be read in the report of the Episcopal Conference.
Yes, if it has to be said, then the report came about in a special way. These are the opinions of about 6,000 Catholic men and women. In Switzerland, there are three million Catholics. The are no surveys that accurately reflect the views of the Swiss Catholics.
Are you saying that it was poorly done?
I think it reflects the trend of what the majority of Swiss Catholics think, especially German-speaking Switzerland. But it is not a real survey, but a free questionnaire. Whoever wants, participates. Many did not take part and so we do not know their opinion and they will never know. The document is, however, which can not be denied, the prevailing view again, which is why its publication has caused no particular reactions. This is the majority tendency, but by no means the only one. There are many Catholics who live the ideal of marriage entirely. The truth is that Switzerland is very complex.
What does that mean?
There are different linguistic and cultural realities. This report is primarily the reality of German-speaking Switzerland again, less those of Welsch Switzerland and Italian-speaking Switzerland. Here in Ticino, for example, the tendency is clearly another.
Why can you say that?
The Giornale del Popolo has evaluated a wide range of responses from Ticino Catholics and has additionally not found a trace of a demanding tone of voice or of opinions which would be contrary to the Church's magisterium. The focus of the answers are very different: the concern for couples who live alone in their surroundings without the possibility of living in common in the faith; even the question of how relations between older and younger families can be effected.
And the question of admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments?
Also, there are no clear demand. The divorcees who have responded to the questionnaire said that they are going on a journey of faith in the Church and feel comfortable in their parishes. Regarding the communion for divorced and remarried, some expressed hope that the Synod could allow for a personalized way of penance approved by the Bishop for individual cases. In this respect, it much resembles the proposal of Cardinal Kasper.
Do the Swiss bishops think like the majority of their faithful?
The document was not written by the bishops, but are a sociological reading by the Swiss Pastoral Sociological Institute in St. Gallen (SPI) again. Our bishops think like bishops loyal to the pope, to the Magisterium and on the way to the synod.
Introduction: Giuseppe Nardi
Interview: Tempi / translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Tempi / Wikicommons
Interview: Tempi / translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Tempi / Wikicommons
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
They also reject the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II.They use liberal, apparition theology just like Church Militant.com
ReplyDelete_______________
Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
It was courageous of Christine Niles to produce a Catholic show on Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, a subject which Church Militant.com observes correctly- is 'little discussed'.However she missed the elephant in the living room when she did not say that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Holy Office had it wrong.The confusion was then placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14)and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257,846).Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus make the same mistake.
The Mic'd Up program used the theology of the liberals.It accepts the new doctrines on salvation, which contradict the dogma, but would be approved by the local bishop and the Vatican who are implenting a lie on this issue.
Father Roman Manchester and Charles Coulombe were of no help in discussing the new theology which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office which Christine quoted.They are in line with the magisterium's new theology, which is a break with the past and an interpretation of Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture.This is politically correct.
By interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma, they are affirming the same interpretation of the Council, and other Church documents,as the liberals and dissenters. Father Roman Manchester is orthodox but he is drawing on pre-Vatican Council II teachings. So was Christine.Fr.Roman did not say that Vatican Council II supports the Feeneyite version of the dogma. He was vague. No one said that Vatican Council II supports the rigorist traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
So they imply that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to known cases in the present times, who are physically visible to become exceptions to the dogma, or even relevant to the traditional interpretation.This is the cut off point.
Do you accept invincible ignorance etc as being known and physically visible to us in 2015 ?
Instead they went into the common theology of invincible ignorance etc which is used by the liberals and which has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium.The error is magisterial.
Of course this error would have the approval of Archbishop Allen Vignon, the Archbishop of Detroit where Church Militant is located.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteChurch Militant.com has to address two simple questions.
1.Do we we know anyone in the present times( 2015) saved without the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance ? ( Can we physically see such cases who are now in Heaven)?
2.Since we physically cannot see such persons on earth there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to be formal members of the Church ? ( There are no known cases in 2015 saved without 'faith and baptism'?)
Instead the reasoning used by about every one in Detroit is that we do know of persons saved in 2015 with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.We can see apparitions.This is taught to school children there in Catechism classes. It may not be said directly but this is implied.
So since these cases are visible to all in Detroit in the present times; they can see these apparitions of non Catholics in Heaven, there are explicit exceptions to the old teaching on all needing to formally convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.The thrice defined dogma has been set aside.
If Mic'd Up answered those two questions honestly they would say that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. This would mean:-
1.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead-saved. So how could there be known exceptions?
2. Mentioning being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) was superflous.They are irrelevant to the dogma and the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14.
3.The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeated this error in 1257.It stated that God is not limited to the Sacraments.CCC 1257 was not referring to persons in bi location who baptise persons or sending a preacher as St. Thomas Aquinas taught. It is referring to defacto known exceptions to the dogma.This is how CCC 1257 is generally interpreted.It is pro Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and contra Fr.Leonard Feeney. It was as if Cardinal Ratzinger knew of someone who did not need faith and baptism and would be saved or, someone who was already in Heaven in 1992 without faith and baptism. This was the irrational inference made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
Christine quoted an excellent article by Brother Francis Maluf MICM, of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Manchester,USA. However the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Manchester and Worcester,USA interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma.Part of the problem! So for them there are known exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council.Charles Coulombe did not speak on this subject. The elephant in the living room. There was no mention of the Fr.Leonard Feeney issue.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was being asked to say that he could see known exceptions to the dogma and he refused to do so. On the other hand the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits were suggesting that they could see these apparitions.This was absurd, irrational and heretical. It was the magisterium which had gone wrong.
If Church Militant.com speaks the truth they would be serving Catholics, but they would be contradicting the magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office and the Catechism of the Catholic Church( 1257, 846).They would be accused of being anti-Semitic and racist by the political Left.The local bishop would say that their position is not Catholic.
Is it any surprise that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is little discussed today ?
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/micd-up-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus
Hey Lionel! Still spamming around combines with the one and only issue you ever discuss I see.
ReplyDeleteBoniface, I am aware that you are active in a Catholic Church as a preacher and that you support the programs of the Angelicum, the University of St.Thomas Aquinas in Rome.
DeleteSo I would be very surprised if you said that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are NOT exceptions to the dogma. These cases are not known to us. They are irrelevant to the Feeneyite version.
It would get you in trouble with your bishop.
You cannot reject the Feeneyite version of the dogma which is politically correct with the bishops and the Vatican.
Lionel, don't look to ChurchMutant.com for accurate Catholic reporting on much of anything let alone this topic. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the Catechism to contradict the Church's teaching on salvation- Christine Niles
Deletehttp://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1282-christine-niles-misses-the-elephant-in-the-living-room
Thank you, Lionel...Keep your hand to the plough !
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteAvoid Marchetti's factual error and the Catechism is not ambigous
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1282-christine-niles-misses-the-elephant-in-the-living-room#9836
The dogma says all. Vatican Council II , Ad Gentes 7 says all.
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1282-christine-niles-misses-the-elephant-in-the-living-room#9837
When the Pope himself isn't a Catholic, what surprise is it that the Germans, Swizz, etc.....most of which believe the same as Bergoglio, appear not to be Catholic either?
ReplyDeleteChristine Niles and Fr.Roman Manchester were drawn into liberal theology arguments relative to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They could have said, "We don't know of any exceptions to the dogma.We cannot know of any one today saved without faith and baptism."
ReplyDelete"We cannot know of any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire" they should have said.Case closed!
They needed to avoid entering into the liberal theology cycle.The new theology is an endless circle.It is based on an irrationality.Stay clear of the new theology since it is based on a factual error.
Do not link invincible ignorance etc with the dogma EENS.They made the link with the dogma. So they implied there are known exceptions in the present times. These cases would be apparitions!
They should have simply said that there are no known cases today of someone being saved in in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
They could have said that we don't know of any one who is there today in Heaven without the baptism of water.They are invisible.
They cannot meet someone on the streets of Detroit saved in invincible ignroance and the baptism of desire. Say the obvious!They could not know of someone saved without 'faith and baptism' i.e outside the Church.So there are no known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of EENS .There cannot be any exceptions.
So there is nothng in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of EENS.When someone says Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma he is drawing on liberal theology, Apparition Theology.He is implying that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known apparitions in the present times.So they contradict EENS.
Mic'd Up had a segment titled 'The Theology of EENS' .They could have added the phrase, 'Beware of it!'Or they could have added the phrase 'Avoid it! It's irrational'.Or, 'Traditional ecclesiolocentric ecclesiology of EENS is rational'.
from Lionel Andrades
@AndradesLionel on Twitter
FatherFeeney used the same arguments in Bread of Life...
DeleteBrother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
ReplyDeleteBrother Andre Marie MICM has commented on Mic'd Up Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus website. There is also a comment which refers to him by the Church Militant Moderator.
Christine Niles and Fr.Roman Manchester are using the same liberal theology;the new theology on extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the St.Benedict Centers in the USA.This is the one approved by the Magisterium and ironically also used by the Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX) though in a negative way.
The message which comes across is: the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are related to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They are known exceptions to the dogma in the present times.
So there is salvation outside the Church.This is the message of the new theology.
This reasoning formed a great segment, on Christine Niles program on the dogma and its theology.Possibly half the time on this program was used in defending or refuting this theology.
All this could have been avoided if it was said clearly "We cannot know of any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in the present times."
They needed to avoid entering into the liberal theology cycle.The new theology is an endless circle.It is based on an irrationality.It is based on a factual error. For years supporters of the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers have entered into this whirlpool both assuming they are correct, when really being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire refer to "zero cases", as John Martignoni put it.
Please do not link invincible ignorance etc with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.They made the link with the dogma on Mic'd Up.. So they implied there are known exceptions in the present times. These cases would be apparitions!
They should have simply said that there are no known cases today of someone being saved in in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
They could have said that we don't know of any one who is there today in Heaven without the baptism of water.They are invisible.
They cannot meet someone on the streets of Detroit or New England saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. Say the obvious!
Christine and Fr.Roman could not know of someone saved without 'faith and baptism' i.e outside the Church.So there are no known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus .There cannot be any exceptions.
So there is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.Physically, in real life we are dealing with zero cases.
When someone says Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma he is drawing on liberal theology, Apparition Theology.He is implying that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known apparitions in the present times.So they contradict Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Mic'd Up had a segment titled 'The Theology of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' .They could have added the phrase, 'Beware of it!'Or they could have added the phrase 'Avoid it! It's irrational'.Or, 'Traditional ecclesiolocentric ecclesiology of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is rational'.
-Lionel Andrades