CONTEXT - the Pope was addressing the the crisis in the Church and speaking of a false 'evolution of dogma'. On March 16, speaking publicly on a rare occasion, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in which he spoke of a “two-sided deep crisis” the Church is facing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The report has already hit Germany courtesy of Vaticanist Guiseppe Nardi, of the German Catholic news website Katholisches.info. Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the possibility of the loss of eternal salvation, or that people go to hell: The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation. He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.” Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, the Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, were less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.” Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life. He says: “Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects.”
This is untrue. Benedict's words: There is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma. While the fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages could still be of the opinion that, essentially, the whole human race had become Catholic and that paganism existed now only on the margins, the discovery of the New World at the beginning of the modern era radically changed perspectives. In the second half of the last century it has been fully affirmed the understanding that God cannot let go to perdition all the unbaptized and that even a purely natural happiness for them does not represent a real answer to the question of human existence. If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost -- and this explains their missionary commitment -- in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned.
These are not the words of Pope Benedict. They are the words of the Pope Emeritus Benedict. Does Infallibility apply in any way to a former pope? We don't have to deal with two popes, do we? Surely to God, we have enough problems with the one!
Here's a link to the full text of the interview where Pope Benedict made that statement. It was in the context of Christians in the middle ages being motivated to be missionaries, baptising as many as possible because they believed that everyone who wasn't baptised was condemned to hell. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...xvis-recent-rare-and-lengthy-interview-26142/ The development in Dogma that Pope Benedict was talking about was, in my opinion, more in line with the answer Jesus gave to the man asking how anyone could be saved after Jesus had told him that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said that with God all things are possible. Where marriage and adultery are concerned, the definition that Jesus gave left no wriggle room.
The dogma has not changed - outside of the Church there is no salvation -- "Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 Pope Francis Pope Francis recently quoted Pope Paul saying “It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”
As I posted above, Benedict only speaks with the authority of an ordinary bishop now (but your analysis nails it anyhow).
I think your priest was referring to Blessed John Henry Newman's teaching on development of doctrine. (Doctrine is not the same as dogma, by the way.) Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI) on Cardinal John Henry Newman (now Blessed): http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._cfaith_doc_19900428_ratzinger-newman_en.html PRESENTATION BY HIS EMINENCE CARD. JOSEPH RATZINGER ON THE OCCASION OF THE FIRST CENTENARY OF THE DEATH OF CARD. JOHN HENRY NEWMAN Rome, 28 April 1990 "Even deeper for me was the contribution which Heinrich Fries published in connection with the Jubilee of Chalcedon. Here I found access to Newman's teaching on the development of doctrine, which I regard along with his doctrine on conscience as his decisive contribution to the renewal of theology." http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ratfaithnewm.htm Often called "the father of the Second Vatican Council", Newman in his theological classic An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine teaches that the Church has to change or develop not in order to be different but to be the same.
Hi DeGalle, I've always tried to be objective and not take things subjectively but over the past few weeks with regard to another topic some posts were subjectively pointed in my direction and this caused me to re-evaluate what others may be saying between the lines! I mistakenly did this with your post, I'm sorry. I believe we are all here trying to make sense of things that seem to be causing some decay to the foundations of our faith. We are all gathering information and trying to work out what or who is to blame. I agree with Julia where she stated that over many years the faith has been undermined. At the moment it looks like its the question of divorced and remarried recieving Holy Communion that is causing this scandal. However from personal experience I remember 30 years ago at our Parish, the scandal of contraception. Our parish was a very 'friendly' parish we were encouraged to become very social after Mass on Sunday Morning where we had morning tea outside of the presbytry and also we had the family group allocations by the Redemptrists introduced, so we all got to know each other quite well. I was shocked to find out the majority of the young Catholic married couples who attended Mass each Sunday and recieved Holy Communion were taking contraceptives, having sterilisation proceedures and encouraging others to do the same! and many of these couples were leaders of Parish organisations, teachers at our Catholic schools or otherwise greatly involved in Parish life. My Husband and I were the only married Catholics, practicing Natural family planning! I suppose the sin of contraception was really a silent sin in some ways, because obviously our parish priest didn't know about it but all these women talked openly to each other about it, as if it was Ok. I don't know if they confessed it in confession but I know they thought I was strange because I had so many children. Why have the teachings of Our Faith, not been upheld over the last 50 years? I don't know if there is one answer, I think its a mixture of many things. Is Pope Francis to blame for the current crisis? I don't believe he is to blame and I don't believe any of the last 6 popes are to blame, I think there has always been unrepentent apostates in our Church, looking for any way to twist the truths that are handed down, so they can excuse their sin.
Oh I'm definitely not knowledgable enough to explain the teaching! I just wanted to point out that the concept of "development of doctrine" (distinct from dogma) is not new or foreign to the Church, and I would think Cardinal Ratzinger's endorsement and Cardinal Newman's beatification would be pretty reassuring. Here's a link to Newman's essay: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/ Here's a (much easier to understand!) essay on the topic by Bishop Bruskewitz: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7757
It can be, but it is not intrinsically so. Hence it is sometimes called for; e.g. Our Lord speaking to the woman at the well.
There has been no question of the Church changing the rules for people receiving Holy Communion in respect of all the mortal sins you mention except for those living in invalid marriages. Couples trying to live as brother and sister are already permitted to receive Communion. Cardinal Kasper was happy with the Exhortation. Here's what Cardinal Kasper wanted and it looks like he got a lot of what he wanted: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/interview-cardinal-walter-kasper#comments What he got was bad enough; the rest of what he wants is downright scary. What's even more scary is his comment about Pope Francis being in a position to shape the next Council because he will have appointed about 40% of the bishops. And Cardinal Schonborn "told the Austrian Catholic Press Agency Kathpress that he was grateful and "not a little proud" that the Catholic church had now "fully adopted" the pastoral practice regarding remarried divorcees, which has been in use for well over 15 years in the Vienna archdiocese." This report will give you an idea of what has been "fully adopted": http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/g...nod-finds-their-suggestions-popes-exhortation
Cardinal Kasper is not the devil -- his happiness should not be our standard for deciding what to oppose.
David, Thanks for the article, it answered a lot of my questions about where the Church hierarchy sees the Church today. I have my own take on the above questions that, Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, poses. I think this uneasy question of whether unbaptised persons can enter heaven or not, has already been answered by the Church itself. We know that after Our Lords Death, Descent into hell, Resurrection and Ascension, He opened the gates of Heaven, which had been closed since Adam and Eves sin. Additionally, the Church has always accepted that the unbaptised holy innocents, that were murdered by Herod when Our Lord was an infant, are saints in heaven. Also the Church acknowledges that the unbaptised good people and prophets of the old Testament reached heaven. We read that the Angels appeared at the birth of Christ and sang "Peace to all people of good will". They didn't sing peace to Jewish people of good will. I think the question we should ask is not whether some unbaptised persons reach heaven but why is it so important to be baptised, to recieve the Sacraments and to be a member of the Catholic Faith. Our Lord said go tell all nations the Good news that the kingdom of God has come! The Holy Catholic Faith, the good news, is beyond good it is magnificent, it teaches truth, it leads us home, it gives life, it gives love, it shelters, it nourishes, it enlightnens, it fortifies, it protects, it provides all the graces necessary while here on this pilgrimage and it defeats the attacks of the devil. Just think, anyone knowing this Good News, would cry out for baptism and for the Church. I see it this way, when a child goes off to college, some are unprepared for the event because they have no one that really cares for their future and they do it alone and face many perils. But some have a dad and mum that want to protect their child from all the assults. They make sure their child has good sturdy cloths and shoes and plenty of food and drink for their stay away, they give direction on how to avoid danger, and a mobile phone so the child can find its way home and call home. They provide all the necessities so that the child is as safe as possible while away from them. The child that goes off to college unprepared because no one cares, may have some food and some cloths but probaby not long lasting and they would jump at the chance to have all the good protection and the good provisions that others have; so they could combat more easily the perils that face all young college students. I believe this is what Our Lord did for us when He instituted His Church, its the Good News! and He wants all His children to have the same protection while away from Him and thats why Baptism and the Church is so important.
Nobody said that Cardinal Kasper was the devil. I posted an interview that Cardinal Kasper gave prior to the Synod. Cardinal Kasper was part of the German speaking group at the Synod. I also posted a report about Cardinal Schonborn's pleasure that the the Exhortation fully adopted the pastoral practice that has been in place in his diocese for 15 years. For want of a better description, Cardinal Schonborn is the official interpreter of the Exhortation so there can be no doubt that what he says is what it means. Cardinal Schonborn and most likely Cardinal Kasper have been authorising Communion for remarried divorcees for 15 years. The Exhortation has merely legitimised what they have been doing. The reason given is that the Church has been "too much of a burden on the faithful, and made their lives difficult instead of being helpful". This begs a three-part question: (a) Has the Church changed the definition of adultery? (b) If the answer to (a) is in the negative, has the Church changed the rule about absolution being contingent on repentance and a firm commitment to refrain from sin? (c) If the answers to both (a) and (b) are "no", has the Church changed the rule that a person must be in the state of grace to receive Communion, bearing in mind what Jesus said about adultery? Cardinal Kasper said in his interview that he foresees a Church where what will be allowed in Germany can be forbidden elsewhere. This is, in fact, what has been happening but the Cardinal expects the Pope to also make that official with his plans for synodality. That begs another question: Is the Catholic Church no longer a Universal Church?
Good point. We are witnessing a reformation within the Catholic church somewhat like the English protestant reformation only there will not be formal schism per se. The German Catholic church can decide for itself free from the shackles of Rome. If Henry VIII was around today he would have been 'accompanied pastorally' after his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. There would have been no need for him to set up his own church. Perhaps the Church could rescind Henry's excommunication and give him back his title 'Defender of the Faith'? After all the Church was way too rigid back then and lacked the 'maturity to understand' that there must have been mitigating factors for what Henry did, perhaps - “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that less-en or even extenuate moral culpability”. Poor old Henry was under a lot of pressure as an absolute monarch; one cannot understand the stress the poor man was under!! Perhaps, on reflection we can rescind Luther's excommunication too! After all Luther was living by his conscience - he had problems with the laws of the Church and came to his own discernment that the Church of the ages was wrong. After all the Church was way too rigid back then but we have matured and now have to "make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them."
So where are we headed with the modern church? Here are the public statements of Archbishop Mark Coleridge at the Synod who states that the 'language of the Church needs to change' as we are viewed as the bad only Catholic Church & we don't want to seen as 'demonic'. This is modernist heresy at its finest. He rejects a doctrinal approach that’s not connected with the real lives of people, but is convinced there’s much room for “pastoral creativity” in this field. He insists that the church “has got to use language that people understand,” but today she often uses “words and images” that has led to a point “where at best we’re regarded as irrelevant in Western cultures, at worst, and in some segments, we would be regarded as almost demonic.” “I think we have to explore all kinds of possibilities in that vast middle ground, where I think the Spirit is moving and calling us to be. And that’s where I begin to talk about a language event. “As I have said in the small group, one of the things this synod could profitably and practically do is to compose a list of very practical things that we could do to support families and to help families in trouble. “Not just come at them with waffly churchspeak — as I have said, there’s oceans of that. But to push beyond that kind of churchspeak, to speak a language that is utterly faithful to what we believe and teach but is simpler and more accessible and more contemporary and less gobbly-gook. “The language of intrinsically disordered — that kind of thing. “If you’re one of the insiders, you know what that means. But see a point that I have made … is that some of that language we simply have to revisit because it no longer communicates in the way that we think it does. “For instance: The distinction between sin and sinner breaks down, particularly in the area of sexuality. I don’t think we can any longer say that we condemn the sin but not the sinner. “Because, you see … a person will say in the cultures that you and I come from that my sexuality isn’t just part of me, it’s part of my whole being. Therefore, you can’t isolate my sexuality by identifying it with this act that you call intrinsically disordered that is somehow distinct from or separate from me, the sinner. “So to say that this act is intrinsically disordered is now taken for granted to mean I am intrinsically disordered. No wonder New Ways ministry a pro-homosexual pressure group love Coleridge: “Star of the Synod” would have to go to Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Australia. https://newwaysministryblog.wordpre...-mark-coleridge-finally-a-bishop-who-gets-it/
