N
NeelyAnn
Guest
**‘There is no salvation outside the world.’ **
Posted By Brian Kelly On February 11, 2010
How clever! Probably got a chuckle or two from the audience. The trouble is the speaker actually meant what he said. Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., summarized his theological legacy in these words in December 2008 at a symposium held in his honor at the University of Louvain in Belgium. He was ninety-four years old. He died one year later, on December 23. (Although Schillebeeckx was Belgian, most of his many years teaching and writing were in the Netherlands.)
When one thinks of the leading liberal periti at Vatican II, Schillebeeckx doesn’t immediately come to mind. Hans Kung does, Karl Rahner, S.J., Ives Congar, O.P., Jean Danielou, S.J., John Courtney Murray, S.J., Henri De Lubac, S.J., and, of course, Joseph Ratzinger, do. And it wasn’t because the Belgian theologian was too young. He was about fifty years old during the sessions. He just wasn’t the type to promote himself. He liked to work behind the scenes, the quintessential scholar. Nevertheless, excepting Karl Rahner, his influence was more pervasive than any of the others.
Preparatory Work for Dutch Bishops and Vatican II
The Flemish Dominican was so influential that he got the Dutch bishops, most of them that is, into a bit of hot water even before the Council opened. He had prepared, as a ghost writer for Bernard Jan Cardinal Alfrink, a brochure for the bishops outlining the whole liberal agenda; it was nothing short of a revolution in theology, scriptural exegesis, ecclesiology, collegiality, sacramentology, religious liberty, and the Church’s relation with the modern world. This became the basis for the Dutch bishop’s joint pastoral letter of 1961 on the upcoming Council. Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office, called him in for questioning, and he received only a warning. Henceforth, his work at the Council would be anonymous.
Edward Schillebeeckx (on right), in his Dominican habit.
Edward Schillebeeckx’s preparatory work for Vatican II, which he hoped to get incorporated into the synod’s schemata, was the basis for a new catechism that he co-authored with the Dutch Jesuit Piet Schoonenberg. The infamous Dutch Catechism, rife with heresy, was published in 1966. Alfrink’s permission was not asked, but the Cardinal did give the work his imprimatur in 1972. That was about the same time that Pope Paul VI ordered Alfrink to stop giving Communion in the hand, a practice that he had supported as far back as 1965. We know the old story: Abuse; correction; abuse already too widespread to stop; abuse authorized under certain conditions; and, finally, the abuse becomes the norm. Let us pray that Pope Benedict puts an end to this terrible abuse of Communion in the hand.
**Ten of the Many Heresies in the Dutch Catechism **
Among other heresies found in the Dutch Catechism are the following ten. And, the clever thing was that the heresies were not issued so much as propositions, but as questions placing doubt on definitive teaching. To achieve this, the format of the Catechism is not by way of Q’s and A’s. In fact, the Catechism doesn’t give answers at all. As one of Schillebeeckx’s defenders, Cornelius Ernst, O.P., put it, “Answers kill thought.”
(1) God as Creator. Why must we believe that God created out of nothing, or is this even important?
(2) The Fall of Adam. Denial of original sin.
(3) The virginal birth of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why is this important? Is it necessary to the gospel message that Mary be ever-virgin? Why place such a stumbling block before our Protestant brethren? Nothing irritated Pope Paul VI more than this blasphemy.
(4) The satisfaction made by Christ. Since original sin is denied, the Redemption itself becomes questionable.
(5) The Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Is the Mass Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner? Or is it rather a commemoration, just a meal, eaten in commemoration of Christ’s passion?
(6) The Eucharistic Presence and the change of the species of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Again, questions are raised about traditional teaching. A new way of speaking about the Eucharist is suggested. Transubstantiation means nothing to today’s faithful, and is totally unintelligible to Protestants.
(7) The personal infallibility of the pope and that of the solemn magisterium of the Church, denied outright.
(8) The hierarchical priesthood and the power of teaching and ruling in the Church. Why can’t a priest or lay people lay on hands and ordain a chosen one from the community? Apostolic succession is unnecessary to the priesthood.
(9) Promotion of artificial birth control, among other moral aberrations.
(10) The existence of angels.
Two years after the catechism was published, the Holy Office, in 1966, ordered the Dutch bishops to make major revisions and numerous minor ones. As a body they refused. All that they did was attach an addendum at the end of the catechism that listed Rome’s objections. The catechism was censured, but never condemned. How unfortunate! With Alfrink’s imprimatur, the fear was that an outright condemnation would bring on a schism; what was de facto, would become de jure. After Vatican II, the unwritten policy was that incurred excommunications would only be of the ipso facto kind (latae sententiae), for certain offenses listed in canon law, not de jure (ferendae sententiae), which the Church might issue after a juridical hearing of a case. Most of the public excommications issued since 2000, and they are very few, were passed in the United States by local ordinaries and confirmed by Rome.
Continue here: catholicism.org/there-is-no-salvation-outside-the-world.html
Posted By Brian Kelly On February 11, 2010
How clever! Probably got a chuckle or two from the audience. The trouble is the speaker actually meant what he said. Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., summarized his theological legacy in these words in December 2008 at a symposium held in his honor at the University of Louvain in Belgium. He was ninety-four years old. He died one year later, on December 23. (Although Schillebeeckx was Belgian, most of his many years teaching and writing were in the Netherlands.)
When one thinks of the leading liberal periti at Vatican II, Schillebeeckx doesn’t immediately come to mind. Hans Kung does, Karl Rahner, S.J., Ives Congar, O.P., Jean Danielou, S.J., John Courtney Murray, S.J., Henri De Lubac, S.J., and, of course, Joseph Ratzinger, do. And it wasn’t because the Belgian theologian was too young. He was about fifty years old during the sessions. He just wasn’t the type to promote himself. He liked to work behind the scenes, the quintessential scholar. Nevertheless, excepting Karl Rahner, his influence was more pervasive than any of the others.
Preparatory Work for Dutch Bishops and Vatican II
The Flemish Dominican was so influential that he got the Dutch bishops, most of them that is, into a bit of hot water even before the Council opened. He had prepared, as a ghost writer for Bernard Jan Cardinal Alfrink, a brochure for the bishops outlining the whole liberal agenda; it was nothing short of a revolution in theology, scriptural exegesis, ecclesiology, collegiality, sacramentology, religious liberty, and the Church’s relation with the modern world. This became the basis for the Dutch bishop’s joint pastoral letter of 1961 on the upcoming Council. Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office, called him in for questioning, and he received only a warning. Henceforth, his work at the Council would be anonymous.
Edward Schillebeeckx (on right), in his Dominican habit.
Edward Schillebeeckx’s preparatory work for Vatican II, which he hoped to get incorporated into the synod’s schemata, was the basis for a new catechism that he co-authored with the Dutch Jesuit Piet Schoonenberg. The infamous Dutch Catechism, rife with heresy, was published in 1966. Alfrink’s permission was not asked, but the Cardinal did give the work his imprimatur in 1972. That was about the same time that Pope Paul VI ordered Alfrink to stop giving Communion in the hand, a practice that he had supported as far back as 1965. We know the old story: Abuse; correction; abuse already too widespread to stop; abuse authorized under certain conditions; and, finally, the abuse becomes the norm. Let us pray that Pope Benedict puts an end to this terrible abuse of Communion in the hand.
**Ten of the Many Heresies in the Dutch Catechism **
Among other heresies found in the Dutch Catechism are the following ten. And, the clever thing was that the heresies were not issued so much as propositions, but as questions placing doubt on definitive teaching. To achieve this, the format of the Catechism is not by way of Q’s and A’s. In fact, the Catechism doesn’t give answers at all. As one of Schillebeeckx’s defenders, Cornelius Ernst, O.P., put it, “Answers kill thought.”
(1) God as Creator. Why must we believe that God created out of nothing, or is this even important?
(2) The Fall of Adam. Denial of original sin.
(3) The virginal birth of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why is this important? Is it necessary to the gospel message that Mary be ever-virgin? Why place such a stumbling block before our Protestant brethren? Nothing irritated Pope Paul VI more than this blasphemy.
(4) The satisfaction made by Christ. Since original sin is denied, the Redemption itself becomes questionable.
(5) The Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Is the Mass Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner? Or is it rather a commemoration, just a meal, eaten in commemoration of Christ’s passion?
(6) The Eucharistic Presence and the change of the species of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Again, questions are raised about traditional teaching. A new way of speaking about the Eucharist is suggested. Transubstantiation means nothing to today’s faithful, and is totally unintelligible to Protestants.
(7) The personal infallibility of the pope and that of the solemn magisterium of the Church, denied outright.
(8) The hierarchical priesthood and the power of teaching and ruling in the Church. Why can’t a priest or lay people lay on hands and ordain a chosen one from the community? Apostolic succession is unnecessary to the priesthood.
(9) Promotion of artificial birth control, among other moral aberrations.
(10) The existence of angels.
Two years after the catechism was published, the Holy Office, in 1966, ordered the Dutch bishops to make major revisions and numerous minor ones. As a body they refused. All that they did was attach an addendum at the end of the catechism that listed Rome’s objections. The catechism was censured, but never condemned. How unfortunate! With Alfrink’s imprimatur, the fear was that an outright condemnation would bring on a schism; what was de facto, would become de jure. After Vatican II, the unwritten policy was that incurred excommunications would only be of the ipso facto kind (latae sententiae), for certain offenses listed in canon law, not de jure (ferendae sententiae), which the Church might issue after a juridical hearing of a case. Most of the public excommications issued since 2000, and they are very few, were passed in the United States by local ordinaries and confirmed by Rome.
Continue here: catholicism.org/there-is-no-salvation-outside-the-world.html