Cdl. Gerhard Müller: Neither "the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it"

[rcwitness]

I think it is a fair reading of AL to say that there are circumstances under which a remarried person can be readmitted to the sacraments without pledging to remain continent. Certainly a number of bishops have said as much, and the Pope appears to at least allow that reading.

Yes, and I respect that concern. But it contradicts what JPII (and the CDF) Taught in a formal manner. Sorry, I am working and don’t have time to find the source. I’m almost certain that no situation, except with continence, are the remarried able to receive, so long as the first spouse is alive.

I guess I just disagree that it’s not about whether the Cardinal is right or wrong. If it is in fact the Teaching, then Francis will not be able to formally Teach against what he stated.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think so. He is clearly drawing on Pope’s JPII and Benedict, and the Catechism, which all address the very thing he says is unchangeable.

I am sure he is, which is why there must be more. I know Cardinal Muller is aware that mortal sin is composed of three elements, not just grave matter. That cannot be suspended for the sin of adultery. Amoris Laetitia addresses this point directly.

 

[mrdrifter]

I agree. You are missing my point, which is that I think it extreme for the CDF head to declare his understanding to be perfect and above that of a Pope or an ecumenical council.

Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant?

 

[TMC]

Yes, and I respect that concern. But it contradicts what JPII (and the CDF) Taught in a formal manner. Sorry, I am working and don’t have time to find the source. I’m almost certain that no situation, except with continence, are the remarried able to receive, so long as the first spouse is alive.

I guess I just disagree that it’s not about whether the Cardinal is right or wrong. If it is in fact the Teaching, then Francis will not be able to formally Teach against what he stated.

It depends on how the teaching is interpreted. For example, Popes taught for a long time that non-Christians could not be saved, but the Church now teaches that even atheists can be saved. The underlying Teaching has not changed, but the way the Church understands that big “T” teaching results in a different teaching about how that impacts individual cases. So the same could be true with this teaching. Cardinal Muller appears to be declaring that the Pope and even a Council could not make that determination - which seems an extreme thing to say.

 

[TMC]

Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant?

LOL, very good, but I am not judging him. I am sure he is doing his best to do his job the way he thinks is right. I am not even saying he is wrong - that is not for me to say. I am just saying that the way he is framing this seems extreme, and beyond what the head of the CDF would normally say.

 

[TCEL]

I’m not sure I like the painting of Muller into the extremist box.

 

[rcwitness]

It depends on how the teaching is interpreted. For example, Popes taught for a long time that non-Christians could not be saved, but the Church now teaches that even atheists can be saved. The underlying Teaching has not changed, but the way the Church understands that big “T” teaching results in a different teaching about how that impacts individual cases. So the same could be true with this teaching. Cardinal Muller appears to be declaring that the Pope and even a Council could not make that determination - which seems an extreme thing to say.

The Church does not teach that “even atheists can be saved”. :nope:

 

[TMC]

The Church does not teach that “even atheists can be saved”. :nope:

Yes, it does.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, it does.

Please show this?

 

[Vouthon]

Please show this?

“…Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”

- Vatican II [Lumen Gentium 16]

 

[TMC]

Please show this?

This is getting pretty far off topic, but this is really not controversial. The Church teaches that atheists can be saved. Lumen Gentium makes this clear, para 16, as does the Catechism, section 1260. Pope Francis has also said directly that atheists can be saved.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It depends on how the teaching is interpreted. For example, Popes taught for a long time that non-Christians could not be saved, but the Church now teaches that even atheists can be saved. The underlying Teaching has not changed, but the way the Church understands that big “T” teaching results in a different teaching about how that impacts individual cases. So the same could be true with this teaching. Cardinal Muller appears to be declaring that the Pope and even a Council could not make that determination - which seems an extreme thing to say.

But the teaching is not really different. The teaching that those who are not members of the Catholic Church cannot be saved is still true; the understanding that all people are members is what has become clearer with time. Even if those who taught in the narrower sense as well as the fuller sense did not realize it, they were saying the same thing.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. True then, true now.

The whole ‘atheists can be saved’ (a thread which closed not long ago) simply means the same as 'outside the Church there is no salvation". . .even atheists are members of the Church because they are human beings. One can as easily say 'even Catholics can be saved (!) as well as the corollaries: Atheists can damn themselves, Catholics can damn themselves, etc.

Take the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Prior to 1854, perhaps the average Christian did not fully understand what it meant, but that did not mean that Mary only became ‘immaculately conceived’ in 1854, or that because people did not have a full idea of the teaching prior, that they followed a ‘different teaching’ and that the Immaculate Conception is a new teaching. . .right?

 

[rcwitness]

“…Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”*

• Vatican II [Lumen Gentium 16]

Thank you. I’ve seen this. It doesn’t say, “atheist”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is getting pretty far off topic, but this is really not controversial. The Church teaches that atheists can be saved. Lumen Gentium makes this clear, para 16, as does the Catechism, section 1260. Pope Francis has also said directly that atheists can be saved.

Yes but only through the Catholic Church. . .which means the teaching of outside the Church there is no salvation is still now, as it was ‘then’, in force.

 

[TMC]

But the teaching is not really different. The teaching that those who are not members of the Catholic Church cannot be saved is still true; the understanding that all people are members is what has become clearer with time. Even if those who taught in the narrower sense as well as the fuller sense did not realize it, they were saying the same thing.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. True then, true now.

The whole ‘atheists can be saved’ (a thread which closed not long ago) simply means the same as 'outside the Church there is no salvation". . .even atheists are members of the Church because they are human beings. One can as easily say 'even Catholics can be saved (!) as well as the corollaries: Atheists can damn themselves, Catholics can damn themselves, etc.

Take the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Prior to 1854, perhaps the average Christian did not fully understand what it meant, but that did not mean that Mary only became ‘immaculately conceived’ in 1854, or that because people did not have a full idea of the teaching prior, that they followed a ‘different teaching’ and that the Immaculate Conception is a new teaching. . .right?

I agree that the doctrine has not “really” changed, but the Church’s understanding of the doctrine has certainly developed. The reason I brought it up is that there are some clear parallels in how EENS developed and what is happening now.

The reason I think it a relevant comparison, is that the Church once taught that EENS meant you had to be a formal member of the Church. Today, the Church does not teach that people should not join the Church, or that the Church is not important, or even that the Church is not essential to salvation. But the Church does teach that salvation is possible for atheists and other non-Catholics under certain circumstances. Similarly, AL does not teach that marriage is not permanent, or not important. But AL does teach that readmission to the sacraments is possible for the non-continent remarried under certain circumstances.

When the change was made to the understanding of EENS (a much larger doctrinal development than the current development on marriage), there was much consternation about the Church “reversing” its teaching. Over time and with more study, most Catholics understood that this was a sensible and proper development of the existing doctrine, not a “reversal”. We are going through the same process now, in my view.

 

[JPUSC]

How can he state anything without first discerning it? He is expressing his thoughts on a Church teaching, whether his personal opinion, his professional opinion, or his understanding of another’s opinion. No problem there, that is part of his job. The thing I think is extreme is that he is saying that no others, including the Pope or an ecumenical council, are competent to disagree with him.

He’s not the only one saying it.

As Catholic Church leaders, including Pope Francis, battle over whether divorced and remarried couples may receive Communion – although the couples are objectively in a state of serious sin, i.e., adultery – Cardinal Robert Sarah, head of the Vatican office dealing with Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said the Church’s teaching on mortal sin and Communion cannot change and that even a Pope cannot seek to circumvent or alter this divine law…

The remarks of Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, were published in the Nov. 19 edition of the French magazine L’Homme Nouveau. As translated by Vatican spcialist Sandro Magister and published LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Sarah said:

“The entire Church has always firmly held that one may not receive communion with the knowledge of being in a state of mortal sin, a principle recalled as definitive by John Paul II in his 2003 encyclical ‘Ecclesia de Eucharistia.’ Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law.”

cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/top-vatican-cardinal-not-even-pope-can-change-divine-law-communion

In the interview, Cardinal Sarah—who is prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship—voiced his concern about the level of confusion, even among bishops, regarding the Church’s teaching. He said:

I cannot allow myself to imagine as the cause of such confusion anything but the insufficiency of the formation of my confreres. And insofar as I am responsible for the discipline of the sacraments in the whole Latin Church, I am bound in conscience to recall that Christ has reestablished the Creator’s original plan of a monogamous, indissoluble marriage ordered to the good of the spouses, as also to the generation and education of children.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30002

 

[Brendan]

How can he state anything without first discerning it? He is expressing his thoughts on a Church teaching, whether his personal opinion, his professional opinion, or his understanding of another’s opinion. No problem there, that is part of his job. The thing I think is extreme is that he is saying that no others, including the Pope or an ecumenical council, are competent to disagree with him.

Why? If the statement is true, would it be within the power of a Pope or a Council to declare otherwise? In fact, the very nature of the infallibility of both would prevent them from doing so.

If I made the claim that the Trinity is Three Divine Persons in one Godhead, would it be extreme for me to claim that a Pope or a Council could not change that?

Could a Pope declare a 4th person of the Trinity? Could a Council declare that there are 3 Divine Persons, each with there own Divine Essence?

And the answer would be a resounding ‘No’. The gift of infallibility would prevent that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I agree that the doctrine has not “really” changed, but the Church’s understanding of the doctrine has certainly developed. The reason I brought it up is that there are some clear parallels in how EENS developed and what is happening now.

The reason I think it a relevant comparison, is that the Church once taught that EENS meant you had to be a formal member of the Church. Today, the Church does not teach that people should not join the Church, or that the Church is not important, or even that the Church is not essential to salvation. But the Church does teach that salvation is possible for atheists and other non-Catholics under certain circumstances. Similarly, AL does not teach that marriage is not permanent, or not important. But AL does teach that readmission to the sacraments is possible for the non-continent remarried under certain circumstances.

When the change was made to the understanding of EENS (a much larger doctrinal development than the current development on marriage), there was much consternation about the Church “reversing” its teaching. Over time and with more study, most Catholics understood that this was a sensible and proper development of the existing doctrine, not a “reversal”. We are going through the same process now, in my view.

I don’t think we are. The deepening of understanding in EENS did not change the fundamental fact that membership in the Church is a necessary part of salvation (i.e. Baptism) and that is the norm, and God’s mercy ‘may’ allow otherwise but we will have to wait and see. There is no little halo that pops up over a person’s head in his lifetime that says “Atheist but accepted God at the point of death and is saved” or “Catholic but cherrypicked and refused to give up her pet interpretations for God’s truth, so damned herself” etc.

A deepening of understanding that would mitigate objective mortal sin that is ONGOING is more problematic. One can for example come to the decision that X, in an invalid union, didn’t really look on it as invalid. . .but then, if that is the case, then X needs to pursue a decree of nullity and only then when he or she has received one and convalidated the marriage, receive, OR live as brother and sister once he or she realizes that, my gosh, there is a problem here, I want to receive but even though I ‘feel right’, I have to follow the steps laid down by the Church in order to be able to receive."

It’s the ongoing part. Maybe X’s first union was in fact not valid. But we cannot simply rely on X’s feelings or perceptions or conscience alone. If X was not aware ‘before’ that remarriage without a decree of nullity was wrong, surely X is aware now. So there is now full knowledge, and there is grave matter. . .what is left. Full consent. . .well here again, there is always the option to say ‘no’. "My husband will leave me and I’ll starve’. . .again, to me this is Catholic 101. . .We may never do evil even if ‘good’ results. It isn’t just ‘words on a page’. If enough women start flooding into their local churches or city halls or neighbor’s homes and say, “We’re starving because my husband wants to force me to have sex against my will” don’t you think the ‘kittycat hat’ people will be up in arms for women’s rights? My gosh, Catholic women could be the figureheads of the next revolution. Priests who brought these women and their families into the churches and begged and bullied the people for food, clothing, and help would start to gain back the respect they’ve lost. The Catholic Church would be seen as the people who stood up for women’s rights in marriage. As it is, you’re giving a license to bullies and victimizing women, “Oh honey, your conscience is troubling you and you want to abstain but hubby wants sex? Well, you just put up and shut up, we’ll pretend it’s ok. After all, his sexual needs are more important than your immortal soul. Men, go ahead and bully the women, we’re in your corner, we’ll pretend you’re not wrong for demanding it against her will.” Very troubling IMO.

 

[TMC]

Why? If the statement is true, would it be within the power of a Pope or a Council to declare otherwise? In fact, the very nature of the infallibility of both would prevent them from doing so.

If I made the claim that the Trinity is Three Divine Persons in one Godhead, would it be extreme for me to claim that a Pope or a Council could not change that?

Could a Pope declare a 4th person of the Trinity? Could a Council declare that there are 3 Divine Persons, each with there own Divine Essence?

And the answer would be a resounding ‘No’. The gift of infallibility would prevent that.

The Trinity is in the Creed. The bar on the admission of the remarried to the Sacraments is not an infallible dogma, and even infallible dogmas are subject to changes in understanding.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think we are. The deepening of understanding in EENS did not change the fundamental fact that membership in the Church is a necessary part of salvation (i.e. Baptism) and that is the norm, and God’s mercy ‘may’ allow otherwise but we will have to wait and see. There is no little halo that pops up over a person’s head in his lifetime that says “Atheist but accepted God at the point of death and is saved” or “Catholic but cherrypicked and refused to give up her pet interpretations for God’s truth, so damned herself” etc.

A deepening of understanding that would mitigate objective mortal sin that is ONGOING is more problematic. One can for example come to the decision that X, in an invalid union, didn’t really look on it as invalid. . .but then, if that is the case, then X needs to pursue a decree of nullity and only then when he or she has received one and convalidated the marriage, receive, OR live as brother and sister once he or she realizes that, my gosh, there is a problem here, I want to receive but even though I ‘feel right’, I have to follow the steps laid down by the Church in order to be able to receive."

It’s the ongoing part. Maybe X’s first union was in fact not valid. But we cannot simply rely on X’s feelings or perceptions or conscience alone. If X was not aware ‘before’ that remarriage without a decree of nullity was wrong, surely X is aware now. So there is now full knowledge, and there is grave matter. . .what is left. Full consent. . .well here again, there is always the option to say ‘no’. "My husband will leave me and I’ll starve’. . .again, to me this is Catholic 101. . .We may never do evil even if ‘good’ results. It isn’t just ‘words on a page’. If enough women start flooding into their local churches or city halls or neighbor’s homes and say, “We’re starving because my husband wants to force me to have sex against my will” don’t you think the ‘kittycat hat’ people will be up in arms for women’s rights? My gosh, Catholic women could be the figureheads of the next revolution. Priests who brought these women and their families into the churches and begged and bullied the people for food, clothing, and help would start to gain back the respect they’ve lost. The Catholic Church would be seen as the people who stood up for women’s rights in marriage. As it is, you’re giving a license to bullies and victimizing women, “Oh honey, your conscience is troubling you and you want to abstain but hubby wants sex? Well, you just put up and shut up, we’ll pretend it’s ok. After all, his sexual needs are more important than your immortal soul. Men, go ahead and bully the women, we’re in your corner, we’ll pretend you’re not wrong for demanding it against her will.” Very troubling IMO.

I understand that you disagree with me, and that you find it troubling. But I see this as a relatively minor development in doctrine, while EENS was a major shift in the understanding of what it means to be saved.

Not sure how your additional stuff about women’s rights and sex is relevant to this conversation, except that it seems that people only seem to get up in arms about theological issues when sex is somehow involved.