I picked this up at Rorate.
Card. Koch, Cardinal Koch, Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity gave an interview. He made this remark, inter alia. He makes a reference to Taurina cacata… Traditionis Custodes. My emphases (except the question).
Q: Yesterday we saw that the SSPX strikingly staged the aesthetic glow of the old rites. At the same time, we can see, especially in the USA and also in France, a growing interest among the younger generation in these traditionalist forms of Christianity. A perhaps somewhat delicate question: isn’t this also an impetus for the Catholic Church, as it currently stands, to review its books—perhaps to appreciate the particular truth contained within traditionalism and use it as an occasion for self-critical reflection?
KOCH: Yes, I think it could lean toward self-righteousness if we simply condemn the Society and say they are on the wrong track, without asking whether there are fundamental deficits in the Church today that are being recalled by the Society.
First, I think of the unresolved question of the relationship between the two forms of the one Roman Rite, as Pope Benedict called it. Pope Benedict showed a path there; [i.e., lifting the excommunications and issuing Summorum Pontificum] Pope Francis curbed it somewhat radically. I think we need to rethink this, [i.e., overturn Traditionis Custodes] especially for those faithful who feel drawn to this form of liturgy without sharing the entire ideological superstructure of the Society. For these faithful, I think we must look for new ways.
A second problem is the ecclesiological pluralism we have today in ecumenism, where basically all churches and ecclesial communities are treated as equivalent, so that it is essentially a matter of indifference which church you belong to; there, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, as pointed out clearly by the Second Vatican Council, is forgotten. [He is pointing out that the SSPX has NOT forgotten that.]
And thirdly, religious pluralism—the idea that all religions are equally ways to God. These theses are widely held today, and it would be good to use the confrontation with the Society as an opportunity for self-examination, to consider what needs to be changed here. [Surely he means in “practice” but he could be saying also that what V2 said has to be reexamined.] Because only in this way can we credibly represent to the Society that these evils they name are not contained in the Council, but are tendencies that appeared after the Council.
I would very much like to see a moderated but forthright dialogue like that take place.
“I would very much like to see a moderated but forthright dialogue like that take place.” Me too. But the hell will freeze before that.
The people that rule the Church today think that all the deficits mentioned by Cardinal Koch are VERY GOOD THINGS and, far from trying to moderate them, the Church should “progress” along these lines as much as possible. This is what the Synod is for.
Dialogue? Dialogue is for other religions, atheistic people and all kinds of leftist ideologies, not about the traditional doctrine of the Church. These trads should obey and shut up, thank you very much. They should be ashamed to be such backward, fascist, reactionary dinosaurs. By the way, they should accept the entire enchilada too: LGBT, women’s priest, second marriages communions and, eventually, sex is not a sin.
What we have here is simply people that are not Christian and they want to transform Catholicism in a branch of the woke globalist ideology. Sin and salvation are not important. Climatic change, redistribution of wealth, free immigration (see the Pope in Lampedusa), sexual liberation and managerialism are the new goals. So shut up and obey. Otherwise, we will excommunicate you.
Thank you for sharing this, Father. An intriguing interview. I, too, would love to see such a dialogue take place.
I must say, his answer to this particular question shared here is refreshing to hear. The three “fundamental deficits in the Church today” that he recognizes are ones that must be addressed. I especially think to the second “deficit” he mentions. But as I read the whole linked interview, Cardinal Koch seems to contradict himself:
Question: Perhaps let us move on to topics that directly concern your Dicastery. The points of contention also include ecumenical openness; this is rejected by the SSPX as false indifferentism, and they still demand that all non-Catholics return to the bosom of the one true Church. Why has this demand, which connects to the dogma of the Council of Florence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, actually become difficult today under modern conditions?
Cardinal Koch: I think it is difficult even under theological conditions, because this formula, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, naturally applies to Catholics who are convinced that the Catholic Church points the way to eternal salvation. But we already have the fundamental conviction in Holy Scripture, and then also in tradition, that God wills the salvation of all people and that He then also finds other ways for people to attain salvation who have never come into alignment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If the Society now essentially sends everyone to hell who is not in the Catholic Church, then I don’t know how this fundamental conviction of Holy Scripture—that God wants all people to be saved—can still be justified at all. And the danger, of course, is that the theological judgment places itself above the ultimate judicial will of God, and I consider that theologically very problematic.
*******
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t understand the Cardinal’s issue here. Yes, a theological judgement that places itself above God’s ultimate judicial will is very problematic. But to say that everyone who is not in the Catholic Church at the moment if their death is in hell is NOT the same as going above God’s ultimate judicial will that all men be saved. Indeed, there is no way people can attain salvation who have never come into alignment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are not multiple ways to salvation, only one Way. Therefore, since Christ is one with His Church, and the unicity of this Church has been dogmatically defined, and also that said Church is synonymous with the Catholic Church, then it is problematic for the Cardinal to say there are “other WAYS” for people to be saved outside the Catholic Church of Christ.
It seems to me that the Cardinal is forgetting the work done by people like Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton, as well as E. Sylvester Berry, not to mention other great ecclesiologists. Especially in the former’s writings, one can clearly see that anyone who dies in a state of grace belongs to the Catholic Church. Membership in the Catholic Church of Christ need not only be recorded in a parish register or baptismal certificate. If a man has perfect charity, which God alone will judge, even if that man dies as a Baptist preacher or a pagan who never received water baptism, that man is saved by the merits if Christ’s Catholic Church and therefore dies as a Catholic Christian. In other words, if an Anglican or Muslim or pagan is saved, it is IN SPITE of the practice of their false religion. Truly, through God’s mercy, they are saved and incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ. And as Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi”, the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church are one and the same thing.
I do wish Cardinal Koch would have further nuanced his answer to that question, and I hope he believes what I’ve posited here. Again, he’s spot on about “the fundamental deficits in the Church today”. But he needs to be more clear that to be saved, one must be Catholic. Even if it appears that someone dies without being formally a Catholic Christian, indeed, if they are saved, it is through the merits of the Catholic Church; thus, they die in the bosom of Holy Mother Church and as sons and daughters of the Catholic Church.
Card Koch — “God wills the salvation of all people and that He then also finds other ways for people to attain salvation who have never come into alignment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Two very large problems there. First, God’s will for the salvation of all people is His antecedent will. Notwithstanding the final spokatastasis that crops up in some of the early Fathers, that is dissimilar to the modern “God (actively) will the salvation of all men,” there is a misunderstanding here of the distinction between “being called” and “being chosen”.
Secondly, the “never come into alignment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” on its face, and unless parsed, is heresy and direct denial of multiple points in Dominus Iesus. I trust that the good Cardinal doesn’t intend his words to be taken at face value, right?????
I don’t have strong opinions here and I’m genuinely curious. I’ve attended some indult (as they then were termed) liturgies and enjoyed the tradition when I was still Catholic.
It seems to me the Lefebvrites, if they were sincere in a desire to rejoin the full Catholic participation, sure missed the window with Pope Benedict XVI, who was as sympathetic as any Pope might be and more studied and patient with their outlook. There doesn’t seem to have been any spirit of compromise or haste during his reasonably lengthy reign. Is the present crisis not therefore somewhat a predictable outcome?
Sincere question. This is how it appears to me as an outsider and as someone who’s followed your blog and and its more moderate stance on the role of the traditional middle in the Latin rite Church for a long time.
@PostCatholic
Points of Order.
1. The SSPX and those who go to their chapels are not “Lefebvrites”. Let’s refrain from normalizing this term. Pejoratives in any direction are not helpful to the discussion.
2. The SSPX do have a desire to be in “full Catholic participation” — their desire is manifest by their doxology and praxis. Secondly, the SSPX was going to sign an agreement with Pope Benedict XVI, but Card. Muller and other hardline institutionalists scuttled it at the last moment. Card. Muller’s position on VII is not a position that I would think you would support, btw.
As to your question, yes somewhat predictable. The orthodox and heterodox institutionalists are in agreement on Vatican II being a sort of an unquestionable super dogma for the lack of a better term, but they find the content of that super dogma to be completely different things.
I would guess, since you are “post catholic” that you probably prefer doxology, praxis, governance, etc. to have a bit of plasticity to it, as issues over lack of rigidity are usually why people leave the Faith and label themselves as “post”. (As opposed to those who leave because it wasn’t rigid enough, who tend to label themselves quite differently). I don’t know what you consider “normative Christianity to be”, but if you take out of the equation the reality of the SSPX being “on the political right,” you will notice that the hardliner institutionalist attitude in the Vatican to the SSPX (a present-day outlier group) isn’t healthy. Just as the pre-Vatican II hardliner institutionalist attitude wasn’t healthy for the same reasons (and contributed to the pendulum swinging the other direction).
This goes back to my thesis that there is a problem with institutionalism, especially the post-enlightenment will of the autocrat, coupled with the raising of obedience to a near theological virtue as a means for entrenching and enforcing institutionalism, following at least Vatican I.
I did not mean to be pejorative. That’s the term of art that was in general use when I was Catholic seminarian in the early nineties. If it’s offensive I won’t use it again. I genuinely didn’t know that it was.
I chose this handle well over a decade ago. It seemed descriptive at the time. I don’t describe myself as post-catholic any longer. I’m a Unitarian Universalist and quite committed to and deeply formed in that faith tradition now. I still appreciate Catholicism, especially for its attention to history and its precision in theology. I find both of those things here on Rev. Zuhlsdorf’s blog, which is why I’ve returned so often over so long a time. “We need not think alike to live alike;” I have deep respect for the sincerity of his views and his integrity to them. I’ve learned a lot here. I don’t accept many of the premises of Christianty, beginning with the Resurrection, but that was the faith of my grandmothers and at one point, me. I admire people who accept what they find to be true and build a life around those beliefs. If I had the option to pick a handle anew, it would not be so provocative.
I’m sure Cardinal Müller’s position is something I wouldn’t support only because I’m equally sure that I wouldn’t support his opponents. I’m well outside this debate. It only appears to me that the SSPX missed its best opportunity a long time ago, and the Roman curia had been predictably slow in getting to an inevitable conclusion. Is that fair? Why not, if not?
Yes, overturning TC should be done. It effectively escorted people away from “diocese approved” traditional Mass locations right into the group that just consecrated bishops without papal mandate and incurred excommunication as a result. So, TC absolutely needs to end. Why hasn’t it already? There are many good and holy priests who have been simply waiting with patience and respect for their freedoms to be recognized by authorities to say the Mass in the traditional form once again. This never should have been such a taboo thing in the first place. Many faithful want the traditional form of the Mass to be more available, and some don’t have any locations to attend. There should be multiple locations to choose from in every diocese.