Clicks1.1K
en.news
6

Dubia Cardinal Brandmüller: “Today Things May Be Appropriate Which Were Forbidden Yesterday”

At a seminary organised by an Italian group called Scuola Ecclesia Mater, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, 91, proposed radical relativism as a solution in dealing with difficulties in interpreting Vatican II documents (Video).

Brandmüller creates total confusion by saying that Vatican II didn’t define dogmatic matters and was even afraid to do so, but that yet Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum have “undoubtedly the nature and binding force of authentic doctrinal teachings” – “although here, too, nothing has been rigorously defined in a strict sense.”

He insists on a “close organic connection” between Vatican II and the precedent magisterium, because for him a break in the liturgy and the teaching of the faith is “impossible if only for theological reasons.” This doesn’t change that today even John XXIII would not recognise his Church anymore. Therefore, Brandmüller’s denial of the break is merely academic.

He admits that Nostra aetate (NA) and Dignitatis humanae (DH) are wrong, but when the Society of PiusX says that Vatican II has erred, then “one has to reject this strongly.” Why? Because Brandmüller explains that it is “perfectly obvious” that a conciliar text could have been right in 1965, and is wrong in 2020 because the circumstances have changed. He even insists of the “historicity of every text.”

These are the self-contradicting arguments of radical relativism. Vatican II never understood its texts as mere snap-shots of the Sixties.

For Brandmüller all possible issues related to NA asnd DH have been resolved by Dominus Jesus (2000), a document, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, that was never enforced, and quickly forgotten. But even if it were not: Must Brandmüller’s relativism not also be applied to Dominus Jesus all the more that he insists on “taking into account all the post-conciliar magisterium” – Francis included?

Brandmüller extends his relativism to the point that he claims that there are cases in the field of morals “where today things may be appropriate which yesterday were forbidden.”

His ultimate enemies, he mentions them several times, are the “so-called traditionalist circles” who are not able to make sense of his contradictions.

#newsIbsjksxvtw

comfort ye
If today sir, your head is a watermelon, and it wasn't yesterday, we might understand your reasoning.
Gesù è con noi
Vatican II is the eclipse of the Church and must be rejected in order to preserve the Catholic faith for every faithful Catholic who wishes to be saved.
foward
Not, sir. The eternal questions do not change.
The essence does not change, accidents do. But we are talking about the essential.
eticacasanova
Well, you don't do a good job here, you don't present the words of the cardinal, but your interjections. You don't do that while you are reporting. Seriously... don't do that, at least, present the thing, and only afterwards submit your comments. There are several ways in which the cardinal's words can be understood as true, but you would need the context. For instance, a philosophical issue can …More
Well, you don't do a good job here, you don't present the words of the cardinal, but your interjections. You don't do that while you are reporting. Seriously... don't do that, at least, present the thing, and only afterwards submit your comments. There are several ways in which the cardinal's words can be understood as true, but you would need the context. For instance, a philosophical issue can be relevant in today's discussion but can be laid aside tomorrow, only to be revived in some years: that's not relativism, that's how humans are and work, our intellects and memories are weak.

On the other side, the wreak of the Church was an inevitability, without the Coucil, see what is happening now around the world and say that that's due to the Vaticana Council, ppppplease!!! Civilizations die, and it's not peaceful por painless.

One has to have some kind of sense of causes and effects, I mean, even if the Council was bad, it came from something, evil wasn't created as an entity, out of nothing, there. What do you think?
F M Shyanguya
Have to read the original ...

Him, Cardinal Burke, together with Bp Schneider, I highly respect. But the surviving dubia Cardinals seem to have lost bearing after not following through the dubia to its rightful conclusion, which according to Cardinal Burke, was the correction issued to Pope Francis, and I believe it was Card. Brandmüller who convinced Cardinal Burke otherwise [out of a false …More
Have to read the original ...

Him, Cardinal Burke, together with Bp Schneider, I highly respect. But the surviving dubia Cardinals seem to have lost bearing after not following through the dubia to its rightful conclusion, which according to Cardinal Burke, was the correction issued to Pope Francis, and I believe it was Card. Brandmüller who convinced Cardinal Burke otherwise [out of a false respect for the Pope/the papacy], and the latter did not want to do it alone [when St Paul whom he succeeds did it].

The LORD and His Church have to be stood for to the point of death.
De Profundis
Original is as video below