There is an interesting comment on Rorate Caeili :
bill bannonsaid...
Here is a link to the Jesuit periodical Theological Studies where the subsistit in versus est debate is recounted from the real change side ( Fr. Francis A Sullivan) but he gives you the OR reference in the beginning of the Jesuit opposing him, a Fr. Becker...who held that no change took place. It is microscopic as to the draft changes at the Council and the reasoning...
http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/67/67.2/67.2.7.pdf
http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/67/67.2/67.2.7.pdf
Fr.Francis Sullivan S.J a liberal Emeritus Professor at Boston College has drawn upon the Richard Cushing Confusion in Vatican Council II to interpret the Council as a break with the past.
I have quite a few times pointed out to him that the Richard Cushing Error of assuming the dead are visible to us is irrational. This is the error Fr.Sullivan has picked up in his writings including his book 'Salvation Outside the Church( Paulist Press) which can be read at Catholic universities and seminaries in Rome.It's irrational to assume that we can personally see the deceased on earth but Sullivan will not admit it.
This is common sense that if a person now dead does not physically exist on earth he cannot be considered an exception to every one needing to convert into the Church for salvation. If we knew a case of someone saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance, then it would be an exception to 'all 'needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation. (AG 7).
Fr.Francis Sullivan will not admit this. If he did he would have to change his entire theology and support a Vatican Council II which is traditional. He could lose his position at dissenting Boston College.
If he admits the Richard Cuishing Error in public it would mean all that he wrote on this subject was based on an objective error.He assumed the dead are visible.He did not notice the Richard Cushing Error and based his liberal theology and interpretation of Vatican Council II on it.
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II is in agreement with Lumen Gentium 8 on subsistit in. AG 7 agrees with Cardinal Becker's interpretation and writings on this subject.
If Fr.Sullivan's interpretation of subsistit in is a break with the past , then it would also contradict AG 7. So where in Vatican Concil II is there text supporting Fr.Sullivan's position on subsistit in ?
We do not know any one saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3). In principle, in theory, in faith we accept this as a possobility knowing it is known only to God. It is unknown to us.It is not a known reality.There is no particular case.
If we knew of a particular case saved in imperfect communion with the church or elements of salvation(LG 8) then we could accept Fr.Sullivan's interpretation of subsistit in.Then it would mean there is known salvation outside the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment