In interviews with the National Catholic Register Archbishops Gerhard Muller and Augustine Di Noia of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used the Cushing interpretation of Vatican Council II(LG 14-invincible ignorance and LG 8- elements of sanctification and grace).They said LG 14 and LG 8 contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No one commented. Perhaps many did not know what was happening.
Rorate Caeli, SSPX, SSPX-SO, Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, Michael Voris, Remnant newspaper, traditionalist blogs and forums did not realize what Archbishops Muller and Di Noia said to Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register ?
For Richard Cushing LG 14 and LG 8 would refer to visible to us in the flesh cases who are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For Fr.Leonard Feeney LG 14 and LG 8 and LG 16 would not be known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So there are two ways of interpreting Vatican Council II -
(1) assuming there are visible to us exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus or
(2) assuming there are no visible to us cases of the deceased who are now saved in Heaven.
We can interpret the Council according to Cushing and claim there are personally known cases of the deceased.Or according to Fr.Leonard Feeney we could say there are no known exceptions in the present times to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
In the National Catholic Register interviews the Archbishops of the CDF chose the Cushing irrational interpretation of the Council. It is a break with the past.
So in public they have told us that a Christian, a Protestant, can be saved ( and they know such a case personally!) so there are exceptions to the dogma.
Lumen Fidei also suggests Christians can be saved ( in the present times, defacto, explicitly, visibly).They have ecclesial faith!.This is how Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis interpret Vatican Council II. Similar to Cushing.
In principle, in faith and if God wishes it, a Christian could be saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16,LG 14) or elements of sanctification and grace (LG 8).Cushing assumed that what was accepted in principle, as a possibility was defacto, explictly known to us.So he assumed there were known contradictions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.The CDF Archbishops also assume that in principle cases are defacto known. Even the popes in Lumen Fidei make the same mistake.It is upon this objective error- of being able to see the dead- that they have built up their dead man walking and visible theology.
How can Christians now dead and hopefully in Heaven and who are visible only to God be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.? If we personally cannot see any such case on earth how can we say that Christians have 'ecclesial faith'? How can the popes imply that Christians de facto do not have to convert into the Church for salvation; to avoid Hell?
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
2 comments:
Well, this is your interpretation, and you are entitled to it.
-J Daniels
No it is not a pesonal interpretation.
I am pointing out that one can choose to interpret Vatican Council II by using a particular premise or without that premise. In this way there are always two interpretations.
It has nothing to do with me or my views.
It is the same text for all by you can interpret it with the Richard Cushing Error or without it.
Once can assume that the dead now saved in Heaven are visible tous on earth and so are an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that they are not visible to us and so are not execptions. This is independent of me.
So you can assume that LG 16 refers to being saved in invincible ignorance which is visible to you or it refers to cases not visible to us and so which are not an exception to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to convert into the Church.
So there can be two interpretations but only one rational one.
There are presently two interpretations since most Catholics,including the Vatican Curia are using the irrational one, they can allegedly see the dead.
Post a Comment