Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The fault is with your not making the explicit-implicit distinction

You are bewildered since you are using a false premise in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.
Leo:
When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church.
Lionel:
You are bewildered since you are using a false premise in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.The invisible is considered visible.
For example you infer that Nostra Aetate 2, 'a ray of the Truth' refers to cases which are explicit for us. So now every one does not need to convert into the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So this is a major change in Church teaching.
Then you read about those who can be saved ‘ in imperfect communion with the Church’ (UR 3) and you conclude that Protestants do not need Catholic Faith for salvation.This is a big change in ecumenism.
The fault is with your not making the explicit-implicit distinction.Yes a Protestant could be saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' , hypothetically, in theory, but in reality we do not know of any such case. So there is no contradiction with the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
Similarly we do not know any one saved with ‘seeds of the Word’ etc.

No comments: