Saturday, November 8, 2014

Cardinal Kaspar,John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio make the Council ambigous

  1. Lionel:At (5:22) on the video John Vennari says Cardinal Kaspar says that we put side by side a propostion and its opposite .So there is ambiguity.
  2. Really?
  3. For example Cardinal Kaspar and John Vennari and Louie Verrecchi Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism. While Lumen Gentium 16 infers,implies,suggests for the three of them, that all do not need faith and baptism since a person can be saved in invincible ignorance.
  4. Here the fault is not with Vatican Council II. Since the text does not state that there are known cases saved in invincible ignorance (and without the baptism of water).It has to be inferred wrongly here. This is the conclusion of Cardinal Kasper and John Vennari and Louie Verrechio.They make a wrong inference.
    For me LG 16 is hypothetical and known only to God .So it cannot be an exception in 2014 to the dogma on salvation or Tradition in general. The ambiguity comes from Kaspar and the others. The text is traditional.
    Similalry later in the video John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio will assume that UR 3 is an exception to traditiion.
    Here is another example, to show how the reasoning is wrong:
    Lumen Gentium 14 says all need to enter the Church .Let us call this passage A :-
    Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14

    Now comes the part which is assumed to be visible and so an exception to what is quoted above in A.Let us call it B.
    Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14

    Lionel: The ambiguity is created by Cardinal Kaspar since he assumes that B refers to known and visible cases in the present times. Since they are allegedly known, they would be an explicit exception to A. So he concludes all do not need to enter the Church in the present times.
    Behold! Vatican Council II now contradicts itself and becomes ambigous. He uses the irrational inference and the Council is a a break with Tradition.Without the inference the Council here is traditional.There are no exceptions to A.
    Here is another passage, in which we can see the influence of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits from Boston.Let us call this passage C. They imply here that these Catechumens are saved without the baptism of water and these cases are known to them. They are in Heaven saved without the baptism of water is the conclusion.Since they are known to them allegedly they become exceptions to the dogma on salvation and Tradition.This is false. Since these Catechumens cannot be named.

    Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14

    So B and C can only contradict A if it is wrongly inferred that the dead now in Heaven, saved, are visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. In this way Cardinal Kaspar,John Vennari and Louie Verrecchio make the Council ambigous.
    B and C are not a problem for me since I assume they are hypothetical cases known only to God.

    For Cardinal Kaspar they are not hypothetical cases.

    So there is a propostion A but B and C are not its opposite.

    They are its opposite only if you add an irrational inference i.e only if you assume that the dead who are now in Heaven and saved as mentioned in LG 16,UR 3 etc , are visible and known on earth in 2014 to be explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation.
    This is a subtle error and is the cause of the confusion and ambiguity in Vatican Council II.
  5. -Lionel Andrades

No comments: