... the decline began before the Council was concluded and certainly before it was implemented.
Lionel:
In 1949 the Church threw away the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and its ecclesiology was no more exclusivist.
___________________
(I actually contend that the Council still has not been implemented.) It's hard to blame the Council for something that started before the Council was even finished.
Lionel:
The Council instead of correcting the Marchetti factual error implemented it.
_______________________
You can take the route that other commenters have suggested, that the Council weakened the Church and made her more vulnerable to the societal trends that were actually the cause.
Lionel:
The Council had changed Church teachings on mission, salvation etc because of the irrational inference.So with the irrational inference new doctrines were created.
___________________________
That is a stronger argument. The only problem is that those societal trends decimated the old mainline Protestant denominations that had been around for the whole experience. While the Church has managed to grow despite it's rate of loss, they have shrunk. And while heterodoxy and outright heresy may be a problem in the Church, even among her prelates, the Church's dogma has not abandoned historic Christianity as most of the old mainline Protestants have.
Lionel:
Correction. Church dogma has been abandoned. For example LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) interpreted assuming that we can see, know or meet people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water, has put aside the rigorist, centuries- old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We now have a new developed dogma in a Church with new doctrines and even a theology of religions....
'that we can see, know or meet people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water' is the new irrational premise.
'that these persons are known exceptions to all needing faith and baptism; all needing to be formal members of the Church, in the present times for salvation' is the new irrational inference.
The false conclusion then is that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional interpretation of EENS.We have the familiar hermeneutic of rupture.
________________________
If you are looking for something that more resembles historic Christianity within Protestantism, you have to look at the denominations that grew up in the modern era, that became dominant *after* the mid-century upheaval.
I think that the fact that the "Spirit of Vatican II" is so very different from the content of Vatican II is very indicative.
Lionel:
Without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion there is no 'spirit of Vatican Council II 'in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.
________________________________
The ills of the Church we see today track much more closely with the so-called Spirit of Vatican II than the Council itself. If the Council really abandoned the faith and is really to blame for decline, then why did the modernist heretics have to abandon the the actual content of the Council to promote their heresy? The Council gave the Church a response to the modern world based in Tradition.
Lionel.
Yes based on tradition after 1949. It was a break with Tradition before 1949.
________________________
Vatican II answered the modern world with the faith while so much of the rest of Christendom answered it with capitulation.
The problem is not that the Church embraced Vatican II. The problem is that the Church has not yet embraced Vatican II, preferring instead the "Spirit of Vatican II."
Lionel:
Yes it has not embraced Vatican Council II which affrms the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so the Council would be in accord with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#disqus_thread
Lionel:
In 1949 the Church threw away the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and its ecclesiology was no more exclusivist.
___________________
(I actually contend that the Council still has not been implemented.) It's hard to blame the Council for something that started before the Council was even finished.
Lionel:
The Council instead of correcting the Marchetti factual error implemented it.
_______________________
You can take the route that other commenters have suggested, that the Council weakened the Church and made her more vulnerable to the societal trends that were actually the cause.
Lionel:
The Council had changed Church teachings on mission, salvation etc because of the irrational inference.So with the irrational inference new doctrines were created.
___________________________
That is a stronger argument. The only problem is that those societal trends decimated the old mainline Protestant denominations that had been around for the whole experience. While the Church has managed to grow despite it's rate of loss, they have shrunk. And while heterodoxy and outright heresy may be a problem in the Church, even among her prelates, the Church's dogma has not abandoned historic Christianity as most of the old mainline Protestants have.
&docid=kYEqzd8rNFpRPM&tbnid=rfjF_mRQn4WS0M%3A&w=2900&h=1998&ei=5zQZVYKWGIraauLcgqgC&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c)
Lionel:Correction. Church dogma has been abandoned. For example LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) interpreted assuming that we can see, know or meet people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water, has put aside the rigorist, centuries- old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
We now have a new developed dogma in a Church with new doctrines and even a theology of religions....
'that we can see, know or meet people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water' is the new irrational premise.
'that these persons are known exceptions to all needing faith and baptism; all needing to be formal members of the Church, in the present times for salvation' is the new irrational inference.
The false conclusion then is that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional interpretation of EENS.We have the familiar hermeneutic of rupture.
________________________
If you are looking for something that more resembles historic Christianity within Protestantism, you have to look at the denominations that grew up in the modern era, that became dominant *after* the mid-century upheaval.
I think that the fact that the "Spirit of Vatican II" is so very different from the content of Vatican II is very indicative.
Lionel:
Without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion there is no 'spirit of Vatican Council II 'in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican Council II.
________________________________
The ills of the Church we see today track much more closely with the so-called Spirit of Vatican II than the Council itself. If the Council really abandoned the faith and is really to blame for decline, then why did the modernist heretics have to abandon the the actual content of the Council to promote their heresy? The Council gave the Church a response to the modern world based in Tradition.
Lionel.
Yes based on tradition after 1949. It was a break with Tradition before 1949.
________________________
Vatican II answered the modern world with the faith while so much of the rest of Christendom answered it with capitulation.
The problem is not that the Church embraced Vatican II. The problem is that the Church has not yet embraced Vatican II, preferring instead the "Spirit of Vatican II."
Lionel:
Yes it has not embraced Vatican Council II which affrms the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so the Council would be in accord with the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html#disqus_thread
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment