Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Ross Douthat needed to tell Fr.James Martin S.J that it is only with the use of an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II that the Council 'develops doctrine'

Ross Douthat needed to tell Fr.James Martin S.J when he cited Vatican Council II and a development of doctrine that it is only with the use of an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II that the Councill 'develops doctrine'.Otherwise we can look at the same Council text as if from another prism, with different binoculars and in different colours and the conclusion is traditional. It is the same text, but the conclusion is traditionalist, worse still for Fr.James Martin, it is Feeneyite.It is pro-St.Robert Bellarmine on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There has been no development in Vatican Council II, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus,  since the time of St. Robert Bellarmine or the Council of Florence 1441.We cannot fault the Council of Florence for not using an irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and we can today interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality. This is a reality. We can interpret Vatian Council II,  when an irrational premise and inference  is not used in the interpretation of Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium 8 and 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Ad Gentes 7 and 11 etc.Any one can check it out.
It's the same text , I repeat, but it seen from another perspective and lo and behold!- as if it's  magic- the non traditional, familiar interpretation of Vatican Council II is swept away.
It's so dramatic and seemingly un-real, for informed Catholics when they are shown it.They cannot accept it.They ask themself how could every body be wrong all this time.They cannot accept that just about every body was wrong for over 50 years.
It really was some 50-plus years since the irrational philosophical reasoning originiated.
The irrationality was official in the Boston Heresy Case. Archbishop Richard Cushing and the Jesuits  were the heretics and not Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.The seeds of the error was there in the Baltimore Catechism which called a theoretical desire for the baptism of water by a catechuman who dies without receibing it, a baptism. The ' desirethereof'(Council of Trent) was interpreted as  a baptism similar to the baptism of water.Liberal theologians then began interpreting ALL historical references to 'the desireof', by popes and saints. using the irrational premise ( we can see these cases even though they are in Heaven) and inference ( they are known exceptions to the dogma EENS) .
For example they would say, " Since, St.XYZ refers  to being saved with the baptism of water and desire and since 'the desire' has the same effect of the baptism of water,according to the Baltimore Catechism,  it is the same, in our known reality as the baptism of water.' In other words these cases are visible like the baptism of water-cases, they have the same effect as the baptism of water even though they exclude the baptism of water.
This is false on both counts.We cannot see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of water and we cannot see or know people on earth who will be saved without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire.
 So this was an objective mistake in the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
 It was also wrong for the Council faithers to mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II.They were irrelevant to the orthodox passages in the Council which support EENS. An example is Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation).
References to those being saved with the desire for the baptism of water or in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in Vatican Council II are Deadwood Statements, superflous statements.It was a mixing up of what is implicit for being explicit, invisible for visible.
Once the invisible-visible distinction is noted by Fr.James Martin, Vatican Council II can be interpreted differently.There are no visible cases in Nostra Aetate, to contradict the St. Robert Bellarmine and St.Francis Xavier interpretation of EENS.Hypothetical references to salvation cannot be explicit cases relevant to EENS.There is no more a development of doctrine.
This was the important point Ross Douthat missed out in his conversation with Fr.James Martin.-Lionel Andrades
The text of Vatican Council II as it stands today does not contradict the dogma EENS.Dignitatis Humane does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.The conclusion is different

No comments: