Think of this in terms of the Second Vatican Council. If the council fathers, as they are usually called, had not been able to discuss the great challenges facing the church out of fear of the slippery slope, they would have not have been able to read the “signs of the times,” and none of the great documents of Vatican II would have been published. To take one example, there would be no “Nostra Aetate,” the document that utterly transformed the church’s relations to non-Christian religions, particularly to the Jewish people.
Let me just quote one passage from "Nostra Aetate." It concerns religions other than Catholicism.
"[O]ther religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions."
Needless to say, that represents an immense change in church practice—and indeed in teaching. That one statement stands in stark contrast to statements from popes and councils and other parts of the magisterium, over the centuries, too numerous to mention.
In stands in contrast if it was an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yet this passage does not say that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation or that their members do not need to convert.It does not say that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Yet this is how it is irrationally interpreted.All this is inferred by Fr.James Martin and the political Left.
Or look at "Dignitatis Humanae,” the document that guaranteed the “right to religious freedom,” that is, to worship and believe as each person desires. This is also in stark contrast to the former church dictum, “Error has no rights.”
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) affirms 'the strict' intepretation of the dogma EENS so all need faith and baptism to avoid Hell. All need to be card carrying members of the Catholic Church. Error has no right for a Catholic.There is no separation between state and Church for a catholic.
Dignitatis Humane does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Before the council began, there were several documents written by preparatory commissions that essentially restated church teaching as it then stood. Once the council was convened, however, and the bishops began their discussions, and saw that they could speak freely, those original documents were heavily revised and often scrapped entirely.
False. The text of Vatican Council II as it stands today does not contradict the dogma EENS.It is the irrational inference which changes the meaning of the Council.The Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.The conclusion is different in both cases. Fr.Martin is useing irrational and heretical Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II.
Had there been no discussion, there would have been no change. And, at the time, many of these issues were almost too shocking to consider. Now they are church teaching.
The change came in 1949 when it was assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire referred to explicit cases, visible in the flesh. Then it was inferred that these 'unknown cases' were objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
This is irrational reasoning is used to interpret Vatican Council II today.That the magisterium has not corrected it and even supports it is the shocker.
John Noonan’s book A Church that Can and Cannot Change is helpful in this regard. He describes not only how various teachings have changed, but how those changes have helped the church.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not changed with Vatican Council II for me.I do not know of any objective exception in 2016 to all needing faith and baptism for salvation. I do not know of any text in Vatican Council II which says invisible cases are visible. If there was such a text then it would mean the Church fathers at Vatican Council II made an objective mistake.
His most notable example is slavery, which St. John Paul II declared it “intrinsically evil.” Yet neither Jesus nor St. Paul condemned it and, later on, the early church fathers accepted it. Nor was my own religious order faultless in this regard: the Jesuits owned slaves in colonial Maryland (as did other orders in other locales). Judge Noonan’s other examples are usury, religious freedom and marriage. In all these areas the church has developed its teaching. There are others.
When I think of the “fundamental reasons for being Catholic,” I don’t think first of the church’s teachings on divorce and remarriage. I think of Jesus Christ. As I’m sure do you. The “development of doctrine,” as Blessed John Henry Newman termed it, is nothing to fear. When I think of the “fundamental reasons for being Catholic,” I don’t think first of the church’s teachings on divorce and remarriage.
At the Urbaniania Pontifical University Rome, in Ecclersiology classes it is being taught there is a development of doctrine with regard to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Like Fr.James Martin they use an irrational premise and inference to create a new, 'developed', doctrine which is irrational and heretical and which is supported by the Left.
I think of Jesus Christ. As I’m sure do you. This is not to say that law and spirit are opposed. Rather, if we can rest in the true fundamentals we can find the freedom to move ahead under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. -James Martin, S.J.
The true fundamentals have been changed with an irrational premise and inference.
A simple theological response to the learned members of the Academy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/a-simple-theological-response-to.html