In 2003 / 2004, the first of the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II study guides underwent a thorough evaluation by the censor librorum for the Archdiocese of Baltimore (an eminent theologian and professor at Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary) as part of the process of securing animprimatur. He went through the text with a fine-tooth comb and made a couple of recommendations for rewording certain sentences, not because they were misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine, but because they weren’t sufficiently clear and could therefore invite an erroneous interpretation.
The obvious didn’t occur to me until many years later; if this very same standard was applied to the conciliar text, as the previous post indicates, it would not qualify for animprimatur.
The point is simply this:
It’s not enough for a given text, that purports to transmit the faith, to possess the merepossibility being interpreted in continuity with tradition; rather, it must transmit the doctrine of the faith whole and entire, with precision and clarity.
Surely this is not asking too much of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, is it?
There is a mistake in Vatican Council II (AG 7) when it says 'Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...'.-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
It is a mistake since we do not know and cannot know those men who 'though aware that God founded the Church as something necessary and who did not enter or persevere in it' and who have gone to Hell or are going to Hell. So these men are not relevant to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. They are not relevant or exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. They are not exceptions to Tradition.
Similarly we do not know or cannot know any one saved or not saved 'in inculpable ignorance of the Gospel'. This should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council.This was a mistake too. It is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is supeculative and not an exception to the old ecclesiology and the teachings of the Syllabus of Errors.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not and cannot know any one saved without faith and baptism and in inculpable ignorance. We do not know of any such case hypothetically in the past, or the present times.This is just speculation.
This form of false reasoning was there in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which speculated, that the baptism of desire was known in personal cases and so it was an 'explicit' exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the baptism of desire which is really irrelevant to the dogma EENS, is mentioned in Vatican Council. Something superflous is mentioned in the Council and this confuses Catholics.It suggests that these cases are explicit, they are personally known.
It was an error to mention the baptism of desire and blood (allegedly without the baptism of water) in Vatican Council II.
So can Vatican Council II be given the imprimatur?
Yes even with this error it could be given the imprimatur. Since speculative, hypothetical references to salvation are not explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation; all needing to be formal members of the Church with no exception, to avoid Hell.Vatican Council II is traditional. It affirms the old ecclesiolgy. The Council text does not state hypothetical cases should not be interpreted as being hypothetical.If someone makes this mistake it is his fault.
For Louie Verrecchio the imprimatur would not be appropriate for the Council. Since Louie infers hypothetical references to salvation are explicit in the present times.So for him these hypothetical cases ( saved in inculpable ignorance, elements of sanctification and truth, seeds of the Word etc) are a break with the old ecclesiology.
The fault is there with Louie and his wrong inference. The Council does not say that he needs to assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.-Lionel Andrades
Imagine Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider announcing in public that all non Catholics need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions and that this is the teaching of Vatican Council IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/imagine-cardinal-raymond-burke-and.html