Through changing theology Pope Benedict did away with traditional mission.By directly speaking against proclamation and not affirming the dogma EENS,Pope Francis does the same.
Pope Benedict has been protecting this error in the Church since Vatican Council II.Possibilities, theoretical cases are objective exceptions to EENS for him.
Both the popes use the new theology based on known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. So for them outside the Church there is salvation. Not for me!
Charles Coulombe the video indicates does not notice how Pope Benedict in a subtle way with theology, has put an end to traditional mission.Meanwhile Pope Francis does the same by openly criticizing proselytism and calls to affirm a vague belief in Jesus only, without the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation.He calls for evangelizing but only with example.He does not believe in an absolute truth on Hell and the non salvation of non Catholics.Instead he relativises salvation by referring to the supremacy of conscience.
The popes have have approved Catholics and Protestants doing mission together. It is official and not opposed by the Jewish Left rabbis. Without proclamation,theology and doctrines there is no tension in Catholics and other Christians working together, with a vague belief in salvation through Jesus.
Both the popes use the new theology based on known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. So for them outside the Church there is salvation. Not for me!
Today morning this was the message in the homily by a priest who like Pope Benedict assumes there is known salvation outside the Church.For him too invisible and unknown cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to visible and known people saved outside the Church. With this irrationality they conclude that there is salvation outside the Church.
Now suppose he did not use this irrationality.I do not.Then he would have to say, like me, that Vatican Council II states all need faith and baptism for salvation. So it means, according to Vatican Council II(Ad Gentes 7) all Jews and Muslims in Rome in 2017 are on the way to Hell at the time of death. Since they die without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.He will not say this.Neither does Pope Benedict and Pope Francis.
So Pope Benedict XVI in March 2016 told us that extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since according to Vatican Council II ( with his interpretation) there is salvation outside the Church.As if he would know a particular person.So this spares him from saying all Jews and Muslims in Italy are on the way to Hell with no exceptions.
So he puts an end to the motive for mission. He is not really interested in Mission. It is the same with Pope Francis. He has to use the same invisible- people- are- visible premise to reject traditional EENS .Otherwise he would be saying all non Catholics, Christians included, are on the way to Hell unless they are incorporated into the Catholic Church as members.
By giving the up the Church's necessity for salvation, the Council sparked a "double crisis"
Thus, with the fact that the Second Vatican Council has "definitely" abandoned the belief that there is no salvation for unbaptized, the Church and the faith had fallen into a "double crisis".
"On the one hand it seems to withdraw any motivation a future missionary commitment. Why convince people of accepting the Christian faith, even if they can be saved without it?
But for Christians, the question on the necessity of faith and manner of life was uncertain and problematic. If there are those who can be saved in other ways, it is ultimately not evident why the Christian should be linked to the need of the Christian faith and its morals. But if the faith and salvation are not dependent on each other, the faith is also groundless.
Recently, various attempts have been made to bring to reconciliation the universal need of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without them."
By giving the up the Church's necessity for salvation, the Council sparked a "double crisis".
No .The Council has not given it up.
It is Pope Benedict who has given it up.
He could have chosen to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical then there is no example of 'those who can be saved in other ways'.
'Those who can be saved in other ways' as Pope Benedict says, really refers to theoretical cases.He does not mention this.
Pope Benedict has been protecting this error in the Church since Vatican Council II.Possibilities, theoretical cases are objective exceptions to EENS for him.
Through changing theology Pope Benedict did away with traditional mission.By directly speaking against proclamation and not affirming the dogma EENS,Pope Francis does the same.
It does not change anything for me.Since I avoid the premise which they have to use to create a rupture with EENS and the rest of Tradition.
So for me there is no change in the ecclesiology and exclusivist salvation theology. I can proclaim the faith with doctrine when asked.This is part of 'the testimony of my life'.
I do not have to be like the two popes and the priest who gave the homily, who will keep silent on theology and doctrine since they have changed it with an irrational premise.
They do not want to tell Jews,Muslims,Protestants and Orthodox Christians that they all need to enter the Church as members for salvation(to avoid Hell) and there are no exceptions known to us human beings.This is the false church within the Catholic Church.
So without the false inference Vatican Council II is in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century.Pope Benedict made a mistake.This is something that Charles Coulombe has not discovered. He does not mention it in the video.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment