Cardinal Luiz Ladaria chose to interpret Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method instead of the for and neutral to EENS method. So Lumen Gentium 8 for him, was a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.None of the journalists at the Press Conference yesterday knew about this.
So for Cardinal Ladaria 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions(LG 8) referred to a known and physically visible person, saved outside the Church.So there was salvation outside the Catholic Church for him.This makes Lumen Gentium 8 an 'against' passage. It is against traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Now if he reasoned,like me, that 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) refer to hypothetical cases and not real people whom we can know, then LG 8 cannot be a known case of salvation outside the Church. No human being could have seen someone saved outside the Church, with elements of sanctification and truth.Then if there does not exist any one saved outside the Church, whom we can know, past pr present, then there are no actual exceptions to EENS. So LG 8 becomes a neutral passage.
So for Cardinal Ladaria 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions(LG 8) referred to a known and physically visible person, saved outside the Church.So there was salvation outside the Catholic Church for him.This makes Lumen Gentium 8 an 'against' passage. It is against traditional EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.
Now if he reasoned,like me, that 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) refer to hypothetical cases and not real people whom we can know, then LG 8 cannot be a known case of salvation outside the Church. No human being could have seen someone saved outside the Church, with elements of sanctification and truth.Then if there does not exist any one saved outside the Church, whom we can know, past pr present, then there are no actual exceptions to EENS. So LG 8 becomes a neutral passage.
So when I interpret Vatican Council II I use the for and neutral to EENS approach.
Let us take some examples.
Let us take some examples.
Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. This is a passage which is 'for' EENS. Lumen Gentium 14 also refers to the hypothetical case , for me, of the catechumen who desires the baptism of water and dies before he receives it.So the reference to the catechumen is in a neutral passage for me.This catechumen is always hypothetical.
Similarly Ad Gentes 7 also says all need faith and baptism for salvation, which is a 'for' EENS passage, an orthodox passage .If AG 7 refers to someone saved in invincible ignorance, it is to someone invisible and unknown in 2018. So it is a neutral passage for me. Hypothetical cases of someone being saved in invincible ignorance are never exceptions to EENS. So this is not an 'against' passage for me.Nor is Gaudium et Specs.
Cardinal Ladaria references Gaudium et Specs 22 twice in the Letter, Placiut Deo.He gives us some clue to his way of thinking in the International Theological Commission(ITC) paper Christianity and the World Religions, when he was the President of ITC. For him GS 22 and LG 16 are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
So when GS 22 indicates for him, those with good will who can be saved it is an against EENS passage.This is how Pope Benedict and Pope Francis reason too.But GS 22 refers to a hypothetical case only for all of us in 2018. It cannot be any thing else. So it is not an against EENS passage for me.
There are no against EENS passages mentioned in Vatican Council II for me.This would be obvious to others too.Yet no one objected at the Press Conference.
There are no against EENS passages mentioned in Vatican Council II for me.This would be obvious to others too.Yet no one objected at the Press Conference.
This would be true for all the conservative bloggers who let Cardinal Ladaria get pass on this point.There are no against EENS passages in Vatican Council II.
Similarly the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not 'against' Feeneyite EENS or EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. But for Cardinal Ladaria they are. This was confirmed in the ITC paper (Christianity and the World Religions).It was also confirmed when Pope Benedict said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century(March 2016,Avvenire). There was ' a development' with Vatican Council II when he uses the for and against EENS method to interpret the Council-text. EENS. So why have mission became his line of thinking.Outside the Church there is salvation for him.
With the for and against method Cardinal Ladaria changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed, EENS,Vatican Council II and the Catechisms. This is schism with the past popes. He also presents a vague Gnostic understanding of Jesus which is not Catholic.This is Pope Francis going it alone(or with the Masons and Gnostics), doing his own thing on doctrine and theology, which is a form of Pelagianism.
-Lionel Andrades
March 2, 2018
With the for and against method Cardinal Ladaria changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed, EENS,Vatican Council II and the Catechisms. This is schism with the past popes. He also presents a vague Gnostic understanding of Jesus which is not Catholic.This is Pope Francis going it alone(or with the Masons and Gnostics), doing his own thing on doctrine and theology, which is a form of Pelagianism.
-Lionel Andrades
March 2, 2018
The Letter (Placiut Deo) on non exclusive salvation is being faulted not so much for what it says but as for what it does not say and so allows heresy, schism and gnostism to flourish.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment