On the Catholic Family News website there are a few articles critical of Vatican Council II (1) because the writer used the premise of Richard Cushing i.e those who are saved in invincible ignorance who have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own and who are now dead are known to us, they are visible to us on earth.
He then chose material from Vatican Council II to justify this error.So much is concluded wrongly abut Vatican Council II because of one small premise.
For John Vennari Vatican Council II says there is salvation outside the Church- So it is a modernist,heretical Council.
For me, without the Cushing error, Vatican Councl II says there is no salvation outside the church.So it is in agreement with tradition.I can cite text from the Council to support my view.
For me being saved with implicit desire/ baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.For John Vennari it is.
So here is the difference between the two interpretations. if John Vennari is aware of the irrationality he can discover the Council as traditional.
The interpretation of the Council by the liberals is the same as that of John Vennari.They are all using the ‘visible dead’ argument to claim there is salvation outside the church according to Vatican Council II.
Since there is salvation outside the church for them, the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus is contradicted. We then have a modernist Council which the SSPX and John Vennari criticize..
The wrong premise is : those who are saved in invincible ignorance, who have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own and who are now dead, are known to us, they are visible to us on earth.
The conclusion: there is salvation outside the Church.
Magnificent Si Si No No Series on
"The Errors of Vatican II"
Seven part series:
• Vatican II's Ambiguous Juridical Nature
• Mutilated concept of the Magisterium
•The contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic "modern thinking."
• Relevant Omissions - at least 8 points the Council should have addressed but failed to...
These are highlights only from Part I. See list for entire Seven part series.
It is important for us to re-study this series, especially when we are confronted with Archbishop Müller and Archbishop DiNoia who try to tell us there are no errors in Vatican II, but only bad interpretation. Time to re-study at a time when ecumenical post-Conciliar Vatican prelates try to convince of a position that is not true!
January 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 50
Errors of Vatican II Part I
March 2003 Si Si No No Reprint No. 51
Errors of Vatican II Part II Note on Dominus Jesus