Repost : There is an in principle error in the text of Vatican Council II and Dr.Robert Fastiggi is not aware of it
OCTOBER 28, 2017
There is an in principle error in the text of Vatican Council II and Dr.Robert Fastiggi is not aware of it
There is an in principle error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit and if Catholics reject the Council only because of this I would not be surprised. However I think we can still affirm the Council since the error can be omitted in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.We then have what I call Vatican Council II (premise-free).
The premise is: invisible people are visible in the present times.
The premise is, hypothetical cases are not always hypothetical as in the case of the baptism of desire. The premise is that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known people saved outside the Church in the present times. 1
Vatican Council II (premise-free) was magisterial before the confusion at the time of Pope Pius XII.
Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake.The Holy Spirit cannot teach that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are non hypothetical now.The Holy Spirit cannot teach that we must conclude that these invisible cases are objective exceptions to centuries old interpretation of the Church on exclusive salvation.This was would be irrational reasoning. It would be a rupture between faith and reason.The Holy Spirit would also be contradicting its teachings over the centuries. It would mean the missionaries and the magisterium made a mistake in the 16th century.
The in principle error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was assumed that hypothetical cases are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So in principle hypothetical cases are mentioned in many Council documents(Lumen Gentium,Ad Gentes etc).The reader is allowed to assume that these hypothetical cases are exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
This is how it is wrongly interpreted by professors of theology like Dr.Robert Fastiggi at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary Detroit ( see video).
The error is there in Vatican Council II itself. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation and it also mentions those who are saved in invincible ignorance as if these are known exceptions to all needing faith and baptism.There should have been no mention of invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire and blood in Vatican Council II. Since these are references to invisible and unknown cases in our reality past and present. So they were never ever exceptions to the dogma EENS.This was a mistake made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
So when Lumen Gentium mentioned those who have not received the Gospel, a reader who is not aware of the error, will assume this is a reference to someone saved outside the Church.This is how Dr. Fastiggi reads the Council. Similarly in Nostra Aetate, it could be assumed that a Jew, Muslim or Hindu is saved outside the Church.This confusion would be natural since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggests that there is known salvation outside the Church.This was accepted by cardinals at Vatican Council II and was not corrected by the popes.
In the Fr. Leonard Feeney case Rome and Boston considered the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to known people saved outside the Church. This was irrational. Since there is no such known person. This was non traditional. It contradicts the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. It was heretical.Since it rejects the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries.It changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed when we pray ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.
(18:26) What about those who are not members of the Church are they lost? ,Fastiggi asks, with a helpless look.He has to be confused.Since for him there is known salvation outside the Church.
For him Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and the Holy Office 1949 correct while for me the Holy Office was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.
So for him LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to known exceptions to the dogma EENS, as it did for the cardinals of the Holy Office in 1949. For me LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 refer to unknown people in the present times, invisible cases, people who would only be known to God if they existed, so Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office wrong.There can be no known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So for Prof.Robert Fastiggi the Holy Spirit has changed His teachings on exclusive salvation in the Church. For me there is no change.There is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church, since there can be no evidence for us humans of salvation outside the Church.The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same for me - it is exclusivist.
So because of this in principle error in Vatican Council II which was not corrected by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dr.Fastiggi interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past theology on salvation. Those who do not accept this rupture he calls schismatics and heretics.This comes out in his debate on Ecclesiology with Bishop Donald Sanborn.
While for me he is a heretic for rejecting EENS( premise-free), Nicene Creed( premise-free) and Vatican Council II ( premise-free).He is in schism with the past magisterium of the Church as are the present two popes.He is politically correct with the Left at Detroit and so keeps his teaching job.
It is obligatory for the Rector of the Sacred Heart Major Seminary to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise.This has been approved by the USCCB and the liberal rabbis in the USA.
The irony today is that conservative and traditionalist Catholics also interpret Vatican Council II in principle with invisible people being visible in the present times, hypothetical cases are not always hypothetical as in the case of the baptism of desire and that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known people saved outside the Church in the present times.These are all false premises which were normal for the cardinals at Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation