Dr.Taylor Marshall admits that he does not have the answer on Vatican Council II after Pope Francis said that it was obligatory to accept the Council as interpreted by the present popes.
Marshall puts out seven questions.
It is clear that Taylor Marshall is confused , like numerous Catholics, since he does not identify the false premise.
If the popes are using a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and you reason with that false premise, then your conclusion will be non traditional and irrational. It will be heretical.
Dr.Taylor Marshall is unable to interpret the Council without the false premise. But with the false premise there is a break with Tradition and he does not like it. With the false premise there is a break with Tradition and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict want it. The 'magistertium' does not want to interpret the Council in harmony with St.Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius of Loyola on there being no salvation outside the Church.It is one magisterium against another.
But for the popes, interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise, there is 'a new revelation' in the Catholic Church. There is 'a development of doctrine' according to the text of the Council interpreted irrationally. So they can put aside the past Magisterium of the Church. This is how they reason.
Here are the seven questions I try to respond to without being weighed down with the false premise and inference.
1.Does Vatican Council II fall under the extraordinary or ordinary Magisterium ?
It falls under the Ordinary Magisterium for me.
2.Does Vatican Council II bear the mark of infallibility ?
No. Since there is an objective error in the text. The Council Fathers, at least some of them, used a false premise to interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so projected objective exceptions. So the Council suggests, for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, that there is salvation outside the Church.
The Council Fathers picked up the error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were objective exceptions to traditional EENS. This is also the erroneous conclusion of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Ladaria.This is not Catholic philosophy.
3.If Latin is not used does one not stand with the Church?
If Latin is used or not used one still stands with the Church. Pope Francis has approved the Latin Mass.However it is the Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology based upon the false premise. It is the same with the Novus Ordo Mass.
4.If Gregorian chant is not used does one stand with the Church?
Again this does not make a difference. However if Gregorian chant is not used or used and the priest at Mass and the congregation interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, then this is a big "NO, NO" for Pope Francis.
This would not be being in step with the 'magisterium' of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, as approved by the Left.
5.Must I believe Vatican statements on Hindus?
Again it depends upon how you interpret Vatican Council II. If all need faith and baptism for salvation( AG 7) and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are not objective exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) then all Hindus need to convert into the Church, with faith and baptism to avoid Hell. This is the interpretation of th dogma no salvation outside the Church as approved by the past Magisterium before 1930.It is the salvation doctrine which was the basis for traditional Catholic Mission.All non Catholics are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism and there are no known exceptions.So the Council has the same message when LG 8 etc are not objective exceptions to EENS.
But this would not be acceptable for Pope Francis.He would call it triumphalism.With the false premise there is no triumphalism.
For Pope Francis LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 are not hypothetical and speculative only but objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Irrational? But this is the common false premise that was there even before the pontificate of Pope Francis.
6. Must I believe Vatican Council II statement on Buddhists?
Again there is no fixed Vatican Council II statement on Buddhists. Pope Francis on Jan 30 recognised that there were different interpretations of the Council.
There can be good and holy things in other religions. The Holy Spirit is not restricted to the Catholic Church. However God has chosen to restrict salvation to the Catholic Church(CCC 845,846 etc).
So while Nostra Aetate mentions the good things in other religions it does not state that there are practical exceptions to the traditional teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
So all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7), all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation( Council of Florence 1441), all need to be Catholic to avoid Hell ( Athanasius Creed) and there is no text in Vatican Council II which puts forward exceptions, in 2021.Practically we cannot know of any exception and the Council cannot indicate any.
8.Must I believe Vatican Council II statement on other religions?
Yes. The Council says other religions have good and holy things(NA 2), there are elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), there is that one ray of truth that enlightens all men(NA 2), there are those who are in invincible ignorance and who are following their conscience(LG 16) - but,these are all theoretical cases in 1965-2021 and all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, EENS etc). So theoretically salvation is possible in other religions but practically all need to be Catholic with faith and baptism to avoid Hell and go to Heaven. When Vatican Council II is interpreted in this way, why should the Council be a problem ?
Affirm the Council in harmony with Tradition.We are not obliged to use a false premise to interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.
Endorse the Council and also the Athanasius Creed. This is interpreting Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.There is no rupture with the past popes. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment