"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
- Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. - Lumen Gentium 14,Vatican Council II, cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
- (Note :The passage in red does not contradict the passage in blue since being saved in invincible ignorance refers to a hypothetical and speculative case only. It is not a practical exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors etc.)
- http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
- Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.( Note : Those who are in invincible ignorance ; who do not know God and are saved are hypothetical and speculative cases only. They are not practical exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS)
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."(Note : Though God could lead someone who is ignorant of the Gospel to that faith which pleases and these people would be known only to God. We cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desrie .So being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire must not be projected as being practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.It would be a False Premise. What is invisible is neing projected as being a visible person, an objective case.)
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 is interpreted with the red passage being an exception to the blue, a False Premise is being used.
When the Catechism of the Catholic
Church 846 is interpreted with the red passage not
being an exception to the blue, then a Rational Premise is being
used.
If for you LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then you are saying that LG 8 etc refer to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church.
If for me they are not exceptions for the past exclusivist ecclesiology, then I am saying that they refer to invisible cases only in 1965-2022. They are implicit and subjective.
So for you they are explicit and for me implicit and so our conclusions are non traditional (for you) and traditional (for me).
So we can interpret Vatican Council II
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the Rational or False Premise and
our conclusion will be different. There
will be a continuity or rupture with Tradition (Catechism of Pope Pius X (24
Q, 27Q), Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius X ( an
ecumenism of return to the Church ) etc.
This is the official teaching of the Catholic
Church according to the texts of the Council and the Catechism and the past
Magisterium, interpreted rationally.
-Lionel Andrades
Two interpretations of Vatican Council II
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2022/02/two-interpretations-of-vatican-council.html
Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Vatican Council II is dogmatic, when interpreted with the Rational Premise and not just pastoral.
Blog: Eucharist and Mission (eucharistandmission )
___________________
Posts
