So finally I should have a list of magisterial documents with the blue passages affirming Sacred Tradition and the red passages no more being seen as exceptions

 Comment

It's true the the ambiguous statements can be interpreted in a way that's consistent with Sacred Tradition, even though it takes some Olympian contortions to do so.  But the clarity is no longer there.

 Lionel :

For me there are no ambiguous statements since I have conditioned myself.

What were ambiguous for me in the past I am aware are only hypothetical statements. They can only be theoretical possibilities.

So they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS. They cannot be practical exceptions to EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return or the Syllabus of Errors.

So there are the orthodox statements which affirm EENS and there are the hypothetical passages which come from the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

The orthodox passages I mark with the colour blue and the hypothetical passages with red. I have done this on my blog with Ad Gentes, Unitatitis Redintigatio, Lumen Gentium and  Dignitatis Humane. I can do the same with the rest of Vatican Council II.

I could also do the same mapping with Dominus Iesus etc.

So finally I should have a list of magisterial documents with the blue passages affirming Sacred Tradition and the red passages no more being seen as exceptions.

-Lione Andrades 

January 28, 2019

In Dominus Iesus the red is not an exception to the blue, the red does not contradict the blue : there is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, past exlcusivist ecclesiology etc) 

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/01/in-dominus-iesus-red-is-not-exception.html