A Protestant Asks Bishop Barron if He should become Catholic and he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and avoids the rad trad label

  

"Does that mean that I am damned ? No, no that is not Catholic teaching", remarks Bishop Robert Barron.(0.29 time on video)

Yes it means he is damned since faith and baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. Invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is not the norm.

Also when Vatican Council II mentions LG 16 it is a reference to a hypothetical case only in the present times (1965-2020). So it is not an objective exception to the norm ( Ad Gentes 7, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Athanasius Creed, Syllabus of Errors etc. )

But LG 16 is an exception to the traditional norm for Barron and in his mind it refers to a known person, a visible person saved outside the Church. So it is an exception to exclusive salvation in the Church. His premise is wrong( invisible is visible) and inference is wrong( exclusive salvation is contradicted) and his conclusion is non traditional (outside the Church there is salvation and EENS etc are obsolete).So for him the Protestant is not going to Hell.

Even if a non Catholic or non Christian can be saved he is referring to a hypothetical case. This invisible case must not be projected as an exception to the norm.

(Time 1.07) He refers to Lumen Gentium 16 and says that this is Catholic teaching which inspires him to say that the person before him will not be damned.

(time 1:16) He refers to Jesus as the fullness of salvation and if every one is saved he is saved through Christ and Bishop Barron does not mention the necessity of the Church for salvation. Since LG 16 is an exception to exclusive salvation for him. He has used the false premise like the liberals and Lefebvrists.

(1.22) He says there are participations in the grace of Christ in non Christian religions as if he knows of someone who will be saved outside the Church in these religions. What is hypothetical and theoretical has become real and known for him.

(1:30) Even a non believer of good will(GS 22), he says, he projects as a  non hypothetical case. For him it is a known non Catholic saved outside the Church without faith and baptism, as if he could meet them or know their name.It is as if he knows of an atheist who will go to Heaven.

(2:00) He concludes that one can be saved in these other religions as 'a participation in the grace of Christ' and thid is Catholic teaching.

This is the New Theology.

First Bishop Barron supposes that there is known salvation outside the Church and then he concludes that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Church in other religions and this is the new norm for him.

(2:13) He does not say that Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist since they are outside the Church and outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7 etc).

He uses the false premise to intepret Vatican Council II and so does not have to affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. 

Now what if Bishop Robert Barron did not use the false premise to interpret Vatican Council II ? He would then be affirming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and would have to say that the Protestant before him would be oriented to Hell unless he did not convert into the Catholic Church with faith and the baptism of water. He would be called a radical traditionalist.

The false premise in the interpretation of th Council saves him from this label which he uses against conservative Catholics. -Lionel Andrades