Dave Armstrong's debates with Karl Keating and Christopher Ferrara were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, Creeds and Catechisms. They were all interpreted with the false premise

 Dave Armstrong has written so many articles on Vatican Council II with reference  to other apologetics and he has always interpreted the Council by wrongly confusing what is implicit as being explicit, invisible as being visible.Then with this false premise his conclusion has to be non traditional, a rupture with exclusivist salvation in the Catholic Church. Then he considers this the norm.

When I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise there is no rupture with exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So he lets the issue remain unanswered. He removes links and does not comment on his website.He does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and is a Cushingite.

He would prefer to remain with his illusion. It is politically correct with the Left.

He has responded to Timothy Flanders on the blog The Meaning of Being Catholic but will not respond to any of my comments on that blog thread.

Since if he does respond to my comments he would have to admit that he has been irrational all these years.The Council is not a rupture with the Athanasius Creed, which says all need to be Catholic for salvation.But he is a Cushingite and not a Feeneyite.

For me there is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio(UR), the Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II, to contradict an ecumenism of return.Dave Armstrong cannot handle this.All his life he has interpreted UR 3 etc as being exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

For me there is nothing in Lumen Gentium, Vaticam Council II, to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.This too is difficult for him.Since LG 8, LG 16 etc have been exceptions to 16th century EENS.He accepts this irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).

At this time in his life, at his age, all this must be a big challenge.It could be asking too much of him.

It would be peaceful to remain with the irrationality -after all the whole Church is following the same error.Why create problems for a conforming apologist ?

I am not troubled by the old rules, the errors of the last 55 years.Dave Armstrong's debates with Karl Keating and Christopher Ferrara were based upon the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, Creeds and Catechisms. They were all interpreted with the false premise.-Lionel Andrades 

OCTOBER 1, 2020

Dave Armstrong and my interpretation of Vatican Council II is different : he uses the false premise

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/10/dave-armstrong-and-my-interpretation-of.html