I interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican
Council II as not being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) since LG 8 etc are always hypothetical and
theoretical only in 2021. Most people
interpret them as being exceptions to EENS. This is how the popes interpret
them.So they wrongly imply that these are not visible cases.They are visible and
known people for you.Otherwise how could they be exceptions for EENS ?
So we have two interpretations of Vatican Council II, yours and
mine.
In the same way we have two interpretations of EENS, one is with
visible cases of the baptism of desire and the other is without it.
It is the same with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and
the Catechism of Pope Pius X.
For you 29 Q ( invincible ignorance) of the Catechism of Pope
Pius X would contradict 24Q and 27 Q (outside the Church no salvation ) but not
for me.It is the same for the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.846, 1257.(
See the links at the right hand bar).
Those who project the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance
as being exceptions for EENS, I call Cushingites.
Those who project them as not being exceptions I call
Feeneyites.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was a Cushingite and so Redemptoris
Missio and Dominus Iesus are Cushingite. He read Vatican Council II with the
False Premise.
But I can read Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and
so I can re-read Dominus Iesus etc rationally
with the traditional ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.
Vatican Council II is dogmatic for me since it does not
contradict EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.I choose the Rational Premise.Invisible people are always invisible in 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment