There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.One is rational and in agreement with Tradition.The other is irrational and a break with Tradition.The rational one says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.The irrational one says not all but only those who know about Jesus and have had the Gospel preached to them, who need to enter the Church or be damned. The irrational one says we can see and know persons saved with 'elements of sanctification'(LG 8) etc.
The rational interpretation would cite Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. They would need to enter the Church visibly; with visible Catholic Faith and visible baptism of water.This is in agreement with Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The irrational interpretation could cite Ad Gentes 7 and claim that all need to enter the Church who know. Only those who know.
As mentioned in a previous post the rational one says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.The irrational one says not all but only those who know about Jesus and have had the Gospel preached to them, who need to enter the Church or be damned.The rational interpretation would cite Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. They would need to enter the Church visibly; with visible Catholic Faith and visible baptism of water.This is in agreement with Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The irrational interpretation could cite Ad Gentes 7 and claim that all need to enter the Church who know. Only those who know.
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican is using the irrational interpretation which is a break from Tradition. It can be seen from this interview he gave the National Catholic Register.
Archbishop Di Noia said ' the Council did say that there were elements of grace in other religions'. He is implying that these cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
National Catholic Register
How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …
The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.'
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR
When Archbishop Di Noia states 'the Council did say that there were elements of grace in other religions' he was implying that this was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He was been asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus and he implied there were exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.
If this was an exception then it was a case known to him. Only if it was a known case could it be an exception to every one needing to convert into Church.In other words he could name someone who did not have to enter the Church for salvation and was saved or going to be saved with 'elements of sanctification' with grace.
LG 8 does not state that those saved with elements of sanctification are visible to us. Neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So where is the magisterial text which supports the Archbishop's view when he implies that there are exceptions and so now there is a doctrinal development with regard to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? None! There is no such text to support his view.He has used the false premise of being able to see the dead saved (with elements of sanctification etc ) and then assumes that this is an exception to Tradition in general and in particular to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When Archbishop Di Noia says 'The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints' he cannot cite text where the Council names any one who will be saved. Neither can he say that the Anglican or Lutheran that he knows will not commit a mortal sin in future. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church it is not enough just to believe in Jesus. One has to live the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Church and die with no mortal sin .So which Protestant that the Archbishop knows can meet this condition for him to be sure of salvation?
As mentioned in a previous post on this blog ,in principle , we accept that those who know would need to enter the Church. In reality we do not know any such case who is saved in 2013.In theory yes. In practise there is no such case known which contradicts Tradition. The irrational interpretation assumes we can judge 'who knows and who does not'. This makes it irrational. Since only God can judge who knows and who is in inculpable ignorance.The rational interpretation says all need to enter the Church. The irrational one claims there are exceptions to all needing to enter the church.The exceptions are based on being able to know or see the dead, who are now saved in inculpable ignorance.
This makes it irrational.We cannot see the dead on earth.The irrational interpretation is also a break with Tradition since it uses the premise of being able to see the dead, then assumes these cases, are known exceptions to Tradition i.e to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
So we can choose between the two interpretations of Vatican Council II one which is rational and in accord with Tradition and the other which is not.
Most people today choose the irrational and non traditional interpretation and they are supported by the liberal media.This is the interpretation of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Archbishop Gerhard Muller in their interviews with the National Catholic Register.-Lionel Andrades
BOTH ARCHBISHOP MULLER AND DI NOIA MADE A FACTUAL ERROR IN THEIR SEPARATE INTERVIEWS WITH THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER
IS THE HOLY SPIRIT SAYING LIKE ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA THAT LG 8, LG 16 ARE EXPLICITLY KNOWN AND ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment