Tantumblogo also interprets extra ecclesiam nulla salus assuming that those saved with the baptism of desire etc are visible to us in real life.Hypothetical cases for him are defacto exceptions to the dogmatic teaching.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton on Vatican Council II
He still has not commented on the irrational inference used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and which was now being used in Vatican Council II.
- “There is nothing erroneous in the material [in the schema for Dei Verbum, the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation] we have passed. But there is a great deal that is incomplete and misleading.” (June 4, 1964)
- “M [Fr. John Courtney Murray] has just come in to see the triumph of his false doctrine [of religious liberty].” (Sept. 21, 1964)
- “The part on ecumenism [in the text of the commission] is a joke. It reads like a 19th century text, or a second-rate article in a leftist magazine.” (Oct. 28, 1965)
Lionel:
Mosgr Fenton does not say that 'those saved in imperfect communion with the Church'(Unitatis Redintigration 3, The Decree on Ecumenism) are not known and visible to us, they are not objective. So they could not be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the traditional teachings on ecumenism and other religions unless one assumes that UR 3 etc refer to known and visible to cases.
The same with NA 2, LG 8, LG 16 etc.
For the theologians of that time these hypothetical cases were objectively visible and so so were relevant to the dogma. They were exceptions! This was the error that Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton did not notice or noticed, but did not speak it out in public for whatever reason.
Mosgr Fenton does not say that 'those saved in imperfect communion with the Church'(Unitatis Redintigration 3, The Decree on Ecumenism) are not known and visible to us, they are not objective. So they could not be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the traditional teachings on ecumenism and other religions unless one assumes that UR 3 etc refer to known and visible to cases.
The same with NA 2, LG 8, LG 16 etc.
For the theologians of that time these hypothetical cases were objectively visible and so so were relevant to the dogma. They were exceptions! This was the error that Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton did not notice or noticed, but did not speak it out in public for whatever reason.
-Lionel Andrades
No comments:
Post a Comment