There is still no reply from the University of Bristol to these blog posts which I have sent them. The professors designated as 'experts' for the students to consult, are not replying.Neither is there a denial from the Offices of the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor. As I have mentioned in a previous blog post eveb the professors of theology also will not defend the university.
If the video on the websites of the University of Bristol and the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales did not promote an irrationality and cite alleged text in Vatican Council supporting this irrationality,then Prof.Gavin D'Costa would have to say that the Catholic Church teaches,according to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7), that all the members of the Bristol University Islamic Society and all the Protestant members of the university's Christian Union are on the way to Hell, unless they convert into the Catholic Church.There is no clarification from the university.
Since the University of Bristol cannot prove me wrong they need to affirm the Catholic Faith honestly. They need to apologize for suggesting that Nostra Aetate was an exception to the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Ad Gentes 7 and the traditional Catholic teaching on other religions and salvation.
There have been so many critical reports and the public relations department at the University of Bristol like that of the Catholic Diocese of Lancaster has nothing to say.There is no correction made. The error is not admitted. Instead the Catholic Faith is being suppressed and Vatican Council II being misrepresented.
Prof.Gavin D'Costa and the Bishop of Lancaster are providing false information on what constitutes Church. They are doing this even after being informed.
The Diocese of Lancaster is suppressing information about the Catholic Church.It is also providing incorrect information, even after being informed.No one is commenting on these blog posts sent to them.The bishop has also placed restrictions on Deacon Nick Donnelly and has suppressed free discussions about the Catholic Faith, on Donnelly's Protect the Pope blog.
On the official website of Lancaster, there is a section titled The Church. Bishop Michael Campbell makes no mention of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation and the need for all people to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.This is an omission.
Like the Conference of Bishops of England and Wales website he could be assuming that Nostra Aetate 2 refers to known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no reference in Nostra Aetate to known cases saved with 'a ray of that Truth'. That a person can be saved as such is hypothetical. It is a possibility known only to God. Nostra Aetate does not suggest that this is a known reality.So NA 2 does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.If this is inferred by Bishop Campbell then it is wrong.The text of Vatican Council II does not make this claim.
To infer that NA 2 contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is irrational. It implies we can see the dead- saved with 'a ray of that Truth' and these cases are explicit exceptions to Tradition.
I have mentioned this in quite a few blog posts with reference to the Diocese of Lancaster and neither the bishop nor any one else responds.
They are suppressing information on this issue and misrepresenting the Catholic Church and us Catholics.The Diocese of Lancaster is not providing honest information about the Catholic Church and their priorities could be politically motivated.For political reasons they are promoting an obvious falsehood.
There have been so many reports critical of the website statement on other religions and ecumenism, including the work of Deacon Nick Donnelly and the Catholic Truth Society - and the Bishop has nothing to say ?
I have been saying that Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Council does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions.The bishop is using a false premise in the interpretation of Nostra Aetate.Vatican Council II appears to contradict the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with the use of the visible-dead premise.This irrationality is also taught by the priests and Deacons of the diocese.It is approved by Bishop Michael Campbell.
Usually Feeneyism is a scapegoat as I have mentioned before.Perhaps the diocese is also ready to use this propaganda. Does the bishop consider being saved with the baptism of desire as being a known exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Is being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ? If it is ,then did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make an objective mistake, for the Diocese of Lancaster?The Magisterium made a mistake in thinking the baptism of desire was relevant to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
If Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, Nostra Aetate does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If Fr.Feeney was correct or wrong ,'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) is still not an exception to the traditional teaching on other religions.
The Diocese of Lancaster is providing false information about the Catholic Church by (1) not citing Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation and (2) not mentioning that Nostra Aetate 2 etc do not contradict Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 is not contradicted by CCC 847 and 848 as is suggested in Lancaster.