I sent the blog post to John Vennari 1 in which it is mentioned that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors ONLY for those who use the irrational inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus.
I mentioned Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger accepted Marchetti's theories ( and the SSPX and John Vennari did not know about it).
Here they are :-
1.There is known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are objectively known in 1949.
3.These objective cases are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has changed or evolved.
All this was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and John Vennari.So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc), for example, is a break with the Syllabus of Errors. We have the hermeneutic of discontinuity.
These same four points, without the Marchetti irrational inference, gives us the hermeneutic of continuity. It is simple. It is too simple. May be because it is so simple it is not believed.
Here are the four points again without the Marchetti premise:
1.There is NO known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are NOT objectively known in 1949.
3.These NON objective cases are NOT explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has NOT changed or evolved.
In another video 2 John Vennari says:-
The very fact that it is commonly held that Vatican Council II documents can admit two interpretations (5:38) a hermeneutic of discontinuity and the hermeneutic of continuity, that they can be interpreted in a liberal way and a so called conservative way, testifies to a lack of scholastic precision in the documents.
Note: He does not realize that the hermeneutic of continuity and rupture come from the Marchetti Letter in 1949.The first part of the Letter has a hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma and the second part a hermeneutic of rupture.
John Vennari says that no one even pretends that the magnificent documents of Vatican I or the Council of Trent, can be interpreted in any other way then exactly as they are written.
Note: Since they were written before Marchetti made an objective error in 1949 the dual position is not there in them.In Vatican Council II we have the hermeneutic with the irrational premise and without it, the one with an objective error and the one without it . It is the premise which decides the hermeneutic and not the text of Vatican Council II.
Here they are again.
HERMENEUTIC OF DISCONTINUITY ( With the factual mistake by Cardinal Marchetti)
1.There is known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are objectively known in 1949.
3.These objective cases are explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has changed or evolved.
HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY ( Without the factual mistake by Cardinal Marchetti)
1.There is NO known salvation outside the Church in 1949.
2.Those saved with the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) or invincible ignorance and die without the baptism of water, are NOT objectively known in 1949.
3.These NON objective cases are NOT explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney in 1949.
4.The dogma has NOT changed or evolved.
Example:
Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved in invincible ignorance.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved with implicit desire.
APPLY THE TWO HERMENEUTICS
DISCONTINUITY
Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved in invincible ignorance WHO ARE KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND SO ARE AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS , THE SYLLABUS OF ERROR ETC.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved with implicit desire,WHO ARE KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND SO ARE AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS , THE SYLLABUS OF ERROR ETC.
CONTINUITY
Lumen Gentium 14 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved in invincible ignorance WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES (2015) AND SO ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS ETC.
Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation but also mentions those saved with implicit desire, WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO US IN THE PRESENT TIMES (2015) AND SO ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS ETC.
It is the same Vatican Council II but the interpretation depends on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter.
Without the premise Vatican Council II would affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so would be traditional on other religions and Christian communities. This could be accepted by the SSPX.
Since the popes did not correct the objective error in Marchetti's letter, the ambiguity has been transferred to Vatican Council II. When the original error is identified, there is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II ,with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
-Lionel Andrades
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Without the Marchetti inference Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors
2.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment