In this way we undo the damage done by Fr.Karl Rahner and others who did not make the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction.

Comment on the Vox Cantoris blog post Rome's blasphemy confirmed by Pope Leo XIII

 

http://voxcantor.blogspot.it/2016/01/romes-blasphemy-confirmed-by-pope-leo.html

Karl Rahner Jr.said...:

My dear father would not approve of the supposition behind this headline. the idea that we need to look at what some Pope from the late nineteenth century said about ecclesiology or soteriology is an idea that represents a hardening of awareness vis a vis the developments in theology that have occurred since the New Pentecost. Did you get that?

Lionel:

The 'development' in ecclesiology and soteriology came into the Church with the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is now magisterial and accepted by also the traditionalists. If we avoid this objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, for example, then the Council emerges traditional in ecclesiology and soteriology. It's as simple as that! Try it!.

Without the error from the Letter (1949) we are back to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is the basis of the old ecclesiology, soteriology and ecumenism.

Fr.Karl Rahner S.J did not know this.

1.He assumed that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to explicit cases, seen in the flesh.

2.He assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance), LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word), Unitatis Redintigratio 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) and Nostra Aetate 2 ( good and holy things in other religions leading to salvation) referred to visible cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II contradicted the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology and soteriology based on this thrice defined dogma.

We have a rational and traditional alternative.We can assume ( and this is common sense) that 1 and 2 above refer to invisible for us cases, known only to God. So we accept them in principle, in theory as hypothetical cases. We do not reject them as theoretical cases but we do reject them as being practically known in the present times.

In this way we undo the damage done by Fr.Karl Rahner and others who did not make the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction.

-Lionel Andrades