Friday, April 29, 2016

For Burke and Shaw subjective cases are objective, this is the norm.So they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus


 
Comments from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist : Just what the German hierarchy has been waiting for

 
P.P:
So as to Burke and Shaw, do you think they see V2 and AL as involving rupture because they assume the V2 and AL WRONGLY interpret subjective cases as objective? And, if so, then how do they reconcile this with their alleged agreement with the new theological principle that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards?
Lionel:
So as to Burke and Shaw, do you think they see V2 and AL as involving rupture because they assume the V2 and AL WRONGLY interpret subjective cases as objective?
Yes for Burke and Shaw subjective cases are objective, this is the norm.So they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). For them LG 16 refers to known, objective cases. For them the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS. In other words the baptism of desire is not hypothetical but objective to be an exception.This is the new salvation theology for them.
Similarly there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of mortal sin.So for them AL 301 is saying nothing knew.It is based on the new moral theology which they have accepted for a long time.
______________________________
Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
And, if so, then how do they reconcile this with their alleged agreement with the new theological principle that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards?
Lionel:
I hope they allegedly agree that the subjective cannot be judged by objective standards to postulate exceptions to traditional moral and salvation theology.
However in the case of the new salvation theology for example, perhaps they just assume that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma EENS. This is common throughout the Church. Catholics just accept it without thinking, since it is magisterial.
I was talking to an American priest here. I asked ,"Father we do not know anyone in particualr saved with the baptism of desire or  in invincible ignorance. I mean we cannot meet someone on the street who would be saved with the baptism of desire for example. I cannot say that someone will be saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water".
He said with a smile "Yes.We cannot know any such case."
I asked, "So these cases cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to be aformal member of the Catholic Church for salvation"
He was quiet for a few seconds and then said "No they cannot be exceptions." Then he added." But this is what the Church teaches and we must follow it"
Possibly Burke and Shaw have not really thought this out too.No one has discussed it with them one to one.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 

Cardinal Kasper will say doctrine has not been changed in principle, in theory but he knows very well that with the new theology, doctrine has been changed de jure and de facto, in principle and in fact

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-kasper-will-say-doctrine-has.html
 
 
ALShred

No comments: