There is a mistake in Vatican Council II and the editor of Ethika Politika has nothing to say. I asked him if he has an opinion for or against the subject and he will not respond. Instead Andrew Haines asks to be removed from my mailing list.
I sent him the blog post The Level 4 error is there in Vatican Council II which shows Vatican Council II as really supporting the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if an irrationality in the interpretation if avoided. He has nothing to say for or against but finds the report or its conclusion offensive or unwelcome.So he has asked me not to send him such posts.
When I say that there are no exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016, since the baptism of desire cases are in Heaven if they exist, and we cannot physically see or meet them, Haines cannot contradict me. He cannot say that they physically exist in his reality.
When I say that in 1949 Boston or 1891 Baltimore no one could see or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water, Haines cannot say that someone could really see such cases.He would be irrational if he made this claim. It is common knowledge that people who are dead or in Heaven are not physically visible to us and if they are not physically visible in the present times, they cannot be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church with no exception.
So he does not say anything.
Like the liberal Haines, I get no reply from Massimo Faggioli, who is considered a ' Catholic' and 'theologian' by his friends who are also 'Catholic theologians', who use an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II. He interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition by using the false premise and inference. So he cannot tell my that my theology is wrong since the error basically is not one of theology. It is one of a wrong inference, a wrong philosophical observation and this is the basis of a new theology, an irrational theology.
So since Faggioli and Haines cannot correct me by saying my theology is different or wrong and neither can they support me, since they do not want to be considered traditionalists or conservative Catholics, they say nothing. That Vatican Council II is really pro- traditionalist is like a bad dream for them and they must be hoping it will go away. At least they are not going to comment on it and admit that their theology, was all this time, based on a factual error and no one told them about it.
Now that they know about the mistake it is still going to be life as usual with no change.
They will keep writing the old stuff on Vatican Council II even though they know that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases and so do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church. Vatican Council II made a mistake when it mentioned being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and placed this superflous references along with passages (AG 7, LG 14) which support the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.Vatican Council II also made a mistake when it assume that those saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own referred to known cases and so every one did not need to enter the Church but only those who 'knew' about Jesus and the Church.This is a new doctrine which rejects the dogma EENS and it is based on visible and known exceptions of people now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
This is fantasy. The liberals all these years have been using a fantasy theology and now that they know about it are not saying anything.
A mistake in Vatican Council II, an objective error in the Council text, should be a big story for Haines (Ethica Politica) or Faggioli ( Commonweal) but in this case, the story has political significance and so they would like to be left alone.-Lionel Andrades