There is an in principle error in the Vatican Council II text : Does the SSPX have to accept it for canonical status?
We now know that there was an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it was repeated in Vatican Council II.Does the SSPX have to accept it?
Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF)approved it.He wanted the SSPX to ignore it and sign the doctrinal preamble.He never acknowledged that mentioning the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being known people saved outside the Church was a mistake.Since BOD,BOB and I.I can never be known to us humans and since they are unknown in our reality they cannot be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS-premise free) and the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
It is only because he assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to known people that they become relevant to EENS. No pope or Catechism stated before Pius XII that these are visible and known people saved outside the Church.
So Cardinal Ratzinger's inference was wrong.It was a philosophical mistake. A rupture between faith and reason.
He approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as did Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.It was approved by cardinals at Vatican Council II.The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was still not lifted in 1965.
So for many of them the understanding was that there are known exceptions in BOD, BOB and I.I to EENS.
This was a mistake.
It was a mistake in 1949 and it was repeated in Lumen Gentium 14 which suggests only those who 'know'; who are not in invincible ignorance, need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.
So Vatican Council II at Lumen Gentium 14 is Christological and not with an exclusivist ecclesiology.Not every one needed to enter the Church but only those who know was the new doctrine.It was Jesus without the necessity of the Church. This was how Cardinal Ratzinger wrongly interpreted it.
Like in 1949, Vatican Council II assumes hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and instead they are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS and the past exlusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
This is an in principle error in the Council -text.
Since in principle it is assumed hypothetical cases are relevant to EENS.
The Council Fathers mention LG 16, LG 14,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11, AG 7 etc as if they are relevant and exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is how Pope Benedict, the CDF and the SSPX interpret these references.
This is a flaw in the Council.
-Lionel Andrades
It is only because he assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to known people that they become relevant to EENS. No pope or Catechism stated before Pius XII that these are visible and known people saved outside the Church.
So Cardinal Ratzinger's inference was wrong.It was a philosophical mistake. A rupture between faith and reason.
He approved the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as did Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.It was approved by cardinals at Vatican Council II.The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was still not lifted in 1965.
So for many of them the understanding was that there are known exceptions in BOD, BOB and I.I to EENS.
This was a mistake.
It was a mistake in 1949 and it was repeated in Lumen Gentium 14 which suggests only those who 'know'; who are not in invincible ignorance, need to enter the Church to avoid Hell.
So Vatican Council II at Lumen Gentium 14 is Christological and not with an exclusivist ecclesiology.Not every one needed to enter the Church but only those who know was the new doctrine.It was Jesus without the necessity of the Church. This was how Cardinal Ratzinger wrongly interpreted it.
Like in 1949, Vatican Council II assumes hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and instead they are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS and the past exlusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
This is an in principle error in the Council -text.
Since in principle it is assumed hypothetical cases are relevant to EENS.
The Council Fathers mention LG 16, LG 14,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11, AG 7 etc as if they are relevant and exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is how Pope Benedict, the CDF and the SSPX interpret these references.
This is a flaw in the Council.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment