Tuesday, November 21, 2017

When there is no evidence of the existence of any excepton, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS, the Nicene Creed, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.It is in harmony with Tradition.



While it is true that there is no evidence of the existence of any exceptions to EENS, Vatican II gives the impression that there is Salvation Outside the Church by citing the Holy Office Letter to Cushing to underpin that impression.

Lionel: Yes there is a mistake in Vatican Council II.It is based on the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.In the Letter of the Holy Office  hypothetical cases like  baptism of desire (BOD) were assumed to be non hypothetical.It was concluded that BOD etc were  objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so it contradicted Feeneyite EENS.
However when we are aware of the origina of the error and what precisely the error is, we can read Vatican Council II knowing 'there is no evidence of any exceptions to EENS'.Then when there are no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in Vatican Council II there is also no more any ambiguity.

_______________________________
  So, really, one cannot say that Vatican II does not contradict past Church teaching in this regard.
Lionel: When there is no evidence of the existence of any excepton, then Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS, the Nicene Creed, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.It is in harmony with Tradition.
_______________________________

  Granted, it is Ambiguous as one can interpret things both ways, but being Ambiguous only verifies that Vatican II is not promulgating Church teaching, but something else.  Ambiguity in teaching is condemnable.
Lionel: When one avoids the false premise i.e hypothetical cases are non hypothetical, unknown people are known, then the ambiguity is not there.The ambiguity exists only when the visible-invisible distinction is not made.
________________________________

Fr. Joseph Sollier, writing in the article "Theological Censures" states:
<<
(2) Ambigua (ambiguous), captiosa (captious), male sonans (evil-sounding), piarum aurium offensiva (offensive to pious ears), etc. A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith.
>>
Lionel: Vatican Council II should not have mentioned invincible ignorance(LG 16) and the baptism of desire(LG 14) along with orthodox passages which support Feeneyite EENS( ' all need faith and baptism for salvation'- AG 7,LG 14).This was a mistake from the 1949-Letter.So when a Catholic reads Vatican Council II (AG 7 and LG 14) it is ambigous. Since it states all need faith and baptism and it also says some  do not need it for salvation.

When I read AG 7 and LG 14, I know that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. They are not concrete, known people saved outside the Church. So for me there are no exceptions mentioned in AG 7 an LG 14 to all needing faith and baptism for salvaton. There is no ambiguity for me.-Lionel Andrades

No comments: