Here Cardinal Kasper is saying that the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Here the cardinal agrees that the conflict is inherent to the texts themselves produced by the Council and not due to some later wrong interpretations of it. Contra to the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." In other words, there is an intimate and logical connection between the documents and their implementation.-SSPX,USA
The conflict arose because of the active influence of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II. They were citing the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII,as if it was a break through, something new in the Catholic Church. Since this was a magisterial document for them, they wanted its message also included in the Council.
The Letter of the Holy Office only mentions being saved in implicit desire and in invincible ignorance. This is nothing new. This is traditional. However the Cardinal and the Jesuits interpreted being saved in invincible ignorance etc as being explicit, visible to us in the present times and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So when the conservatives at Vatican Council II accepted Lumen Gentium 16, for instance,which says that a person can be saved in invincible igorance etc they knew that these were implicit cases,known only to God and so were irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
Cardinal Kaspar and the liberals, like the Jesuits and the Archbshop of Boston, assume that LG 16 refers to visible, instead of invisible salvation and so the confusion arises.There is ambiguity. There are two positions to a simple text. One can interpret LG 16 as referring to known exceptions to the dogma or as referring to invisible cases and so irrelevant to the dogma.The text is neutral.One uses a rational or an irrational premise.It can be assumed that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance or that we cannot see them. This is the premise which will influence theology and the interpretation of a traditional Council.
When it is realized that LG 16 etc can rationally only refer to cases invisible for us we are left with only one rational interpretation of the Council. This is the traditional one.
So when Cardinal Kaspar etc say there is a progressive interpretation with regard to other religions and ecumenism they should be asked to name someone in 2013,who is a visible exception to the dogma. Also they should be asked to cite text in Vatican Council which says these cases are visible to us or that they are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
There is no such text.
Posts
