.
Here is a page containing an article written by Bishop Pivarunas that comes close to mentioning EENS but never quite gets there:
.
http://www.cmri.org/02-doctrinal-errors-v2.html.
It has a number of useful references on several aspects of doctrinal errors of Vat.II, but never quite hits the nail on the head.
In fact, the twin priests Radecki have been talking about their new book that was going to come out a year ago, for twice that long, and its topic is the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. I wonder if they'll have a page or two on EENS? Or ........... not?
For example, the piece never quite gets around to mentioning the one place in Vat.II where EENS has been directly attacked,
LG 8.
.
(Lumen Gentium paragraph 8 -- I checked with a search and found no "LG," no "lume" and no "subs" are on this CMRI page, so I'm not making a mistake. It's NOT THERE. The text in question says, after mentioning "the Church of Christ," then says, "this Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present world, subsists in (
subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (
licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity". This most usually gets shortened to,
"The Church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic Church." It's such a sore subject that EWTN -- posting an article by one Fr. Fernando Ocáriz -- devotes about 3,000 words to defending Vat.II in this regard,
here, where it tries to deliver the message, by repetition, that many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the shortened version are in circulation. So, effectively, Vat.II has been MISUNDERSTOOD by so many people for what, 53 years now, that no Pope has intervened to settle the confusion with a definitive clarification -- (?) -- uuhh -- wait........
)From the linked page:
.
Ever convinced of her divine origin, the Catholic Church has always condemned the erroneous belief that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy and that it doesn’t matter to what church one belongs for men can find salvation in any church. This is the false doctrine of religious indifferentism which has been frequently condemned by the Catholic Church..So far, so good. But can anyone explain why Bp. Mark Pivarunas fails to mention any one of the THREE
ex cathedra definitions of EENS, nor does he manage to pronounce the sentence,
"Outside the Church there is No Salvation?" .
Notice the form his most closely approximating sentence takes:
A statement beginning with the
longstanding condemnation against an
erroneous belief of one form of
contradiction of the apparently-unmentionable thing (whatever-it-is). He then follows that up with an example of a denial of the thing, whatever it is.
.
He does not state what EENS is, but ever-so-cautiously approaches its left flank by FOUR LEVELS of abstraction:
-- Longstanding condemnation
-- Erroneous belief
-- One form of contradiction
-- False doctrine of Indifferentism
.
Now, don't get me wrong, these are all good points. But why does he conspicuously avoid the elephant in the room?
.
P.S. I have a theory.
.
Topic: Is a CMRI chapel a reasonable substitute for a Resistance Mass? (Read 14121 times)