I'm gonna take a wild guess that Rahner and von Balthasar are not representative of how the Magisterium means Vatican II to be interpreted. (Indeed, it's probably a knock on the latter that he's in the same sentence with Rahner, and an unfair one at that.) In fact, according to my friend, Dr. Lawrence Feingold, a leading scholar and Catholic theologian, those views are almost entirely contrary to what Vatican II actually taught, assuming the hermeneutics of continuity. More investigation is certainly warranted. Even in the best form, the concept of "invincible ignorance" is a real stumbling-block to Protestants, whose missionary impulse and understanding of Jesus' exclusive claims prevents even the suggestion that a person might be declared just by God without hearing and accepting Jesus.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments