BOB and BOD should not have been coupled with EENS since they are not explicit but abstract cases. Abstract cases cannot be exceptions or relevant to EENS in the present times
Father Feeney had to believe EENS AND BOB< BOD
etc as taught by the Church
He had to believe in EENS. He did.The magisterium at that time was denying the traditional rigorist interpretation of EENS. 'The Church' was contradicting 'the Church' before 1949.
He had to believe in implicit desire and martyrdom.
He accepted this.
He had to believe that implicit desire and martrydom were baptisms since they were explicit instead of implicit, they were concrete like the baptism of water instead of abstract and known to God. He correctly rejected this non traditional teaching.
This was not as 'the Church' taught all this before 1885 and he was being asked to accept all this. This was heresy ! ______________________________
ALONG with any other topic taught by the Church as necessary for submission and obedience. Father Feeney denied that a person could be saved by BOB , BOD etc.
Yes he was correct since BOB and BOD are hypothetical cases they are not examples of explicit baptism.He agreed they could be saved along with the baptism of water.BOB and BOD should not have been coupled with EENS since they are not explicit but abstract cases. Abstract cases cannot be exceptions or relevant to EENS in the present times.
The 'known' or 'Unknown' have zero relevance to accepting church teaching.
The Church teaches there could be cases saved with implicit desire or martyrdom.This is acceptable.
In itself it is fine.
However these cases can be considered relevant to the dogma, is it is being done commonly. This would mean that these cases are known in the present times to be relevant to the dogma.If they are zero cases in our reality they would be irrelevant to the dogma.
For me they are not relevant to the dogma since they are abstract cases, hypothetical for me.
It is important to make the known or unknown, abstract or concrete classification since upon this reasoning depends the hermeneutic or continuity or rupture in Vatican Council II.
If LG 16,UR 3, LG 8, NA2 etc are known in the present times then Vatican Council II is a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.There is a rupture with the past.
If they are not objective in the present times, if they are invisible for us then, Vatican Council II has a continuity with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the traditional ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass. Vatican Council II then is in harmony with St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St.Thomas Aquinas, St. Anthony Marie Claret and other saints and popes.
This is rampant with heresy. How dare you even suggest that after 1885
the Ark Of Salvation was in error when clearly pre 1885 they held the
same positions on BOB and BOD etc.
No they did not. Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 in the text of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
does not mention BOB,BOD or I.I.
None of the pre-1881 popes and saints who
accepted BOD, BOB or I.I believed that these
cases were concrete and not abstract, known
instead of unknown,visible instead of invisible.
So for them there was no connection between
BOB, BOD and I.I with the dogma.
The connection was made in the Baltimore
Catechism in 1881 when BOD and BOB were
considered baptisms. This was then interpreted
to mean that these cases were explicit and
visible and these were formal baptisms like
the baptism of water. So Catechisms now
refer to three baptisms ( water,blood and desire).
So this was a big change in the teachings of the
Church after 1885.
The Magisterium had changed the traditional
teaching on the exclusive salvation in the
Catholic Church, the only Ark of Salvation
in which all need to be formal members,
all need to have their names on the Parish
Baptism Register to avoid Hell and go to
AFTER approximately 1960 ( which coincides with the
3rd secret of Fatima) everything changed in sound
catechesis You continue to confuse Church teaching
with Catechesis of Church teaching which has gone
haywire eg: cardinal Cushing, Father Barron, Cardinal
Dolan etc.....who did imply, suggest, teach that non
Catholics can be saved.
You noticed it about the time of Vatican
However the seeds were planted in
Baltimore in 1885.Perhaps the error
was there even earlier but it was
seen concretly in the Baltimore Catechism.
Lionel come on get real!!!!! We do NOT know AND the
Church does NOT that St. Emerentiana is in Heaven
without having been administered baptism by water.
Good. We agree here.No one could
know at that time or any time that she
was in Heaven without the baptism of water.
BUT the Church does teach that She most certainly
could be in Heaven WITHOUT baptism of water because