Ross Douthat mentions on Twitter that he has being asked to present a theological defense to members of the Academy. He responded with a video clip of a scene in a Harvard pub.
Here is a theological responded. It's simple.He could use it.
Tell them here is a theological response from a Catholic layman who believes the members of the Academy like Pope Francis, is teaching heresy.It's so obvious to see that one does not have to be a theologian or even a Catholic to notice it.
The professors of theology at the Academy, like Pope Francis and the Jesuits, have based their theology on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Baltimore Catechism.It's called the 'new theology'.
The new theology is founded on being able to see or know people in Heaven who are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So the new theology can postulate that there is salvation outside the Church and so the Feeneyites are wrong.The traditional dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Council of Trent on the necessity of the baptism of water with no exceptions, is rejected.
The old ecclesiology is rejected.
Now we ordinary lay Catholics are asking how can the wise men and women of the Academy, asssume there are known exceptions to the old ecclesiology ? Where are these cases ? What are their names? Who on earth has seen them?
No one. Not a single member of the Academy knows of an exception to the dogma EENS.Obviously, since people dead are known only to God, if they are in Heaven or elsewhere.
None of us on earth has seen a baptism of desire or blood case, without the baptism of water.
Yet upon this irrationality, of being able to see 'unknown persons' in Heaven the Academy has based its theology.This is fantasy theology-seeing people in Heaven who are visible exceptions on earth to old theology, the old Feeneyite ecclesiology.
It is a fact of life that in general we human beings cannot see ghosts. Yet the Academy, like the Americans at Boston in 1949 and at Baltimore ( when the Catechism was issued) indicate that they can see these people, now deceased.This is a factual error.Upon this non-sense they base their theology.It is non traditional, irrational and heretical.
They know what I am saying is true. So Prof. Massimo Faggioli will not respond on Twitter.
You could ask Prof. Faggioli where are the exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to 'the rigorist intepretation' of the dogma EENS.Ask this of Fr.James Martin S.J when he refers to Vatican Council II and Nostra Aetate.
Faggioli may weakly stutter 'LG 16'.Lumen Gentium 16 refers to persons saved in invincible ignorance. Tell him that for you LG 16 refers to a hypothethical case. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to EENS.Tell the Academy that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not objective cases for us human beings.
So since there are no known exceptions , is the Academy and Pope Francis, willing to affirm the old ecclesiology? It means Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and Archbishop Cushing made a factual mistake.It means the Baltimore Catechism was wrong and the baptism of desire is not visible like the baptism of water.It is not a baptism like the baptism of water.There is no proof or precedent for the baptism of desire being a baptism like the baptism of water and with the same results.
Is the Academy willing to say, theologically, that Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation ( AG 7, LG 14) and there are no exceptions, there can be no exceptions? So Vatican Council II indicates all Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other non Christians need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, they need to be formal members of the Church to avoid Hell (AG 7, LG 14). All Protestants, Pentecostals and Orthodox Christians need Catholic Faith ( AG 7, LG 14) which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church, to avoid Hell.Only believing in Jesus is not enough.It would not be enough for even a Catholic.
So we are back to the pre-Council of Trent intepretation of the dogma and this is acceptable to the Academy?
Ask them to refute theologically, what I have written here. There theology is based on being able to see the dead-saved, the dead man walking, without the baptism of water.This is there salvation outside the visible limits of the Church.My traditional theology is based on not being able to see people in Heaven as the liberal theologians imply.There is no salvation outside the Church for me.
Their theology has accepted the Magisterial heresy in the Boston Case, the heresy of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jesuits supported by Rome.The Boston Heresy Case.
I instead am not a heretic. I affirm the teachings of the pre-Council of Trent magisterium in accord with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992) interpreted with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.
The Academy is in heresy since they interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with irrational Cushingism, to create a non traditional, heretical conclusion.It's a hermeneutic of rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium.
I accept the baptism of desire in principle as being a theoretical possibility known only to God. I reject the baptism of desire as being explicit.So I can accept the baptism of desire always with the Feeneyite version of EENS.It is compatible. I do not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
The Academy violates the Principle of Non Contradiction when its members interpret CCC 1257( The Necessity of Baptism) . For them every one needs to enter the Church with the baptism of water but some do not!
Even a non Catholic, or a non-theologian would know there is something dead-wrong with the Academy's theology.
Once you make this known to them I would expect them to go underground and blurt something about the CDF needing to intervene.
My communication with Massimo Faggioli via Twitter shows he would fearfully like to keep his distance from this issue, remain under the table and see if there are any approaching signs of danger.
Similarly an emeritus professor of theology at Boston College, whom I contacted, could only say 'the Church does not teach this' and not explain himself theologically.
I understand.How can he say he can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water who see clear exceptions on earth to all needing to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'?
Even theology has its limits.