So did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston in the second part, make a mistake when it assumed that the baptism of desire and blood were not hypothetical but an exception to EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney?
No answer.There never is an answer.
They know the answer.It is obvious a hypothetical case cannot be an exception to the dogma EENs.
So did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake? They will not answer.
The Editor of the blog From Rome will not answer.
Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam will not answer.
John Vennari and Christopher Ferrara will not answer.
At most they will say the church teaches there is a baptism of desire.I say I agree.The baptism of desire is always implicit for me. So it is not an exception to the dogma EENs. Is the baptism of desire also implicit for you? No answer.
This is a rational question?
The Editor says:
That the Church has venerated from the earliest centuries those who have died without the Sacrament, on account of their desire for it before a bloodless Martyrdom or their Martyrdom by blood, is an incontestable fact of history and Tradition. These are not hypothetical cases, but historic truths which form part of the infallible tradition of the Church.
These are not hypothetical cases?
There are people in the past who went to Heaven or who are in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church,who saw them in Heaven ? Who saw them go to Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water? How could we humans know of an actual case of someone saved with the baptism of water?
How could there be a known exception to the dogmatic teaching on EENS which says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell?
To deny that is impossible.
I accept the baptism of desire in principle, in theory, as a possibility known only to God.I assume it will accompany the baptism of water.Also in principle, in theory, as a possibility I know that no one could have physically seen or known a baptism of desire case, with or without the baptism of water.
So I accept the baptism of desire, like St. Alphonsus Liguori, and since it is hypothetical, it is not an exception to EENS, for me or St.Alphonsus Liguori.
However, to extend such cases of heroic virtue to the individual who for reasons of human respect or lack of faith or prudence dies before receiving the Sacrament or adhering to the Church, is equally erroneous, for it is as St. Alphonsus holds, morally impossible for an individual to avoid all mortal sins without the help of the Sacraments in the manner they are properly confected and administered in the Catholic Church; and hence those who abstain from them culpably or not, cannot hope for salvation, nor is there any good hope that they be saved, objectively speaking.
O.K. However the issue for me is are these cases objectively known?. Since if they are objectively known then they become exceptions to EENS.
Thus the Catholic Truth lies between the exaggerations which Fr. Feeney attempted to fight, and the exaggerations which he employed to fight them.
What were those exaggerations, could you mention them?
One cannot speak theologically of the hypothetical, since theology as a science regards what has been revealed, not what God might do.
The theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. The dogma EENs is no more like Fr. Leonard Feeney interpreted it.Pope Benedict also confirmed it recently when he said that EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.
So this is the theology. This is the new theology and it is based on hypothetical cases being exceptions to EENS,would you agree?
So 'theology as a science' has been changed ? It is based on a premise which says that there are known cases of the baptism of desire without the baptism of water?
As creatures we cannot licitly speculate about what God might do, when He has told us what to do and promised what He will do if we do it.
Only a situational ethic of a laxist would argue as the opponents of Fr. Feeney did. But Fr. Feeney went to the other extreme, since being formed as a Jesuit, he had not the tools of theology to oppose the errors which plague the teaching of moral theology in that Society for centuries.
Here ends our discussion of BoD and BoB. Lionel, you are well known for having an insatiable desire to debate these things ad nauseam. I have replied only to rebut you in public. I will not entertain any more comments from you.
You still have not answered a simple question .
In the past I asked if at the Scholasticism, will the faculty teach theology according to Cushingism( there are known exceptions to EENS) or Feeneyism( there are no known exceptions to EENS).You still have not answered. At the pontifical universities in Rome and the SSPX seminary in Econe, they teach theology which is Cushingite.So they interpret Scolasticism with the Cushingite premise and conclusion.
You now agree that hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to EENS. So I have asked you if the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake? You will not answer.
For you is the theology of the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office Cushingite ( the baptism of desire is a known exception to EENS and so is not hypothetical) or Feeneyite ( the baptism of desire is not an exception to EENS.There is no known salvation outside the Church?-Lionel Andrades