I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries

 

 Comment
You are guilty of the error you accuse me of, an inability to admit, in this case, that the Church has declared an unbaptized catechumen in heaven, with St Emerentiana. Your only rebuttal is that the Church could not possibly know if St Emerentiana is in heaven without water baptism( and so we should not posit St.Emerentiana  as an exception to EENS, secondly someone in the past is only a hypothetical case today.A  possibility saved without the baptism of water in the past, known only to God, cannot be a practical and objective exception to the dogma EENS.Thirdly even if she was saved without the baptism of water as is speculated it does not mean that the possibility is an actual exception to the dogma EENS in the present times(1965-2019) (and thus we should view the object of the Church's public cult for this catechumen saint as merely hypothetical!!),( She is a saint and the cult can continue but please do not say that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
 
You would not know and the Church has not said that any particular person would know and has the gift of seeing people in Heaven, saved without the baptism of water.) and thus your entire apologetic is flawed with the fallacy of petitio principii. 

 

You have proven nothing, Lionel,( I have proven that you agree with me when I say that there are no objective cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2019.There are no literal cases,you agree with me. I have also proven that you are afraid, out of worldly prudence, to admit in public that you personally do not know of any  BOD, BOB and I.I case.It is too difficult for you to admit something which is a fact for us humans.
I have also proven to you that you personally do not know of any LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 case in the present times ( 1965-2019) saved outside or within the Church.You have agreed with me. I have also  proven to you that you are afraid to admit this common place and obvious conclusion in public , since it will....and for whatever other reason.

These are two important points that you and I have in agreement) other than the fact that you have failed to show where the Church says the indelible mark is absolutely necessary for salvation ( The Catechism of Pope Pius X says that the baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation. I sent you a citation.You ignored it.I also quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257 The Necessity of Baptism).Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7).The norm for salvation is the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and not the baptism of desire. (of course, the Church teaches no such thing, otherwise you would have produced the teaching),( If you want more teachings I could produce them, for example the three Church Councils which defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the statements of the pope in the ordinary magisterium, the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation and so infers faith and baptism is necessary for all with no exception, the Syllabus of Errors etc, etc,) and that you rely on your own private interpretation of councils and catechisms rather than the public teaching of the Church and 2,000 years of tradition.( I affirm the public interpretation of the popes before Pius XII who did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were known people saved outside the Church. They did not say that BOD, BOB and I.I were objective exceptions to EENS. It is the SSPX which is at odds with the popes over the centuries. They affirm BOD, BOB and I.I like the popes, since Pius XII.Then with this irrationality(invisible BOD, BOB and I.I cases are physically visible to them) they go back over the centuries and re-interpret the popes as suggesting BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for them.Then they say that all the popes contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney.)

You  admit that you do not know of any case of BOD, BOB and I.I which could be an exception to EENS in 2019 .Yet you do not state this in public. You do not want me to quote you. Even a non Christian would agree and say that he knows that there are no BOD,BOB and I.I cases known on earth.They could only be known to God. This is something obvious for human beings in general.And yet you are not sure of yourself on something which will not be denied even by non Catholics.You don't want to be quoted.

So you are allowing the SSPX to continue to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and so change the original meaning of EENS.You will not correct them in public. This is heresy. It is a mortal sin of faith.

You also know that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. I have had to spend time explaining it to you  and this is not possible with others. Yet you are keeping silent about this and do not inform the SSPX, the traditionalists and the Vatican.Since then they will call you a Feeneyite and not give you the importance they do presently.You do not want to be quoted because of your private interests.You also do not want to admit that like Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and the others you were wrong about Vatican Council II all these years.

Your priority should be Jesus and his Church.

-Lionel Andrades