To reject a conservative Catholic student, who affirms EENS, Vatican Council II, all the Catechisms and the Syllabus of Errors is unfair. It is unfair to tell him that Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally, contradicts Tradition

 I have received a response from a pontifical university. The following is my reply today morning.

Dear ...thank you for your kind response.

The issue is that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2019.

There are no literal cases in December 2019.

We cannot meet or see any one saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I.

There are no 'physical bodies' in Newton's time and space of BOD, BOB and I.I. or, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, saved outside the Church.

So there are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS); or EENS as St Thomas Aquinas knew it.

So like the popes and saint I affirm BOD, BOB and I.I. I do not reject them. But for me they can only refer to hypothetical cases. They are always hypothetical and speculative, as is LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II.So please do not cite any more cases. I am with you on this point.

The examples you have provided of people saved allegedly  without the baptism of water or with only the baptism of desire  are hypothetical. They are in Heaven and in only Heaven they could be confirmed.No one on earth could have confirmed them.

Some could be declared saints but no one on earth could have see them in Heaven without the baptism of water.

They are not physically visible cases on earth to be relevant to the dogma EENS.

So when the saints mentioned EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I there was no contradiction.

We can affirm both ,BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.It is not either-or. So we cannot postulate them as being exceptions to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.At least for me they are not.

However from you have written and generally what is taught at the...(name of university), BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8 etc are exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS.They contradict EENS according to St. Thomas Aquinas or the 16th century missionaries,for you all.

It is only because they are exceptions for ALL OF YOU, that you ALL can reject the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and Feeneyite EENS.

For me BOD etc are not exceptions.They are always physically invisible cases. So I affirm the strict interpretation of EENS according to Aquinas and Augustine.

My theology is traditional and is based upon BOD, BOB and I.I being only hypothetical.

At the pontifical universities they use the New Theology, based upon allegedly visible and personally known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which are alleged examples of salvation outside the Church.The Athanasius Creed( outside the Church no salvation), the Syllabus of Errors and the saints on exclusive salvation, would have become obsolete.

____________________________________________

So you have not denied  the point I made in those posts.

For the faculty and students of the (university), Vatican  Council II is a rupture with Thomisitic EENS. The rupture is created by assuming hypothetical cases are objective people in the present times saved outside the Church.This is un-orthodoxy to say the least.However this was the way the popes since Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS.

So now all who seek a doctoral degree in theology at a pontifical university have to assume that there are personally known and physically visible cases referenced in LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.

This is irrational. It is also deceptive.To  persist with this irrationality after being informed would be unethical.

Also to reject a conservative Catholic student, who affirms EENS, Vatican Council II, all the Catechisms and the Syllabus of Errors is unfair. It is unfair to tell himthat Vatican Council II, interpreted irrationally, contradicts Tradition.

In Christ with the love of Our Lady