bzzzzzt. What proof is there that it IS? We have ONLY Cushing's word for it. It's precisely for this reason that Canon Law stipulated that things must appear in AAS in order to be assured as part of the authentic Magisterium ... precisely to prevent fraud.
By proof I don't mean Ladislaus. But proof. What theologians says it is not an authoritative document? What cardinal or bishop?
Why even play around with these liars. I have made my point. No proof will be forthcoming. They reject what the whole Church accepted.
No one took up my challenge to debate one on one whether salvation can be obtained apart from Sacramental Baptism. JPaul is one who seems civil in his discussions.
It would be a decent debate sticking to the subject with sources given rather than what is in one's own mind. There will be no personal attacks or the typical goo goo ga ga antics we see as common place here among the feeneyites.
There will be the same requisite for both sides. If my opponent is Catholic he will accept the common teaching of theologians before the Council, Fathers, Saints, Doctors, all authoritative documents, anything in the AAS, encyclicals, council and that which is solemnly defined.
If he is some other type of Christian he will discount what all the theologians, approved teachers of the Church, who spoke to the issue have said, anything not in the AAS, what the Fathers, Saints and Doctors who spoke to the issue of BOB/D said, even things in the AAS, encyclicals. Or any mixture of the above. Some even reject everything but solemnly defined dogma's. Of course these are not Catholics. So I will hold you to the same requisite you hold me.
No one denies EENS. If you can prove BOB/D condemned by the above authoritative sources I'm all ears. What civil individual will take me up on it?