CathInfo.com

2:28: Viewer asked Wagner question, "What is the proper interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church"? Wagner answers' "the way we get around this..I mean, not really get around this[...]the way we get around this...I said it again"

EENS deniers just can't help themselves

Yeah, that was beautiful ... where he said the quiet part out loud, admitting what we all know, that most EENS-deniers deliberately try to explain away EENS, and "get around" it, i.e. try to pretend they don't reject Catholic dogma by coming up with an "interpretation" of it that, even if it's the opposite of what the dogma appears to say, they can appease their own consciences by claiming that they assent to the dogma when they only pay lip service to it but merely interpret it as being the opposite of what it says.  Wagner at least tacitly admits it would be Modernist to claim, as Rahner did, for instance that the Church's CURRENT interpretation of Florence means anything, so he at least realizes he needs to find evidence for the interpreation of the dogma AT THE TIME IT WAS DEFINED.  So then he makes it up that all the theologians at the time had the Vatican II interpretation of Florence, citing only one by name, Torquemada, but turns out that both his "all the theologians" and his mention of Torquemada were both abject lies.

From time to time one of the dumber BoDers ends up exposing them.

What's most infuriating is the lies, and we've had a few trolls on here recently doing the same type of lying, and when you point out why what they're saying is false, they move on to another point, then another ... and then eventually circle back and restate their original lie (despite its having been exposed and corrected), hoping that enough time has passed and enough of a distraction created so that people will have forgotten the original refutation.

I'm just fed up with the lying, and I'm not standing for it anymore.

See, someone who's truly seeking the truth will look at evidence and let it lead where it leads.  I too once believed in BoD and likewise believed that Trent taught it and that all the Church Fathers believed in it and taught it.  But when I started to look at the question and began to ask, OK, so where are "ALL" these Church Fathers ... and could find next to none, and then spending some time on the question found that the majority of the Church Fathers who even talked about the issue explicitly rejected it, a couple implicitly rejected it, and only two actually believed in it, but of those two, the first (Augustine) floated it as admitted speculation in his youth but retracted it later as not Catholic (after having battled the Pelagians) and the second (Ambrose) explicitly denied it in another place, and then when you look at where he is said to promote it, the quote is taken out of context, and he lays out clearly that he believes what he hopes could have happened for Valentinian is that he was "washed but not crowned", i.e. remitted some punishment due to sin, even if he could not enter the Kingdom (which is what he teaches elsewhere, that even the best catechumen cannot enter the Kingdom if he hasn't been crowned).

There went the old "unanimous teaching of the Fathers" lie.  That's what happens when you only seek the truth, and not some hidden agenda.  I also then went and read Trent, in Latin, in context, and not the out of context mis-translated section, and realized that Trent had no intention of teaching BoD in that passage, and then found that post-Trent theologians made the same distinction that Father Feeney did, between justification (washing?) and salvation (crowning?)

But some people cling to BoD so that you won't be able to pull it from their cold dead hand ... for ulterior motives and agendas, and if one argument fails, they'll try to come up with another, then another, and so on and so forth.