.

Dear mobius,  

While this infallible definition of EENS certainly does not support BoB or BoD, one can hardly claim that it "condemns" them.  I would say it seems to be more on the side of a negation of BoD, especially, however, "condemnation" is much too strong of a word.  

They remain simply in the realm of theological speculation.

But no one (except the Pope) has the power to proclaim anyone in error for saying that BoB and/or BoD are not teachings of the Church, for all there is is scattered mention of them by non-authoritative sources.  Nothing official.  There are lots of theological speculations of that category, but it would seem that these two items occupy a big part of certain people's attention span.  Two or three of them are members on CI.  You'd think they could get a life!  

It's really disappointing to see so many otherwise well-informed Catholics think that BoB and BoD are some kind of Church doctrine, and many go so far as to claim that they are "defined," but they cannot provide any proof of any kind of a definition.  That is, what they might think is a definition only goes to show they probably don't know what 'definition' is.  One CMRI priest handed me a stack of Xeroxes of Fr. Martin Stepanich Remnant reprints from 1974, and he called that the "definition of baptism of desire."  I asked him, "Do you always refer to a rag like the Residual, I mean, the Remnant, when you want to define the faith, a rag that calls you a schismatic?"  He didn't like that very much.  After all, the Remnant was printing articles of a priest who would later become sedevacantist himself.  

For anyone who doesn't think that schism is such a big deal, they should read the Bible.  In Numbers xvi., Core, Dathan and Abiron were punished spectacularly by God for the sin of schism.  
WARNING: READER DISCRETION ADVISED.   :smile:


.