AMDGJMJ's assessment echoes my own, and gets to the heart of why all of the (virtual) ink spilled on this forum (and elsewhere) over "Feenyism" vs. "BOB / BOD" leaves me cold. We must adhere to what is certain, not what is not; and judge objectively, not subjectively. EENS is objective truth, and it is certain.
But the problem is that most people don't understand what Father Feeney's fight was all about and they don't understand what the battle that we "Feeneyites" continue to wage is all about. BoD/BoB is an ANCILLARY ISSUE.
It's not about BoD/BoB. BoD/BoB only became burning issues when they were USED BY THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH to overturn Traditional Catholic (Tridentine) ecclesiology and soteriology.
It's about ECCLESIOLOGY and not about BoD/BoB per se, certainly not the BoD/BoB of St. Thomas & St. Robert Bellarmine.
What has happened is quite simple.
We have the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.
Now, if you start saying that various kinds of non-Catholics can be saved by some BoD-like mechanism, then you must say (based on the dogma that they could not be saved unless they are within the Church) that these who are saved are in fact within the Church.
Now, if you can have Muslims, Hindus, Jєωs, etc. being saved (as both +Lefebvre and +Fellay and most Traditional Catholics say), then you must say that in the Catholic Church are not only Catholics but all manner of non-Catholics ... pagans, Great Thumb Worshippers, Muslims, Hindus, Jєωs, etc.
So if the Church now consists of not only Catholics but also includes varying non-believers who are united to the Church,
PRESTO
You have Vatican II "subsistence" ecclesiology in a nutshell. Every Vatican II "error" reduces to this. But if I were to come to accept that non-Catholics can be in the Church, then I would have to drop all objections to Vatican II and cease being a Traditional Catholic.
Do you get now why this is a burning issue, nay, that it's THE BURNING ISSUE?
Do none of you get this? Do I have to jump up and down and stomp my feet to get your attention?
I think that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a great example to play part here as an example for the case of the misunderstandings of "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire"...
There were saints who believed that Our Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived, and those who believe that she was not. Yet, one might ask how both sides could have become saints if one side was holding to something heretical. The answer is as follows:
Concerning the exact definitions of doctrine, the Church often must clarify when there are questions. The truth is still always the truth, but until the Church officially declares the answer no one is absolutely obliged under pain of heresy.
The same sort of thing happens with Schism...
When there were three men who claimed to be popes, different saints supported both sides.
...History repeats itself. So let us learn from it and pray for the restoration of the Church so that we may once again have a solid hierarchy and pope to guide us through all truth for the greater glory of God.
May God bless you all!
Rita
______________________________________
http://whoshallfindavaliantwoman.blogspot.com/