You realize, of course, that she agrees with gbcdoj and your humble servant.
The presence of theological speculation, in and of itself, does not imply we are free to believe either way. We are free to speculate, yes, but we may not accept or retain those speculations which, if concluded, would negate or call into question a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. So therefore, we are actually not free to accept and hold all speculations.
"The comparison with Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is invalid - St. Robert wrote after Lateran IV, Florence, Trent, and Unam Sanctam."
It most certainly is valid. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined and declared in the 1800's, but to be sure, unlike the matter at hand here, it was uniquely different in that it really could be shown to be the always-known and well accepted dogma of the Church, particularly in the East.
This is a fact: Thomas unwittingly concluded wrongly in regards to the Immaculate Conception. But then again, St. Thomas would have told you himself that the conclusions of theology are subject to error. Theology uses the principles of Faith as premises, but it syllogizes to conclusions... by that very fact, error is possible. Not to mention the admixture into the syllogisms of premises which are not doctrine but rather are principles derived from human reason. All of which is well and good to do, but it must be reckonized that the conclusions are indeed subject to error.
"But the dogmas of the Church must always be understood in the sense the Church has held and holds them, and we can discover this by consulting the approved theologians of the time."
That helps, yes. But it is a secondary source, not the source of dogma itself.
"I quoted the Fathers to show that this was no innovation. You quote from Ambrose 10 years earlier, but he clearly realized his error by 397 - if the two quotes contradict (I think they can be harmonized). And Chrysostom's quote doesn't speak of martyrs, purposefully, I think. With respect to the citation of St. Gregory Nazianzeus, he says elsewhere that there is a baptism of blood (Oration 39)."
Plus, St. Augustine bounces all over the place, finally deciding in his Retractions that nobody ought to doubt the matter any further.
But see? They're all over the place, the whole lot of them. This in and of itself should be more than enough evidence that, hey, we aren't dealing with a doctrine here, but theological speculations concerning difficult situations we don't understand.
"My position is that, at death, one who is not a member of the Church but is within the Catholic Church can be saved."
But see, I don't get the distinction you're making between "within" and "member". I'm looking that and asking... what is the difference?
"You are exhibiting dogmas and speaking as if the Church has defined them regarding all those who are not members of the Mystical Body, but there is no reason to believe this. Before and after Florence theologians commonly affirmed baptism of desire, as St. Thomas did."
Again, we have other saints and long-since dead theologians denying it.
"The distinction that I make between members of the Church and those who are within the Church but are not members is the same that is made in Fr. Fenton's article that I posted. You apparently didn't read it, which is unfortunate. I would ask that you do, because he lays out the traditional position on this issue quite brilliantly. Quoting from his summary: (2) Although the Church is the only social unit on earth working for the objectives of Jesus Christ, there are individuals who, through the power of God's grace, work for that same objective without being in any way members of the Church. These are the individuals who are "within" the Catholic Church by a salutary votum or desiderium. This votum or desiderium is salutary only when it is enlightened by true supernatural faith and motivated by true charity, and, obviously, only when it is impossible for the individual to be "within" the Church as a member. The individuals who are "within" the Church only by a salutary votum or desiderium pray and work, against fierce opposition, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Incarnation.
But see the bolded part? That's not doctrine. He's saying this, yes, and it sounds cool, but the Church simply hasn't defined that. Nor has it been the unanimous consent of theologians; not by a long shot.
Now look the underlined part. By supernatural faith... but, that can only be found within the Catholic Church! In other words, while assuming them to be in a condition outside the Church, it simultaneously has already placed them inside the Church and partakers in supernatural faith. If they have this, then they would never have been considered outside in the first place.
"The society which is the only true supernatural kingdom of God on earth in the dispensation of the New Testament is composed or made up of its members. The men and women who have a salutary votum or desiderium of entering the Church are "within" it insofar as they are working and fighting within it for the attainment of the objectives of Jesus Christ. Yet they are definitely not parts or members of this society."
This is sheer speculation. This is not doctrine. But look at this, though, in comparison to the above speculation:
Trent, Session 7, Canon 8: "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema."
"I'm still waiting for the citation from Lamentabili or Pascendi of a Modernist doctrine and the proof that it's contained in my writings."
What I'm figuring is that, in moving this conversation along, there will be enough accumulated text to make for a decent layout of the claim.
"Were Cardinal Ottaviani and Pius XII modernist, in your view, insofar as the Cardinal signed and Pius XII approved Suprema Haec Sacra? Do you consider this letter of the Holy Office Modernist?"
One of the first things you should understand is that I don't look for traditional Catholicism as if it is contained in people, or represented by certain persons. This would be to fall victim to the very sort of personalization of the Catholic Faith which is so very characteristic of average modern Catholic. People serve as hosts to changing opinions, so to speak. I'm going to be looking exclusively at the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
About the Holy Office letter, last week I wrote up something on it, and I'll post it below. It does in fact pertain directly to the conversation here.