What Theo-Interlocutors really need for fruitful discussions of Universalism
is a good glossary
From Fr. Kimel's article and DBH's response to Fr Rooney (urls below), I think one can glean a reliable glossary and so more easily locate certain theological impasses that have so often presented in exchanges with various majoritarians, in large measure, due to differences in definitions.
In my experience, Fr Rooney's arguments & and my own have typically led to different conclusions - not because we're not both being logically consistent, but - because we don't define the concepts in our respective premises the same.
Exchanges that use different meanings for the same words can quickly devolve into a conceptual cluster party.
Off the top of my head, those differently-defined concepts have resulted in our having different understandings of such realities as divine willing, proportional justice, human freedom, inancaritability, moral goodness, antecedent - consequent will & double effect modal dynamics, il/legitimacy of various mysterian & authoritarian appeals, etc Look for how, in their responses, Fr Al & DBH have both implicitly & explicitly defined those concepts above. Plug those definitions into Fr Rooney’s premises & see where that gets you instead.
Truth be known, after first encountering Crisp’s Deviant Calvinism, which could make a coherent universalist case, I realized that a Deviant Thomism could similarly succeed, only more swiftly & with fewer hindrances. A truly ecumenical universalism is systematically viable.
Finally, arguments that invite an existential living as if are inescapably contextual, so will integrally employ - not only our logical propositions, but - our evaluative dispositions. Not infrequently, I’ve had interlocutors, who undoubtedly share my affective inclinations, aesthetic sensibilities & moral intuitions, who rather disingenuously bracket the truth-indicative value of those dispositions, sacrificing them in the service of their sylly syllogisms. That’s to otherwise say that they make illegitimate mysterian appeals, which I’ve decried repeatedly, elsewhere. Fiddlesticks!
See:
https://wp.me/pZJmO-mLD
https://www.davidartman.net/podcast/ep-108-david-bentley-hart-responds-to-claims-of-heresy-by-fr-james-dominic-rooney-in-regards-to-the-necessity-of-all-being-saved