Whatever be your understanding of Feeneyism objectively you do not know any exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014

 

QuoVadisPetre:

Lionel, rather than hear all your irrelevant discussion, obfuscation, etc. concerning BOD (like visible cases, etc.), show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD, other than Fr. Feeney. Of course, I’ll be waiting forever, since you will find none, but your answer will prove interesting and illuminating.

 

• Quo Vadis Petre:
  Lionel, rather than hear all your irrelevant discussion, obfuscation, etc. concerning BOD (like visible cases, etc.), show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD,

Lionel:

I am affirming the baptism of desire. I am saying it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
I am also saying that it refers to a hypothetical case. It does not refer to someone personally known to us in 2014.
So for me these cases are invisible.
Invisible cases cannot be defacto, objective, seen- in- the- flesh- downtown exceptions, to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith in 2014 for salvation.
So like Fr.Leonard Feeney, the popes and Church Councils I affirm the dogma and do not claim that there are any known exceptions.
____________________________________________

Quo Vadis Petre:

show me one theologian after the Council of Trent denying BOD, other than Fr. Feeney.

Lionel:
I do not speak for the liberal theologians or for Fr.Leonard Feeney’s community in the USA. I speak for myself.
The Council of Trent has not said that the baptism of desire ( implicit desire) is visible to us in the present times or that it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I agree with the Council of Trent.
I repeat : I do not deny implicit for us baptism of desire. I reject explicit for us baptism of desire, which is an irrational concept that originated in 1949 and is known to me as Cushingism.
_____________________________________________

Lionel:
Why don’t you just agree with me and say it clearly 1) before 1949 you cannot cite any one saying the baptism of desire is visible to us or 2) that the baptism of desire is an explict exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Why don’t you agree with me and say that you personally do not know any one in 2014 saved with the baptism of desire and so the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma ? This is common sense and not theology.

Whatever be your understanding of Feeneyism and what ever be the theology you have accepted, objectively you do not know any exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.
_________________________________

Quo Vadis Petre:

other than Fr. Feeney. Of course, I’ll be waiting forever, since you will find none, but your answer will prove interesting and illuminating.

Lionel:
There are more links at this post.There are statements from priests and the apologist John Martigioni.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson contradicts USCCB : the baptism of desire is not visible to us and so is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/archbishop-thomas-egullickson.html#links

-Lionel Andrades