So, you're wrong. 

Pax,

You quoted my post above (#718). Now, where exactly am I wrong in that post?

           

You said Feeney would not agree with Brownson.  Not true.  Feeney would neither agree/disagree with Brownson’s view of the “soul” of the Church.  Fr Feeney’s view was “I don’t know”. 

Your assertion is based on an incomplete knowledge of Fr Feeney.  He was combating the pre-V2-universal-salvation error which stated that BOD could “definitely save” non Catholics.  Fr Feeney simply argued “No, it’s not definite.  There’s no dogma.  It’s unknown.”

You seriously think non Catholics can be saved with invisible ignorance as a possibility??????

You seriously think non Catholics can be saved with invisible ignorance as a possibility??????

As St. Thomas would say ... aaah, distinguo ...

I believe that invincible ignorance combined with lack of actual sin could prevent eternal punishment, but that it's not the same thing as "salvation", which entails the Beatific Vision, and only the baptized can receive that.

Now, very little has been made since the BoD era regarding the character of the Sacrament of Baptism, where it's been reduced to some non-repeatability marker, perhaps a badge of honor that some in heaven have and others don't.  That's nonsense.  If someone wanted to say that an angel would come to baptize people who are to be saved, or something along those lines, I'd find that much less satisfactory.

So we know that by our NATURE we are incapable of the Beatific Vision, of seeing God as He is.  We have natural faculties, but lack the supernatural ones by nature.  So this character of Baptism is what endows us with the supernatural faculty or capability to see God.  It's also marks us, similar to giving us the DNA of Christ's Body, where we are recognized as God's sons ... albeit by adoption ... and therefore members of the family of the Holy Trinity, in the Kingdom.  God sees His Son in those who have this character ... of His Son in them.  Church Fathers referred to this seal as the illumination or enlightenment.

At the same time, those who are invincibly ignorant and practice natural virute, etc. ... I believe they can attain to a certain level of happiness, or at least certain degress of non-suffering in eternity.  Are they saved?  No.  Are they in Hell?  Well, depends on how you define Hell.  I think that there are almost infinite "levels" of happiness/punishment depending on your practice of natural virtue or vice, but election to being elevated to that supernatural state, which is owed to no one, can only be possible through the Sacrament and the character it bestows.

I believe that's what Father Feeney was hinting at when he answered that he did not know what happened to those who had BoD but who died without the Sacrament.

Lest people think this is heretical, the precise nature of eternity and the afterlife are one subject about which very little has been formally revealed.  This notion of Limbo (along the lines I just articulated for adults, but for infants) was not Revealed, and yet the Church actualy condemned those who condemned it "as a Pelagian fable".  It's pure speculation, but it's also not contradicted or ruled out by what has been revealed by God.  There's no guarantee whatsoever that God has revealed everything there is to know about all matters.

Father Feeney said no one could be saved without the sacrament.

For the 3rd time, this is NOT the complete argument of Fr Feeney.  

I’ll make this simple because your reading comprehension is abysmal. 

Brownson says it’s possible for a catechumen (not a pagan) to be saved by BOD.  Fr Feeney would say “this isn’t a doctrine but it’s possible.”

There is no disagreement between the two people. 

Father Feeney famously said one could be justified by BoD but not saved.

Yes, he said this.  But he EXPANDED this statement because it’s incomplete.  As I keep repeating, you have a lack of understanding of what Fr Feeneys arguments (he had numerous) were.  You just keep posting ONE of his points. 

You can stop posting what Brownson said.  The issue is with your misunderstanding of Fr Feeney.

Fr. Feeney said a catechumen who was justified by BoD would receive the sacrament if they were to be saved. In other words, they would not be saved without receipt of the sacrament. Browning says a catechumen could be saved without the receipt of the sacrament.

THEY DISAGREE.

Whats’s the matter with you?