CathInfo.com

Yes, Elizabeth, however there were forces in this country that were working against Feeney, slandering him. He was being set up by the powerful clergy of Boston/AmerChurch at the time. All of whom were ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. These prelates had the ear of Pius XII, lied to him about Feeney. Feeney was trapped in quicksand. I know nothing about the cult that exists now.

I am sorry, I do not want to sound mean but would like to know where Catholic Martyr and Vladimar received their theological training.

The anti-pope Paul 6 lifting the alleged ex-communication of Fr Feeney only gives credence to the idea that the 'ex-communication' was legitimate in the first place which it was not.

The Feast of the Holy Innocents.

How do you explain that?

What is there to explain?  The Holy Innocents were martyred before Christ established the law of baptism, and before it went into effect, the Great Commission.

CM who the hell are you, some mighty theologian?

No, Elizabeth.  I'm neither mighty, nor a theologian.

Now if you will once again read the text I provided just before your irrational outburst, you will see that my analysis of the objective sense of the text is accurate.

...damn evey innocent little baby to Hell... They deny God's love for souls.

There are no innocent little babies who are unbaptized Elizabeth.  Or do you not believe in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church?

Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree on Original Sin, #4: "4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema."

Guess what Elizabeth?  You deny the dogma of the inherited personal guilt of original sin.  Please repent and convert.

...Pius IX does not teach that salvation can be attained by invincible ignorance alone.  In fact, no pope ever has.

Very good.  You are right.

In contrast however, no pope has ever explicitly stated that those, though invincibly ignorant of the Truth that is Catholicism, are condemned to hell.

I'm sorry, but Pope Eugene IV dogmatized the Athanasian Creed, which infallibly asserts that explicit belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, Second Coming, Resurrection, Salvation of the Just and Damnation of the wicked is necessary for salvation.

...we can safely assume both Justin and Clement believed in Baptism of Desire...

You can assume, and deny the objective sense of dogmatic decrees by favouring the writings and speculations of holy men who would undeniably assent to the same dogmatic decrees if they had seen them.  I will stick to the dogmatic decrees, which are truly and properly the Words of God, and reject anything the contradicts them.

So, as CM says, Ignorance itself will not excuse, however, invincible ignorance coupled with a valid baptism of desire, would be sufficient in terms of what is 'required' for salvation.

Try valid baptism of water.  That's the only way, ever since the Great Commission.

This in no way means 'Everyone saved', as ultimately there must still be a response to the Lord's grace, but the possibility exists and we should ultimately pray that God's will be done with such individuals, and be our lord's hands and feet in bringing to them the truth of Catholicism.

No.  Catholics do not simply pray for people's salvation.  They go out into the world and look for them and preach the Gospel unto them as well.  But not people who think that water baptism is not the only way, these people are more likely to get lazy.