CathInfo.com

Exactly, and it's a convenient excuse to keep claiming St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other theologians only expounded fallible opinions on this issue!

Garbage.  Burden of proof is on you jokers who claim that the "real meaning" of these dogmas is actually the opposite of what they actually say.  You make an absolute mockery of the Magisterium by claiming that people who hold that the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church actually means that there's no salvation outside the Church, and that when Trent teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation that, well, it means that Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Your quasi-gnostic bullshit that Catholics are required to assimilate and to absorb and regurgitate 2 pages of distinctions until the dogmas mean the opposite of what they say and you have the diabolical temerity and perversity to declare heretics people who believe that the Church's dogmas mean what they say and not, if you "properly understand it", the exact opposite.

You guys are a sick joke.  Let me guess.  You're another idiot dogmatic SV Cekadist who thinks that theologians are infallible ... except of course when theologians (and all the world's bishops) universally approved Vatican II, or that Popes are infallible every time they pass wind, except of course when Pius XII issued the 1955 Holy Week Rites, as those were actually Modernist.  But when some forged docuмent appears claiming to be approved by Pius XII even though it's never published by the Vatican, but only by the arch-Modernist persecutor of Father Feeney (in which case he's actually a champion of the faith, preserving the Church from Feeneyite wickedness) ... but when Pius XII actually approves of something, officially, like the 1955 Holy Week Rites, well, suddenly he's not infallible.

You guys are a sick joke and are perverted by your diabolical refusal to accept EENS dogma.  You also condemn yourselves as schismatics, because all of Vatican II that you claim is heretical derives from YOUR ecclesiology.

Or if you're an R&R anti-Feeneyite (like a few on here), the absurd joke that an Ecuмenical Council can teach grave error, along with 60 years of papal Magisterium, but now under pain of heresy people have to accept the fraudulent "Suprema Haec".

You're both sick jokes.

There are PLENTY of pre-V2 theologians who taught as Fr Feeney did, using the very strict explanation of Trent and water Baptism.  But they were ignored and drowned out by the louder (and more advertised) modernist view.

Fr Wathen, in the first few chapters of his book “Who Shall Ascend?” quotes pages,  upon pages, upon pages of 1700-1800s theologians who upheld the strict necessity of water.