I guess that I do not understand why do you need a theologian to tell you what you are reading.

In practice, your criteria (and those of the typical Feeney adherent) appear to be these:

1. No anathema, no belief. A Catholic’s obligation to adhere to Church teaching is restricted to only those matters that the infallible judgment of the Church has solemnly proposed for belief as dogmas of the faith.

2. Free interpretation of magisterial texts. The individual lay Catholic is free to determine for himself the “literal meaning” of these (few) solemn infallible pronouncements, and contradict what popes, bishops, and approved theological manuals have taught about them for centuries.

The first principle was condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Dz 1722).

The second is the Protestant principle of unmediated free interpretation — but instead of a Bible, each lay believer examines a vernacular Denzinger.

So, when you ask me, “If one accepts these canons [on baptism] as they are written… does one, in any way, fall into error?” my response is: If someone accepts them as you think they were written, he falls in every way into error.

For you approach these canons, and indeed all pronouncements of the magisterium, without having first submitted to all the obligations for belief or adherence that Vatican I and Pius IX imposed.

This refusal of submission — and not the particular issue of extra Ecclesiam — is the fundamental error from which all the other errors of Feeneyism flow.

The Church’s requirements are a package. You accept and submit to them all, or you can’t honestly call yourself a Catholic.

And no matter what category theologians may attach to baptism of desire or baptism of blood — de fide, Catholic doctrine, or just “theologically certain” — to refuse adherence to a teaching in any of these categories is still a mortal sin against the faith.

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

It's useless to attempt to show St. Augustine did not teach BOD when St. Thomas quotes him in his Summa Theologica in support of this very doctrine, multiple times.

Quote from: trad123

It's useless to attempt to show St. Augustine did not teach BOD when St. Thomas quotes him in his Summa Theologica in support of this very doctrine, multiple times.

The point is that the OM was not unanimous. AND I can post St. Thomas saying that water was an absolute necessity.

Either way - please, feel free to post what the H you are defending - - - - -PLEASE QUOTE THE CHURCH'S DOCTRINE OF BOD.

Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.