It seems to me what Feeneyites are really fighting is Pelagianism.

I think this BoD debate is kind of a distraction. It's a highly technical theological debate that misses the point. The point is that modern men think that heaven is a retirement that everyone is entitled to by nature, and that you can only lose this retirement by being an egregiously evil person.

In order to combat this Pelagianism, we don't need to go down the route of stressing the need of membership in the Church for salvation (EENS), and even going so far as to deny that one must be a full and visible member, which propels you into a debate involving statements from centuries of theologians and magisterial docuмents. I think every time you try to fight this Pelagianism by going down the EENS route, the modernists smile because they have centuries of texts that create enough ambiguity for them to create the impression that everyone in the world is in the Church by implicit desire, by being "a good person" (and 99% of people are good people) you become a Catholic in the state of grace.

Avoid this.

Instead of contradicting all those doctors and saints and theologians that mention BoD, use the very SAME doctors who talk about the fewness of the saved. This is the doctrine you should look to, not EENS. Look at St. Thomas for example, who asserts BoD, but who also says that the number of the saved is few. Most of the great theologians of the Church have asserted that the number of the saved is few, even those that promote BoD.

All you need to do is point out that the doctors of the Church say that few Catholics are saved, and then say, "and if few Catholics are saved, who have all the grace of the sacraments and the 'fullness of the truth', then what are the chances that non-Catholics, who do not have the truth or the sacraments, will be saved? As St. Peter says, "And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:18)"

You don't need to point out to Protestants that it is necessary for salvation to belong to the Church, because they can dig up all those texts, and can point to the ecuмenism of the popes, to contradict you. All you need to do is quote Catholic sources on the efficacy of the sacraments (particularly Penance and the Eucharist), and say, "how do you expect to live with you do not have the body and blood of Christ, which Christ himself says, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you", and how can you be sure of salvation when you have sins on your souls and no means to confess them with any surety of absolution?"

I tell you, the modern Pelagians smile at the EENS/BoD debate because they can point to the Feeney scarecrow, "Feeney was condemned", "you are a heretic". That the number of the saved is very few, a doctrine taught by so many of the great theologians from the earliest times, supported by Christ saying that few find eternal life, is not something that they can smile at. At once you have pointed out that few achieve eternal life, then one becomes more interested in the reality of the Church, who has the true doctrine and sacraments.

You know that BoD is their preferred mechanism for justifying their Pelagian attitude that the majority of mankind is saved by being nice and polite, even though the doctors of the Church never used BoD in this way. You know that this mechanism began with the Jesuits a few centuries ago, with the finding of the Americas and the Pelagian need to somehow make these pagans Catholics by desire, "because how can so many be damned? Is it there fault they haven't heard the gospel?" Ignore BoD, ignore EENS, focus on the Ark of Noah / Church parallel that so many doctors pointed to, showing the fewness of the saved.

The problem is that Pelagians imagine that men are naturally good and deserve to go to heaven. They have no sense that man is corrupt, falls very far short of the purpose he was created for, and that even the perfect man has no natural right to heaven, because to be supernaturally joined to God is absolutely above man's nature and can only be a gratuitous gift given by God. They do not understand the difference between good and evil. They want to make heaven appear less wonderful and less gratuitously bestowed upon us than it is, and they want hell to appear less terrifying and less justly given to us.

You don't need to stress EENS to get them to wake up concerning salvation. The fewness of the saved is a more efficacious doctrine to that end (see: St. Leonard of Port Maurice's sermon).

It seems to me what Feeneyites are really fighting is Pelagianism.

I think this BoD debate is kind of a distraction. It's a highly technical theological debate that misses the point. The point is that modern men think that heaven is a retirement that everyone is entitled to by nature, and that you can only lose this retirement by being an egregiously evil person.

Bingo.  It's usually the BoDers, though, who exploit BoD to promote a brand of Pelagianism.  I've said this a hundred times before.  I don't really care about BoD per se.  But the BoDers usually hide behind classical BoD and use it as a cover for 1) Pelagianism and 2) denying Trent's dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.  Nishant here on CI is one of the only BoDers who does NOT promote Pelagianism, so I rarely argue with him about BoD.

Those are good points. The Baptism of Desire had never even been relevant or an issue with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This is, until the Americanists made it one at the final part of the XIX century. The end results are Pelagianiusm, Indifferentism, and Universal Salvation. The arch heresies of our day. The Vatican II entire ecclesiology does not really differ from that of the typical BOD "trad" promoter.  

In his article Reply to a Liberal, published in the spring of 1949 in Saint Benedict Center's From the Housetops, Mr. Raymon Karam explains under what conditions, we could speak of ahypothetical  salvific 'Baptism of Desire", without entering the realms of Pelagianism. Believed so, we do not regard the Baptism of Desire as a heresy (nor Catholics who want to adhere to it, as heretics).

According to the majority of the Fathers and Doctors, baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled:

First, that person must have the Catholic Faith. (We have already proved that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and that not even the Sacrament of Baptism can be profitable for salvation if the subject who receives it does not confess the Catholic Faith.)

Second, he must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For example, St. Bernard says that he must have an “entire yearning for the sacrament of Jesus.” 86

Third, he must have perfect charity. For St. Robert Bellarmine says that only “perfect conversion  can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity. ” 87  St. Augustine says that he must have “faith and conversion of the heart. ” 88  St. Thomas says that, as in the case of the Sacrament of Penance, so also in the Sacrament of Baptism, if sanctifying grace is to be received previous to the Sacrament, a perfect act of charity is necessary, for “if an adult is not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain remission of his sins, he obtains this remission by the power of baptism, in the very act of being baptized. ” 89  St. Bernard says that “right faith, God-fearing hope, and sincere charity” must be present. 90

Fourth, he must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church , — for, as we have shown, not even actual Baptism is profitable for salvation if it is received outside the Catholic Church (except for babies) and without an explicit will to join the Church. Much less, therefore, does baptism in voto  profit for salvation if it does not include an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.

Fifth, he must be dying  and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an absolute impossibility, not because of a contempt for it. Thus, St. Augustine says that baptism of the Spirit, or perfect conversion to God, “may indeed be found when Baptism has not yet been received, but never when it has been despised. For it should never in any way be called a conversion of the heart to God when the sacrament of God has been despised. ” 91  In the same way St. Bernard says that, since the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, “whoever refuses now to be baptized, after the remedy of baptism has been made accessible to all everywhere, adds of his own accord a sin of pride to the general original stain, carrying within himself a double cause of the most just damnation, if he happens to leave the body in the same state.” 92  Also, St. Thomas says, “It is necessary, in order that a man might enter into the kingdom of God, that he approach the baptism of water actually (in re),  as it is in all those who are baptized; or in voto,  as it is in the martyrs  and the catechumens who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent  (votum); or in figure,  as in the ancient Fathers,” — that is, in those before Christ. 93

The Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes have taught Baptism of Desire clearly.  They did not teach Universal Salvationism or false ecuмenism.  They did not teach salvation for the bad willed or indifferent.  They did not teach salvation for those outside the Church or without a supernatural Faith or perfect charity.  

They taught that non-members [else no need for BOD right] can be saved within the Church.  Yes or no?  Who dares to disagree with what they all taught?  Who here claims they taught any different?  Not me.

Jesus Christ redeemed all. All can be saved.  No one is damned to the pains of Hell through no fault of their own.  

It is sanctifying grace that saves and cleanses the soul from Original sin, water is an instrument through which sanctifying grace is obtained.  But God does not ask the impossible.  We should all agree but we won't.  

It is quite daring to reject the UOM, an authoritative letter, the Council of Trent on what is arguable "de fide".  Who dares to do so and call themselves Catholic?

I'm glad to see at least that some are coming around even if it is with the dragging of their feet and some extra shots taken at those who have helped them see the truth.

Hopefully no one says a catechumen will go to Hell if he is martyred anymore.

Better to deny Christ to avoid martyrdom so as to have a chance to be Baptized.  I knew Feeneyites who really believed that.  Incredible, the lengths they go to in order to hold fast to their novelty.  

It seems to me what Feeneyites are really fighting is Pelagianism.

I think this BoD debate is kind of a distraction. It's a highly technical theological debate that misses the point. The point is that modern men think that heaven is a retirement that everyone is entitled to by nature, and that you can only lose this retirement by being an egregiously evil person.

In order to combat this Pelagianism, we don't need to go down the route of stressing the need of membership in the Church for salvation (EENS), and even going so far as to deny that one must be a full and visible member, which propels you into a debate involving statements from centuries of theologians and magisterial docuмents. I think every time you try to fight this Pelagianism by going down the EENS route, the modernists smile because they have centuries of texts that create enough ambiguity for them to create the impression that everyone in the world is in the Church by implicit desire, by being "a good person" (and 99% of people are good people) you become a Catholic in the state of grace.

Avoid this.

Instead of contradicting all those doctors and saints and theologians that mention BoD, use the very SAME doctors who talk about the fewness of the saved. This is the doctrine you should look to, not EENS. Look at St. Thomas for example, who asserts BoD, but who also says that the number of the saved is few. Most of the great theologians of the Church have asserted that the number of the saved is few, even those that promote BoD.

All you need to do is point out that the doctors of the Church say that few Catholics are saved, and then say, "and if few Catholics are saved, who have all the grace of the sacraments and the 'fullness of the truth', then what are the chances that non-Catholics, who do not have the truth or the sacraments, will be saved? As St. Peter says, "And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:18)"

You don't need to point out to Protestants that it is necessary for salvation to belong to the Church, because they can dig up all those texts, and can point to the ecuмenism of the popes, to contradict you. All you need to do is quote Catholic sources on the efficacy of the sacraments (particularly Penance and the Eucharist), and say, "how do you expect to live with you do not have the body and blood of Christ, which Christ himself says, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you", and how can you be sure of salvation when you have sins on your souls and no means to confess them with any surety of absolution?"

I tell you, the modern Pelagians smile at the EENS/BoD debate because they can point to the Feeney scarecrow, "Feeney was condemned", "you are a heretic". That the number of the saved is very few, a doctrine taught by so many of the great theologians from the earliest times, supported by Christ saying that few find eternal life, is not something that they can smile at. At once you have pointed out that few achieve eternal life, then one becomes more interested in the reality of the Church, who has the true doctrine and sacraments.

You know that BoD is their preferred mechanism for justifying their Pelagian attitude that the majority of mankind is saved by being nice and polite, even though the doctors of the Church never used BoD in this way. You know that this mechanism began with the Jesuits a few centuries ago, with the finding of the Americas and the Pelagian need to somehow make these pagans Catholics by desire, "because how can so many be damned? Is it there fault they haven't heard the gospel?" Ignore BoD, ignore EENS, focus on the Ark of Noah / Church parallel that so many doctors pointed to, showing the fewness of the saved.

The problem is that Pelagians imagine that men are naturally good and deserve to go to heaven. They have no sense that man is corrupt, falls very far short of the purpose he was created for, and that even the perfect man has no natural right to heaven, because to be supernaturally joined to God is absolutely above man's nature and can only be a gratuitous gift given by God. They do not understand the difference between good and evil. They want to make heaven appear less wonderful and less gratuitously bestowed upon us than it is, and they want hell to appear less terrifying and less justly given to us.

You don't need to stress EENS to get them to wake up concerning salvation. The fewness of the saved is a more efficacious doctrine to that end (see: St. Leonard of Port Maurice's sermon).

That's right.  Salvation is certainly not a right.  People who disagree with Catholic teaching on BOB/D but cannot refute it will accuse others of believing this though.  Babies who go to Limbo are proof that Salvation is not a right.  

Consistent "logic" does not matter to those who believe what they want to believe rather than the Church.  

You insist that the Sacraments are necessary with an intrinsic necessity (in all circuмstances no matter what).  The word is plural.  What are the at least two sacraments that are absolutely necessary?  Baptism and what?  The Eucharist, Penance?  Perhaps the two Sacraments necessary are Marriage and Ordination.  

Please source a legitimate authority to support the claim that at least two sacraments are intrinsically necessary and name those sacraments.  

That's right.  Salvation is certainly not a right.  People who disagree with Catholic teaching on BOB/D but cannot refute it will accuse others of believing this though.  Babies who go to Limbo are proof that Salvation is not a right.  

This is not a question of "right".  It's a question of whether salvation can be merited or earned by having the proper dispositions or whether it's a free gift of God, a grace.  This notion that no one can be lost unless they've committed a deliberate mortal sin is simply Pelagianism ... it clearly renders the default state of man as salvation, which can then be lost by sin.  Basically, the notion that a natural yearning or a desire automatically leads to the grace of justification and salvation is pure unadulterated Pelagianism.