One who identifies as Protestant denies the above doctrines, by definition.  They cannot be saved as a Protestant, no matter their good will.  How do you define "good will" anyway?  They can only be saved if they ACTIVELY reject their heresies, their protestant religion and become catholic.  Salvation is not in the mind.  Being a catholic is not a mental state.  Christ told us to (actively) do good and avoid evil.  We must EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to be saved; we cannot just believe.  To become a catholic is to act to join the Faith.  "Good will" is a mental first step, but it requires the fulfillment of the desire for Truth.  "Good will" does not supply the sacraments; it does not supply membership in the Church; it cannot supply heaven.

If the John 6 passage allows for no exceptions whatsoever, why is it that baptized infants in the Western Rite aren't damned?  (Since, unlike the Eastern Rite, the western rite does not allow infants to receive communion.)  

If the John 6 passage allows for no exceptions whatsoever, why is it that baptized infants in the Western Rite aren't damned?  (Since, unlike the Eastern Rite, the western rite does not allow infants to receive communion.)  

That's because there are two different types of necessity involved.  Only Baptism is necessary by necessity of means for salvation.  Holy Communion is not.  I'll try to look up the theological passages on this subject later.

Byzcat, to be clear Feenyism denies baptism of blood and desire

Some here deny any baptism of desire only

Some hold that there is limited baptism of desire (for example they believe that if you are of good will and desire to join the Church you are in the same state as a catechumen ) trying to follow the doctrine of the Church which says that it is possible to obtain the state of sanctifying grace before the reception of the sacraments (like for example how a perfect act of contrition justifies before confession). Which is borne out in scripture (Peter referring to the saved outside the ark, and the paralytic who was told his sins were forgiven by Christ without either faith or contrition, as well as St. Emerentiana and countless martyrs saved without water baptism and prayed to in countless liturgies)

Also you asked about the three sacraments of initiation (this is the eastern view) but as Ladislas pointed out the view is different in the west. You probably need to know the three positions to see where you fit before  wading into the sea of argument
:cheers:

Yes essentially Feenyites are Dogmatic about it.

About what?  We are certainly dogmatic about the fact that there's no salvation outside the Church.  What do you have in mind here?

I honestly see zero issue with what +Lefebvre said about this issue

What +ABL was arguing for has nothing to do with BOD; the question of “ignorant” non-Catholics is a totally separate question.  It’s also easier to answer because theologians are much more in unison.  +ABL’s opinion is totally contrary to St Thomas, St Augustine and (most recently) Pope St Pius X.  The fact that people mix-n-match the issues of “ignorance of the Faith” with BOD shows the depths of confusion that the enemies of the Church have sown since the 1600s.  It also shows the extreme deterioration of critical thinking of Modern man. 

One can hold a EENS without being a heretic for believing in baptism of blood. To a Feenyite it would be heresy.

That's not true.  BOD/BOB is not heresy, yet it's not "de fide".  The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only.  Feeneyites call heresy when anyone speaks of BOD/BOB in relation to people who are not formal catechumens.  This is the only situation that the Church Fathers, St Thomas and St Alphonsus speak of it.  They too, would consider it heresy.