CathInfo.com

Why would God be restricted by the matter of His own sacrament? i.e. the physical water in a case where the person was looking after the water/the baptism and they die before they receive it. Or in the case of a martyr. How do you explain how the Holy Innocents are saints on the calendar? Shouldn't they be in the Limbo of Abraham then because water didn't pour over their head? The Church tells us that they are among the saints because they died as witnesses to Christ/directly for Christ.

The attached snapshot is from "My Catholic Faith - A Catechism in Pictures"

I'm not going to be able to debate it with you like a theologian, nor even on your level as you seem very researched on the topic, and have the background in the seminary, but I have an open mind and want to understand. I know there are dozens of threads on this topic here on Cathinfo. I just don't see what holds up the other side of the debate. Outside the church there is no salvation. Not everyone who says Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, yes. Only baptism with water gives the indelible character, yes. But is God without mercy like a puritanical God, and limited by physical water?

All right.

Feenyism is an overreaction to the universal salvation thesis of the modernists.

This is why it ONLY BECAME AN ISSUE IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

I mean think about it.

But many of them are too stupid and lacking in intellectual subtlety to see that.

Why would God be restricted by the matter of His own sacrament?

This post immediately proves my point ... where the Feeney Derangement Syndrome immediately scurries off to "Baptism of Desire" at the mere mention of EENS.

This has nothing to do with BoD.

All right.

Feenyism is an overreaction to the universal salvation thesis of the modernists.

This is why it ONLY BECAME AN ISSUE IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

I mean think about it.

But many of them are too stupid and lacking in intellectual subtlety to see that.

False dichotomy ... where it's either "Feeneyism" or "Univeral Salvation".

Simple fact is that 99% of modern Trad clergy simply deny the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.  Of course, realizing that it's been defined, they pay llp service to it, but they simply pull the old Clintonesque ... depends on what your meaning of "Church" is.

And, thus you have the V2 ecclesiology.

No, EENS dogma does not simply mean that there's "no universal salvation", but it means quite clearly that those who are not Catholic cannot be saved.  Period.  And it has nothing to do directly with BoD, other than that the EENS-deniers exploit "BoD" theory as the "weapon" to undermine EENS.  But the two are not related, except that the anti-EENSers deliberately conflate the two topics.

It's actually quite simple.  I've been presenting this for years, and it's never been refuted.

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church.  [DOGMA]
MINOR:  Prots, Orthodox, aka heretics, schismatics, infidels (Jews, Muslims, Hindus in Tibet) can all be saved without first converting to the One True Faith. [held by 99% of Trad clergy]
CONCLUSION:  Prots, Orthodox, heretics, schismatics, infidels ... can all be in the Church somehow.

Since one cannot be saved if one isn't in the Church, claiming that non-Catholics can be saved is tantamount to saying that they can be in the Church.

So, then, your idea of Church includes not only Catholics as some kind of subsistent visible core, but also includes a bunch of non-Catholics.

QED:  that's Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.