If Somebody can refute this i will reject BoD

https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html

From the link which starts with: "If baptism by water is impossible..."

Your assignment:
Name one circuмstance that is impossible for God to provide that baptism with water for one who desires it, and which He Himself made mandatory in John 3:5.

There really is no need to post anything else until you first name such a circuмstance.

Ok but can you answer the other arguments? I’m basically convinced by “feeney ism”

I suggest Fr. Muller, a yellow paperback book on EENS No Salvation Outside the Church.  I have read about Fr. Feeney, Boston Heresy Case.  He was never excommunicated and etc. With God there is nothing impossible.  But I can say this, I agree with Fr. Muller

Ok but can you answer the other arguments? I’m basically convinced by “feeney ism”

Sure, but to what end? Those who are convinced that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (neither of these titles are found anywhere in any official Church docuмents btw) are doctrines, will defend them no matter what. Period.

For whatever reason, BODers fail to accept that everyone who ever has been and ever will be baptized, that all of those billions of baptisms have been accomplished only through the Divine Providence. BODers need to remember that God, in making it a requirement for heaven, can never *not* provide the sacrament to whomever desires it no matter what the circuмstances are, and that He will do so by the very same providence with which He provides it for all who receive it. BODers necessarily must reject this Catholic doctrine. 

The crazy thing imo is, in order for a BOD/B to happen, the formula necessarily and purposely completely excludes the Divine Providence from having anything to do with it. A BOD says that the unbaptized person saves themself via some internal want that allegedly surfaces and takes over their mind one nano second before they die....and that God welcomes these people into heaven without ever having known them - which is exactly contrary to Scripture.

Fr. Feeney summed it up like this:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you."
         

Do you know any chapels or groups which don’t deny the salvation dogma?

The Dimonds if you consider them a group. Otherwise it's just individuals.

Do you know any chapels or groups which don’t deny the salvation dogma?

The only one I know of is in Louisville, KY when I lived there. Our Lady of the Pillar, Fr. Gavin Bitzer.

If Somebody can refute this i will reject BoD

https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/11/gen-z-feeneyites.html

Alas, nobody has the time to refute an entire 100-page diatribe.

It's a pack of lies and deception right out of the gate.

If you're sincerely seeking the truth, the information is out there so that you can find it.  If you have specific / concrete questions, go for it.

At the end of the day, however, those 95% of Anti-Feeneyites who believe that non-Catholics can be saved (vs. the tiny minority who believe that it must be someone who's at least embraced the Catholic faith and explicitly intends to be baptized) ... you're really all in schism.

If you believe non-Catholics can be saved, then, congratulations, because despite the fact that you like the Trad smells and bells (like Pervost), you're actually part of the New Religion without even reliazing it.

You're what Rahner might call "Anonymous Conciliarists".

MAJOR:  No Salvation Outside the Church.  [dogma]
MINOR:  Various non-Catholics (Prot heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, infidels who believe in a Rewarder God) can be saved.
CONCLUSION:  Various non-Catholics (Prot heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, infidels who believe in a Rewarder God) can be in the Church.

There's no avoiding the logic other than through the cognitive dissonance of intellectual dishonesty.  If non-Catholics can be saved somehow (without converting before they die of course), then those non-Catholics must be in the Church somehow.

So what does that do to your ecclesiology?  Well, now your Church includes not only actual Catholics, but various non-Catholics, Prot heretics, Orthodox schismatics, Jews, Muslims, infidels etc. (basically anybody you claim can be saved without converting).

In other words, your ecclesiology is the same as that of the Conciliar Church and is fundamental to the Conciliar religion.  Every error in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology (including Religious Liberty).

In other words, your ecclesiology is the same as that of the Conciliar Church and is fundamental to the Conciliar religion.  Every error in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology (including Religious Liberty).

And this is why this issue is of such great importance.  Some here (including Matthew) have blown it off as not important.  Oh, I beg to differ.  If anything is important, it's this question, since it's the entire foundation of the Conciliar religion.

If someone could convince me that non-Catholics could be saved, then I'd have to 100% drop all theological objections to Vatican II.  Since at that point, per my prior syllogism, the Church does in fact include non-Catholics.  There's no getting around that.

Now, one might make a case for somehow getting a Catechumen in the door due to, as St. Robert Bellarmine said, having one foot in the door (he used the metaphor of their being in the vestibule) ... so it's not 100% necessary to deny BoD to reject the Novus Ordo ecclesiology, but the second one starts to extend it to people who in no sense of the word could be considered Catholcs, that's where the wheels come off the wagon of the Traditional Catholic Faith and lead right into Conciliarism.

Karl Rahner (a brilliant, well-educated man even if a Modernist) later marvelled that among the group of conservative "Council" Fathers, not a single one made a peep about what he recognized correctly to be THE SINGLE MOST RADICAL ASPECT of Vatican II, namely, what he euphemistically referred to as "the increased hope of salvation for non-Catholics" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was some expression very close to this).  Rathner said that they made a big deal about other details, but they somehow "missed" this being the most fundamental change or shift at Vatican II.

Well, we know why they missed it.  It's because this dogma of EENS has been under assault for several hundred years, and even +Lefebvre denied EENS dogma almost verbatim.  Why?  It's because he was taught that by some priest(s) in seminary that he otherwise respected as orthodox, conservative, and even Traditionally-minded.

You'll see the same thing among the Conciliar conservative types such as you hear on EWTN.  95% of the time, you might think you were listening to Traditional Catholics.  But then when they start talking about "separated brethren", about "Christians", and about EENS ... the wheels completely come off their wagon and they instantly wax heretical.  I've heard open statements of Pelagianism (not even subtle) there, as well as a complete denial that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation (being merely helps) ... a rejection of the dogma taught at Trent.

This is in fact the foundation of the Conciliar religion, the new ecclesiology (and soteriology ... which goes hand in hand).  Now, it is possible to develop an articulation of BoD that doesn't wreck Catholic ecclesiology, but such articulations among modern BoDers have been few and far between ... and, quite frankly, they're extremely weak.