I have only seen a few minuties of the video in which Chris Ferrara and Mark Shea begin the debate.
Chris Ferrara says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and specifically affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus yet I know theologically he assumes the baptism of desire etc refer to explicit cases of persons saved without the baptism of water. So they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) which he has affirmed in this debate. He contradicts himself like the rest of the Church. He says all need to convert but then also says all do not need to convert. There are exceptions for him.
He is irrational since if the baptism of desire and blood, allegedly without the baptism of water is an exception to the dogma EENS then these cases would have to be explicit in 2016 or some time in the past. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions.Yet we know that if someone was saved with the baptism of desire he would be in Heaven and there would be no way any one on earth could have seen or known this person, saved without the baptism of water.Chris Ferrara's position is contradictary, irrational , non traditional and heretical.
Mark Shea does not believe every one needs to enter the Church since he also assumes that being saved with the baptism of desire and blood are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.He thinks Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong. In other words Fr. Feeney was wrong since he would not say like Mark Shea that there were known exceptions to the traditional intepretation of the dogma EENS. He would not say like Shea that there are exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, and that the Baptism or Lutheran can be saved since there are known exceptions to the dogma EENs. Vatican Council II mentions this exception for him, in Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance). For Mark Shea LG 16 refers to explicit cases in 2016 or in the past who are known to be in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise : Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao, James Bogle, Joseph Shaw agree?
So if we do not know of any such case how can it be an exception to the dogma for Mark Shea ? This was the objective mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949