You said: "O.K hypothetically it is possible to be saved without the baptism of water in certain conditions."
Yes I have also mentioned that it is possible to be saved with the baptism of water.If someone says hypothetically, God can even do this...I will not object.
This is a correct statement and means you are no longer a Feeneyite.
You said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016. So in this sense would you also be a Feeneyite?
I do not assume hypothetical cases are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.
You should be leaving the subject at this and not be digging into it any further. You are creating discrepancies where there are none. Hold onto the above statement and leave everything else alone, and you will be free from the obsession that plagues you with this subject.
You have agreed with me that every one in general needs the baptism of water for salvation and there are no known exceptions in 2016. This is what I am saying. This is Feeneyism for me.
You also said: "the baptism of desire is not a de fide teaching of the Church"
The dogma is a de fide teachings. The dogma says all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It does not mention the baptism of desire etc.
The popes and saints could also be answering questions, as part of a campaign by the secret societies to eliminate the dogma.Obviously they were referring to hypotheticalc cases, since for you they could not have known of any practical exceptions to the dogma EENS, there were and are no known cases of the baptism of desire.
This is incorrect. A doctrine doesn't need to be solemnly defined for it to be de fide.
Lionel: The dogma EENS is de fide, it has been defined and you are suggesting that a negation of the dogma EENS is also a doctrine of the Church? And too even though there are no known cases in our reality past and present?
If we look in Canon law, Canon 1323 states: "d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."
Baptism of desire has been taught since the Church Fathers and I quote one third of all Doctors of the Church on my website as teaching it. It is de fide according to Canon law.
Lionel: So is your website referring to defacto or dejure( in principle), physically visible or physically invisible baptism of desire?
Which of the two is defide?
De fide for means that teaching of the faith which it is obligatory for us to believe in.
You also said: "if God is God and can do what he wants then he can also save a person with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water in a manner kinown to him."
You don't seem to understand the doctrine properly. Once someone receives baptism of water, they are baptized and cannot be baptized again by water, desire or martyrdom. A person cannot be baptized twice. Baptism of desire or blood can only occur when baptism of water is an impossibility.
Lionel: I said for me the baptism of desire would always included the baptism of water.However if it is said God can make exceptions then you also accept an exception; a baptism of desire followed by a baptism of water.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it well:
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): Baptism: Substitutes for the Sacrament: “The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”
The Catholic Encylopedia represents the liberals. They were wrong about Fr. Leonard Feeney. The baptism of desire was not an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
You agree that there are no known cases in 1949 or 2016 to be an exception to the dogma EENS.
As for Vatican II, it plainly taught ecumenism, which is condemned in Scripture and by previous popes.
As long as it is an ecumenism of return, it is O.K.
The Council does not contradict the dogma EENS since there are no known exceptions in 2016. So those who are saved 'in imprefect communion with the Church'(UR 3) refers to a hypothetical case. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old Feeneyite ecclesiology.
It is also taught by the Church (derived from Scripture), that General Councils are infallible. The fact that Vatican II taught something condemned in Scripture and by previous popes automatically means it is not infallible and cannot be a legitimate Council.
Since your website suggests that the baptism of desire is an exception to EENS, it would be you who would run into many difficulties in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
This was the error of Archishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX and sedevacantist bishops who have had their religious formation under him.
As long as you continue to believe it is valid, you will run into endless contradictions trying to make it lineup with previous Church teaching.
There are errors in it.However it still is a valid and traditional Council for me. I am aware that I do not interpret the Council like you, and the other sedvacantists .You'll strengthen the liberals in their error.
Attached is a diagram of the history of General Councils. Notice the large number of illegitimate Councils in the red boxes. They have been very common in the history of the Church, so you should not rule out that Vatican II is just another in the list.
It does not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Church as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.So it is acceptable for me.