Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.

 I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II.
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard  Feeney said that there are no cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) relative to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is how I understand it.

I agree with him. Literally there are no cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I in our reality in 2018.These are references to only hypothetical cases.

We cannot meet or see someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I. Neither could they do so over the last 100 years.

So I accept BOD, BOB and I.I as hypothetical. I do not reject them. They cannot be anything else.

The popes of the past did the same.When the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it is a reference to a physically invisible case. So it is not a contradiction when the Catechism also says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

So Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. Invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.

It was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were irrational.

-Lionel Andrades

 SEPTEMBER 15, 2018

If Fr.Leonard Feeney referred to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance literally, he was not wrong. Literally there are no such cases     http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/if-frleonard-feeney-referred-to-baptism.html