Then would you say that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office 1949 was wrong in the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO), since LOHO assumed BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center in the text of the Letter?

 E-mail correspondence

 Lionel:

...we agree here though this is not the real issue.

Since we agree that we cannot identify any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I),outside or within the Church, are you saying that in general, all non Catholics on earth in 2019 are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) and they need to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation?

Since for me there are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, Vatican Council II is saying that ll need to formally enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism to avoid Hell ( for salvation). Would it be the same for you ?

Similarly since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 2 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases, we cannot identify such cases on earth; they are not real people in the present times, there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS ?

Then would you say that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office 1949 was wrong in the Letter of the Holy Office (LOHO), since LOHO assumed BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center in the text of the Letter?

-Lionel Andrades