CathInfo.com

I agree.  II (invincible ignorance) should be stricken from the Catholic vocabulary.  That argument from II implies clear-cut Pelagianism.  Ignorance can never be salvific, but merely exculpatory.  Period.  If one is inculpably ignorant, then the ignorance is no sin, but that says absolutely nothing about what is required for salvation, supernatural faith, charity, etc.  You could be as invincibly ignorant as anyone who's ever lived, but if you have no supernatural faith, you cannot be saved.  There's this hidden (or not-so-hidden) Pelagian idea that unless you actively and explicitly do something evil, you are saved by default.  That is not true.  On account of Original Sin, we are lost by default.

It's even worse than this with hardcore IIers. Not converting or knowing about the Catholic Faith is a ticket to heaven while being in the Church puts you in a fewness of the saved lottery. The idea promoted by IIers is that people who have actively posessed Faith, Hope and Charity are less preferred by God. This guy's entire debate is based on trying to not say this.

This anti-logic is astounding to me. I remember when I first grasped the sede position that I would pose the question to others "why be a Catholic at all if I can be saved as a Neoplatonist or a pagan?" I mean hey, if that's true, I'll go right back to following Plato and Plotinus, it's a lot easier /sarcasm

Such a position, honestly, just shows a lack of supernatural faith. They look at God as if He is looking for every reason to throw us into hell; but then look at infidels, et al, as if He is looking for every reason to save them. When in reality He is looking for the latter in both cases, with the expectation that you do everything to follow His precepts, not man's.

See this is the thing, when Frankie says not to convert the Orthodox, Lutherans etc it's because of this. When people say EENS isn't the primary issue or that it isn't THE primary explicit heresy of VII their eyes aren't focused on how the dogma interacts with what the modernists do and say. 

Gave the debate a full watch and I have an immediate thought about why pinesap would debate the Dimonds instead of an explicit BoDer.

An explicit BoDer would have destroyed pinesap more definitively in a sense. He couldn't have hidden in the way he did because he tries to use Trent how Fr. Jenkins (or a strict Aquinas BoDer) would have defended explicit BoD, the Dimonds couldn't capitalize on the greatest contradiction in his position because they believe BoD is heretical.

The debate between pinesap and an explicit BoDer would be...
1) Explicit BoDer attacks loose EENS and say that Trent only taught explicit faith and that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation.
2) pinesap word salad about Pius IX/XII yada yada
3) Explicit BoDer says sure whatever (he can accept or deny what pinesap's premise, depends on if he wants to play word games or not) but Trent infallibly defined BoD as explicit
4) pinesap is trapped (there are a few lines of argumentation from here that work nicely and he can't really do anything at this point)

Debate over. There are a couple of intermediary steps I won't reveal because I would prefer an element of surprise if pinesap ever debates me on "implicit faith"

Worth noting another pinesap position

As a new convert from Orthodoxy, a reverent Novus Ordo is beautiful. To me it's more preferable to well reknown Eastern Churches' liturgies.