CathInfo.com

But which one is it though? Is it a theological error to reject it? Or mortal sin? If it was such a big deal I think the theologians wouldn't be all over the board in terms of what the penalty is.

So, not only is the rejection of something that's "theologically certain" not heresy, but the theological note is also just opinion.  Most of Father Cekada's list did not even qualify it as theologically certain.

Now, those who hold that its denial has the note of heresy based it on the belief that it contradicts the Council of Trent.

Now, the problem with this is that ... Father Feeney never denied that justification by "desire", which is precisely what Trent teaches.

Nor is this semantics, or just something Father Feeney made up, but the well respected post-Tridentine theologian Melchior Cano, OP, made the same distinction, holding that infidels, for instance, could be justified but not saved ... something that was pointed out by the Conciliar "Cardinal" Avery Dulles, who had been a friend of Father Feeney.  I looked up the reference in Latin, and it was spot on.  Similarly, in the oration for Valentinian, St. Ambrose states that unbaptized martyrs are "washed but not crowned", with the "washing" referring to the one effect of the Sacrament of Baptism, namely, the forgiveness of sins, and "crowning" referring to the other, the seal of the Sacrament.  That could be read precisely as a reference to a justficiation but not salvation in the thinking of St. Ambrose, especialy since elsewhere in "De Sacramentis" he explicitly teaches that not even the most virtuous Catechumen can be saved if he dies without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Thus, many, including those at St. Benedict Center, found this "contradiction" perplexing, but ... maybe it's no contradiction, but St. Ambrose's reference to "washed but how crowned" resolves the issue.

Now, some have then tried to argue from a proposition of Baius that had been condemned that it would be gravely erroneous to claim that those who died in a state of justification could end up not entering the Beatific vision, but if you look up what it is that Baius was teaching, it's some bizarre stuff that's not actually related to justification vs. salvation.

Now, the same folks who gaslight us for "rejecting St. Thomas", 98% of them reject St. Thomas by holding that salvation is possible without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, including Father Cekada, who came up with that theological survey.

So, then, Father Cekada, what say you about something that was unanimously taught and believed for the 1500 years of Catholic history, including having enjoyed the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, namely, that explicit knowledge of and faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.  If anything might be a teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, that would be it.  But Father Cekada has not problem with a Franciscan and a couple Jesuits coming along and inventing the novelty of "Rewarder God" soteriological theory, and Father Cekada himself holds to that ... thinking that was OK to reject 1500 years of theological consensus.

Father Cekada and others gaslight about "Suprema Haec", but then ignore the decree from the Holy Office which affirms that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary by necessity of means for salvation?  And for all that they gaslight about "Suprema Haec" ... being obligatory and (for all intents and purposes) infallible, how many of them believe that it's proximate to heresy to deny geocentrism or that heliocentrism is heresy?  They just pick and choose what they want to believe.

Similarly, for about 700 years after St. Augustine, theologians universally believed the Augustinian position that infants wo die without Baptism suffer (albeit mildly) in Hell.  It wasn't until Abelard first questioned it, and then St. Thomas also agreed, that the notion of Limbo had been introduced, and now very few theologians adhere to the more severe opinion of St. Augustine.

This notion invented by Father Cekada that consensus among theologians constitutes some kind of rule of faith ... it just has no basis in reality, and Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejected it.  That's to say nothing of the fact that Catholic theologians unanimously approved of Vatican II and the New Mass as being esentially Catholic.