CathInfo.com

Perhaps the key word is "explicit"?

I'm confused by the CMRI's position.  They clearly don't think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary for salvation but they don't seem to have any problem at all with those who do think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary.  Also, while they clearly believe that BOD can save a non-Catholic, they don't refuse the sacraments to those who think the Sacrament of Baptism (Water) is a necessity of means for salvation (Fr Feeney's position).  So does that mean that they think Fr Feeney's position is acceptable?  The primary difference between Fr Feeney and people who affirm that explicit faith is necessary would be that the Sacrament is likewise necessary (which is clearly stated in the Council of Trent).  So maybe the CMRI doesn't have a problem with people who are taking Trent literally?  I don't know.  I personally think MHFM is correct on this issue.  They quote multiple popes who affirm infallibly that justification cannot be separated from the Sacrament and the basis for the opposing view can only be two words from Trent ("or desire") which can reasonably be read to mean that both the Sacrament and desire are necessary.  Theologians, no matter how highly esteemed, cannot outrank the popes on matters of faith and morals.  And interpreting dogma is not allowed.  We are bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, not by the interpretations of theologians.  I know that sometimes the word interpretation is sometimes loosely defined to mean any explanation of the terms, but when the interpretation/explanation ends up contradicting the obvious literal meaning of the dogma, we have a problem.

I'm confused by the CMRI's position.  They clearly don't think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary for salvation but they don't seem to have any problem at all with those who do think that explicit faith in the incarnation is necessary.  Also, while they clearly believe that BOD can save a non-Catholic, they don't refuse the sacraments to those who think the Sacrament of Baptism (Water) is a necessity of means for salvation (Fr Feeney's position).  So does that mean that they think Fr Feeney's position is acceptable?  The primary difference between Fr Feeney and people who affirm that explicit faith is necessary would be that the Sacrament is likewise necessary (which is clearly stated in the Council of Trent).  So maybe the CMRI doesn't have a problem with people who are taking Trent literally?  I don't know.  I personally think MHFM is correct on this issue.  They quote multiple popes who affirm infallibly that justification cannot be separated from the Sacrament and the basis for the opposing view can only be two words from Trent ("or desire") which can reasonably be read to mean that both the Sacrament and desire are necessary.  Theologians, no matter how highly esteemed, cannot outrank the popes on matters of faith and morals.  And interpreting dogma is not allowed.  We are bound by the literal meaning of dogmas, not by the interpretations of theologians.  I know that sometimes the word interpretation is sometimes loosely defined to mean any explanation of the terms, but when the interpretation/explanation ends up contradicting the obvious literal meaning of the dogma, we have a problem.

I have heard these and similar things from the Dimonds as well.
But considering that after the Council of Trent the Pope established a seperate congregation specifically tasked with interpreting the council's decrees, the idea that interpreting a dogma is not allowed must be wrong.
In actuality, language works in a way so that it must always be interpreted. And everyone interprets to a degree whenever he hears words or sentences. Only through interpretation they convey any meaning to him.
So the question is not whether intepretation is allowed or not but rather to whom is given authority to interpret.
And I think that authority belongs to those theologians who were tasked with it; not the Dimonds.