So, in other words, you lied when you said that you agreed with Nishant's post.

If you agree with Suprema Haec, then your opposition to Vatican II is schismatic.

Suprema haec sacra said:

“Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar... Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

But Catholic Dogma said:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

First, Suprema Haec Sacra gives the impression that some people, who have unknowingly failed to submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved, because they do not know any better. This opens the road to the heresy of invincible ignorance.

Second, the dogma of the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation goes from the application to every human creature to “those knowing the Church to have been divinely established”, meaning there is an exception in the dogma (the exception being the invincible ignorant).


Suprema Haec Sacra  said:

“In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing...

“The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”
 

 Yet...

Catholic Dogma said:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
 

Here is a clear modernist denial of the Catholic Law of Salvation:

Catholic dogmas for salvation require:  

 1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),  
 2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),  
 3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)

Dogmas are truths from Heaven that can never change. The invincible  ignorant fails to have ALL of these requirements.  

You see, everything in Vatican II that we object to derives from the implicit faith doctrine.  Everything.

If believing in a God who rewards and punishes on the motive of God revealing suffices, then Judaism is now salvific.  There's now no problem whatsoever with any of those statements in Vatican II and made by the V2 popes.  In fact, most religions become salvific because they teach the existence of such a God based on divine authority.  Everything else in Vatican II flows from that.  Don't you people see that?  If I believed in this "implicit faith" nonsense, I would immediately have to cease being a Traditional Catholic and would drop all principled opposition to Vatican II.

I agree with your point about implicit faith.  Fr. Barbara quoted Suprema Haec which affirmed that supernatural faith is necessary (as a means) and he also mentioned earlier in his article that theological faith was necessary.  If there is any ambiguity or even error in his article it was not intentional.  He was trying to explain it using Church-approved sources.  St. Ignatius gave rules for thinking with the Church and the first rule is to always give the best possible interpretation.  If you still find something that is clearly in error, then you bring it to the attention of the author in a charitable way.  If they still insist on holding the error then you can accuse them.  Fr. Fenton doesn't accuse anyone of heresy just because they use the "soul of the Church" terminology.  Neither does Fr. Bainvel.  So I still don't understand why you want to accuse Fr. Barbara not only of being a heretic but also of being a bad-willed heretic (i.e. a public formal heretic).

Nado, I just want you to understand what logically and necessarily follows from your belief that faith in a God who rewards can be salvific.

John De Lugo was someone who believed in salvation by implicit faith. And what he writes is something most people would completely reject.

The same must be said about the Jєωs, if there are any who are invincibly mistaken about the Christian religion; for they can still have a true supernatural faith in God, and about other articles, based on Sacred Scripture, which they accept, and so, with this faith, they can have contrition, by which they can be justified and saved, provided that explicit faith in Christ is not required with a necessity of means, as will be explained later on.

Finally, if any Turks and Moslems were invincibly in error about Christ and his divinity, there is no reason why they could not have a true supernatural faith about God as the supernatural rewarder, since their belief about God is not based on argu­ments drawn from natural creation, but they have this belief from tradition, and this tradition derives from the church of the faithful, and has come down to them, even though it is mixed up with errors in their sect. Since they have relatively sufficient motives for belief with regard to the true doctrines, one does not see why they could not have a supernatural faith about them, provided that in other respects they are not guilty of sinning against the faith. Consequently, with the faith that they have, they can arrive at an act of perfect contrition.”

Is this what you believe, that Jєωs and Muslims can be saved without knowing and believing in Christ and the Catholic Faith? You see, that is what making implicit faith salvific leads to.

I will post sources against implicit faith later on.

So I still don't understand why you want to accuse Fr. Barbara not only of being a heretic but also of being a bad-willed heretic (i.e. a public formal heretic).

I am absolutely convinced that implicit faith theory is heretical.  In the final analysis, it's Pelagianism.  For 1600 years all Catholics everywhere taught and/or believed the contrary, and that to me makes it part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  I am firmly of the opinion that the Church Fathers, were they alive today, would not recognize it as even remotely Catholic.

But you have to understand that I am calling the OPINION objectively heretical.  I have no authority to raise it into the category of formal heresy.  If I were a priest, for instance, and knew that you believed in implicit faith theory, I would not refuse you communion on my own authority.  I believe the opinion to be objectively heretical, and I will argue that until my dying breath or the Church tells me otherwise, whichever comes first.  Just as St. Athanasius considered Arianism to be heretical before it was formally condemned by the Church.  Was he not right?  Of course he was.  Arianism is objectively heretical and contrary to the faith.  So do I believe implicit faith to be and I firmly believe that the Church WILL condemn it formally as such when this crisis ends.

As for bad will, that doesn't necessarily raise the belief to the level of formal heresy.  I use bad will in the sense that a person's embracing of an opinion comes not from an objective consideration of the evidence but from some bias.  So, for instance, Father Cekada admitted that he didn't like the implications of EENS and that formed his theological opinion.  So when various biases color or influence one's position, I refer to that as bad-willed.  There's a WHOLE OTHER LEVEL of bad will required for formal heresy; a person must know that something is taught by the Church and cling pertinaciously to the position anyway.  In so doing he at least implicitly rejects the teaching authority of the Church, which is what constitutes the formal motive of faith, and therefore one loses the formal motive of faith and faith itself when one rejects the authority of the Church to teach it.  I am convinced that most Traditional Catholics who hold implicit faith theory WOULD reject it if the Church formally condemned it.  That's the ultimate litmus test for formal heresy.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yes, yes, they can say that supernatural faith is required but they will say that the Jєω can have supernatural faith in God ... provided that he believes in the Rewarder God on the authority of God revealing.

Fr. Fenton gave it a different interpretation.  He said that supernatural faith means at least that much but that the more probable opinion is that faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are also necessary (as a means).  I think we should understand Suprema Haec Sacra in that light.

I think that we need to reject Suprema Haec as a hoax foisted upon the Church by the same modernists who were soon to bring the world Vatican II in all its glory.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yes, yes, they can say that supernatural faith is required but they will say that the Jєω can have supernatural faith in God ... provided that he believes in the Rewarder God on the authority of God revealing.

Fr. Fenton gave it a different interpretation.  He said that supernatural faith means at least that much but that the more probable opinion is that faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are also necessary (as a means).  I think we should understand Suprema Haec Sacra in that light.

He gave it a different interpretation alright, the liberal one. Liberals/liberalism have a knack for creating doubt, that is why liberalism is a sin. Now these liberals not only deceive themselves when they speak, but everyone they come in contact with. Until they condemn as false/heresy the minority opinion(as they call it) they will remain the same parrots for the devil.

Let's look again at the 3 infallible definitions regarding No Salvation Outside the Church –

#1 “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

#2 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”   (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

#3 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”   (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

A few talking points follow in this regard –

With dogma, one starts THERE, or WITH THEM – and works out accordingly.  Dogma is not the handmaid of theory, or some previously-argued theology, or as we see in our age simply ignored or denigrated to liberal interpretation.  

The No Salvation doctrine never needed defining previous to this time, as it was understood that the Church held and taught such accordingly.  As princes and people began to question and lose respect for the papacy, and depreciate the Church, definitions were forthcoming from the Holy Ghost.

And notice the rise in specificity with each.  
   
Also note the years in which these pronouncements were made.  One wonders how St. Thomas, who held baptism of desire, would have thusly termed his works if he lived and studied after definition 2 and 3 were made.  Surely it is to be hoped – if not assumed - that he would have submitted as a Catholic and as a preacher and teacher, and dropped any “desire” notion he otherwise propounded.  It is allowed to hope that, as there is a similar turmoil in our day on the issue of salvation, baptism – and even justification – that the Church in happier, future days, may define with further clarity on the issue.  

The original version of the Catechism of the Council of Trent - call it the Latin version - has NO MENTION of either “baptism of blood” or “baptism of desire”!  These phrases did not appear in Trent catechism copies until the late 1800s.  
 
This Council defined:   If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (he cannot enter into the kingdom of God)” (Jn. 3:5), let him be anathema.  

We are therefore obliged to believe this.

As for the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism for that matter - they do not have the same authority as definitions of the Church – or the Catechism which the defining Council of Trent promulgated.
 
We do not learn our theology directly from the Fathers or Doctors, any more than we learn our religion directly from the Bible. We learn our religion directly from the Church through her magisterium which is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost.  As Queen Isabella once said to her confessor as he attempted to answer a question she had presented to him:  “Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as they were.  I want to know what the Church says.”

Let's look again at the 3 infallible definitions regarding No Salvation Outside the Church –

#1 “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

#2 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”   (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

#3 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”   (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

A few talking points follow in this regard –

With dogma, one starts THERE, or WITH THEM – and works out accordingly.  Dogma is not the handmaid of theory, or some previously-argued theology, or as we see in our age simply ignored or denigrated to liberal interpretation.  

The No Salvation doctrine never needed defining previous to this time, as it was understood that the Church held and taught such accordingly.  As princes and people began to question and lose respect for the papacy, and depreciate the Church, definitions were forthcoming from the Holy Ghost.

And notice the rise in specificity with each.  
   
Also note the years in which these pronouncements were made.  One wonders how St. Thomas, who held baptism of desire, would have thusly termed his works if he lived and studied after definition 2 and 3 were made.  Surely it is to be hoped – if not assumed - that he would have submitted as a Catholic and as a preacher and teacher, and dropped any “desire” notion he otherwise propounded.  It is allowed to hope that, as there is a similar turmoil in our day on the issue of salvation, baptism – and even justification – that the Church in happier, future days, may define with further clarity on the issue.  

The original version of the Catechism of the Council of Trent - call it the Latin version - has NO MENTION of either “baptism of blood” or “baptism of desire”!  These phrases did not appear in Trent catechism copies until the late 1800s.  
 
This Council defined:   If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (he cannot enter into the kingdom of God)” (Jn. 3:5), let him be anathema.  

We are therefore obliged to believe this.

As for the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism for that matter - they do not have the same authority as definitions of the Church – or the Catechism which the defining Council of Trent promulgated.
 
We do not learn our theology directly from the Fathers or Doctors, any more than we learn our religion directly from the Bible. We learn our religion directly from the Church through her magisterium which is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost.  As Queen Isabella once said to her confessor as he attempted to answer a question she had presented to him:  “Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as they were.  I want to know what the Church says.”

Excellent, Excellent, explanation ,,  Couldn t have said it better myself...
God Bless you