Quote from: Ambrose

I would have to read the article before commenting.  Do you have a link to it?  I looked on their website but I did not see it.  

It was supposedly published 21 years ago (lol!). I don't think it was ever online.

This is what the Dimonds say:

The CMRI twice published in their Quarterly Magazine an article entitled, “The Salvation of Those Outside the Church.”  It was published in the Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary, The CMRI’s publication (Vol. XXIV, No. 70, p. 10.).  

I suppose you would have to call up the CMRI.

If true, I agree it is an unfortunate title, yet it does not necessarily mean a denial of the dogma.

It seems that "outside" has been used meaning "not a member" by some others as well:

Quote from: A. Tanquery

"(a) It is necessary by a necessity of means to belong to the soul of the Church: for this means nothing other than that faith and charity, or the state of grace, is necessary in the present order of things; which all Christians concede. Now, any adult who is sincerely following the dictates of his conscience, can attain to these dispositions, with the help of God's grace, as is expounded in the Tr. de Gratia [i.e. his own treatise on Grace], (no. 88).

"(b) It is equally necessary by the necessity of means to belong to the body of the Church at least in voto, i.e. to have a sincere desire of entering the body of the Church; however, in the case of those who do not know [or recognize] the true Church of Christ, an implicit intention [votum] is sufficient; i.e. that intention which is included in a perfect act of contrition or of love of God, by which one sincerely wills to keep his commandments; and since one of the divine commandments is to embrace the Church, he who loves God wills implicitly to carry out this command.

"(c) However, it is not necessary by a necessity of means to belong to the body of the Church in fact, but it is only necessary by a necessity of precept; and therefore, he who remains outside the Church inculpably is not damned by that very fact, but can be saved, granting the conditions we have posited." (A. Tanquerey, S.S. Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, Treatise "De Ecclesia Christi", ch. 1, no. 161 (Tornaci: Desclee, 1899), p. 444.

Yes and I will take the Athanasian Creed, the infallible definitions, and what all the Saints said over what this guy or some other recent "modern theologians" say any day.

Quote from: SJB

Can you produce an authority who explains the dogma as meaning membership is absolutely necessary?

I already said I admit bod/bob.

But as already shown ad infinitum, people today here and now believe what no Saint ever taught and what the Church has never taught, such as people in invincible ignorance being saved IN false religions without any supernatural faith or knowledge of the Trinity or Incarnation.

So yes that IS denying the dogma and believing in salvation outside the Church.

I remember Bishop Fellay talking about a Buddhist who had never heard about the faith, and he said that somehow the Buddhist without the faith could be in a state of grace.

Quote from: Cathedra

But as already shown ad infinitum, people today here and now believe what no Saint ever taught and what the Church has never taught, such as people in invincible ignorance being saved IN false religions without any supernatural faith or knowledge of the Trinity or Incarnation.

Well, that is obviously wrong. Supernatural faith and charity have been required at all times for all men. That is de fide.

Reign of Mary, Winter 1992, Vol. XXIV, No. 70,
“The Salvation of those outside the Church”;
Winter 1996, Vol. XXVI, No. 83; and Winter 2004.

I can understand why the Dimond "brothers" (they're not monks)
would mention the date and issue but not post the content.  For
them, only talking ABOUT the article serves their purpose, and failing
to quote it directly gives them the 'freedom' to provide their own
interpretation, which can include their bias and it can omit words or
concepts contained in the actual article that pose an 'inconvenience'
for the Dimond "brothers" (they're not monks), in the message
they want to promote.  

For example, the Dimond siblings say they are "brothers" and that
they're in this "monastery" (MHFM), but they are objectively not
monks, so it would be inconvenient for their message, that is, their
propaganda, for them to have on their website, "We are not monks."
For if they were to say, We are not monks on their website it
would be the truth.  And since they don't say that, they are
concealing the truth, which is a kind of lie.  So they "kind of lie," by
omission.

If they "kind of lie" about themselves, it is not much of a stretch to
find them "kind of lying" about others too, like CMRI, for example.