This is the very definition of Modernism:

You take a Catholic definition of dogma, apply some distinction and tortured logic, stir it all up, and then proclaim that the Church believes nearly the exact OPPOSITE of what the dogma actually taught.

For 1600 years, the entire Church taught and believed that there could be no salvation without knowledge of and belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

Shortly before 1600, a handful of Jesuits, responding to the discovery of the New World, and echoing Fr. Cekada's sentiments that they could simply not believe that all those people had been lost (so doing emotion-based "theology") ... invented "Rewarder God" theory.

deLugo, also a Jesuit, picked up on this.

XavierSem cited deLugo as teaching:  "... Turks and ... Moslems, as well as the Jews, ... [and] most heretics ... can be saved."

This is a word-for-word denial of the solemn dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence:  "[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that ... pagans, ... Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock."

How were they able to overturn Catholic dogma and profess the opposite?

St. Alphonsus explains that it was by applying a "distinction".  St. Alphonsus notes that "all the Scriptures and Church Fathers" clearly teach the necessity of explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.  But these Jesuit Modernist-heretic innovators claimed that this "necessity" was but a necessity of "precept" and not a necessity of means.  So, until the Church explicitly condemned this distinction, they could escape the charge of heresy ... despite being able to use this distinction to word-for-word deny EENS dogma ... as deLugo did.

Evidently, however, and tragically, St. Alphonsus was unaware that the Holy Office in 1703 had condemned the "necessity of precept" distinction as applied to this issue and maintained that explicit knowledge of the central mysteries of the faith were necessary by a "necessity of means" for salvation.  So much so that EVEN IN DANGER OF DEATH, Baptism was not permitted without this knowledge.  Now the Church has always made concessions for "danger of death" scenarios, where, for instance, doubtful measures can be taken if they're all that are possible ... doubtful Sacraments may in that case and only in that case be received.  So by making this statement, the Holy Office was saying "not a chance," this opinion is NOT "probable" as St. Alphonsus declared later, ignorant of this decree from the Holy Office.

When we take that distinction off the table, and as Catholics we MUST, since it was rejected by the Holy Office, and that decision never overturned, we MUST REGARD Rewarder God theory to be heretical, since without said distinction it contradicts "all the Scriptures and Church Fathers".

Here's the Holy Office Decree:  "Question:  Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to the remark of the Apostle ... from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case or urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.  Response:  A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized."

So, after about 100 years of churn on the "Rewarder God" theory, despite the Holy Office condemnation, we have people like deLugo using this distinction to word-for-word contradict Catholic dogma.

THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MODERNISM ... to take tortured logic and false distinctions to cause the meanings of Catholic dogma to change, even to the point of claiming that they mean the very opposite of what they actually say.

If Catholics may do this to EENS dogma, then why couldn't Pius IX's condemnation of Religious Liberty really NOT apply to what Vatican II taught?  After all, if you can go from saying that infidels cannot be saved to saying that infidels CAN be saved, what Catholic dogma is safe?

In addition, this heresy that non-Catholics can be saved is at the very heart of EVERY SINGLE VATICAN II "ERROR".  Catholics who believe that non-Catholics can be save don't have a leg to stand on in rejecting Vatican II, and so are basically in objective schism.  If non-Catholics can be saved, then, since there's no salvation outside the Church, it necessarily follows that non-Catholics can be in the Church, so Vatican II subsistence ecclesiology is right on the money.

//When we take that distinction off the table, and as Catholics we MUST, since it was rejected by the Holy Office, and that decision never overturned//

TBH I'm a little bit confused here.

If I lived in 1703, and the facts were as you say, yeah, my reaction would be "well, I guess I was wrong about that, the Holy Office knows better than me, I'm gonna submit to the Holy Office." 

Of course, I don't think (and you seem to be conceding this) that the decision was actually infallible, just that its an issue of authority and submission.

Here's my issue I guess, we're not living in 1703.  We're living in a time where all the clergy, both traditionalist and modernist, take the more "liberal" view on  this (there might be one or two exceptions, but you know what I mean.)  I'm seriously doubtful that there's a single bishop, anywhere in the world, who takes the strictest view here.

So like... maybe we're wrong (or maybe the Holy Office was wrong in 1703) but it seems like submission to authority at least leans toward the opposite conclusion, currently, than it would have in 1703.  

Garbage. Church Fathers all had a "strict" interpretation of EENS.  So strict, that about a half dozen of them explicitly REJECTED Baptism of Desire.

Before we proceed any further, can people be saved without explicit knowledge of and belief in the Holy Trinity and incarnation?

To say YES would be the "strict" definition of EENS (as shared by all the Church Fathers, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, etc.)

To say NO would be allowing infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. to be saved.

Most of you EENS laxists deliberately conflate the issue of Baptism of Desire with EENS as a smokescreen.

So, before we go any further, you need to define where you stand.

Do you believe that infidels, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved?

We should probably *also* distinguish between the infidels (as mentioned above) and broadly speaking "Christian heretics" like Protestants, EOs, etc.

There are really three different things usually going on in the EENS/BOD debates here.

1: BOD/BOB for Catechumens.  Some people here (you included) do disagree with this idea, but if its limited to this, nobody here seems terribly concerned with it.  Nevertheless it is one facet of the issue.  This is NOT an EENS issue, IMO.

2: BOD/BOB for those who appear to be infidels.  I used the phrasing of "appears to be" deliberately for precision.  This would be an issue of BOD/BOB AND an EENS issue.

3. Salvation for those who appear to be Christian heretics (Protestants, EOs, far eastern Christians, whatever.)  Although this is an EENS issue, it is NOT an issue of BOB/BOD.  I don't see how it could be, someone who is already validly water baptized wouldn't fall under BOD/BOB.  The comparatively lax position here (if one did decide to take it) would come down to a more charitable assessment of certain people being only material heretics (or at least allowing the possibility thereof), not BOD or BOB.

This is also my perspective as someone who recently returned to the Faith. What exposed VII errors for me, was the lax interpretation of EENS and the BoD doctrine. If these are correct, then VII merely reflects them and embraces them. If they are an error, then VII is in error. If they are correct, then VII is correct.

The EENS dogma is like a beacon of truth that calls us all back to the Faith and sheds the water between dogma and interpretation. It is like a telltale and revealing test for the faithful.

It is so simple, so pure, so evident and even so logical: why would God create His Church if those outside it could then enter it without even knowing of it or desiring to enter it. By the so called "implicit" desire... quite a stretch to justify ecuмenism, inter faith religious dialogue and relativism in general. Implicit desire seems like a theory concocted by Frankfurt School to dilute the Truth.

Look, we all recognize that God is omnipotent and that He can save anyone... But is it not somewhat arrogant to presume that one (*) can understand how God uses His almighty powers to save souls who are not in His Church, and then go as far as devising a teaching that explains it?

(*) I include Popes and Church leaders.

ascanio, for someone who recently returned to the Faith, you are seeing everything very clearly.  I am perplexed at why so many Traditional Catholics just DO NOT SEE these things that appear all-too-obvious to me.  If someone were to convince me that the lax interpretation of EENS is in fact Catholic, then I'm completely done with Traditional Catholicism.  I see zero reason to reject Vatican II.  But we see its fruits, the rampant religious indifferentism and relativism and loss of faith.  Also, when we have people claiming that Catholic teaching is in fact word-for-word the OPPOSITE of what the Church has dogmatically defined, it renders all dogmatic definitions meaningless and to be so much relativistic nonsense.  In other words, the Modernists were right all along.  As you point out, lax EENS-ism renders the Church to be almost meaningless, Church dogma to be almost meaningless ... as everything reduces to your sincerity in seeking the truth.

2: The preservation of the Latin Mass over and against the Novus Ordo was itself a sufficient reason IMO.

I wonder if it was a sufficient reason...

N.O. liturgy is but a public expression of an erroneous doctrine, as a fever is but the symptom of an illness. If I cure the fever but not the illness, I have accomplished little. If I reinstate the Latin Mass, without eradicating religious liberty, ecuмenism, relativism, kingship dilution, pluralism, etc., I am not sure that we will have won Mons Lefevbre's war, but only a battle.

This is why eradicating EENS's false interpretations is key to restoring the Church's purpose: saving souls.

If we cure only the symptoms of VII and not its causes (as EENS false interpretations), we will not cure the Church of its governance's errors and souls will be led straight to hell.

This is also the reason why I stopped attending ICRSS Latin Mass: I was merely signalling virtue without having the courage to address the cause. I was being a hypocrite. What's the point of attending a Latin Mass where the celebrant embraces the errors that want that liturgy abolished in the first place?

No, these most certainly are NOT separate issues.

First of all, there's no strict definition of what "Ecuмenism" means, but it's rooted in the notion that people in other religions are our "separated brethren," and that becoming a Catholic is not some binary conversion experience, but a moving closer to the "fullness of truth."  That's how I understand Ecuмenism.  Well, if we have heretics and infidels who are in the Church, they are our brethren, in so far as they are fellow Catholics, but they are materially separated because they don't have the fullness of truth.  So unity is already there, formally, but material separations remain, and Ecuмenism tries to bring people closer.

Religious Liberty:  If people save their souls and please God by sincerely following their (even-erroneous) consciences, well, people have a right to please God and save their souls.  ergo:  People have a right to follow their (even-erroneous) consciences.

Q.E.D.

I see your point with lacking a concrete definition on ecuмenism.  But what I’m getting at is the presumption that just because some individual Protestants might subjectively be in a state of grace that theeefore we can worship alongside them etc.
I’m confused as to how you think trad clergy are so dumb as to just be missing the obvious.  I know that’s technically a strawman but I don’t get how your views reduce to a different conclusion than that 

I'm in the Eastern Rite, so this whole argument (about the conciliar church) doesn't apply to me.

I am interested to learn about your Eastern Rite.

Kindly, would you invest a little time to point me to a couple of succinct (under 30 minutes) videos that explain your Rite, in of its own and that explain its origins and the differences with the Catholic rite of Rome? I would very much appreciate them.

I am interested to learn about your Eastern Rite.

Kindly, would you invest a little time to point me to a couple of succinct (under 30 minutes) videos that explain your Rite, in of its own and that explain its origins and the differences with the Catholic rite of Rome? I would very much appreciate them.

I’ll try to do some research.  I’m Ukrainian rite btw