Yeah but what part are you rejecting? 75% of the article was a history on the EENS, which clearly shows a marked increase in liberalism in the 1600s onwards. So are you disputing this change, or just the conclusion which these changes lead to?
.
Do you or do you not admit that the 1600s started novel thinking?
.
Where do you draw the line with these novelties? You believe in St Alphonsus but you don’t go further? Or you accept salvation for ignorant natives...which is a liberalization of even St Alphonsus?
.
I honestly want to know how you (and others) draw a line? If St Alphonsus can liberalize St Thomas, and if the Pius X catechism can liberalize St Alphonsus, and if the 1940s Cushing can liberalize the Pius X catechism and condemn Feeney, then why can’t V2 and Rahner and Dulles liberalize Cushing? Where do the “doctrinal developments” end?
Actually I think you make a fair argument, but here are my thoughts.... Outside the Church there is no salvation, period. People can become incorporated into the Church unbeknownst to anyone. For instance, a validly baptized Protestant could be given the graces necessary before he dies to make an act of perfect contrition and could be saved unbeknownst to anyone around him. In the case of a catechumen who died before receiving baptism and was instructed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption, that person could be saved by the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism or by shedding his blood for Christ, provided the person made an act of perfect contrition and was thus in a state of sanctifying grace before he died.
BTW, just to be clear, in the case of the Protestant above, he did NOT die a Protestant, he died a Catholic. I believe that the Church teaches that persons baptized in heretical sects are still considered members of the Church until they reach the age of 14. Ladislaus, please correct me on this if I’m wrong about that.