I’ll put it this way. I’ll go with St. Alphonsus over a layman who didn’t finish seminary. If that gives me a bad rep on this forum, so be it

I won't go with either a layman who didn't finish whatever (who cares?) or St Alphonsus.

I'm visiting this community to repent from years of intellectual indolence and learn how to save my soul. So I will go with the Church and its Faith, then its dogmas, then its doctrines and then its precepts.

In that order.

So as you see, ultimately, for the BODers, it is the road to heaven that is paved with good intentions, not the road to hell.

The road to heaven is paved with good intentions... 

This is why EENS is so crucial.  Everything about whether I am a Traditional Catholic depends on it.  Matthew dismissed the idea as being of little consequence to Traditional Catholicism; I contend that it is everything.

Since starting this thread, I have now come to agree with you 100%, on this matter.

I think that the dogmatic teachings on EENS (posted herein) only reflect our Lord's incarnation and sacrifice on the cross to show us the way to save our souls.

If we can be saved by mere desire then why could not our Lord too save himself by mere desire, instead of crucifixion?

I'd love to interrogate the Traditional Catholics who ... 1) reject Vatican II ecclesiology as erroneous or even heretical and 2) believe that non-Catholics can be saved.

MAJOR:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.
MINOR:  Non-Catholics, including infidels (Hindus, Muslims, Jews) can be saved.
CONCLUSION:  Non-Catholics, including infidels, can be inside the Church.

Then please explain how this differs from Vatican II ecclesiology, where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics.

This raises a follow up question.  Did +Lefebvre ever say it was out and out heretical?  To be clear, I realize that if he didn't say that, that doesn't mean it isn't true ,but it just occurred to me that I don't remember +Lefebvre ever out and out saying this.  He originally signed most of the docuмents, and then backpeddaled (understandably) once he saw how the things were being implemented,  but did he ever say they were out and out heretical?

I don't currently think they have to be taken in a heretical sense, but I think the way they've practically been implemented has been a disaster, and I don't think this was despite the docuмents, but because the docuмents actually do tend toward liberal conclusions even if you can technically weasel a reasonable reading out of them.

Yet I do technically wind up agreeing with this, it seems to me that someone who appears to be non-Catholic, at least, *could* be inside the Church.

I am indeed curious to see the answer from someone who thinks as you describe.

OK so I'm not really sure how to quote multiple posts on here, so I made three separate posts replying to Ladislaus.  But here I just want to clear some things up generally.

1: If you're DELIBERATELY fostering your own ignorance, that isn't invincibly ignorant.  So all these responses to me of "oh, if you were right people could just purposely stay ignorant and that would be better for them."  I mean, not really.  Even if I am wrong, that's a really silly argument that misses the point.  

2: Nobody, or at least nobody intelligent, is saying that there's salvation outside the Church.  The debate is over where the boundary lines of the Church are.  I'll at least give Ladislaus that he seems to recognize this, as he's argued that if the Feeneyite position was wrong, it would be logical to accept Vatican II's ecclesiology, but I think he'd at least acknowledge what I'm getting at here.  That the issue is at least strictly speaking not whether those outside the Church can be saved (though he'd accuse me of at least logically capitulating to Vatican II's definition of the Church.)

3: My issue with Vatican II is that it took a mile out of an inch.  The Baltimore Catechism takes an inch.  Vatican II takes a mile.  Vatican II uses the hypothetical that some people who aren't in visible communion with Rome are in fact united to the soul of the Church, and takes that to justify ecuмenism, religious liberty, a protestantized mass, and honestly at this point the spirit has gone so far that you've got modernists who won't even take a strict stand on natural law issues like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or atheism.  I will freely grant I don't take the standard latin trad line on every single issue, but I think I'm justified in objecting to that kind of stuff without feeling the need to *definitively* state that invincibly ignorant individuals can't be saved, or to *definitively* draw a line and say "X individual has to be culpable, period."  

4: I agree that anything that contradicts the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is false.  Has to be.  Absolutely has to be.  The debate, again, I'll reiterate this so it doesn't get buried, is what exactly the bounds of the Church are.  

Thank you for posting these quotes. Was the Baltimore catechism created with infallibility privileges?

These teachings directly conflict with those posted by LastTradhican. Either those councils' teachings are in error of the Baltimore catechism is in error.

The Baltimore Catechism is the catechism used by generations of Catholics in the United States before the second Vatican Council. Its use seems to have gone by the wayside since Vatican II. I would think that it is a very good source of information about what the Catholic Church teaches.  

Ascanio, your wife is Orthodox, I believe? I wrote an article on the Filioque, aimed at drawing back Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Church some time ago, please share it with her if you can. Already two Catholics I'm aware of who lapsed into Orthodoxy came back to the Catholic Church after reading it! https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ I think it is very important for Catholic Christians to evangelize separated Christians as well as non-Christians.

... cut ...

Yes my wife is Orthodox and this is why I started this thread.

I was a culpable victim of ecuмenism. Culpable because I never questioned Rome due to spiritual indolence.

I was told by my parish priest in Tokyo, where I lived, that choosing a good Christian wife was enough to please God and to build a good Catholic family. Notice the adjective "Catholic" family and not "Christian" family. He told me that a good Orthodox soul can please God more, and be more, Catholic, than a bad Catholic.

For intellectual honesty I must admit that I was, and still am, desperately, absolutely and unashamedly, in love with my wife and that I was very happy to hear what I wanted to hear without questioning it.

Today I know better but I would still not change anything, if not to save her soul.

I will add that, while my Apostolic Nuncio informed me that I did not even require Papal or Episcopal dispence to marry an Orthodox because it was a canonic marriage, we were refused permission, repeatedly, by the Orthodox hierarchy.

We experienced three gruelling years of interviews, letters, requests, etc., with Orthodox clergy in Tokyo (where we met) and Moscow (which primacy Tokyo's Orthodox church recognizes) and then in Naples (Italy), where we moved to, and reside now, to obtain dispence to get married.

During a number of very long interviews (some lasting three hours or more) I was repeatedly asked to convert to the Orthodox religion. Over and over, again and again. When it became clear that I loved only God more than my wife they gave up on trying to convert me, but asked that I promise to raise my children Orthodox. I refused this, too, which caused further delays and problems. Finally I was asked to promise that I would never try to convert my wife, nor even pray for her conversion. I underline that it was not my wife who asked me to promise not to try to convert her, but the Orthodox clergymen.

I agreed and promised and we were dispenced and authorized to get married... it took us three years to get "approved".

This anecdote only to evidence how the Orthodox church is more rigorous and honourable than our own Church's governance and why I will not try to convert her. Saving her soul is a priority but I will not break my bond.

What I do, regularly, is to pray God that His will be done, not mine. Hoping that His will, be that she converts.

Last Sunday, for the first time, spontaneously, my wife asked me to join my daughter and me in Church. She said that it was only to ensure that "little one" would behave during Mass and added that she was not converting... but, at the end of the liturgy, when I introduced her to my priest, I started crying tears of joy and, when our daighter asked why papà was crying, my wife replied: "Because God is answering papà's prayers". I know my wife well and I know how much "exploring" is costing her and what it really means.

... so I will not hurry or press her, nor will I breake my bond. But I thank you for offering me valid arguments. When it will be time, I will bring them to the surface.

I never promised to not ask others to pray for her so nothing stops you, or other members, to pray for her.
:)

I am not ashamed of my love for an Orthodox woman. God has His ways to punish and reward me and, while this journey back to Christ and into His Church is disrupting my relationship with my family of origin, it may be rewarding me in the family that I created.

My jurney begun by Providence, when I posted here seeking for legal help in Germany and read lots of "really crazy stuff" and then... I now trust Providence to continue to guide my family and me back into the Church of Jesus and away from the Church of Rome.