CathInfo.com

Lad,

I'm not going to follow suit with your splitting up of my posts as though these thoughts are unrelated, all needing to be treated separately.  You're taking me out if context and not reading what I'm saying right out of the gate. It's clear, in fact explicit, that what I said about necessity was directed at happenby.
.
I know that this approach is a good way to bury the question I asked you three pages ago and basically reset the discussion to square one. But that doesn't help anyone, and it's probably the source of your impatience-- even if we disagree I've not done anything to warrant that attitude of yours .

Do you disagree then that "I. You must believe the teachings of both the solemn and the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (Vatican I)."?

Rahner was HONEST ... even if heretical.  He had every reason to distort the historical / Patristic record, but he wouldn't do it because he had a certain amount of intellectual integrity that most Traditionalist BoDers lack.

Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.