I think Lad meant Vatican I, not Vatican II.
But I already supplied a quote from St. Thomas explaining that implicit faith (his term) suffices, so long as there is an explicit faith in at least one article of faith.
Yet I remain unclear about what precisely he thinks Vatican I said which would purport to annul the common and constant teaching of the OUM (and the EM, per Trent) on BOD.
Fair enough that he probably meant Vatican I.
Ugh so the issue is there are multiple conversations going on here that are all being labeled "BOD."
Ladislaus has opinions on other things related to BOD and EENS. But what's *really* getting him here is the idea of "implicit faith", ie. that Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc. could be saved by implicit BOD, faith in a God that rewards, and perfect contrition. The meat of his argument is that *this* contradicts the Tradition of the Church for the first 1600 years of its history.
I suspect that going along with this, Ladislaus would disagree with your interpretation of St Thomas. At any rate, his opinion alone, while weighty, wouldn't be OUM.
I think he's just saying Vatican I clearly established the *idea* of OUM, not that it contradicts BOD per se.
Now here's the thing. I think what *you* are arguing for as OUM is just the idea of baptism of desire more generally, which Ladislaus opposes, but less strongly. But that's a SEPARATE conversation than the conversation about whether salvation by implicit faith is possible.
Here's where I hit a roadblock though. Its really hard for me to believe that everyone but Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen is just ignorant of something that's easily demonstrable theologically by the OUM. Almost all of the clergy, whether they take a more HOC position like the FSSP, the Traditionalist R and R priests in the SSPX or SSPX Resistance, *and* the Sedevacantists *all* seem to take the position here. I could see possible explanations of the discrepancy if some group were to agree with Fr. Feeney (at least on EENS, if not straight up BOD.) If the Sedevacantists held to the stricter view, perhaps we could say this is the poisoned fruit of V2. If the R and R were stricter, perhaps we could hold that the issue is giving too much weight to the non infallible teachings of a narrow period of history, say, 1870 to 1960 or so. But the thing is, *both* groups generally hold to Archbishop Lefebvre's comparatively "loose" EENS that says all sorts of religious people *can* be saved in spite of their errors, not just erring materially Catholics, but also Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Almost all of the Sedevacantist and R and R clergy believe salvation is *theoretically open* to such people, just despite their religion and not because of it. Now I think there's room to make a mistake here. Just because something *can* happen doesn't mean that its going to, or that we can count on it. But the issue is, has God dogmatically ruled out the possibility, or not? Ladislaus (and a few other posters here, and Fr. Feeney and Fr. Wathen in the historical realm) would say that he has, but the *vast* majority of Trad clergy, both sedevacantist and non sedevacantist, would say he hasnt.
And I don't see nearly enough clear evidence to say that almost all of the Trad clergy are just brazenly wrong here. Now if someone could truly prove to me that I was obliged to believe that anyone who isn't a formal and visible member of the Church is damned, I would certainly accept it. But the problem is the "proof" is usually just verbatim quoting the "plain meaning" of Florence or Unam Sanctum, which the Trad clergy are certainly aware of. ie. if just quote bombing florence isn't convincing to such intelligent people as Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Cekada, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Sanborn, or really pretty much any of the priests and bishops even on the far end of the Trad spectrum, I don't really see why it should be convincing to me. "Lol I've read Florence I know more than basically all the clergy in the world about EENS." To be fair to Ladislaus, I know he went to seminary and has been a Catholic for a long time. He certainly knows more than *me*.
Still finding this one hard to believe TBH.