CathInfo.com

So bear with me a bit, as if you just met me.  We have the classic definition of "membership" since the time of Bellarmine which Pius XII defined in his Mystici Corporis.  You know that definition.  We also have the lose or "imperfect" definition by theologians in order to get non-members of the Church into the Church as "members" who have the possibility of salvation.  Do I have this correct, can you please elaborate or clarify?

I agree, basically.  Except that I wouldn't say that MC "defined" membership in the sense of a doctrinal definition.  It's a Magisterial endorsement of the definition for sure.

Also, these theologians wouldn't considered imperfect membership as a way of getting "non-members" into the Church as members.  They don't consider imperfect members to be non-members.  They consider it possible to be a member of the Church in a partial or imperfect way, so that only members of the Church can be saved (even if they are only imperfect members).

I agree, basically.  Except that I wouldn't say that MC "defined" membership in the sense of a doctrinal definition.  It's a Magisterial endorsement of the definition for sure.

Also, these theologians wouldn't considered imperfect membership as a way of getting "non-members" into the Church as members.  They don't consider imperfect members to be non-members.  They consider it possible to be a member of the Church in a partial or imperfect way, so that only members of the Church can be saved (even if they are only imperfect members).

Okay.  I anticipated you perhaps saying it wasn't "defined".  I believe I have read that in encyclicals when is clarified and put in the Acta it is infallible.  Regardless, I believe that is the standard definition.  This is something Fenton reiterates in his book rather frequently and clearly unless I have misread him.  Either way I do not see this as a problem.

I believe saying non-members who are within the Church by desire and imperfect members are two ways of saying the same thing.  Again Fenton is very clear in saying that one cannot desire what they already have and that members of the Church according to the "strict" or classical definition are already baptized, profess the faith and submit to legitimate authority.  

For those who tend think of membership and being within the Church as being one and the same thing with no other way of being "within" the Church it is easier to call them "imperfect members".
Regardless of how it is phrased they are not members "in the strict sense" but are within the Church by desire.  If that desire is salvific they have a supernatural faith and perfect charity and of course are not aware of the necessity of baptism or the need to be within the Church through no fault of their own.  

In my opinion the "imperfect member" is much like the "soul" of the Church in that it is not a perfect analogy.  Non-members (or imperfect members) are spoken of as being attached to or within the "soul" of the Church which they teach is not one and same as the body, we both know the soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost and not some wider version of the Mystical Body of Christ which included non-members or if you prefer "imperfect members".

Please clarify for me again, where you believe I might be incorrect or lacking in something.  

Hi LOT,
Your explanations are very hard to understand because you are using quasi-modernist terms, which attempt to explain salvation outside of clear, simple catholic teaching.  Theologians often do this, and because they are not infallible, it can be confusing.  So, based on what has been infallibly defined by the Church, here is what we know, without a doubt:

1.  EENS = you must be a member of the church to be saved.
2.  Christ = you must be baptised by water and the holy spirit to be saved.
3.  Florence = you must be a member of the church to be saved.
4.  Trent = one can be justified (i.e. receive sanctifying grace) if they 1) properly understand baptism and the Church and 2) desire baptism.
5.  Trent pt 2 = the formal sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Church teaching says that there are only 3 classes of souls:
1.  Baptised members
2.  Unbaptised non-members
  b.  This includes unbaptised catechumens, who are justified.  Per Church teaching they are not yet members.

The only argument one can make is that an unbaptised, catechumen COULD make it to heaven, based on some as-yet-undefined "imperfect" membership.  Many saints and popes have hinted at this possibility, BUT (in the case of the popes) they did not DEFINE this, they only spoke in encylicals (which are only solemn declarations if they follow V1 requirements).  Any other argument is an error, because it would contradict the infallbile doctrines above.  All of the saints' opinions before 1441 and Trent are null and void and overruled.

There is NO ARGUMENT one can make that ANY non-catholic, (outside of formal catechumens), can be saved.  Those who make such an argument (like Fenton) are arguing against clear, infallible, ex-cathedra catholic doctrine.