It's obvious now that Kramer is a Pelagian heretic, having reduced faith to a necessity of precept.

The Salvation of Those Outside the Catholic Church
by Rev. Fr. Noel Barbara Link

This is precisely what CMRI sedevacantists such Ambrose (among all other modern pelagians defenders and promoters of "BOD", which in reality is not BOD proper at all) mean when they say they believe in "Outside the Church There is No Salvation". They redefine what is meant by the "Church" and what is meant by "outside" until there is nothing left of the original dogma.  

Monsignor Fenton traced the history of those theologians who started to deny that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are ncessary for salvation by a necessity of means:

Cano, Melchior
1509-1560

Suarez
1548-1617

Bonal
1600-1653

Salmanticenses
1700’s

Legrand, Louis
1711-1780

Marchini
1800’s

Liebermann, Bruno Franz Leopold
1759-1844

...

I'll leave out the rest.  As you can see, this starts up in the 16th century.  Prior to that it was believed always, everywhere, and by all that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation ... as professed in the Athanasian Creed.

Your replies, Ladislaus, are replete with premises that are intrinsically undermined by underlying fallacies. I will not go on forever pointing them out and refuting them. You quite obviously missed St. Thonas' conspicuous use of the word "precept" in his article in II - IIae on the need for explicit belief, which I quoted. He elaborates that point more fully in De Veritate, Q. 14.
   For any properly trained theologian from a pontifical university faculty, it is as plain as the light of day that St. Thomas teaches explicit necessity to profess the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, as of a necessity of precept. That is patently manifest in the text I quoted. St. Thomas explained the point even more completely in De Veritate, so there is not any possibility to misconstrue his meaning as you so crudely misconstrue it.
   You repeatedly reply by gratuitously stating that I don't know what I"m talking about; but it was not you, but I, who studied under Athanan De Vos OP, in the pontifical faculty in Rome, where he had been dean of Philosophy for 32 years (before Vatican II); and it was while studying under him in the Licentiate course, that I heard his illustrious lectures on De Veritate, and read through De Veritate in the Latin Leonine text.So, as a former seminary professor myself, I can only recommend that you read and reread St. Thomas until you finally can grasp the notions he is teaching. Up until now, you have shown yourself to be too obtuse and dull witted to grasp the subtlety of his distinctions and the complexity of his exposition.

Let's all please calm down and discuss this rationally, there's no need for polemics.

Fr. Kramer, if you want 20th and 19th century theologians who hold and defend the teaching in question, I will give you two of the highest repute - Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, who singlehandedly oversaw innumerable conversions into the Church, (and good friend of Fr. Arnold Damen, who himself personally received 13,000 heretics into the Church), and who never published anything withtout the approval of two of his superiors, and Msgr. Fenton, who needs no introduction.

1. Fr. Michael Mueller at the turn of the 19th century cites many authorities in its favor,

This doctrine is clearly expressed in the following words of the Athanasian Creed: "He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must thus think of the Trinity," that is, he must believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as explained in this Creed. "Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence St. Peter says: "Be it known to you, that there is no salvation in any other name than that of Jesus Christ; for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." (Acts, iv. 10, 10).

 "Thus," says St. Alphonsus, " there is no hope of salvation except in the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence St. Thomas and all theologians conclude that, since the promulgation of the Gospel, it is necessary, not only as a matter of precept, but also as a means of salvation (necessitate medii, without which no adult can be saved), to believe explicitly that we can be saved only through our Redeemer." (Reflections on the Passion of Jesus Christ, Chapt. I., No. 19).

The explicit belief in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of the Son of God is therefore of the greatest importance. This belief teaches the origin of the world, its creation by God the Father; it teaches us the supernatural end of man, his fall, and the redemption of mankind by God the Son; it teaches the sanctification of souls by the gifts of the Holy Ghost ...

Likewise, Fr. Fenton in the 1950s tells us,

... most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

Each of these theologians, like St. Alphonsus and others, cite many authorities in their works, and strenuously argue in favor of this teaching, which it is certainly their right and, as I will show below, arguably their duty, to do.

2. From the Popes,

"A great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of Faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."

What is a mystery of Faith? A mystery of Faith is a truth to which natural reason cannot attain, it is the proper object of supernatural Faith, according to Vatican I.

With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

There is a much earlier Holy Office decree, which was promulgated in the context of a missionary asking whether someone could be baptized with a promise to believe, but without actually believing the Faith. Rome's answer was that as the primary mysteries of the Faith like the Trinity and Incarnation are necessary as a means, therefore, a promise is not sufficient, but these must be explicitly confessed by all adults, even dying ones.

A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”

Now, it doesn't seem that this can be reconciled with your opinion. If you wish to argue to the contrary, then give some explanation for these statements. In that St. Pius X in particular says "known", he rules out a mere implicit belief in these mysteries, and says it must be explicitly believed, or known.

3. Fr. Kramer, you have yourself said you think Fr. Feeney was a good man, and I agree. Fr. Feeney did not know how to answer those who were saying Jews and Protestants can be saved without being Catholic, and so do not need to convert. So, he mad the mistake that he did. But let's leave Fr. Feeney for a moment. Today, over a billion nominal Catholics, and the leaders of the mainstream Church, no longer believe the Catholic Faith is a means without which salvation cannot be attained, they no longer tell Jews and Protestants, or anyone else for that matter, that they must be Catholic to be saved. Do you deny that false ecuмenism and interfaith horrors would not be possible if they did?

Also, how can we credibly claim to be traditional Catholics if we positively refuse to believe something upheld by very great traditional authorities?

This is consecrated Tradition, it is taught by the Church, Her Popes, Saints, Doctors, Fathers. It is taught by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, St. Bernard and St. Robert, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose. It is contained in the Athanasian Creed, which is infallible, and taught by Popes down to Gregory XVI, Pius IX and St. Pius X, and, if you desire to hear it from them, other traditional Catholic theologians like Fr. Mueller and Msgr. Fenton before Vatican II.

Thank you, Nishant.  Great post.

At the end of the day, Vatican II is nothing other than the Church embracing this "minority opinion" and adding a merely pastoral presumption of good will vis-a-vis our attitudes toward the "separated brethren".

If I believed in this "minority opinion" (aka heresy), then I would immediately accept Vatican II in substance, considering it merely to have been imprudent or inopportune given the climate of our day and the tendencies towards religious indifferentism.

You see, the popes since the Renaissance saw a growing trend towards religious indfferentism, and often condemned it, but they failed to see the root cause error behind it all, this "minority opinion" or heresy.  THIS needed to have been stamped out in order to halt the tide of religious indifferentism, but they failed.  God of course allowed them to fail, because this is what has led to the sifting of faith in these end times.

I am not content to call this minority opinion, per my other thread.  It's heresy.

For nearly SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS it was believed always, everywhere, and by all that there could be no supernatural faith and no salvation without explicit faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.  That makes it a dogma of the ordinary universal magisterium.  If it doesn't, then I have absolutely no idea what ordinary universal magisterium is.  So let's stop sugar-coating this heresy by calling it minority opinion.

As with most Pelagian BoDers, you falsely claim support from Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XII.