I believe the Catholic Church Wins:

   Thus the Fathers of the Fourth Lateran Council and all the other churchmen who have drawn up authoritative statements of the Church's teaching on the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation were well aware of what St. Augustine had taught about men who suffered martyrdom for the sake of Christ before having had the opportunity to receive the sacrament of baptism. In his De civitate Dei, St. Augustine taught that "whosoever dies for Christ, not having received the laver of regeneration, has this avail him for the forgiveness of sins as much as if these sins had been forgiven in the sacred font of baptism." [De civitate Dei, XIII, 7. MPL, XLI, 381.] Since the forgiveness of mortal or original sin is accomplished only in the infusion of the life of sanctifying grace, the person whose sins are forgiven is in the state of grace. If such a person dies in the state of grace, he will inevitably attain to the Beatific Vision. He will be saved, as having died "within" and not "outside" the true Church. (The Catholic Church and Salvation, by Fenton)

If you think that the decision of Holy Church had to do with catechumens, those who had an explicit faith in the truths of Jesus Christ as a result of AND IN OBEDIENCE TO the authority of the Church, then you're right. God can and does supply supernaturally whatever is necessary to the salvation of a soul which is being drawn to Him by the teaching of Holy Church.

If you're yet another of the people who want to extend that supernatural supply of miraculous grace to those who reject the authority of Holy Church and yet claim allegiance to an imaginary jeezis who does not require submission to His Vicar, you're completely mistaken.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Must one know of the authority of the Church in order to reject it?  Or to make it more obvious.  Can one reject what one is not aware of?

Kind of gets back to can one be condemned for invincible ignorance doesn't it.

"Father Forgive them for the know not what they do."  An empty phrase?

Rhetorical questions.  No need to respond.

I am not sure why you continue to start threads on this topic.  Here are the facts:

Quote

1.  Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome, the result of the efforts initiated by Pope Paul VI.

2.  Father Feeney received a public Mass of Christian Burial.

3.  Many of Father Feeney's followers are in full communion with Rome and enjoy a completely regularized status within the Catholic Church.

4.  Father's writings were presented at the level of theological opinion, nothing more, which is how his adherents continue to present them.

5.  The conflicts which took place back in the 40s are passe.

More here:

http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

P.S.  I am done positing on this topic for awhile, as I feel that I am on a "Merry Go Round" with this one.  If anyone has questions about the Saint Benedict Center and/or Father Feeney, they can contact me privately if they wish to.

Keep in mind we are speaking about new Rome here.  One quit different than the one from 33 - 1958, the author of the "bastard Mass" as Archbishop Lefebvre put it.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Keep in mind we are speaking about new Rome here.  One quit different than the one from 33 - 1958, the author of the "bastard Mass" as Archbishop Lefebvre put it.

I am not a sede; one cannot join any of the Saint Benedict Centers and be a sede.  They disavow that position as being false and heretical; so do I.

It is, in my opinion, possible for a Pope, either alone or with an ecuмenical Council, to teach poorly and yet still teach without error.  Ditto for the New Mass; it may be ugly (some more than others), but it is still valid, at least in theory.

That is true but he cannot teach error, he is protected by the Holy Ghost from erring.  The Holy Ghost ain't protecting these guys.

This goes for their teaching on the Mystical Body of Christ/Roman Catholic Church, false ecuмenism and religious liberty among other things.  

They cannot bind council that teaches heresy on the Church.

They cannot bind an incentive to impiety Mass with doubtful validity on the Church.

They cannot bind doubtful and invalid Sacraments on the Church.

They cannot bind heretical canon law on the Church.

They cannot teach over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that it is okay to worship with heretics.  They cannot engage in heretical acts repeatedly without saying they did not intend to do so.  The would go for kissing the koran having vodoo witch cow dung on your forehead, a budda on top of the tabernacle, not to mention a beach ball and tee-shirt placed next to the tabernacle in one of the most holy Churches in the world.

That would be obvious in better times.

But these are not better times.

I am not going to sit in judgment of them; that's not my job.  The omnipotent One and Triune God will judge them, no one else.  As for religious liberty, I don't believe in it, except for the fundamental right of every human being to embrace the One True Faith, which is Roman Catholicism.  It really doesn't matter to me if Vatican II taught that or not; such is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, hence, it has always been infallible and will always be so.  The fact that the Roman Catechism did not mention indulgences does not abrogate that dogma of the Faith.

Ditto for ecuмenism, although, it is good to be polite to non-Catholics in our secular society and to get along with them as much as possible.  Still, there are "theological lines" which cannot be crossed (such as communio in sacris), however, one can point to rare instances in centuries past when Catholics and the schismatic Orthodox did concelebrate Masses together, so even this is a difficult call as to when such can take place and under what circuмstances, and I do not think that such is my call to make.  In any case, it's our job to lead every individual into the One True Church, which is the Roman Catholic Church but I have no problem with being pragmatic in that approach.

It is not about us judging.  Their actions show them to be already judged.  We do not judge culpability or intent but we are obligated to judge outer actions, especially when it affects billions of souls.