Author Topic: Suprema Haec and Vatican II on EENS (Read 3051 times)

Nishant · « **on:** September 18, 2016, 05:04:19 AM »

Arvinger, this is a brief response to some of the questions you asked on other threads, where you brought up explicit faith, the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium etc

1. First, do you acknowledge Suprema Haec as an act of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII (who also taught Baptism of Desire in another text in the AAS), as Msgr. Fenton certainly did? Its authenticity is also attested to by Cardinal Ottaviani.

Quote from: Fr. Fenton

"By far the most complete and explicit authoritative statement of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the subject of the Church's necessity for salvation is to be found in the letter sent by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office"

Its authenticity was also absolutely taken for granted even by the traditional Fathers at Vatican II, (as can be seen in the citations in the original texts prepared, which were later thrown out by the liberals) rather surprising if it was allegedly fraudulent.

2. Second, Vatican II cites Suprema Haec in its formulation of EENS, "Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

Vatican II is also an act of the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium, because Pope Paul VI expressly said,

Quote

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful"

In other words, Vatican II has the same authority as Suprema Haec, no more and no less.

So, if you interpret Suprema Haec in the light of Tradition, why can't I interpret Vatican II in the same manner? Of course, needless to say, Fenton who lived after both did the same.

We will discuss explicit faith after you reply.

Arvinger · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2016, 09:30:41 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

1. First, do you acknowledge Suprema Haec as an act of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII (who also taught Baptism of Desire in another text in the AAS), as Msgr. Fenton certainly did? Its authenticity is also attested to by Cardinal Ottaviani.

I have doubts both about its orthodoxy and about the circuмstances when it surfaced - after the death of Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani and two years after it was supoosedly written (also, I read that it found its way into AAS primarily due to efforts of heretic Karl Rahner). At straightforward reading it does teach that souls can be saved without explicit faith in Christ, in which case it teaches error. Also, without question it is a fallible source.

Quote from: Nishant

2. Second, Vatican II cites Suprema Haec in its formulation of EENS, "Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

A perfect example of modernist double-talk.

1. It says that the Church is necessary for salvation - of course it is, but stating it that way opens way to interpretation that people can be saved by the Church, but not in the Church (like in Rahnerian heresy of Anonymous Christianity).

2. It says that those who refuse to enter the Church "knowing that it was made necessary by Christ" cannot be saved. The obvious implication is that this exclusion from salvation is limited to those who knowingly reject the Catholic faith, and thus those who did not know that Christ made the Church necessary can be saved without entering it (which is false and contradicts infallible definitions on EENS). Yes, the statement is not explicitly heretical, but very clearly opens the way for heretical interpretation, especially in light of later paragraph (LG 16) which is commonly interpreted by modernists as teaching possibility of salvation for invincibly ignorant without faith in Christ. This sort of diabolical double-talk paved the way for the crisis we are in.

Quote from: Nishant

Vatican II is also an act of the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium, because Pope Paul VI expressly said,
Quote
"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful"
In other words, Vatican II has the same authority as Suprema Haec, no more and no less.

That presupposes that Paul VI was a valid Pope, which I'm not sure about.

Quote from: Nishant

So, if you interpret Suprema Haec in the light of Tradition, why can't I interpret Vatican II in the same manner? Of course, needless to say, Fenton who lived after both did the same.

As I said, I have serious doubts about Suprema Haec. As to Vatican II, to interpret it in light of Tradition there must be a continuity between Vatican II and previous Magisterial teaching. I am convinced that several statements in Vatican II teach heresy and contradict previous Magisterium.

Quote from: Nishant

We will discuss explicit faith after you reply.

I believe the Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino settle the matter. Anyone who says that souls can be saved in false religions and without explicit faith in Christ must twist these infallible texts going against their original meaning, which is condemned by Vatican I.

Nishant · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2016, 10:24:18 AM »

I agree the necessity of explicit faith is irreformable doctrine, Arvinger, but I'm afraid you're mistaken about the rest. The Doctors who taught a Pope may fall into heresy only spoke about him doing so as a private person, not in a Magisterial capacity and certainly not in a Council with practically all the world's Bishops. The Ecuмenicity of a particular Council is a dogmatic fact, established with infallible certitude (which means it is not lawful to doubt it, it would be a very serious sin to do so) based on the morally unanimous agreement of the episcopate Pope Pius IX refuted the claim of the Old Catholics that Vatican Icontained heresy as itself heretical for this very reason. While modern sedevacantists and ecclesia-vacantists believe otherwise, they are wrong.

The CCC, citing Vatican II, says in paragraph 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." This statement clearly says God leads those who are invincibly ignorant to saving faith in Him. While it doesn't define the minimum explicit content of that faith (neither does Suprema Haec), it is not heretical. This is from Suprema Haec, which teaches similarly, "it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith"; finally, you're aware, I think, that a recent docuмent from the Vatican referred to the controversy being open expressly, "While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ", I agree by the way that the question should be closed, I only deny that either of us have the Magisterial authority to do it.

A Thomist could never be a sedevacantist or ecclesia-vacantist, because it is for the Church and not private judgment to declare an opinion definitively closed. Many Thomists were convinced salvation by implicit faith was erroneous and that Molinism was false, but when the Church decided to permit the discussion to take place before pronouncing judgment, Thomists accepted that and made arguments showing these positions were untenable in light of Magisterial teaching, but did not set themselves up in place of the Magisterium. We should do likewise. But modern sedevacantists (sede-doubtists included) cannot do that, because almost all of them deny that the Magisterium of the Roman Church even exists today. God will vindicate the correct position through the Magisterium of His Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in His own good time.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2016, 10:35:31 AM »

Nishant,

Quote

A Thomist could never be a sedevacantist or ecclesia-vacantist, because it is for the Church and not private judgment to declare an opinion definitively closed.

Quote

I agree the necessity of explicit faith is irreformable doctrine

Isn’t there a bit of a contradiction there? If the necessity of faith is an “irreformable doctrine” that would be “definitively closed” would it not?

If the Vatican II magisterium (meaning a Vat II pope) taught the possibility of salvation without “explicit faith” wouldn’t that be heresy as against “irreformable doctrine”?

If you deny an explicit teaching - note I did not say “infallible expression” - that there can be salvation without “explicit faith” by the Vat II magisterium, could not that magisterium exhibit heresy in this regard by conduct also?

Thanks,

DR

DecemRationis · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2016, 10:37:57 AM »

Nishant,

Of course, I am not aware of your view as to how one regards a heretical pope or a church that teaches heresy.

Perhaps that would not matter to you as to the Vat II church’s legitimacy and your obligation of “subjection.”

DR

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2016, 11:37:49 AM »

Dear DecemRationis, with regard to Papal heresy - I believe as do the Doctors, that the divine promise safeguards the Pope from being a heretic while exercising his office, but not as a private person in his unofficial capacity. If, as a private theologian, a Roman Pontiff ever became a public and formal heretic, with the pertinacity established by the Cardinals and a Synod of Bishops, he would fall outside the Church and cease to be Pope. The Church - not private individuals outside the Apostolic succession, but the Bishops and Cardinals who have received Apostolic authority from Peter through prior Popes - can declare this fact and collectively elect a new Pope.

As to the other question, one thing is to have a personal conviction that a teaching is irreformable and that the Magisterium will definitely affirm this one day and another is to say, while discussions are still going on, that the other side are heretics. Many Thomists held that Molinism is incorrect and opposed to the Second Synod of Orange and Trent, but when the Church decided She would hear arguments from both sides before pronouncing definitive judgment, out of love and devotion to the Apostolic See, they refrained from accusing the others of heresy; we should do likewise, because only the Church can say at some future time that one of the two opinions which are currently permitted and have been taught by Saints and Doctors (like St. Alphonsus in Theologia Moralis, of whom the Pope said, "Why come to Rome? Ask Fr. Ligouri" when a question was posed to him) as allowable in the theology manuals used in seminaries for centuries is now closed. They have been used in seminaries with the approval of Popes and Doctors. In a similar way, St. Francis De Sales was in favor of not passing definitive judgment between Thomism and Molinism, at least for a while, until one side made a better case from Scripture and Tradition than the other. I believe the Church will settle the matter in favor of explicit faith one day, we can work to make that happen, but we cannot pass that judgment ourselves.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2016, 12:26:22 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Dear DecemRationis, with regard to Papal heresy - I believe as do the Doctors, that the divine promise safeguards the Pope from being a heretic while exercising his office, but not as a private person in his unofficial capacity. If, as a private theologian, a Roman Pontiff ever became a public and formal heretic, with the pertinacity established by the Cardinals and a Synod of Bishops, he would fall outside the Church and cease to be Pope. The Church - not private individuals outside the Apostolic succession, but the Bishops and Cardinals who have received Apostolic authority from Peter through prior Popes - can declare this fact and collectively elect a new Pope.

Dear Nishant, we are not talking about “private opinions.” We are talking Magisterial teachings, affirmed in Roman “offices” with the pope’s authority. We are talking about Church accords with heretics, etc. - not some “opinion” given by the pope at a lecture or in a book.

Yet even then, that would only resolve the issue of the Church’s infallibility or indefectiblity failing, no? Would that resolve the issue of the legitimacy of a pope who was a heretic by expressing an opinion contrary to prior Magisterial teaching when he made it? Perhaps.

But still, we are not talking about “private opinion."

Would your second point deal with my objection to your “private opinion” view? Let’s see:

Quote

As to the other question, one thing is to have a personal conviction that a teaching is irreformable and that the Magisterium will definitely affirm this one day and another is to say, while discussions are still going on, that the other side are heretics. Many Thomists held that Molinism is incorrect and opposed to the Second Synod of Orange and Trent, but when the Church decided She would hear arguments from both sides before pronouncing definitive judgment, out of love and devotion to the Apostolic See, they refrained from accusing the others of heresy; we should do likewise, because only the Church can say at some future time that one of the two opinions which are currently permitted and have been taught by Saints and Doctors (like St. Alphonsus in Theologia Moralis, of whom the Pope said, "Why come to Rome? Ask Fr. Ligouri" when a question was posed to him) as allowable in the theology manuals used in seminaries for centuries is now closed. They have been used in seminaries with the approval of Popes and Doctors. In a similar way, St. Francis De Sales was in favor of not passing definitive judgment between Thomism and Molinism, at least for a while, until one side made a better case from Scripture and Tradition than the other. I believe the Church will settle the matter in favor of explicit faith one day, we can work to make that happen, but we cannot pass that judgment ourselves.

A good point regarding the Molinists and Thomists. I know Father Garrigou- Lagrange rejected the Molinist view and gave a very detailed exposition of it in his book, Predestination. I will go back and look at the Scriptural and Magisterial bases for the rejection of Molinism by the Thomists, to see if it rises to the level I address below.

I say the requirement of “explicit faith” has been solemnly proclaimed by the Magisterium. I adduce the Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino, and Session VI, Chapter IV of Trent. I will perhaps post the sections in another post time availing, though you do not need them.

To summarize my view: the AC pronounces the “Catholic faith” as necessary, and describes as a minimum belief in the Trinity and Incarnation; CD says no “Jєω” or “pagan” can be saved unless they are “joined to Her [i.e. the Church]”; and, Trent says the translation to justice cannot be effected “after the promulgation of the Gospel” without baptism “or the desire thereof.”

“Good faith” Jєωs remain, well, “Jєωs,” and were around before the “promulgation of the Gospel” (Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV). Now, they must be “joined with” the Church - if they remained “Jєωs,” necessarily per CD they would not be going to a state where they were “joined with Her," since they weren’t when the CD described them as “Jєωs” needing to be joined. The AC says that the necessary supernatural “Catholic faith” entails belief in the Trinity and Incarnation, which, were one to do so, they would not remain a “Jєω” or a “pagan,” and would be “joined with Her” consistently with CD.

Is this not clear? Forgive me, but does the necessity of a simple rational inference - not even required with the AC, and hardly with the CD or Trent - or an obvious consideration that precludes an “implicit faith” reading of the AC, CD and Trent mean the Church has not pronounced on the issue?

To me, that’s a quibble. It makes a move towards (note my qualification - I have nothing but respect for you and don’t want you to take this the wrong way) what this apostate Vatican II Church has done with language, and what heretics have often done with language, cf. Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei.

DR

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2016, 01:23:25 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

In other words, Vatican II has the same authority as Suprema Haec, no more and no less.

:roll-laugh1:

That has to be one of the most preposterous statements ever written here on CI. And there have been some doozies. So an Ecuмenical Council has the same authority as something released by the Holy Office? Please read your hero, Msgr. Fenton, on this subject. He states that a broader kind of infallibility, infallible safety, pertains to matters taught to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH and clearly talks about how something like an Encyclical Letter has this kind of authority (compared to lesser expressions of the authentic Magisterium) due to its being taught and proposed to the Universal Church.

Of course, it may be materially true if one realizes that 1) SH is a fake and 2) V2 has no authority due to being promulgated under the authority of antipopes -- i.e. neither one has any authority. But that's obviously not your view.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2016, 01:41:51 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

First, do you acknowledge Suprema Haec as an act of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII (who also taught Baptism of Desire in another text in the AAS), as Msgr. Fenton certainly did?

That's dubious at best.

Nishant · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2016, 01:43:44 PM »

Lad, your disagreement is with Father Fenton, not with me, because he (as well as other ecclesiastical publications during the time) testified that Suprema Haec was a clear statement from the Church's Magisterium, something you expressly deny. He even praised it up and down in the article he wrote about it, while you deny it is infallibly safe and attack it as heretical. Vatican II also has the same authority as a Papal Encyclical, as Pope Paul VI clearly said, it requires the religious submission due to the ordinary authentic Magisterium. So does Suprema Haec. Both are authoritative expressions of the Authentic Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church. Yes, I know well what Father wrote about infallible safety and the Authentic Magisterium and agree with it. The real question is, do you agree that Suprema Haec is infallibly safe? You appear to be forgetting or not taking into account that he lived beyond both and never left the Church but interpreted both Suprema Haec and Vatican II in light of Tradition. The morally unanimous agreement of the episcopate is sufficient in establishing that the Ecuмenicity of Vatican II (and the legitimacy of Pope Paul VI in Dec 1965) is a dogmatic fact. Fr. Fenton knew this, his friend Fr. Connell wrote about it in the American Ecclesiastical Review after Vatican II. So, you are mistaken.

Dear DR, I will answer the question on the Pope subsequently, please read the following authorities on the explicit-implicit faith question,

Quote from: Fr. Fenton

Now 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. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation. In the context of the letter, the Sacred Congregation quotes this verse precisely as a proof of its declaration that an implicit desire of the Church cannot produce its effect “unless a person has supernatural faith.”

Quote from: St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis

“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only.

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.

So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses. Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…

Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…

Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.

Fr. Michael Mueller, a heroic Redemptorist and true son of St. Alphonsus, who never published an article without the approval of his superiors, wrote,

Quote

‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2016, 01:47:16 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Yes, I know well what Father wrote about infallible safety and the Authentic Magisterium and agree with it. The real question is, do you agree that Suprema Haec is infallibly safe?

Nope. You misrepresent. Msgr. Fenton didn't say that every expression of the Authentic Magisterium had infallible safety. He was speaking of Encyclical Letters and he stated that these were infallibly safe due to their level of authority ... being addressed to the Universal Church. He would not characterize a papal allocution or a directive of the Holy Office as being endowed with this same infallible safety.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2016, 04:17:22 PM »

Nishant,

I read your quotes and was familiar with them before.

DR

Arvinger · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2016, 05:24:52 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

The Doctors who taught a Pope may fall into heresy only spoke about him doing so as a private person, not in a Magisterial capacity and certainly not in a Council with practically all the world's Bishops. The Ecuмenicity of a particular Council is a dogmatic fact, established with infallible certitude (which means it is not lawful to doubt it, it would be a very serious sin to do so) based on the morally unanimous agreement of the episcopate Pope Pius IX refuted the claim of the Old Catholics that Vatican Icontained heresy as itself heretical for this very reason. While modern sedevacantists and ecclesia-vacantists believe otherwise, they are wrong.

Most sedevacantists claim that Vatican II Popes were never Popes to begin with (at least not formally, adherents of Cassiciacuм Thesis assert they were Pope-elects only who never excercised Papal authority), and that Vatican II was therefore not a valid Ecuмenical Council, therefore there is no question of the Pope falling into heresy in his Magisterial capacity. As you rightly say, it is not possible for the Ecuмenical Council to teach error (even in fallible capacity) - therefore, if Vatican II teaches error (non-Catholic churches as "means of salvation" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3), right to public propagation of false religions to be recognized as civil right (Dignitatis Humanae 2), or heretical teaching of Nostra Aetate on the Jєωs; the root of all of these teachings is of course denial of EENS), I have no choice but to doubt whether it was an Ecuмenical Council and whether the man who promulgated it was a true Pope. Yes, I have only my private judgment, which is why I remain on the level of well-informed doubt.

Quote from: Nishant

The CCC, citing Vatican II, says in paragraph 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." This statement clearly says God leads those who are invincibly ignorant to saving faith in Him. While it doesn't define the minimum explicit content of that faith (neither does Suprema Haec), it is not heretical. This is from Suprema Haec, which teaches similarly, "it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith"; finally, you're aware, I think, that a recent docuмent from the Vatican referred to the controversy being open expressly, "While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ", I agree by the way that the question should be closed, I only deny that either of us have the Magisterial authority to do it.

Yes, the problem is not so much what the new CCC and Lumen Gentium say, but rather what they do not say - as I wrote above, Lumen Gentium clearly indicates that exclusion from salvation is limited to those who know that Jesus Christ established the Church as means of salvation but refuse to enter it. This obviously implies that if someone does not know that Jesus Christ established the Church, he might be saved without entering it (especially in light of LG 16). Typically modernist way of opening way for heresy through ambiguous double-speak. You say that Suprema Haec requires supernatural faith for salvation - yes, but then modernists redefine what supernatural faith is (Rewarder God heresy etc.), claiming one can have it without faith in Christ and the Trinity.

Quote from: Nishant

Thomists accepted that and made arguments showing these positions were untenable in light of Magisterial teaching, but did not set themselves up in place of the Magisterium. We should do likewise. But modern sedevacantists (sede-doubtists included) cannot do that, because almost all of them deny that the Magisterium of the Roman Church even exists today. God will vindicate the correct position through the Magisterium of His Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in His own good time.

First you say that implicit faith is untenable in light of Magisterial teaching, but then go on to say that God is yet to vindicate a correct position through the Magisterium. We already have infallible teaching of the Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino which rule out the possibility of salvation without explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity. The matter is settled - if these infallible texts do not settle it, nothing can. As I wrote, if one can read the Athanasian Creed and claim that the Magisterium has not yet defined whether explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is necessary for salvation, one could as well read Munificentissimus Deus and claim that the Magisterium has not yet defined whether Our Lady was bodily assumed to Heaven. The truth is that the Magisterium has already settled the matter.

Arvinger · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2016, 03:40:13 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Saying those who knowing the Church was made necessary by Christ cannot be saved, absolutely implies that those who do not know that the Church was made necessary can be saved. Those who don’t know the Church was made necessary by Jesus include: Jєωs, Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Apostates and Heretics who no longer believe this Truth. This is not only possible salvation for the invincibly ignorant but nearly universal salvation.

Exactly. More than that, can you think of any group of people who know that the Church was made necessary by Jesus Christ but refuse to enter it? I hardly can, perhaps Satanists. Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants etc. are in their false religions precisely because they don't know that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ and they think their false religions are true. Thus, such definition of EENS as in Lumen Gentium 14 makes the dogma absolutely meaningless (not to mention that implication of this definition - possibility of salvation for those who don't know that Christ made the Church necessary - is contrary to infallible EENS definitions).

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2016, 07:02:20 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Nishant

2. Second, Vatican II cites Suprema Haec in its formulation of EENS, "Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

By inserting the expression “knowing that the Church…”, the whole meaning is therefore changed to nearly the exact opposite of its original meaning. None of the several quotes defining this Dogma make any reference whatsoever to a person who knows the necessity of the Church but rejects it.

Well said!
It is amazing how that exception - which renders the dogma completely meaningless, is overwhelmingly accepted - even among those who should know better.