CathInfo.com

DR, it seems to us,  is participating in libelous behavior.  Libel, unlike its opposite, Slander, is a "published, untrue, defamatory statement."  Slander is similar, but the act is done behind the person's back, not publicly. DR claims that Lad is "like a Jehovah Witness."  This is akin to telling a woman that she is "like a prostitute."  She may or may not be a prostitute, but the statement suggests that if she is not so in fact, her behavior (her will) is such that she would easily lend herself to the lifestyle of a prostitute. If I suspected that a Catholic woman was immodest, it would occur to me to suggest to her politely that a particular action was immodest.  And we add that it is better to be a prostitute than a Jehovah Witness. The sin of libel requires a public retraction, especially when the matter is grave.     

While I clearly disagree with some of you on the subject EENS, I would never impute to anyone on this forum the label of "Jehovah Witness."  JW's are notorious heretics who, in large part, deny the divinity of Christ.  JW's are divided among themselves, as I have had some of them agree to Christ's divinity, and others not.  Most JW's have no idea what they believe when seriously questioned.  Most JW's are "pertinacious" in heresy, meaning that once it has been made known them that there is a Catholic Church, and this shurch has always, from the time of the apostles,  taught the divinity of Christ, they are obligated to investigate it.  I always invite JW's to my house to discuss the Truth, especially when they attempt to walk away in droves.  I have had some who seem more honest than others, as I often engage several at a time, employing the classic Vin Lewis tactics of asking simple yes/no questions.  I remind the JW's that they have a moral obligation to investigate what I tell them, that on the Last Day, they will not have the excuse, "I did not know the truth" or some other such lie, and that they will be damned should they fail to heed what I tell them.  We want to be sure that we "clear the way," and not allow any room for any "invincible ignorance."       

No Decem, Lad is not at all like the JW's.  And like it or not Decem, Lad has a very good idea of what he believes, unlike the JW's.       

It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering,  have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)



Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.

http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html

what Brownson1847 wrote regarding the possibility of justification/salvation