First, let's hear the true doctrine on the necessity of the Catholic Faith stated by Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguouri, "
“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11)" https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/The Creed of St. Athanasius says,
Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. [He therefore who will be saved, let him think thus on the Trinity] from which it clearly follows, that explicit Catholic faith in the Holy Trinity is a necessary means of salvation. God can supply this through extraordinary means, such as sending an Angel to a pagan to teach him the Catholic Faith, that he may be saved.
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.
From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm approved by a Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in the 19th century. See: "
Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges.with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith" with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from the Church.Second, onto Bishop Fellay. Last Tradhican, if you ask His Excellency Bishop +Fellay (or asked His Grace Archbishop Marcel +Lefebvre), they would probably tell you, "I believe as St. Augustine/St. Thomas/St. Alphonsus and the Church believes and teaches". There has been some confusion on the issue because some questions, even pre-Vatican II, were not definitively closed by the Magisterium. More recently, the Magisterium has declared St. Augustine's teaching (that a justified catechumen will also receive Water Baptism before death) adopted by St. Benedict's Centre to be an acceptable theological position. I agree with St. Augustine and the SBC on this one.
Let's look at Bishop Fellay's statement above, H.E. says (1) it is heretical to say Jєωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord, (2) refers to a theological docuмent (which Church authorities have clarified is non-Magisterial, but theological speculation) that claims Jєωs can be saved by implicit faith in Christ as expressly heretical. That is why I am confident Bishop Fellay does not believe in implicit faith, but admits the requirement for explicit faith in Christ for salvation, even for the hypothetical Hindu in Tibet, though it is not clear. If someone can ask Bishop Fellay for clarification, either by mail, or by attending H.E.'s next conference and askign personally, that would be helpful for all of us. If Bishop Fellay made a mistake, H.E. surely did so in good faith, but I'm inclined to doubt H.E. made one.
This is the statement of the modern liberal theologians.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-Jєωs-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html Imho, paras 17 and 36 are the most problematic: "
While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel." (p.17). Note that Bishop Fellay outright called this heretical, so it's clear H.E. doesn't agree with this speculation.Third, the Magisterium's own position. Here, we're not asking what the Magisterium has declared acceptable (we know SBC's theological position has been accepted as such by Rome), but whether the Church Herself has expressly pronounced on the question in a definitive and infallible way in recent times. In Dominus Iesus (Lord Jesus), released in 2000 under Pope John Paul II and the future Pope Benedict XVI, the Magisterium stated, "The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ's revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself:17 “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed”.18 Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”,19 involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.20For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”,21 then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.22This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance."So, Rome Herself, in clearer moments, has said this is an erroneous way of thinking, and thus I see no need to break from Rome at all. But yes, I agree, that this is a serious crisis that needs to be fixed. Do you have a solution, Last Tradhican? I think a new ex cathedra definition would be the best, and would help millions know the Truth, that there is no salvation without the explicit knowledge of Christ.