The reason that the benefit of the doubt is not given is because this type of modernist thinking has been around for over 200 years, since the early 1800s.  It was also around before that, when 3 other councils in the history of the Church defined dogmas which condemned such thinking.  This attack against the doctrine of exclusive salvation is a never-ending attack.  V2 brought it up again, and now 95% of catholics are infected with this error, to some degree.

I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism.  We all are, in some areas of our life.  Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies."  It's prideful to think any of us is immune.

The Church has ruled that, except where She has said that texts of the Bible are symbolic, that Scripture is to be read with a literal interpretation.  When the Church gathers all Cardinals, Bishops and theologians together for a council, in order to condemn errors and teach doctrine, She spends months and years to formulate the doctrinal statements so that they are clear, concise, and simple to understand.  This is Her purpose - to teach simply so that even a child can understand the Faith.  So, yes, doctrines are meant to be read in a literal sense, especially since they come from the Pope, through his power of infallibility, wherein God protects him from error in teaching truth.

It depends what you mean by development.  Modernists want to define development as meaning that doctrine "changes over time" to "suit the needs of man in each age".  This is totally heretical.  The Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles, which they preached to all the nations, which was handed down to the Church Fathers, which has been handed down 2,000 years to us is absolutely, 100% the same - with nothing added, edited or removed.  This is why Tradition and doctrine is said to be believed "everywhere, always and by all."
.
However, we can say that doctrine "improves" in the sense that by prayer, apparitions and enlightenments of Saints, God gives greater understanding, depth and wisdom concerning the Divine Truths which doctrines seek to explain.  This does not mean that doctrine changes; it just means that God gives us more details.  Our simple minds can never fully understand Divine Truths, which is why we will continue to learn for all eternity about God, if we make it to heaven.

I think the gray area is small, but I'm not certain we can precisely pin down its limits.  I definitely think the modern Bishop Barron types, who want to speculate on possibly everyone being saved, are being manifestly foolish.  I think its clear, both from scripture and from the vast majority of Church Tradition, that Judas Iscariot is in Hell and that there are other human beings in Hell.  It seems extremely likely, though perhaps not absolutely certain, that the majority of human beings end up in Hell.  I do think it might be the case that the best a soul that is unbaptized could possibly attain is Limbo, and I *have zero emotional or otherwise objection* if that's ultimately how God set it up.  The reason why I withhold judgment there is mostly because it seems like even most trad theologians do, and its not sufficiently *obvious* to me that they're wrong, to absolutely rule that out.

Of course, Protestants and EOs create a unique problem in the sense that they are in fact baptized, which raises a different question, what level of knowledge a baptized person has to have in order to be a formal as opposed to mere material heretic.  I'm not aware of the Church having ever definitively defined this either, though its possible they have and I'm just not aware of it.  In the case of Protestants and EOs, the issue seems not to be invincible ignorance or baptism of desire (as the case is with "virtuous pagans") but rather Christians (in the sense of having a valid baptism, even if not in any other sense) and at what point said Christians are in fact actually cut off from the Church due to formal heresy.

I've posted this before, it shows some dogmas and how the BODers deal with them, these are all clear dogmas that do not require any interpretations other than what they say, which is what dogmas are, the FINAL WORD:


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/



St. Augustine:   “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
 
Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
 “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)


Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
 “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
 
 Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
 “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
 “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
 “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
 
 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
 
 Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 Chapter VII.
 
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
 This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
 On Baptism
 
 Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
 way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
 Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
 have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
 
 
 (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on Today at 03:08:01 PM

Quote

I definitely think the modern Bishop Barron types, who want to speculate on possibly everyone being saved, are being manifestly foolish.

Foolish?  This many is an open heretic.  Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.

I remember reading an article in Catholic Magazine in like 2000 (put out by the then SSPX Papa Stronsay Island Redemptorists), in which an SSPX priest was complaining about a Vatican II cardinal saying that millions of non-Catholic souls are saved by their belief in God that rewards. In the end the only argument from the SSPX priest was about the numbers. That quote above by BZ3000 reminds me of the same.

Foolish?  This many is an open heretic.  Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.

I remember reading an article in Catholic Magazine in like 2000 (put out by the then SSPX Papa Stronsay Island Redemptorists), in which an SSPX priest was complaining about a Vatican II cardinal saying that millions of non-Catholic souls are saved by their belief in God that rewards. In the end the only argument from the SSPX priest was about the numbers. That quote above by BZ3000 reminds me of the same.

Hmmmmmmm, that's interesting.  I think "all", "none", and "some" are dogmatically differentiable principles.  "Majority" and "minority" might be as well, but I'm less sure there.  Beyond that, exact numbers are definitely in the category of "best guesses."

Yes, though he was certainly no formal heretic, just parroting back what he was taught in seminary.  Barron on the other hand speaks and thinks like a Modernist.

Church dogma explicitly teaches that infidels and heretics and schismatics cannot be saved.

How do you distinguish definitively between a formal and a material heretic?  Like how would you know?

(To be clear, I'm not comparing Lefebvre with Barron, I'm just trying to pin down a logical principle)

Some people have good eyes. They can tell by looking at the man, his hair, or especially his eyes (the window to the soul). Some people have good ears, they can tell by listening to him speak. My father has a good nose, I think he can tell by sense of smell. Some people have a good sense of touch and they can tell just by shaking his hand. Some people can tell by a kiss. Some people have good minds, they can tell by reading or hearing his thoughts or ideas. There is a sixth sense as well. And some people like St. Padre Pio or St. Jean-Marie Vianney can read souls. The Holy Ghost gives Catholics gifts and he comes to us at our Confirmation. It is up to us to sharpen them through works and prayer. And of course one has to be careful and humble and not jump to conclusion because the world is a desert with one oasis and a million mirages. It is hard to tell which lake is real if one relies on ones self instead of on God. The faith is everything, the string that pulls the ghosts out of the deep and up into the stars.

Perhaps some people can read souls, but barring that, I prefer to admit that I don't know who's a formal heretic and who isn't.  

Lefebvre basically said: Here's the dogma, but it doesn't mean what it says, it rather means ... Then he treats the dogma as if it were a precept allowing for exceptions. Thus, he speaks like a modernist, too.

The problem today is, that many stick to his erroneous ideas with respect to what a dogma is as well as with respect to the specific dogma he mentions.

Yes, his language is modernist but I don't sense any pertinacity on his part.