saying prots are "separated brethren" cannot conclude "also Christian", and it's a dangerous sentiment.

Prots get mad when you call them prots, and counter that they are Christian, because that's what they falsely believe.

Well said.

Snip on the subject from a sermon by Fr. Wathen:

"… Concerning those who are not in the Catholics Church, by what power will they be saved? Let us grant that they cannot save themselves anymore than any man can go to the moon without some kind of help. 

The power of salvation comes from Christ Himself, as Christ said, without Me you can do nothing. When He said without me you can do nothing, He meant literally nothing. You cannot take that first step without Christ.

And you will say; well they believe in Christ, and my answer is, You forget that Christ and the Church are one. If you separate the Church from Christ, you have sought to divide Christ. There is no such thing as Christ without the Church because the Church is His Mystical Body.

As St Augustine referred to this mystery, the Church is with Christ, the whole Christ, there is no salvation independently of the Church anymore than there is salvation independently of Christ. You can never separate Christ from the Church because the two are one. 

And this is of course the great heresy of Protestantism, they dare to separate salvation from Christ because they separate salvation from the Church. And I’m going to ask you, by what power can they be saved? 

Then the liberals among the Catholics come along and they say well at least those have been baptized in the protestant churches and in the conciliar church, they are in the Church in some way because they received the sacrament of Christian initiation. And our answer to this is concerning the protestants, besides baptism, it is necessary to believe in the doctrine of the Church and it is necessary to believe in the Church, which is Christ.

To receive baptism only and not to have the faith is as if to be wired without current, if you don’t mind a homely example. And protestants of their own free choice, refuse the Church, they claim to believe in Christ but they reject Christ’s teaching, they reject His authority, they reject His Vicar, they reject His discipline, they reject in a word, everything that they do not want to accept. 

They do not want the rituals, they do not want the Mass, they do not want the Virgin Mary in any capacity, they do not want to be told what they must believe. They want to decide. And they say they believe only that which is in the Scriptures. And we say, protestants have dared to separate the scriptures from the Church, this is like having a manual for a car without a car. It is totally useless, the bible is totally useless for salvation outside the Church…."

Pope Pius IX taught BOD in both his apostolic letter Singulari Quadem (1854) and in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur (1863). Perhaps you and Ladislaus will deny these papal teachings by saying they are (deliberately?) faulty translations.

Even Pope Pius XII taught baptism of desire in his Address to Midwives (1951) and in his letter Suprema Haec Sacra
 (1952). Perhaps you and Ladislaus will again deny these other papal teachings by saying they are (deliberately?) faulty translations.

Above are 4 papal teachings from legitimate popes that teach BOD. Yet no amount of papal teachings will ever be sufficient for people like you and Ladisalus who can and will deny them with The Ladislaus Defense: They are ALL (deliberately?) faulty translations.

EZ

First, not one of these teaches the universal Church..they are speeches or letters to specific groups of Catholics, not the entire faithful

That is actually something very interesting you will come across if you actually look into BOD/BOB. There is not a single instance of a Pope teaching BOD/BOB to the universal Church, and any occasions when they do opine about it, or at least seem to, it is only in letters to specific people or groups, or speeches to certain groups, etc.

Relevant text of Singulari Quadem (to the Austrian clergy):

Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

Pius IX is obviously not saying those outside the Church can be saved, as that would contradict the dogma EENS. He literally says the ignorant, "he", is outside the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church

He does say that the ignorant, who's ignorance is beyond his control, can hope for salvation. If you are not an EENS denier, you will take this to mean that the opportunity to be baptized and enter Church will be afforded him. Nowhere does he teach that they can be saved as they are.


Relevant text of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (to the Cardinals and Italian bishops):

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Pius IX condemns the notion that those living in error and alienated from the true Faith can attain salvation. Pius IX says that those "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion" (i.e. living in error, alienated from the true Faith), are able to attain salvation by the virtue of divine light and faith...again, not as they are (ignorant). If you're not an EENS denier you will take this to mean they will be enlightened with the true Faith and afforded the opportunity to be baptized and enter the Church.

Address to midwives (seriously?):

An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open

Youch! I cannot and will not defend the indefensible. I defer to my first point..Pius XII was speaking to some Italian midwives..not to you, me, or the rest of the faithful. Not infallible, obviously.



Suprema Haec Sacra (addressed to the heretic Archbishop Cushing, this letter never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) contradicts the infallible teachings of Pope Eugene IV, twice

Suprema Haec Sacra:

The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.

Pope Eugene IV:

Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

 “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Suprema Haec Sacra claims that the invincibly may be saved in their ignorance:

However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.

Explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, as taught by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence:

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

...

It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ

Given that Suprema Haec Sacra contradicts these infallible teachings, was addressed only to Archbishop Cushing, and was not published in the AAS (thank God!), it can be, and is, rejected!

And yet, this SAME POPE considered the sacraments offered by the "heretical" Eastern Orthodox as being "valid." Why would sacraments offered by a "heretical" Church STILL be considered "valid"? Does that sound like sound doctrine to you?

 Shouldn't ANY and ALL sacraments offered by a heretical and or schismatic Church be completely illicit AND invalid because they are being conferred and offered by heretics who have separated themselves from Christ???

THE EO have valid sacraments due to recognized apostolic succession.