CathInfo.com

So, I was blocked on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" because they can't handle the truth and pretend to carry on their cognitive dissonance ...




True or False, Derksen?  If you deny it, please find me examples of Trad bishop and priests who do not hold the position of Roncalli that you posted, namely, rejecting that "non-Catholics must convert to Catholicism to be saved."

Maybe instead of docuмenting every single Clown Mass in the Novus Ordo, they could actually check their own doctrine ... since they hold the very same error they condemn Roncalli for.

Pathetic hypocrisy.

I don't care so much about the banning ... as their nonsense has gotten incredibly tedious anyway ... with them providing absolutely nothing of value.  They bloviate about how the Novus Ordo is a false religion, a non-Catholic sect ... but then do nothing but watch and analyze every single move they make, evey time a clown dances down the aisle in a Novus Ordo church (not unlike Tradition in Action that way).

But the ABSURDITY of their condemning Roncalli for saying people did not have to convert to the Catholic religion in order to be saved ... while the Trad clergy these gusy support ALL HOLD THE SAME THING.  Are they really that stupid ... or just intellectually dishonest?

Only difference between them and the Conciliar usurpers (on this point) is that the trads will pay mouth service to EENS before denying it..which I think is actually worse

Yes, I think you're right ... that it is worse, since you falsely give the impression that you believe in it, where the Conciliars make it clear that they do not.

There was the one exception with Bishop McKenna stating that EENS wasn't so much a dogma as it was some kind of "warning" sent to non-Catholics to convert .. which means, I take it, that he considered being in the Church necessary by necessity of precept only.

This is so very sad ... where not only do you have the Conciliar apostasy, nearly the entire Trad movement is a completely sh**show.

It's also very true that almost everyone who's ever walked onto a sedevacantist chapel reports back that they got a "cult" vibe from it, where it's undeniable that a "leaven of the Pharisees" has largely infected SV groups.  I think the CMRI less so ... but then they too have their issues, especially with EENS.

Here's the thing about EENS (with most of them using BoD as a distraction, since there are in fact some ways to articulate it that do not inherently undermine EENS, but labor under other issues) ... if you believe that non-Catholics can be saved YOU HAVEN'T GOT A SINGLE (THEOLOGICAL) LEG TO STAND ON in rejecting Vatican II.

It's so simple that a child can understand it.

MAJOR:  No Salvation Outside the Church [dogma]
MINOR:  Non-Catholics can be saved (without converting before they die)
CONCLUSION:  Non-Catholics can be in the Church (without converting before they die)

What does that do to ecclesiology?  Now the Church consists not only of Catholics but also can include varieties of non-Catholics, people who are formally Catholics (somehow ... Anonymous Catholics I guess), but also various heretics, schismatics, and even infidels (per most Trad clergy) ... in varying degrees of material proxmity to the "subsistent core" of the Church (i.e. to the Catholics).  They are indeed then our "separated brethren", brethren because they are after all in the Church, but separated (materially) due to belonging to different religions.  Since, then these are in the Church, they are no longer in need of conversion, per se, but would benefit from being drawn closre to this "fullness of truth", which they neverthless possess at least partially in varying degrees.

Even Religious Liberty follows.

MAJOR:  I have a right to save my soul and to please God.
MAJOR:  I save my soul and please God by following my (even erroneous) beliefs and conscience.
CONCLUSION:  I have a right to follow my (even erroneous) beliefs and conscience.

In fact, if you get in the way of following my conscience, you may ironically be impeding my salvation, dissuading me from doing what I must to please God and save my soul ... even if what you're presenting to me is the truth.

Subjective soteriology translates to a right to follow the subjective requirements for salvation.

None of this is the least bit difficult.  But there's this incredible cognitive dissonance ... and it's especially strong among the SVs, about which I'll post later.