Some followers of Fr. Feeney perhaps do not know that there already existed a practically universal consensus about the salvific efficacy of BOD among the Pope and Bishops of the first Vatican Council.

A schema on the Church had been proposed and found general acceptance. For various reasons, later, however this was changed into a draft focusing on the Papacy and defining the issue of Papal infallibility. This is recorded by many Catholic writers. The below is from Mansi 51, 541-542 and 570-71.

No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

In the section that speaks of ‘invincible ignorance,’ it is pointed out that it is possible that a person who does not belong to the visible and external communion of the church can still obtain justification and eternal life… Some thought that this should be expressed more clearly, and suggested saying that no one obtained justifica­tion or eternal life who in no way belonged to the church. By this they meant one who belonged neither to the body of the church nor to its soul, and thus who do not belong to the church at all, either in re or in voto.”

It is my understanding that the only thing that was actually defined and revealed as dogma in that council was the Pope's infallibility. Vatican I was never really finished, it ended shortly after, by the intervention of the Holy Ghost . I wonder why was that? Perhaps the Holy Ghost prevented it because He foresaw dangerous modern errors already spreading :scratchchin:

Yes, the Holy Spirit prevented this from being taught to the Church.

Again, however, like Quanto Conficiamur, the first part would be heretical if understood your way.  In fact it's simply stating that God will not deny salvation to those who do not place obstacles in the way of His grace, not that they can be saved outside the Church, along the lines of what St. Thomas wrote (the second paragraph commentary from some unknown source -- Mansi? -- notwithstanding)

Quote

who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power

This does not mean sanctifying grace or salvation, but the prevenient graces needed to bring them to the Church.

It would be heretical if understood your way because it would be Pelagianism.

This is just the final proof that no Catholic understood this the way you do.

Some followers of Fr. Feeney perhaps do not know that there already existed a practically universal consensus about the salvific efficacy of BOD among the Pope and Bishops of the first Vatican Council.

A schema on the Church had been proposed and found general acceptance. For various reasons, later, however this was changed into a draft focusing on the Papacy and defining the issue of Papal infallibility. This is recorded by many Catholic writers. The below is from Mansi 51, 541-542 and 570-71.

Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council

No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

In the section that speaks of ‘invincible ignorance,’ it is pointed out that it is possible that a person who does not belong to the visible and external communion of the church can still obtain justification and eternal life… Some thought that this should be expressed more clearly, and suggested saying that no one obtained justifica­tion or eternal life who in no way belonged to the church. By this they meant one who belonged neither to the body of the church nor to its soul, and thus who do not belong to the church at all, either in re or in voto.”

I was aware of it. It should tell you something that the Holy Ghost rejected it, like He always has, that is why you have to resort to posting "near dogmas" on BOD like this one. But no, you don't see that. Here's another instance even more obvious of the Holy Ghost rejecting BOD:

From Book: Is Feeneyism Catholic by Fr. Laisney SSPX

On page 47, Fr. Laisney quotes the dogmatic definition from the Council of
Florence:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can
often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that Holy Baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”


A number of things are significant about Fr. Laisney’s treatment of this dogmatic definition. First is the fact that Fr. Laisney makes it a special point to note that Florence only mentioned children in this passage. He concludes that while there is no other remedy for children other than the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore there is another remedy for original sin for adults (baptism of desire). He tries to bolster this position by pointing
out that the above passage from Florence is a quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who (in the docuмent quoted) goes on to teach that there is another remedy for adults.

The problem for Fr. Laisney is that the Council of Florence did not incorporate St. Thomas’s paragraph on there being another remedy for adults (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 3), but stopped the quotation from him after stating that there is no other remedy for infants.


This fact should make Fr. Laisney think. Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to incorporate the passage from St. Thomas on infants, and not his teaching in the very next paragraph on baptism of desire? Why didn’t God allow the Council to simply continue with the quotation only one more short paragraph, which would have made it clear once and for all that baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church?  

It’s obvious that the Holy Ghost wanted St. Thomas’s teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism being the only remedy for infants in the
Council, and that He did not want St. Thomas’s teaching that baptism of desire is another remedy for adults in the Council. This is why the one paragraph appears and the other does not.

So-called Baptism of desire in all of it's variants mentioned in the 1949 letter(explicit baptism of desire, implicit baptism of desire, Implicit faith for the invincible ignorant) has never once been defined in any dogmatic decree.

Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council

No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

See my emphasis above.  Again it's a paraphrase of St. Thomas who doesn't say such as these will be saved, just they will not be punished on account of the sin of infidelity but [undoubtedly] will have not receive the grace of faith due to other sins.  I'll bet too that the "so that such a one can obtain" part uses a subjunctive verb in Latin (typically found after "so that"), and the translation should really read "so that such a one might obtain".

Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit prevented this "culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the Church" nonsense from being defined.  While this is certainly true, the opposite might be inferred, namely that anyone who dies "in an inculpable state of separation ..." CAN obtain this.  So this was clearly inserted as a potential timebomb by someone to be exploited later.  Yet the Holy Spirit intervened, because that would be an implied Pelagianism.

Quote from: Ladislaus

...from some unknown source -- Mansi?

This is just the final proof that no Catholic understood this the way you do.

reference https://archive.org/details/Mansi51

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Schema de ecclesia, Original draft at First Vatican Council

No one can be saved outside the church. Moreover it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invinci­ble ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in this ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood ...

See my emphasis above.  Again it's a paraphrase of St. Thomas who doesn't say such as these will be saved, just they will not be punished on account of the sin of infidelity but [undoubtedly] will have not receive the grace of faith due to other sins.  I'll bet too that the "so that such a one can obtain" part uses a subjunctive verb in Latin (typically found after "so that"), and the translation should really read "so that such a one might obtain".

Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit prevented this "culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the Church" nonsense from being defined.  While this is certainly true, the opposite might be inferred, namely that anyone who dies "in an inculpable state of separation ..." CAN obtain this.  So this was clearly inserted as a potential timebomb by someone to be exploited later.  Yet the Holy Spirit intervened, because that would be an implied Pelagianism.

These invincible ignorants are not guilty of heresy or infidelity, only original and actual sins. This is what this says. It is important to make a clear distinction between the Hell torments for actual sins, and the mere absence of God which is the result of Original Sin. People that have a difficulty understanding God's justice is usually because they do not know about the extent of Original sin and the different levels of Hell. The invincible ignorant is not saved on account of original sin, at the very least.

St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without Baptism and the Faith.

The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin, which only Baptism may remit, suffices for damnation.

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished moreover with disparate punishments. […] They will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Florence)

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Cantarella

by the intervention of the Holy Ghost

Or, the Vatican Council was simply interrupted by Franco-Prussian war.

I am on the opinion that in fact God does intervene in all human's affairs for the sake of the elect and not a hair moves without Him allowing it.

I have no objection to your stated opinion here, but your assertion that God intervening to stop the Vatican Council is nothing but speculation on your part.

Regardless of what you think, at the end of the day, Vatican I did NOT teach the passage you cited, so please stop citing it as if it had the implicit authority of Vatican I.  As I pointed out, there's no direct error in the passage, just a Pelagian "implication" in the one sentence.

To keep asserting as you do that those who do not commit culpable sin against the faith can be saved is nothing short of Pelagianism.  Invincible ignorance can never be salvific, merely exculpatory.  To say that it's salvific is nothing short of Pelagianism.  So to make this passage prove BoD, you have to interpret it in a Pelagian manner.  You're trying to imply that Original Sin alone is not enough to prevent someone from being saved.