According to plain English from doctrinal statements, which are infallible.  V2, Baltimore catechisms, various theologians, scriptural commentary, catholic encyclopedias...none of these are infallible.  But doctrine is.
.
What you need to do is go read the council commentary from Trent and Florence and see what they had to say about doctrine.  All else is speculation.

I think this is my overarching objection.  That basically Feeneyites (for lack of a better word) interpret dogmatic statements the way Protestants interpret scripture, according to some defined "plain meaning", concluding that everyone who didn't accept "the obvious" (and I mean even before Vatican II, not just after Vatican II) must have been stupid or an infiltrator.

I think this is my overarching objection.  That basically Feeneyites (for lack of a better word) interpret dogmatic statements the way Protestants interpret scripture, according to some defined "plain meaning", concluding that everyone who didn't accept "the obvious" (and I mean even before Vatican II, not just after Vatican II) must have been stupid or an infiltrator.

Well, no, obviously you go with the Church's interpretation.  But what has happened to EENS is that people over time have changed the alleged Church interpretation over time.  That's actually how Modernism works.  After a few decades, "uhm, well, you know, what the Church REALLY meant by that dogma was ...".  On the dogma of EENS, we've gotten to the point that the original meaning of the Church is now widely denounced as HERETICAL.  So the devil has worked a major coup on this dogma.

What Pax is saying is to read the commentaries on the Councils that were made RIGHT AROUND THE TIME of the Council.  There's zero indication that the Church was just using language freely and liberally, but intended the dogma in its plain sense.  What the Church clearly meant was:  "Hey, you see that guy over there?  He's a Protestant.  He's going to hell unless he converts first."  The Church didn't mean the dogma as some abstract principle.  It was very concrete.  Read the writings of the saints; they minced no words that Protestants are all lost, that Jews are all lost, etc.  None of them made exceptions for the good-hearted sincere Protestant, or the well-meaning Jew.  This notion of "subjectivism" and "relativism" of truth had not so much cast a shadow on those Catholics' minds yet.  Things basically were, to them, what they appeared to be.  They did not see the world as just teeming with "Anonymous Catholics".  This philosophical notion that reality was in your mind rather than easily observed started with philosophers like Descartes, and found its way into theology through phenomenology.  More and more what was real was what your mind imposed on reality rather than the other way around, the reality that reflected itself in your mind.  So the modern mind began being polluted with subjectivism.  And ultimately this lead to Vatican II.  When simple lay Catholics used to read the dogma EENS as reflected in the catechisms of their day, they interpreted that, quite simply as, "Those Protestant neighbors of ours, the Smiths, well, they're on their way to hell unless they become Catholics before they die."  This notion of, "They're convinced that they're right, so they could go to heaven" would have gotten you labeled as a heretical EENS-denier, and you would have been laughed to scorn.

So the Catholic principle is that we must hold he dogma in the sense that the Church mean it WHEN she pronounced it.  We don't practice "eisegesis" and read foreign interpretations into it after the fact, as our "awareness" of what the dogma REALLY means "grows".  What was the mind and attitude of the Church AT THE TIME the Church defined the dogma, not that attitude imposed by polluted minds five centuries later.

Well, no, obviously you go with the Church's interpretation.  But what has happened to EENS is that people over time have changed the alleged Church interpretation over time.  That's actually how Modernism works.  After a few decades, "uhm, well, you know, what the Church REALLY meant by that dogma was ...".  On the dogma of EENS, we've gotten to the point that the original meaning of the Church is now widely denounced as HERETICAL.  So the devil has worked a major coup on this dogma.

What Pax is saying is to read the commentaries on the Councils that were made RIGHT AROUND THE TIME of the Council.  There's zero indication that the Church was just using language freely and liberally, but intended the dogma in its plain sense.  What the Church clearly meant was:  "Hey, you see that guy over there?  He's a Protestant.  He's going to hell unless he converts first."  The Church didn't mean the dogma as some abstract principle.  It was very concrete.  Read the writings of the saints; they minced no words that Protestants are all lost, that Jews are all lost, etc.  None of them made exceptions for the good-hearted sincere Protestant, or the well-meaning Jew.  This notion of "subjectivism" and "relativism" of truth had not so much cast a shadow on those Catholics' minds yet.  Things basically were, to them, what they appeared to be.  They did not see the world as just teeming with "Anonymous Catholics".  This philosophical notion that reality was in your mind rather than easily observed started with philosophers like Descartes, and found its way into theology through phenomenology.  More and more what was real was what your mind imposed on reality rather than the other way around, the reality that reflected itself in your mind.  So the modern mind began being polluted with subjectivism.  And ultimately this lead to Vatican II.  When simple lay Catholics used to read the dogma EENS as reflected in the catechisms of their day, they interpreted that, quite simply as, "Those Protestant neighbors of ours, the Smiths, well, they're on their way to hell unless they become Catholics before they die."  This notion of, "They're convinced that they're right, so they could go to heaven" would have gotten you labeled as a heretical EENS-denier, and you would have been laughed to scorn.

So the Catholic principle is that we must hold he dogma in the sense that the Church mean it WHEN she pronounced it.  We don't practice "eisegesis" and read foreign interpretations into it after the fact, as our "awareness" of what the dogma REALLY means "grows".  What was the mind and attitude of the Church AT THE TIME the Church defined the dogma, not that attitude imposed by polluted minds five centuries later.

I'll have to look.  I do know both that some Church Fathers leave some wiggle room, and also that wiggle room existed before Vatican II.  Thomas Aquinas does at one point talk about people being able to be saved through implicit belief in a Mediator, though other times he seems to say that belief in the Trinity is absolutely required (thus I'm not sure how to reconcile him, though I'm sure it can be done.)  I agree that if the original intent of Florence was as you say, then that must be the correct understanding.  I'm just not certain that was the case.  I'll have to research more.  Interesting point about Descartes.

I am gonna research this further, but I think I'm done debating it, at least for right now.  Thank you guys for a good discussion!

Am I really the only one here who agrees with +Lefebvre on this topic, or is everyone else just really quiet about it?  LOL!

From the Baltimore Catechism;

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
1.(1) Has been validly baptized;
2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.


https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church

WWII: Gunner fell 22,000 feet WITHOUT a parachute and survived
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html
Hey Poche look at that, a man fell out of a plane from 22,000 feet without a parachute and survived! Let's go jump off planes without parachutes. You go first.

That's the equivalent of posting that quote from the Baltimore Catechism in this debate, it's only purpose is to tell people they can jump from 22,000 feet without a parachute, telling them, yes, you can survive, so you can jump without a parachute. Unfortunately, the faith does not work the way of the nature, and one can believe whatever they want to believe and will never be burned in this world (and in this case end up splattered on the ground).

From the Baltimore Catechism;

Stop with the spam job, poche.  If you have something meaningful to say, then make an intelligent comment that's in context with where the discussion has gone.  Everyone is aware that the erosion of the EENS dogma was well underway by the 18th and 19th centuries.  We're discussing this precisely because we are rejecting said trend as illegitimate.

WWII: Gunner fell 22,000 feet WITHOUT a parachute and survived
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html

With a name like Magee, how much could we bet that he was a Catholic and that he was either wearing his scapular and/or had made the First Saturday, and thus was miraculously saved by Our Lady?