CathInfo.com

Please cite an authority that teaches the concept of a so-called natural justification.

There is no "authority", but it's speculation ... just as BoD is also 100% sheer speculation without any foudnation in Public Revelation.

Similarly ... take Limbo.  Limbo actually involves taking the distinction between the temporal punishment due to actual sin and the supernatural deprevation of sanctifying grace which can be due to Original Sin alone.  This is an extension of the same notion, where just as infants who die unbaptized do not die in enmity with God, but in fact remain in a state of natural friendship with Him, and therefore enjoy a natural happiness, a concept of a natural justification would be something akin to approaching this state of natural non-enmity with God.  While natural virtue and good will can put one in such a state, it doesn't suffice for entery into the Kingdom, i.e into the supernatural life of the Holy Trinity.

AND ... Limbo is as much sheer speculation as anythign else.  While it's not mandatory, and the stricter opinion of St. Augustine may be held, no less authority than St. Thomas gave it the full weight of his authority, and the Church condemned its rejection as a "Pelagian fable" (aka speculation rooted in implicit Pelagian heresy).

If there's one area about which God has chosen to reveal so very little, it's the detailed explanation of who goes where and in what state afer we die.  God of course revealed about Heaven or Hell, but there was no revelation regarding Limbo, and yet the Church does not condemn it, and St. Thomas strongly endorsed the notion.

This "natural justification" concept is akin to that.

I believe everything the Church teaches.

Including BOD, and that denying it is a mortal sin. As I posted in a thread before.

So, being R&R and all that ... that's just a bald-faced lie, since according to you the Church teaches Vatican II.

You morons condemn yourselves out of your own mouths, but you literally live in this split-brain syndrome, a cognitive dissonance, where you show due reverence to pre-V2 Magisterium, but then deride the post-V2 Magisterium as if it were owed no respect whatsoever, and you entertain both of these dissonant atttudes at the same time.

Nor has the Church ever TAUGHT "BoD".

Of course, as I said ... you just declared yourself guilty of mortal sin for rejecting the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council.  I do marvel about how some people are so stupid as to not see this absurd contradiction.

Rahner on V2 and EENS for reference:

The Second Vatican Council positively asserts that it is possible for the non- Christian to attain salvation, though at the same time it declares that such salvation is achieved in ways that are known to God alone. In a tacit but noteworthy correction to the officially received theology which had hitherto been more or less unanimous on this point, it was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation, though here the distinctions between positive and negative atheism, between atheism of greater or lesser duration, usually accepted up to that point were not applied at the Second Vatican Council. The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual's own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church's conscious awareness of her faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis etc.


Problem of the "Anonymous Christian", Theological Investigations, Vol. 14

Yes, thank you for providing the quote.  This is precisely to what I was referring.  Rahner is 100% on the money, and he should know because he was one of the forces agitating for this shift.

But the answer is actually quite simple.  This infection regarding the Modernist ecclesiology formalized at Vatican II, the rot of it had already infested nearly all Catholics.  Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his "Anonymous Catholic" soteriology undoubtedly in good faith because ... he had learned it at seminary from a professor whom he had respect highly as otherwise being anti-Modernist.

In fact, some of the most rabidly anti-Modernist Trad clergy today ... emphatically declare that non-Catholics can be saved, whether "Hindus in Tibet" or any manner of Jews, Muslim, or even Great Thumb worshipper.

THAT is why this went unnoticed, and IT GOES UNNOTICED EVEN TIL THIS VERY DAY, after we have had the 20/20 vision of hindsight to have been able to see it.  But only Father Feeney saw it AHEAD OF TIME and saw Vatican II coming.

While everybody thought that the "State of the Church is strong" (to paraphrase what Presidents say at the State of the Union) with seminaries and monasteries and convents full to bursting, new churches and schools popping up like mushrooms, people conerting in droves, etc. ... everybody though things were just going amazing.  But the collapse could not have happened so dramatically had there not already been deep termite damage and wood rot beneath the beautiful exterior edifice.