[DecemRationis]

JPII said this at an audience:

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html

Is "explicit faith" in Christ necessary for salvation? I say yes, and am wondering: where does that put JPII and the V2 hierarchy?

And for those who say "no" ("explicit faith" is not necessary), give pre- Vatican II Magisterial support for that, please.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Reading that comment from JPII only makes me see even more why one would consider JPII an anti-pope, even though I myself do not consider him to be one. To answer your question, explicit faith is indeed a true teaching of the Traditional Catholic Church. To declare that Christ can save someone even if they reject Him is a heresy and apostasy. Nothing good comes out of their religions. We must remember that the First Vatican Council stated there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So again, JPII is wrong here. I can clearly see why someone would label him as an anti-pope, although I don't label him as one at this time. But I am open to the possibility of doing so just as Archbishop LeFebvre was.

[Darcy]

JPIIs legacy lives on. I hear from NO family members always, that all that matters is that you believe in God.
And not even that...that all that matters is that you are a "good person".  :shocked:

This is coming from the elder folk who should know better as they witnessed the heresy in action and the rug slipped out from under them. I think they got angry, disillusioned and just totally turned their back on popes in general.
But they better hurry and get it straight because their time is nigh.

Nothing I say helps. They think I am extreme.

[TKGS]

I am very sorry for Father Cekada's actions at St. Gertrude the Great.  At one time, I had great admiration for him but he has been proven to be an unreliable source.  Some of what he has written (specifically his work on the invalidity of the New Rites of Consecration) has never been adequately refuted by apologists for the Conciliar church (or the SSPX), but because of what has happened since he wrote those criticisms, it is impossible to cite him as a source because others will not accept anything he says and I am no longer convinced that he really knows what he was saying.

I have read the article in The Angelus in which the SSPX claims to refute the arguments of Father Cekada on the New Rites of Epicopal Consecration.  In fact, I first heard of Father Cekada and his arguments concerning the validity of the New Rites when I read The Angelus article.  I found Father Cekada's article well reasoned and understandable.  I found the SSPX article to be impossible to understand.  When I read these articles, I had no idea that there had ever been a controversy though I have since learned that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was questioned immediately upon its promulgation.  I still believe Father Cekada has the better argument and I know that I have read in The Angelus that the New Rite is not unconditionally valid which is why the SSPX often (if not always) conditionally ordains priests who come to the SSPX from the Novus Ordo.

I agree that there is hypocricy in what he wrote.  He once gave a conference in which he urged traditional Catholics to stop anathematizing each other and refusing communion with each other for doctrinal issues that weren't settled prior to the crisis or for recognizing the Conciliar popes as popes.  He has since done a 180 degree turn around but has never explained why his views have changed.  I don't trust people who completely change their position on fundamental issues but refuse to make a reasonable explanation of why.

Even Donald Trump gave a better explanation as to why be went from being "pro-choice" to "pro-life".  I'm not saying I believe Donald Trump; just that he gave a better explanation as to how he could change his views so completely on a fundamental issue.

[DecemRationis]

Thanks for your comment, Spiritus and Darcy.

My last real involvement here a few days ago was defending the V2 popes from claims of heresy, saying the actions addressed failed to show that. Many of the things, like JPII's kissing the Koran, are simply stupid, bonehead moves undertaken in the name of peace or whatever, and indeed are of the order of St. Peter's improvidence and stupid conduct with the Jєωs at Antioch.

But then there's this stuff, this teaching on issues of the faith, such as this statement of JPII, and of course we could bring up others.

If the sedes are right, they are right for the wrong reasons. The potential heresy in my view is this failure of the Magisterium on EENS, and this goes back to before V2, and is suggested in things like the Holy Office Letter of 1949, which appears nonetheless to be able to be read with an orthodox understanding. Of course, after V2, the wheels came off, and any heresy brewing erupted into the full-blown thing.

Maybe.

I told Hobble I have an open mind on the sede question, and indeed I do. Though the door is closing . . .

[roscoe]

Putting aside what ever heretical doctrines or  apostate actions, JP II(2) may be guilty of, he( like the other v2 anti-popes) was not legally elected.