CathInfo.com

Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance.  They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.

.
That's right, a second quote for the same post! It made me recall a certain 44-page encyclical of Pius XII (much less challenging to read BTW than Pascendi), from which my present interest is number 27, i.e.,
.

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.⁶ Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

.

6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.

.
That's got to be one of the most compact paragraphs of all time! While it treats of one broad topic, the Church, it refers to what must be three very different groups of people, but we have no idea whether any, most or all of them are Catholics! Perhaps they're all Protestants. Maybe they're a mix of Protestants, Jews and Orthodox. Or they could all be Moslems. Who knows? Were any of them Americans?
.
He says, "Some say..." followed by "Some reduce..." and "Others finally..." Are the "others finally" who they are, doing what they're doing, so as to warrant mention in this cryptic Letter, as a RESULT of the "some" who "reduce?" Is the last group an effect of the second group who "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church?" That would explain the "finally" -- like the fans at a race track cashing in their ticket after the race is over, or stock brokers collecting their gains after the closing bell rings. Because then the third group owes its existence as a group to that cryptic "(reduction) to a meaningless formula."
.
I'd like to ask a CMRI priest about that paragraph, to see if it's something they covered in seminary classes. I suspect it was.

Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance.  They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.

That is actually quite true. They believe that their "debate" over bod/ignorance has nothing to do withholding the Faith, whole and entire.  I ask again, if there are these various methods of alternative salvation, what is the need for the Church?  Why did the Church have to declare this dogma?............Three times?
The modernists prepared the ground well over the last hundred years, for their new doctrine of an optional Catholic Church, they were already 3/4 of the way converted by the time Vatican II rolled around.

That is actually quite true. They believe that their "debate" over bod/ignorance has nothing to do withholding the Faith, whole and entire.  I ask again, if there are these various methods of alternative salvation, what is the need for the Church?  Why did the Church have to declare this dogma?............Three times?
The modernists prepared the ground well over the last hundred years, for their new doctrine of an optional Catholic Church, they were already 3/4 of the way converted by the time Vatican II rolled around.

The Vatican has adopted the principles of the ultra-Modernist VII theologian Rahner, who denied all the validity of dogmas:

“The attempt to make a universal [dogmatic] definition and use it categorically to control the course of History, considering possible detours as if they were defects …. is false a priori.”

Nothing is ever sacred and safe anymore in this new state of things. Even the Creed itself is at stake:

“There will no longer be one, basic, unique, and universal formula of the Christian Faith applicable to the whole Church.”

He explicitly denies that the Church is the only depository of salvation. Most traditionalists deny this implicitly (some groups being quite explicit about it, though). This thesis of his is officially adopted in Vatican II and taught ever since:

“Today the Church should not consider herself the sole depositary of salvation …. nor should she consider herself the only religious society in whose ambit one can find those who achieve salvation. … The Church should not be seen as a society of those who possess grace as opposed to those who are deprived of it. She must be seen as a society on the way to recognizing that …. she will become more herself as she accepts others who now only implicitly possess the grace of salvation”

And no, it has nothing to do with proper BOD/BOB, even though the corruption of the first one was the tool which liberals misused to obliterate the dogma.