1) First, let's start for the title:

Quote

THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Given that the rest of the article explains how there is no salvation outside the Church, I think the title can be excused.  The title doesn't actually say that there is salvation outside the Church.  In fact, here is a thought experiment:

Title: THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Article: Dedicated to the memory of Fr. Leonard Feeney
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus -- Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.  QED.

Right away I see that you fail to acknowledge that Fr. Barbara is making a distinction between inside/outside and membership/non-membership.  The article explains that membership involves receiving baptism of water and professing the Catholic Faith whereas being inside the Church involves "all those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.  These are those who have theological faith, possess the divine life and are in a state of grace."  Not all members of the Church are saved but all those who are inside the Church are certainly saved.  So Fr. Barbara is not claiming that anyone outside the Church is saved.  Personally, I think I would have chosen a better title but it is what it is.  It certainly is not heretical if understood correctly in the context of the entire article.

2)  

Quote

In the face of this, must one believe that everyone,
 without exception, who does not OFFICIALLY belong to the Church
 by means of the reception of Baptism and the public profession
 of the Catholic faith, is damned?  Not at all.  

Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, Part 2, Chapter 5, Sec 20, The Necessity for Membership of the Church, is written:

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.) ... The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (nec. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows.  The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one.  In special circuмstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same.

 The book has an nihil obstat and imprimatur dated 1954.

Likewise, Monsignor G. Van Noort gives a similar although much more detailed treatment.  On p. 262 of Dogmatic Theology Vol. 2 - Christ's Church he writes, "[A]ll the fathers vehemently teach that the Church alone leads to salvation; nonetheless they admit that not all those who are actually outside the Church's membership are necessarily damned."  This book has a nihil obstat and imprimatur dated 1956.

So Fr. Barbara's treatment is in line with approved theology manuals.  Therefore it is not heretical.

3)

Quote

 THE EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ...for salvation

     If the Church teaches that the sacraments instituted by
 the Son of God made man oblige the Father to give His graces to
 whomsoever validly receives them, she has never taught that His
 generosity is restricted to this methodology.  

Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism, Canon 5:

If anyone says that Baptism of optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let it be anathema.

You must have missed where Fr. Barbara wrote this: "Now, among the things that are pleasing to God must be included the necessary obligation of receiving the Baptism of water."  So in fact, Fr. Barbara is not guilty of saying that Baptism is optional.  Rather, he understands the distinction between an absolute necessity of means and a hypothetical necessity of means.

4)

Quote

It is then clear that God, who has promised to give His graces through these ordinary means of the sacraments, can also give them in an extraordinary manner.  Holy Scripture provides us with numerous examples of this.  Thus, Saint Dismas, the good thief, received the grace  of regeneration without any sacrament, and this with such efficacy that Our Lord said to him, "This very day you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke XXIII:43).

The Good Thief died before the foundation of the Catholic Church at Pentecost,

Fine.  But you have to admit that there is no error in what Fr. Barbara has written.  Saint Dismas was saved without any sacrament.  No error there.  It might not be the most relevant example but it is not an error.

5)

Quote

These examples show with a certitude which cannot be
 denied that it is possible to belong to the Soul of the Church
 without belonging to her Body, and that God can bestow His
 graces in an extraordinary manner which is independent of the
 sacraments.

Again,
 Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

Answered above.

6)

Quote

With regard to these latter and all those who deny the
 mysteries of God, it is necessary to make the following point.
 If it is possible that non-Catholics can belong to the Soul of
 the Church while in good faith knowing nothing of the divine
 Mysteries, this is absolutely impossible for those who
 blaspheme against them.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra said:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Pius XI said:
For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

On this one, you might have a point but I would not go so far as to accuse Fr. Barbara of heresy.  It is obvious that he is attempting to explain the teaching according to approved sources.  If there is a little imprecision, it doesn't imply that he is denying the teaching of the Church.  And I assure you that the CMRI doesn't intend to imply that one can be saved without supernatural faith.  In fact, Fr. Barbara writes elsewhere in the article, "It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith."

7)

Quote

INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

This is the error in which those who without any fault on
 their part find themselves.  It presumes good faith.  It can be
 met with among those to whom the true religion has never been
 presented, and among those to whom it has been presented and to
 whom, despite this, it does not appear to be the truth.  Such
 is to be found in parts of the world which are completely
 adherent to the schismatic churches or some other cult, such as
 Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, etc.  This ignorance excuses
 those involved of all culpability.

The Invincibly Ignorant is damned at least for the guilt of Original Sin. They are justly deprived of the only means of salvation, which is membership in the Holy Catholic Church (visibly, explicitly,....). They have neither innocence nor excuse in this matter. Their ignorance of the Divine Faith is a punishment for the original sin. It is the will of God, and it suffices for damnation.

The Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined at the ecuмenical councils of Lyons and Florence, that the guilt of original sin suffices for damnation in hell.

The term invincible ignorance can be found in Ott, Van Noort, Pius IX and Pius XI among other Church approved sources.  I believe Fr. Barbara is again in line with the Church's teaching.  Nowhere does he deny that those who die with the stain of original sin are damned.

8.

I'm skipping this one because I don't see where you have pointed out any error on Fr. Barbara's part.  It looks to me like you are just trying to justify the Feeneyite position by saying that God will make sure that everyone whom he desires to be saved will receive Baptism of Water.

9.

Quote

It is also to HIS Church that Jesus confided the seven
 sacraments; non-Catholics are deprived of this, and this
 deprivation can only make their perseverance in the path of
 salvation more precarious.

Makes salvation impossible, given that no one can enter Heaven with Original Sin which is remitted only though the Sacrament of Baptism.

You are dissenting from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church on this point.  As I have already pointed out above, there are many Church-approved sources which point out that Original Sin can be remitted without Baptism of Water in some extraordinary circuмstances.  Fr. Barbara is simply following Church-approved sources.  It is you who are dissenting against Church-approved sources.

Given that the rest of the article explains how there is no salvation outside the Church, I think the title can be excused.

 :roll-laugh1:

That heretical article does absolutely NOTHING of the sort.  It spends its ENTIRE time talking about how non-Catholics and those outside the Church can be saved.

No, a heretical title like that can NEVER be excused; it denies Catholic dogma word for word.  It's horrifically scandalous, and I'd be surprised if Father Barbara doesn't still have years and years of Purgatory left for promoting such a blasphemy.

The problem with sedevacantists is that they are under the impression that every single book or theologian which was ever "approved" before Vatican II is free from error, protected by infallibility. (this is part of the general sede belief that everything before Vatican II was impeccable but all collapsed overnight after 1967). This is clearly not so. There were liberal doctrinal errors rampant in the preceding decades before Vatican II Council.

Essentially you are denying the infallibility/indefectibility of the ordinary universal magisterium.  That itself is a heresy.

THE SALVATION OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is impossible because THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

"There is only one universal Church, outside of which
absolutely no one can be saved."  Gregory XVI gave enunciation
to this dogma which is "one of the most important and most
clearly enunciated" teachings of our religion. . . . . .

. . . . .In the face of this, must one believe that everyone,
without exception, who does not OFFICIALLY belong to the Church
by means of the reception of Baptism and the  profession
of the Catholic faith, is damned?  Yes, "in the face of this", that is we must believe.

Reply: But we must understand dogma the way the Church herself understands it.

Answer: Vatican 1 infallibly decreed that the Church herself understands dogma as dogma has been declared.

Vatican 1 decreed:

"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

If one does not understand what the thrice defined dogma EENS means, then is it possible that they also do not understand what the above decree means?

I do not know - let's ask: Nado, 2Vermont, Mabel, Myrna, Clemens Maria, anyone else - do you understand that the decree from V1 means that the Church understands dogma as declared and that dogma is to be understood as declared?

You just undermine the divinity and holiness of the Church and Her magisterium.

No, Nado, it is you who undermine the Magisterium and the Holiness of the Church by making it into a bizarre caricature of itself.

With regard to EENS, either the Majority Opinion is wrong or else the Minority Opinion is wrong.  Yet the Church "tolerated" the Majority Opinion for about 1600 years.  Your argument is that the Minority Opinion cannot be an error because the Church tolerated it since it first cropped up in the 1600s.  But if the Minority Opinion is right (i.e. cannot be wrong), then the Majority Opinion is wrong.  But how could the Church have tolerated the erroneous Majority Opinion for so long then?

There have been many cases in which the Church has failed to step in to resolve contrary opinions (cf. the famous case between the Thomists and the Molinists).  Both camps accused the other of heresy and error, and if one position was right, then the other was wrong.  Yet the Church tolerated both, i.e. the Church tolerate an erroneous opinion.

Right until the 1950s, the majority of theologians considered the minority opinion to be erroneous.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

... [dishonest babble] ...

As with all the BoDers (with one single exception here on CI), you simply use Baptism of Desire as a weapon to reject EENS and to promote Pelagianism and to undermine Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  In point of fact, Father Feeney's problem was with those who held the so-called "Minority Opinion" and then leveraged that into the aforementioned heresies.  And, on this point, according to Monsignor Fenton, the MAJORITY of Catholic theologians still considered that position to be in error, in support of Father Feeney.  Father Feeney would have had no problem with the position held by someone like Nishant.

It's only the dishonest bad-willed trads like yourself who try to make BoD the issue.  Why?  Because you can find some Church Doctors who hold the opinion.  But you fail to mention that these same Church Doctors held the MAJORITY opinion and would have condemned the heretical ramblings of Father Barbara for what they were.  St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine would not have recognized Father Barbara's bad-willed screed as even remotely Catholic.  Monsignor Fenton himself would have absolutely shredded Father Barbara's nonsense.  In fact, he did explicitly address most of the false pseudo-arguments and pseudo-distinctions and distortions used by Father Barbara in that perverse and blasphemous article of his.

I base my opinion on Church-approved sources which I have already specified in the discussion above.  On what authority do you base your opinions?  Don't bother with quotes from the Fathers of the Church.  My sources have already shown how their doctrine is compatible with the Fathers and their teaching is approved by the Church as recently as the 1950s.  Please site a Church-approved source for your opinion that Barbara, Spirago, Fenton, Bainvel, Ott, The Holy Office (Ottaviani?), Van Noort among others are all teaching heresy.

You don't have those sources, do you?  You only have opinions from Feeneyite sources who don't have Church approval, don't have imprimaturs nor nihil obstats and don't have the support of a single Catholic bishop anywhere in the world today nor for centuries in the past.  You only have some false private interpretations that have only been around since the late 1940s.

I base my opinion on Church-approved sources which I have already specified in the discussion above.  On what authority do you base your opinions?  Don't bother with quotes from the Fathers of the Church.  My sources have already shown how their doctrine is compatible with the Fathers and their teaching is approved by the Church as recently as the 1950s.  Please site a Church-approved source for your opinion that Barbara, Spirago, Fenton, Bainvel, Ott, The Holy Office (Ottaviani?), Van Noort among others are all teaching heresy.

No, you base your opinion on your bad-willed refusal to accept the dogma EENS.  Correct, many authorities believed in Baptism of Desire.  What's incorrect is your attempting to extrapolate from Baptism of Desire the salvation of non-Catholics.  You are a Pelagian, a denier of EENS, and refuse to accept also the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You deliberately conflate your heresies with BoD and try to wrap up the excrement in a brown paper bag, mark the bag "BoD", and try to convince everyone that what's inside is really something that St. Thomas put in there.  False.

If you want to understand the distinction, look up my thread on Catholic vs. Heretical Baptism of Desire.  If you want to understand a Catholic view of BoD, ask Nishant; he's very articulate about a BoD that's 1) consisent with the mind of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al., 2) is not Pelagian, 3) does not reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and 4) does not gut EENS into a meaningless tautological formula.  But you don't care.  Why?  Because you're not sincerely seeking the truth.  You are of bad will.  You find EENS unpalatable.  You have therefore exploited the notion of BoD and twisted it to suit your purposes.  Nishant, who is NOT a Feeneyite by any stretch of the imagination, has writtten several very thoughtful and charitable posts to address this issue.  Not one of you bad-willed obstinate EENS-deniers have ever bothered with a response.  You just keep frothing at the mouth about "Feeneyism".  Nishant's only mistake is to take a tone which implies that you might be of good will and might listen to reason.  In point of fact, most of you are obstinate in your heresies.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I base my opinion on Church-approved sources which I have already specified in the discussion above.  On what authority do you base your opinions?  Don't bother with quotes from the Fathers of the Church.  My sources have already shown how their doctrine is compatible with the Fathers and their teaching is approved by the Church as recently as the 1950s.  Please site a Church-approved source for your opinion that Barbara, Spirago, Fenton, Bainvel, Ott, The Holy Office (Ottaviani?), Van Noort among others are all teaching heresy.

No, you base your opinion on your bad-willed refusal to accept the dogma EENS.  Correct, many authorities believed in Baptism of Desire.  What's incorrect is your attempting to extrapolate from Baptism of Desire the salvation of non-Catholics.  You are a Pelagian, a denier of EENS, and refuse to accept also the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  You deliberately conflate your heresies with BoD and try to wrap up the excrement in a brown paper bag, mark the bag "BoD", and try to convince everyone that what's inside is really something that St. Thomas put in there.  False.

If you want to understand the distinction, look up my thread on Catholic vs. Heretical Baptism of Desire.  If you want to understand a Catholic view of BoD, ask Nishant; he's very articulate about a BoD that's 1) consisent with the mind of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, et al., 2) is not Pelagian, 3) does not reject the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and 4) does not gut EENS into a meaningless tautological formula.  But you don't care.  Why?  Because you're not sincerely seeking the truth.  You are of bad will.  You find EENS unpalatable.  You have therefore exploited the notion of BoD and twisted it to suit your purposes.  Nishant, who is NOT a Feeneyite by any stretch of the imagination, has writtten several very thoughtful and charitable posts to address this issue.  Not one of you bad-willed obstinate EENS-deniers have ever bothered with a response.  You just keep frothing at the mouth about "Feeneyism".  Nishant's only mistake is to take a tone which implies that you might be of good will and might listen to reason.  In point of fact, most of you are obstinate in your heresies.

I accept the dogma of EENS.  I didn't extrapolate.  I quoted approved Catholic sources.  I didn't add anything nor subtract anything.  I am not a theologian.  I accept the approved teaching of the Catholic Church.  Fr. Feeney was excommunicated.  The Holy Office condemned his doctrine.  You accuse Fr. Barbara of heresy (not just heresy but bad-willed heresy, actually you accused me of bad will but I do not teach anything, I am just defending Fr. Barbara's and the CMRI's orthodoxy so I assume that you are accusing Fr. Barbara of bad will despite the fact that he is not attempting to deny any of the Church's teaching).  I quoted multiple Catholic sources for the "soul of the Church" terminology which Cantarella found objectionable.  I also pointed out that Fr. Barbara teaches that supernatural faith is necessary for salvation which was another of Cantarella's objections (i.e. that Fr. Barbara was denying the necessity of faith).  You didn't offer any specific criticisms of Fr. Barbara's article so I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Pelagianism or denying EENS.  No one that I quoted claimed that you could achieve salvation without grace.  None have denied EENS.  All the sources I quoted affirm EENS while at the same time allowing for BOD.  I don't find EENS unpalatable.  I believe the doctrine of EENS.  I haven't seen Nishant's posts.  I am only defending Fr. Barbara and the CMRI because I know that they have no desire to teach anything other than what the Church has always taught.  All of my sources, including Fr. Barbara teach that all those who have Catholic Faith and have not had the opportunity through no fault of their own to receive water baptism can be saved if they have perfect contrition for there sins.  If you think Fr. Barbara has deviated from those approved Catholic sources then in justice you should be specific about where you think he has gone wrong.

I note too that Fr. Bainvel disagreed with the "soul of the Church" terminology but he did not therefore characterize it as a heresy much less accuse people of bad will.  He just said it didn't fit the data very well.  He understood it as Catholic theologians struggling to find the best way to explain the conflict between EENS and BOD.  But one thing that all truly Catholic theologians agree on is that you cannot resolve this conflict by throwing out BOD.