Before Vatican II, all Catholics believed what the Church taught about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, which you can find in every pre-Vatican 2 book on the Faith where this subject is treated. The only people who did not accept this were a small group of a few dozen crazy weirdos in a small town in Massachusetts and the one, excommunicated priest whom they followed. And that was only a decade or two before Vatican 2 ...
"all Catholics" believed lots of things leading up to Vatican II. Do you really think that Vatican II came out of nowhere ... when on some morning in 1962 the entire world just fell into apostasy, where the same theologians whom you uphold as effectively a rule of faith in 1961, were suddenly apostates by 1963 and then their consensus meant nothing? Those same theologians ALL, without perhaps the single exception of Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, accepted the the teaching of Vatican II as Catholic truth, and taught it as such.
So these were the crazies, and it wasn't Cushing who was a manifest heretic, Cushing who said, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." And nearly the entire world believed that EENS was "nonsense" leading up to Vatican II. Father Feeney only found two bishops in the entire world who affirmed EENS dogma, and this was well before he later formulated his position regarding Baptism of Desire.
You SVs have a bizarre self-contradictory position rooted in the Cekadist theory that the theologians are somehow infallible. But, then, if they're infallible, then you'd better listen to them, the same men in 1963 who were there in 1962 (with a handful of exceptions, those who had died in the interim). Msgr. Fenton, an actual theologian, denounced Cekadism as a "bizarre" theory. So, who are the "crazies"?
Look at yourself now. SVs can be dismissed as a handful of "crazies" today, and they are in most circles. I would venture to say that the number of "Feeneyites" (and similar) outnumber SVs worldwide.
For 700 years, every theologian taught the position of St. Augustine regarding the fate of unbaptized children ... until a "crazy" named Abelard came along and challenged it. But then St. Thomas and other agreed with him, and so Limbo became by far the majority opinion, with very few holdouts. So which theologians were infallible, the ones before Abelard or the ones after him?
EENS-denial is in fact THE theological cause of Vatican II and every single error in Vatican II derives from the EENS denial. No one but Father Feeney saw this before Vatican II, when the Church appeared to be flourishing, with churches being built in record numbers, overflowing seminaries and convents ... but there was a deep rot that only Father Feeney saw.
In fact, those of you who hold your position on EENS are in complete self-contradiction (prescinding from BoD per se). Most SVs, when asked about what is heretical in V2, respond first, almost 100% of the time, that it's the V2 ecclesiology. Except V2 ecclesiology flows logically from the EENS position held by most of the SV clergy.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. DOGMA.
MINOR: Protestants, schismatics, and even infidels can be saved without first converting to Catholicism. (held by +Lefebvre and nearly all the SV clergy)
CONCLUSION: Protestans, schismatics, and even infidels can be in the Church (somehow).
QED: Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.
I don't understand how some of your are so blind as not to see this. You're walking contradictions.
Topic: Where is the True Church with the Four Marks today? In sede-land, or in the RCC? (Read 4496 times)