Karl Rahner on Vatican II:

It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation… 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 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.

By V2, even the "conservative" Fathers had been poisoned, as we read from +Lefebvre's words about salvation, which are almost identical to Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" position.

We find this continuing today among Trad Catholics, where 95%+ of Trad clergy promote the notion that non-Catholics can be saved.

And yet this error is at the heart of Vatican II, as Rahner (who should know, since he was highly influential there) notes here.

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church. [Dogma]
MINOR:  Non-Catholics can be saved. [position held by 95%+ of Trad clergy]
CONCLUSION:  Non-Catholics can be within the Church.

Here you have Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.  Since no one can deny the thrice-defined dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church, the only way to get non-Catholics saved is to claim that they can be in the Church somehow.  What does that do to the  definition of Church, to ecclesiology?

So, while the Catholic Church constitutes the visible "subsistent" core of the Church, the Church also includes various non-Catholics.  These non-Catholics must be formally in the Church, even if they are not fully united materially (visibly) to the Church, and they have varying degrees of separation from the Catholic Church.  They are in a true sense our separated brethren.  Ecuмenism then entails a recognition of this unity, while continuing to dialog about our material / accidental differences.

Religious Liberty also follows.  If people please God and save their souls by following their (even erroneous) consciences, then since people have a right to please God and save their souls, they have a right to follow their (even erroneous) consciences.  In fact, to thwart them from following their (even erroneous) consciences would be to imperil their salvation.

And yet we have Trads continuing to adamantly claim that non-Catholics can be saved ... while denouncing Vatican II ecclesiology as heretical, while ironically holding to the same ecclesiology themselves.

Question: Is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus true, that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

Answer: The doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is a traditional Catholic teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  However, the interpretation and application of this doctrine has evolved over time.  The Second Vatican Council in the 1960's emphasized the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics through their sincere pursuit of truth and goodness. The Catholic Church recognizes that God's mercy is not limited by the visible boundaries of the Church and that salvation is ultimately in God's hands. 

Just shows me what a load of manure AI is. 

That's like saying, "I Googled where I should attend Mass, and it said _____."

So what? There is no intelligence involved. In fact, in the case of both Google AND AI there is an actual bias against the Truth in many ways. AI training involves human training/feedback, so don't ever pretend ChatGPT is some sentient General AI that is self-aware and more smart than any human. Because it's not. Not even close. And never will be.

If the Internet doesn't have the solution for the Crisis in the Church, what makes you think a chat bot trained on Internet data would be better? Garbage in garbage out.

The simplest way to understand and dismantle the whole "AI" hype is to know what intelligence actually is.

Intelligence comes from the Latin intus (within) plus legere (to read).

An intelligent being READS the essence of a thing WITHIN it. We don't just look at the chair and sit on it like a cat, we look at the chair and understand the abstract ideas behind it. We understand CHAIRNESS. or the abstract IDEA of a chair, and that yes, it applies to THIS chair as well.

Anything abstract, INCLUDING LANGUAGE, requires intelligence. So there will be no dog-translator any time soon. Dogs don't think. They only have a beastly, lower nature. They have emotions, but no reason or ability to think. Any dog translator would translate what they're really saying: "woof woof woof". Basically like when a human is excited he might say "Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!" or some other nonsense -- that's it.

Second point, a man can't accidentally create his own god, something far above and more powerful than himself. That is ludicrous. Nemo dat quod non habet. One can't give what he doesn't have. 

Conclusion: we are as far from a "self aware, intelligent AI" today as we were in the year 1000. So don't get excited.

What's even more interesting is when AI becomes "racist" when left to its own devices. 

For example, criminal profiling. It's going to reach a pretty cold, scientific conclusion about which customers to pay more attention to, when trying to prevent shoplifting. 

They often have to manually cripple these AI systems to make them politically correct. Interesting how "reality" is racist...

Not to split hairs, Laudislaus, but I do think your "95%" claim is an exaggeration that oversimplifies things.

A position I've seen traditionalists take is "it's not always outwardly visible who is Catholic and when they became Catholic." This is obviously NOT the same as "Non-Catholics can be saved."

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that covert baptisms are valid.

No, the 95% claim is no exaggeration.  OK, maybe it's something like 90%.  We're not talking about conversion scenarios where someone converts on their deathbed due to some lights given them just before death.  Those individuals, if they have a valid Baptism, die Catholic.  We're talking about a Prot who dies as a Prot, a Jew who dies as a Jew, etc.  No, it's no exaggeration that 95% of Trad clergy believe that those can be saved.  +Lefebvre and +Fellay have explicitly stated as much, as have a number of other Trad clergy.

No, the 95% claim is no exaggeration.  OK, maybe it's something like 90%.  We're not talking about conversion scenarios where someone converts on their deathbed due to some lights given them just before death.  Those individuals, if they have a valid Baptism, die Catholic.  We're talking about a Prot who dies as a Prot, a Jew who dies as a Jew, etc.  No, it's no exaggeration that 95% of Trad clergy believe that those can be saved.  +Lefebvre and +Fellay have explicitly stated as much, as have a number of other Trad clergy.

The way I've always understood many of these types is that they think that they (those who are dying) can become Catholic somehow during their death event and since those on the outside cannot see what happens during the death event (death event defined as they are still breathing but unresponsive and don't come back to consciousness before their last breath) they think there's some possibility they converted "intellectually" before their death or something along the lines that God appeared to them and asked them if they will accept Him and the Catholic Church or other such things and that they actually became Catholic although they didn't express it outwardly (due to being incapacitated but still technically alive.)  So inwardly they became Catholic while outwardly they remained "Prot," "Moslem," etc.  to the observer. 

A lot of people fall for this explanation unfortunately and that's one of the reasons there are so many EENS deniers.  I get a lot of hate in trad circles when I point out that they have to have some external manifestation of conversion and actual Sacramental Baptism before their last breath to be saved.