Vittoria even makes allowance that the bad example of some bad Catholics who did not evangelize in love but rather were intent on loot, plunder and mistreatment of others means the Gospel may not be fully promulgated among some in his time yet. It shows that only after such preaching has been accomplished can it then be said, that those who have known the necessity of Baptism and then still refused to accept Baptism from the Church are now lost.

"For example, in the Spanish colonies, the friars may have “preached the Gospel” by proclaiming Christian doctrines in a perfunctory way, with little explanation. Could those indigenous peoples unswayed by this preaching be considered to have rejected the Gospel? Vitoria thought not. More importantly, he considered that the unjust behaviors of the conquistadores undermined the reception of the Gospel by the indigenous:

Quote It does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to [the indigenous] with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it, even though many religious and other ecclesiastics seem both by their lives and example and their diligent preaching to have bestowed sufficient pains and industry in this business, had they been hindered therein by men who were intent on other things. (De Indis et de Iure Belli, cited in Sullivan, pp. 72-73)

Continued: "Melchior Cano, O.P. (1509-1560), Domingo Soto, O.P. (1494-1560), and Andreas de Vega, O.F.M. (1498-1549). All three, drawing on medieval scholastic conclusions, argued that even those indigenous peoples who had not heard the Gospel could live their life in accord with the natural law, with the assistance of God’s grace. Cano concluded that someone who lived such a life could experience justification, that is, the gracious remission of original sin, and develop implicit faith (this conclusion was based on Cano’s interpretation of an somewhat obscure passage from Aquinas’s Summa; see ST, I-II, q. 89, a. 6). Without explicit faith in Christ, however, this person could not experience salvation. (On Cano, see Sullivan, pp. 74-75 and Moralis, p. 78)

Soto and Vega, who played important roles as theological advisors at the Council of Trent, went a step further than Cano. Soto, in the first edition of his work De Natura et Gratia (1547), argued that for those in a state of invincible ignorance regarding the Gospel of Christ, belief in that which is naturally knowable about God through reason was sufficient for salvation, in place of supernatural faith. Vega, the Franciscan, took a similar position (although Morali’s account of Vega’s thought is unclear; see pp. 77-78). Morali argues that Vitoria had likewise taken this position by the end of his life, developing it in an unfinished section of his De Indis et de Iure Belli (pp. 75-76). By 1549, Soto had concluded that supernatural faith was necessary for salvation; unlike Cano, however, he argued that implicit faith (or fides confusa) was sufficient not only for the justification, but also for the salvation, of those in a state of invincible ignorance regarding the Gospel. Therefore, Soto extended Aquinas’s thinking on the implicit faith of the righteous Gentiles of the past to those in a state of invincible ignorance after the coming of Christ (On Soto, see Sullivan, pp. 75-76 and Morali, pp. 76-77)."

They wouldn't because not everything a Pope says is infallible, he also didn't sign the docuмent against Fr Feeney. The Dimonds do not hold an extreme position on infallibility like some other sede groups do.

Pope Pius XII didn't sign the docuмent against Feeney? Why live in denialism? See this: https://www.baptismofdesire.org/feeney.html Pope Pius XII gave his approval to the decision: "The Acta Apostolicae Sedis announced the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, which was recorded in docuмent AAS 45-100."

"Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.

On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record."

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for failing to submit. It is the definition of a schismatic to fail to submit to the Pope. I asked Ladislaus what he'd do if the future Angelic Pastor condemned his doctrine and refused to submit. He of course couldn't answer, because if he said no, he'd refuse to submit, that would be manifestly schismatic. What about you? Would you? As for the Holy Office decree you quoted, of course I agree with it. It says a missionary should not baptize someone who does not believe explicitly in Our Lord Jesus. That is 100% true. That doesn't answer the case of someone WHO DOES NOT HAVE A MISSIONARY and is in invincible ignorance. The same Holy Office under Pius XII decreed that "when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Why cherry pick your Holy Office and reject one or the other? I accept both. Now you answer. Would you accept if a future holy Pope, the prophesied Angelic Pastor, condemned your/Br. Dimond's doctrine? 

Answer my question first, then I will answer yours: "Why cherry pick your Holy Office [docuмents] and reject one or the other? I accept both. Now you answer. Would you accept if a future holy Pope, the prophesied Angelic Pastor, condemned your/Br. Dimond's doctrine?"

I have certain doubts about the post-Vatican ii situation. Yes, I am a Traditional Catholic. I will explain more once you answer. I also answered on double effect in another thread and how it justifies voting for imperfect candidates based on the test of proportionality and good outweighing evil. Regarding this thread, the "form" in which Pope Pius XII approved the condemnation of SBC's doctrine at the time is not the issue. The issue is that the doctrine in question was judged as "gravely harmful both to those within and outside the Church". It's thus gravely harmful to deny baptism of desire, even implicit desire, within the qualifications outlined by the Holy Office.

One of the reasons for Feeneyism has been the post-Vatican ii confusion where according to some one no longer needs either desire or Baptism. That is plainly false and even proximate heresy. What one always needs for salvation is at least baptism of desire. And no one can implicitly desire what he explicitly refuses. Hence the true formulation, which excludes both Feeneyism and modernism, is whoever refuses baptism/refuses to enter the Church, once he knows (not Satanists, but has been informed) of its necessity, henceforth cannot be saved, as clearly taught by the HO.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for failing to submit. It is the definition of a schismatic to fail to submit to the Pope.

Man, you are hell bent on stupidity. If you knew wth you were talking about at all, you would know how ridiculous you're being.
From Fr. Feeney's Bread Of Life, he exposes your ridiculous attempt at calumniating him at least three times:

1) It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood
Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation. Justification is useless for purposes
of the Beatific Vision unless submission to Christ's Vicar has been added to it in essential complement.

2) If you do not have a belief in, and submission to, a visible Holy Father and a visible Church, with clear distinguishable marks, you will never get into Heaven.

3) A man can become a martyr in the Catholic Church for dying for any one dogma of it. The dogma for which we,
in Saint Benedict Center, most hope to die – because it is the dogma most under attack in our day – is that no
one can possibly enter the Kingdom of Heaven without personal submission to our Holy Father the Pope.

"1) It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood
Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation. Justification is useless for purposes
of the Beatific Vision unless submission to Christ's Vicar has been added to it in essential complement."

Fantastic. So why didn't he do this in the reign of Pius XII itself, as he should have? As for the modern SBC, they accept Vatican II, and the new catechism as consistent with their understanding of EENS. Do you?

"Do as I say, but not as I do" won't work. Do as I say, i.e. submit to the Roman Pontiff, but not as I do, i.e. do not go to Rome when called by the Holy Father. Was Pius XII not Christ's Vicar? Of course he was.

You called Fr. Feeney a schismatic for "failing to submit." I just showed you that you do not even know what you're talking about. Why in this day and age do you insist on calumniating a good priest?

Mark M - who are the righteous Gentiles of the past?  The OT just would have known who Jesus was , since they were watching and waiting for him.