But it really bothers me when those who take an implicit faith view represent it as "Church teaching." It's clearly not when the majority of Catholic theologians teach, and the "common opinion" is, that supernatural faith requires belief in the Trinity and Incarnation.

If those who support implicit faith want to hold to a minority opinion that hasn't been condemned, that's their business. But I wish the crowd that does would stop saying their view is "Church teaching," which is a lie. And that's not opinion, but a indisputable inference from the "common opinion" pre-V2.

So if Bishop Sanborn does hold an implicit faith view, he should stop saying that view is "Church teaching."

Great points.  In that Fastiggi debate, the VERY FIRST error of Vatican II mentioned by +Sanborn was the ecclesiology.  Yet, when you say that infidels can be saved, you're saying that infidels can be in the Church (since in order to be saved, someone must be in the Church).  So if you have a Church in which there are infidels (and Protestants and schismatics) ... in addition to Catholics, what IS that except ... Vatican II ecclesiology?

I'm guessing that +Sanborn takes the misinterpreted statements of Pius IX along with Suprema Haec as evidence that the minority opinion is Church teaching.  Pius IX did NOT discuss the subject of the necessary "light" required for salvation, and, according to Msgr. Fenton, SH doesn't necessarily imply the minority opinion.

You're absolutely right.  +Sanborn needs to explain why he rejects the majority theological opinion on this subject ... including that of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, and EVERYONE before the year 1600 or so.  I think that people have been so poisoned with a knee-jerk contempt for Father Feeney that in their minds the majority opinion sounds like Feeneyism.  In fact, the BoDers here on CI would accuse a couple of posters who believed in Baptism of Desire of being "Feeneyite" for arguing in favor of the majority opinion.  At the SSPX seminary in Winona, there was a professor there who taught the majority opinion, and +Williamson cautioned him against getting too close to "Feeneyism".

1:43:00 -1:44:02  "If I were convinced that there were continuity: doctrinal, disciplinary, liturgical ( the mass); continuity between pre- Vatican and Vatican II ... " Now 2Vermont, what did he just say?

As I just posted, the doctrinal continuity is DEFINITELY there ... given +Sanbornian ecclesiology.  Now the liturgical and disciplinary are another matter altogether.

That's your opinion, not Bishop Sanborn's.

It's objectively there; only +Sanborn doesn't see it.

Not retracting anything... He just said it in PUBLIC...in 2004 and still holds it today.

You know darn well what you said he said is NOT what he said.  You are of bad will.

The sad part of all of this is the fact that you probably believe that +Sanborn won this debate. In reality Dr. Fastiggi made him look foolish...(if you have even watched the whole debate).

Nevertheless you were wrong.  Bishop Sanborn never said what you claimed he said.  And that’s why you can’t understand why he separated himself from the Conciliar sect.

I think that if you could logically demonstrate how it's the minority opinion (the Jesuit invention of the early 1600s) that has led to V2 ecclesiology, that might wake him up ... because he has such a strong contempt for V2 ecclesiology.

It's actually very simple from a logical standpoint.

Major:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.
Minor:  Infidels can be saved.
Conclusion:  Infidels can be within the Church. [=V2 ecclesiology]

One objection could be that these infidels are joined to the Church at death only, but that is ruled out by the one particular EENS definition which declares that these must enter the Church BEFORE their deaths.

I honestly don't understand the Traditional Catholics who don't see that ALL the Vatican II errors derive ultimately from THIS ecclesiology ... the same one which they themselves (many of them at any rate) hold.

These theological debates will only ever be resolved definitively by authority.  And no traditional Catholic clergy claim jurisdiction (authority) so the debate will continue.  But the new mass was declared by Cardinal Ottaviani to be a striking departure from Catholic theology so that debate is over at least for sedes.

These theological debates will only ever be resolved definitively by authority.  And no traditional Catholic clergy claim jurisdiction (authority) so the debate will continue.  But the new mass was declared by Cardinal Ottaviani to be a striking departure from Catholic theology so that debate is over at least for sedes.

Granted.  Problem is that we have to resolve this for our own consciences.  If I had the same ecclesiology that most Traditional Catholics do (based on pre-V2 minority opinion on the requirements for supernatural faith), then I would have to renounce my rejection of Vatican II.  So it's imperative that WE come to terms with this.  I can't reject Vatican II if I don't reject this ecclesiology.