Replies

"The fullness of truth is possessed by the visible Church in full communion with the successor of Peter."

The truth is possessed by the visible Church. The term fullness is neither precise nor necessary, and it's new. There is either communion with Peter, or there is not communion with Peter. Communion does not admit of variation of degree. One might say that if someone holds most doctrines in common with the Church of Peter, that they are in partial communion. Not so; everyone knows that to deny any one doctrine of the Catholic Faith is to suffer shipwreck of the entire Faith.

In short, you attach unnecessary qualifiers to a true statement. Those qualifiers can be used effectively to reinterpret and therefore to negate the truth of the statement itself.

"The path of her sacraments, founded by Jesus Christ himself, is the only sure path to salvation."

The use of the term path here, and the use of the adjective sure lead one to believe that there are other paths. There aren't. Expressed a billion times in a billion different ways by the universal Church for 2,000 in statements ranging from infallible declarations to simple admonitions, I find this simple death-bed admonition of Pope Leo XIII the most in keeping with the character of a true Holy Father:

"This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it upon your minds, all of you: by God's commandment, salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

You would like to imply there are other paths. The Church has never said this.

"All humans should be invited to unite themselves with her."

Of course.

"Others, not in full communion, such as schismatics (who since they seem to ignore the doctrines of papal supremacy and full governance of the Church of Vatican I cannot I think be said to be fully accepting of the Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition), other separated Christian brothers, and even those further from the truth outside of Christianity, MAY (not will, but may) be invisibly united with the visible Church by following the law of God written in their conscience. The Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition contain both the words of St. Paul (and Pio Nono on the possible salvation of the invinvibly ignorant) suggesting that there might be possible some sort of salvation outside the visible Church, as well as teaching of Unam Sanctam that you mentioned and the maxim "Extra ecclesiam nulla sanctus"."

Lots of nebulous and unclear speculations involving all sorts of partial things. Unam, we have a an infallible doctrine here. It's not a maxim, it's infallbiby declared doctrine. To claim the there can be salvation outside the Church is to deny infallibly declared doctrine. To do so is to deny the entire Catholic Faith. How quickly things turn back upon the accusers:

"But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them"" --Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

It seems clear enough that one who believes that salvation can be found elsewhere has rejected a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

"My reconciliation of those teachings is the Catholic one."

There is no interpretation of infallibly declared doctrine. The nature of what's infallible definition is, by definition (aha), the interpretation itself. Intrepretation of divine revelation is not possible, is the revelation IS what IS. Endless attempts at new interpretation of old doctrine is the nature of Modernism itself.

"Your interpretation only accepts the latter, while ignoring the former, and tends towards Feeneyism, which has been condemned by the Magisterium."

I didn't interpret anything. I just believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church, that's it. The Magisterium has condemned no doctrines.