[dangus]

>> Thirdly, the above doctrine did not originate from the Council of Trent, as it has been held to be Catholic Truth since the inception of the Universal Church. <<

The notion that people who wilfully reject the Body of Christ, which is the church, are condemned has certainly been held as truth since the inception of the Universal Church. The assertion that "Protestants" are in this condition was first stated by the Council of Trent. No later true teaching has, or could, ever find the council to be in error. However, there is *doctrine* stated by the second Vatican Council which is in apparent contradiction to this. A resolution of this apparent contradiction is that the connotation of "protestant" in modern times is not identical to the Tridentine connotation of "protestant." The distinction I did explain.

>> Secondly, it is an undisputable fact that it is infallible Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This infallible doctrine explicity states that all those who are outside the Church must be joined to Her before death. This cannot be denied. <<

It is the means of that juncture which is at issue. The doctrine of "invinceable ignorance" is well established. Again, I recommend that rather than saying "this is true, so this must be false," you seek to reconcile authoritative statements which appear to you to be in conflict.

>> First, the spin put on traditional Catholics as being cold hearted is subjective and groundless.<<

The modifier "cold-hearted" is deliberate and functional. It relates to the verb "despise." If it were subjective and an opinion, it could not be "wrong." I use it to reference the glee and lack of charity with which some traditionalists take in condemning the Pope, the Vatican Council, the Synod of Bishops, the "Amchurch", and, of course, Protestants. Please also note the delimiting word, "Many," and, of course, the fact that "cold-hearted" is a modifier, and as such, does not universally describe traditionalists.

However, you're bounding in to declare everyone condemned IN DIRECT DEFIANCE of the Church, and with no concern to exacerbating the invinceability of your audience's ignorance is precisely what I meant by cold-hearted.

[pascendi]

"The doctrine of "invinceable ignorance" is well established."

A doctrine of invincible ignorance? There's no doctrine of invincible ignorance. There may be something called invincible ignorance, but to call it a doctrine would be to mis-identify it.

"Again, I recommend that rather than saying "this is true, so this must be false," you seek to reconcile authoritative statements which appear to you to be in conflict."

I see no conflicts.

"I use it to reference the glee and lack of charity with which some traditionalists take in condemning the Pope, the Vatican Council, the Synod of Bishops, the "Amchurch", and, of course, Protestants. Please also note the delimiting word, "Many," and, of course, the fact that "cold-hearted" is a modifier, and as such, does not universally describe traditionalists."

If someone is guilty of sin, they either repent and to penance for it, or they don't repent. Let God sort them out.

But back to the matter of doctrine:

"However, you're bounding in to declare everyone condemned IN DIRECT DEFIANCE of the Church, and with no concern to exacerbating the invinceability of your audience's ignorance is precisely what I meant by cold-hearted."

Nah. Just restating doctrine, that's all.