You really should read entire Church documents
Here is more from DOMINUS IESUS by Cardinal Ratzinger(Pope Benedict XVI)
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit";81 it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".82 21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the "unique and special relationship"84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.
Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and which are part of what "the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions".86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.
And FWIW, I'm aware Pope Eugene and others and I suggest you read the following to understand further the mistakes that people who don't understand Catholicism make
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/vandrunen-on-catholic-inclusivity-and-change/
http://catholicism.org/has-the-church-changed-its-teaching-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church.html
The reality is, that people who are invincibly ignorant, yet love unconditionally and follow the Law of Love written on their hearts are mystically connected to The Church and attain Salvation through the Church
You really should read entire Church documents
The reality is, that people who are invincibly ignorant, yet love unconditionally and follow the Law of Love written on their hearts are mystically connected to The Church and attain Salvation through the Church
It is not me that you should be addressing but your fellow Catholic comrades, as my contention was that,despite your interpretation, this a manifestly open to other interpretations, and which is what Rome effectually fosters, and which your recommended links actually illustrate.
Brown at your first source, calledtocommunion, is by criticized by Brian Kelly at your the other source you recommend, Catholicism.org, which is a traditionalists Feeneyite sect (Fenney was excommunicated for not responding to reproof after insisting that only Roman Catholics can go to heaven and that everyone else will be damned, was reconciled to Rome in 1972 without being required to retract or recant), to whom whom Brown responds:
The only thing I can identify is that I submit myself to Lumen Gentium whereas you seem to reject it on its face because of the personalities comprising its DNA.
Relative to the issue of different interpretations, Brown at calledtocommunion is attacking pastor VanDrunen's contention that EENS (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) statements are contradictory, based upon what Lumen Gentium sounds like it is saying, affirming salvation to properly baptized Prots and sincere God-fearing seekers. In trying to reconcile this with the EENS statements of the past (which require submission to the pope and to remain in the bosom of the Church®), Brown invokes pope Pius IX,
“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.”
Brown recouse is to “ Development of Doctrine” and attacks his opponent for thinking that "these two beliefs are not compatible with each other," but Kelly at your other source contends,
“The author of this commentary, Tom Brown, does not seem to see that this impression is justified. Yet, one can hardly blame VanDrunen for thinking that these two beliefs (exclusive/inclusive) are not compatible with each other. Do I hear Father Feeney saying, “I told you so?”
“His [Brown's] analysis is typical of what one might read in the writings of Father William Most... only in this case sentimental theology’s “development” of the doctrine has not clarifed it; it has undermined it. To all appearances, as VanDrunen asserts, it seems that the Church has changed its teaching.
...the persecution of a priest [Fenney] who sounded the alarm on the doctrine’s denial in the U.S., and the ambiguous teaching that all but dissolved the doctrine after 1950, have done to “the all-important dogma” (to quote what Biblical exegete, Cornelius a Lapide, thought of the salvation doctrine) what no heretic outside the Church could do.
They rendered it “meaningless” (so said Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis) it by riddling it with loopholes. The cynical bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, Bernard Flanagan, once told two of Father Feeney’s devoted brothers: “Bury it, it’s a dead horse.” It was buried in Worcester twenty-four years earlier when the headlines for the Worcester Telegram, for Friday morning, September 2, 1949, ran:
VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS
Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine to be false
When this headline was sent to Rome with a request for a refutation, nothing happened, not even a letter went out to the Bishops of Boston and Springfield, Massachusetts, so as to warn the faithful about the erroneous headline. (Worcester was not yet a diocese.) A dogma diluted with arbitrary qualifications is a dogma denied.
As one Roman Catholic commenter responds,
As far as the man in the pew is concerned, the Catholic Church has changed its position on this dogma, even though we know well that the term "changed dogma" is an oxymoron.
But the average Catholic has been taught the exact opposite of this dogma for well nigh on 200 years by priests, nuns, Bishops, Cardinals and, for all intents and purposes, the Vatican. Yes, you can point out those rare instances when some recent liberal Pope makes some feeble, ambiguous statement which seems to support the traditional view. But that doesn't carry much weight particularly when no action is taken to support it. Talk is very cheap. If the Vatican really believed this dogma they would start clamping down on the thousands of dissidents who are running around pulpits, seminaries and universities teaching the exact opposite...the average Joe will believe that the Church no longer believes in its ancient teachings and has in fact changed its views. Hasn't the debacle of the Novus Ordo Mass taught us that?
This extends to Vatican Two itself. As one Catholic critic argues,
Let us not forget that almost all the changes in the post-Conciliar Church are either "blamed" on the Council, or said to derive from it as a "mandate from the Holy Spirit". Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980). It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. — http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
That is what i meant by Rome “effectually” fostering varying interpretations, due to it changing its tune after losing the use of its unScriptural secular sword which is used to enforce strict doctrinal conformity, and faced with a post theocratic society. But which has traditionalist longing for the Inquisition, and i have little doubt such would object to using all its carnal means of enforcement, which makes traditionalists a danger to both the souls and body of sincere seekers. Even on the 20th century the Catholic Encyclopedia yet claimed that Rome has “coercive jurisdiction,” “to punish members by physical means.” — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm
The Catholicism.org article also affirms,,
The act of Faith must be integral. A liberal Catholic or willful Protestant who rejects one Catholic dogma rejects the whole gift of divine faith, for such a one rejects the authority of the Church and its two indivisible fonts of scripture and tradition. I refer the reader to the Athanasian Creed, part of the Church’s liturgy, which declares this to be so.
However, most literally this would disallow the Orthodox, as among the dogmas (the number of which is another issue open to interpretation), are dogmas the Orthodox reject in the sense Rome believes:
227. The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
228. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
155. Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin (http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm)
And indeed, Pope Boniface VIII states in Unam Sanctam,
"If [or when], therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16).
And
Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”“ — Pope Pius XI, Pontifex Maximus, Mortalium Animos (The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
RCs like yourself seem to defend an idealistic conception of Rome in which disagreement cannot exist on this level, and thus your reject that of others, while they likewise do the same to yours.
And despite the promotion of Rome as one that deals with error, Rome is content to remain ambiguous enough that both sides can invoke her for support, and rarely and only in extreme cases are false views officially (which concept itself sees some varying definitions) censored.
RCs today can believe, without censure and even with church sanction, that such stories as Balaam and the donkey, Noah's flood, Jonah and the fish, etc., are fables, and that Divinely sanctioned events in Joshua's conquests were folk tales, and that certain historical events in the gospels did not literally occur as described. Etc.
And if a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomite RC is important enough in the world, they may even be able to write to the pope and receive a personal reply, without any apparent censure, and without any evident repentance, have masses said in their home and at death be honored as a Heaven-bound soul.
While i understand your censure of this kind of Catholicism, it remains that (unlike those who preach a faith) this is the particular church that you preach, and you are stuck with all it counts and treats as member in life and in death - if you will remain in its full fellowship. But due to Rome's uncertain sound and unequal yoke (though both are in error), you have Traditionalist sects, which Rome seems to have more concern over.