Which is contrary to years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”
Another council comes along and creates distinct divisions such as by asserting,
there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ," …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church,” the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”
[And even] the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God," "They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth."
The RadTradCaths cite the former as being the true RC teaching, while the ecumenical shades hold that V2 is the interpreter of the former, though they interpret V2..
That's because this person, we're assuming, has not wittingly or willingly committed the sins of heresy, apostasy or schism.
Which is an interpretation of “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved,” (Lumen Gentium 14)
Now if I did know of a truth that such and such a church was uniquely the one true church and necessary for salvation, and refused to be part of it, then indeed I would be damned.
However, as for "know," I certainly know that Rome and the EOs, Mormons and other elitists claim to be made necessary by Christ, but i also certainly know that none of them (or any) are uniquely the one true church (which is only the body of Christ), and necessary for salvation.
And as for "necessary," even if it were true that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, in the sense that the Jews were, then it does not follow that one should join it now.
However, the popes and councils who denied salvation to all who were in the bosom of their church and subject to the pope did not engage in such equivocation, while the fact that a later council can come along and "clarify" teachings to such an extent and degree that 60 years of schisms and sects have resulted sets a precedent for more, and does not enhance the magisterial office of Rome.
On the topic of this bizarre papacy, I am not morally sure whether Jorge Bergoglio is the pope or not.
So many Catholics do not even know for sure who the earthly head of their church is? Meaning the magisterium has caused more problems for the faithful, and failed to solve them.
As one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
But though I ain't no canonist, thanks be to God, I know that an infallible dogma has to be intended, not locally or temporarily, but to be binding always, for all.
Plus, it can't flatly contradict what was already (previously) taught as binding, because then you would run afoul not of Church Law but of Natural Law, in fact the principle of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. In which case, I don't know if you'd lose our soul, but you would definitely lose your mind.
A papal pronouncement that one absolutely must be a visible ecclesiastical subject of the See of Rome to be saved, would contradict the canonized saints who lived before there even was a See of Rome. The deacon/martyr St. Stephen, for instance, and the bishop/martyrs James of Jerusalem and Ignatius of Antioch. And many more.
My other guess is that what these popes were legitimately asserting would be the necessity of being within the union of the Church, and the grave sin of intentionally breaking that unity. Anyone who has not personally and willfully cut himself off from the Church, is not guilty of that sin; and anybody who has been baptized, is already "en famille."
That would be an interpretation harmonious with all the Catechisms, from VII to VI to Trent to Nicaea and Athanasius and back to the Didache, I think.
BTW thanks for that Ratzinger Fan Club quote. Admirable for brevity and wit.