Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article

[GodFirst]

Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.

So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?

The CE notes the following:

Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: 'It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not willfully guilty' (Denzinger, "Enchir.", n. 1529).

I wonder about such statements like these though, newschoolman. They don't exactly say that for such persons to "attain to eternal life" that visible and formal enterance into the Roman Catholic Church is not necessary. Do you have a magisterial quote that says such exactly?