I found this part interesting:

Now, even though these non-Catholics belong to Christ by
means of their union with the Soul of His Church, one should
nevertheless never forget that they are in a state "where no
one can be sure of his eternal salvation; for, as the Pope
assures us, they are deprived of those many and most important
supports and heavenly favors that can only be found within the
bosom of the Catholic Church" ("Mystici Corporis Christi").
Let us consider some of those helps of which they are deprived.....


It seems that these people are so deprived that their chances of salvation are, at best, extremely low.

This is why I prefer to avoid discussion of BOD.  Our focus should be to pray that our non-Catholic friends/family members request baptism before they die.

I too really dislike how "the soul of the Church" has been misused in order to render the dogma meaningless.

In Scripture, the expressions “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of heaven” always refers to the Church, even though sometimes the application of the parables goes into eternity, beyond simply the Church’s life on earth. The same is to be said of when Christ mentions Himself in Scripture, "I am the way, the truth and the Life" He is saying the Church, which is Christ, is the way, is where the truth is found, and through Him, the Church, is the only way to life everlasting.

There is a lot of Scripture that takes on a whole new meaning and makes a lot more sense regarding EENS when it's read with this in mind.

All those bible citing prots who die outside of the Church, die without ever having known Christ.....
Mat. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name . 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Talk about a rude awakening.

I hold the "middle" or 'Restricted" version of BOD as described in the letter from the Holy Office that they quote here.

No, the "letter from the Holy Office" (completely disputed) does not promote a "middle" or "restricted" version of BoD.  I'd like to believe that you hold a restricted version of BoD, but we've had others claim this that when you scratched just a tiny bit below the surface, you find that it's not true.

I actually coined the term "Cushingites" here on CI many years ago ... as a retort to the constant pejorative / derogatory use of the term "Feeneyite" as a programmed attack term, just like "conspiracy theorist" or the pejorative use of the term "Lefebvrist" by the Conciliars, all of which are calculated to make it sound like some sectarian (personality-based) heresy out of the gate, reminiscent of "Arianism, Nestorianims, etc.".

No, the "letter from the Holy Office" (completely disputed) does not promote a "middle" or "restricted" version of BoD.  I'd like to believe that you hold a restricted version of BoD, but we've had others claim this that when you scratched just a tiny bit below the surface, you find that it's not true.

I actually coined the term "Cushingites" here on CI many years ago ... as a retort to the constant pejorative / derogatory use of the term "Feeneyite" as a programmed attack term, just like "conspiracy theorist" or the pejorative use of the term "Lefebvrist" by the Conciliars, all of which are calculated to make it sound like some sectarian (personality-based) heresy out of the gate, reminiscent of "Arianism, Nestorianims, etc.".

Despite all the evidence posted here and the other thread the BoDers won't read it and we will go through this again next month.

I was baptized in January 1969 (Vatican II.
Is that ok?

While I'm sure that New Rite is at least valid, it is my understanding that it wasn't introduced until May 15, 1969 ... but someone could correct me if I'm wrong.  Then it came into "force" on September 8, 1969 (where either Rite could be used), and then it was on Easter Sunday in 1970 where it became "mandatory" through a vacatio legis until then.  I don't know the date Easter was in 1970.  But I should think any Baptism prior to May 15, 1969 -- or perhaps even September 8, 1969 -- was done in the Traditional Rite.

While I'm sure that New Rite is at least valid, it is my understanding that it wasn't introduced until May 15, 1969 ... but someone could correct me if I'm wrong.  Then it came into "force" on September 8, 1969 (where either Rite could be used), and then it was on Easter Sunday in 1970 where it became "mandatory" through a vacatio legis until then.  I don't know the date Easter was in 1970.  But I should think any Baptism prior to May 15, 1969 -- or perhaps even September 8, 1969 -- was done in the Traditional Rite.

I remember once coming across something indicating that the English-language ritual book for the refomed-rite baptism was not ready until 1971.

I cannot remember anything beyond this cloudy bit.