Invincible Ignorance and Salvation

I posted my last post on the wrong thread LOL
But MRyan you found it and responded anyway, thanks!

I don't think you have been particularly hard on me but you and tornpage pepper your post with insults. Very rarely have I seen either of you not insult the person challenging you. The effect is those responding to you what to be nasty back, I confess to succumbing at times, I don't find it very inspiring.

Cowboy,

I don't think you have been particularly hard on me but you and tornpage pepper your post with insults. Very rarely have I seen either of you not insult the person challenging you. The effect is those responding to you what to be nasty back, I confess to succumbing at times, I don't find it very inspiring.

I wouldn't call them insults. Could you call them sarcastic, biting, trenchant (if you wanna be fancy)? Sure.

I don't think, qualitatively, it's much different than some of the comments Our Lord made to the Pharisees, whom he called "whited sepulchers" etc. Yet I haven't called anyone any names, as far as I recall. I sometime mock the arguments, which, frankly, I often find inane.

Perhaps I should shut up. I came around from Feeneyism, but it was the work of the Holy Ghost, and all those hours I spent debating people against my Feeneyite position . . . I can't say they made a difference. I know some arguments were made that later registered with me, but I can't say they were the cause of the registering - they registered much later after I had no contact with them. I'd read something that was cited to me by them, and I'd remember they cited it - but their citing didn't make a difference. And, in thinking about it, it was because they mentioned it in passing, and didn't hammer it over and over, as they should have - since there was no good response, as I don't see the Feeneyites here having any good response.

You have to 'fess up to either admitting the Church has strayed and become the tool of the Antichrist, or you have to reject Feeneyism - if you ask me. The Ordinary Magisterium exercising its mandate to teach the faith, going back to the fathers and emphatically confirmed by St. Thomas, whose position was adopted INFALLIBLY at Trent . . . it couldn't have been wrong on this issue of justification by baptism of desire without Satan having taken over and unseated the authority.

I hope I might wake up some of you guys. If some had really hammered me on the weakness of my argument, instead of merely calling me a heretic or trumpeting their own, it might have made a difference much sooner. I wish some had hit me hard with some good, biting, intelligent sarcasm.

I only apologize if my sarcasm is not intelligent or witty enough, or if it strays toward being offensive in terms of content (which it arguably has at times). I'll try to sharpen my blade and then wipe it down with alcohol.

You agree with us, though; that's what I cannot understand. You agree that it is possible for the One and Triune God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent to bring sacramental Baptism to everyone who will attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision, if only in those persons' infancy. Saint Thomas agreed with this proposition, also, at least implicitly; so did the Council of Trent, as can be demonstrated from the very canons of Trent. They simply taught that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, in the absence of Sacramental Baptism of Water, can happen, not that it does happen, and even then, Trent was not at all "explicit" about that possibility as was Saint Thomas. In any case, the Roman Catechism said that Baptism of Desire, in the absence of sacramental Baptism in Water, could only happen when Baptism of Water was impossible for the person to receive, and only then, when the individual in question had the "intention and determination" to receive it, so they were, clearly, talking about catechumens only and not Jews, infidels, or pagans. Of course, with the One and Triune God, "nothing is impossible," so we can easily imagine a remedy for the catechumen who dies prematurely -- Sacramental Baptism of Water having occurred in his or her infancy. The same would be true for virtuous Jews, infidels, or pagans.

So, what are we arguing about here?

In the OP MRyan quoted Pius IX

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1856, #7:

The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for
mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth,
scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and
works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic
Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this
faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for
life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his
control…

In this Encyclical to the Bishops of Austria, Pius IX offers no qualifications to the phrase "except with the excuse of invincible ignorance," as he did in Singulari Quadam fifteen months earlier:
". . . those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord." (ironically this document is not on the papal encyclical site)
here is a link: http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/documents/singulariquadam.html


We can trust that this was not an intended omission by the Holy Father and remember that there was no engagement here of his grace of infallibility. He also wasn't seeking the precision of a definition or an attempt of exhaustive explanation,

and later as he tries clarify in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7 years later:

"And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We
should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some
Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error,
and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain
eternal life.

Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.

It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life,
since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently
separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom "the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior," cannot obtain eternal salvation." DZ 1677

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php


Here he describes the case of a good-living but invincibly ignorant person.He says that this person canreach eternal life "by the operating power of divine light and grace."


But, since he has just stated emphatically, in the first sentence, that
nobody can attain eternal life while "separated from the true Faith and from Catholic unity," the phrase, "by the operating power of divine light and grace," necessarily means that God will not fail to provide such a person of good will with what he needs in order to end the separation.

Included in what God will provide in order for that person
to be welcomed into the true Faith and Catholic unity, where alone he "can attain eternal life," he says "CAN" not "DOES", which will certainly include the sacrament of Baptism.
This is exactly what God miraculously provided for Cornelius the
Centurion (Acts 10:28), for the Eunuch of Candace(Acts 8:38), and for Saul of Tarsus ( Acts 9:18), and others who only received the Baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3-5) but by Divine providence Paul discovered them.

Lets us remember to speculate beyond the Sacrament of Baptism is a dangerous ground to walk. As the same Pope Pius IX in frustration at the indifferentism that accompanies speculation of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism closes SINGULARI QUADAM:


"...we
are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul,
let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching,
there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."
http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/documents/singulariquadam.html

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.

Duckbill,

Included in what God will provide in order for that person
to be welcomed into the true Faith and Catholic unity, where alone he "can attain eternal life," he says "CAN" not "DOES", which will certainly include the sacrament of Baptism.

There is no authority for that highlighted part. Nowhere does the Church say that one cannot possess the "true Faith" and cannot be united with the Church by being "joined" with her without baptism. The Church has never said this, and that is your problem.

You say it is impossible for anyone to be saved, that it is impossible for God to enlighten the soul of a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a pagan on their deathbed with the interior grace of faith and charity so that this soul embraces Christ and expires in His arms. Unless such a person was baptized in this life, or brought back to life to receive baptism, you say this person is lost.

THE CHURCH HAS NEVER SAID THIS.

The grace that saves and redeems, the grace of the Holy Ghost applying the precious Blood of Our Lord to a lost soul, is not bound by the sacrament of baptism. You are elevating the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. If there is anything that Our Lord evinced by His life and His word, it is that the Spirit saves, and that the law is merely the handmaid of the Spirit, something whose strictures are loosened where justice and mercy demands, such as the abrogation of the law of the Sabbath to save even an animal, or the law of the Temple to feed David and his companions.

Jehanne asks me why we are arguing because he thinks I agree with him, but I hope you (and he) sees why our views are opposed and go to the very heart of the Gospel.

tornpage wrote:You say it is impossible for anyone to be saved, that it is impossible for God to enlighten the soul of a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a pagan on their deathbed with the interior grace of faith and charity so that this soul embraces Christ and expires in His arms. Unless such a person was baptized in this life, or brought back to life to receive baptism, you say this person is lost.

If the One and Triune God can enlighten a soul at the moment of death (a perfectly orthodox belief by the way -- it was one reason why condemned heretics were burned alive as opposed to being beheaded, hung, etc., to give that person one last chance to repent of his/her sins), then He could have certainly brought Sacramental Baptism in Water during that person's infancy. In fact, I could see that as the primary reason for offering a person "salutary repentance" at his/her death, the fact that such an individual was once a Child of God who was once in a state of grace destined for Heaven; but now is destined for Hell. For a true infidel, however, who has never known sacramental grace, why bother? If such an individual rejected the true revelation during his/her lifetime, why should God offer yet another opportunity at death's door? In theory, He could play that game forever, offering a person over and over the chance to repent. Kind of reminds me of the guy who could not stop asking the same girl to marry him, in spite of the fact that she said "No" hundreds of times.

If such an individual rejected the true revelation during his/her lifetime, why should God offer yet another opportunity at death's door? In theory, He could play that game forever, offering a person over and over the chance to repent. Kind of reminds me of the guy who could not stop asking the same girl to marry him, in spite of the fact that she said "No" hundreds of times.

I love how you speculate on why God would or would not do certain things, and then are dismissive of a path that doesn't bear the imprint of your feet.

It's one thing to ask God, why? It's another thing to stake a position out on the basis of His failure to answer your questions.

Heed this:

Job 42:1-6

Then Job answered the Lord, and said: I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee. Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge. Hear, and I will speak: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me. With the hearing of the ear, I have heard thee, but now my eye seeth thee.

Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes.