Yeah, that Catechism of St. Pius X is not encouraging. What is an "implicit" desire anyway? Anyone can have an "implicit" desire, we all have immortal souls that occasionally reach out blindly towards something we think is God, even if we are atheists.
But you see, you can quote eight million people who don't understand baptism of desire, and this still doesn't disprove baptism of desire. It just shows that Modernist and liberal clergy were constantly trying to deform the EENS doctrine out of all recognition. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It is also interesting that you defend Pius IX for this:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. 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. "
The interpretation on your website makes sense, mostly. But let me tell you, if you showed the same quote to 100 people, I'll bet nearly all 100 would believe it is teaching you can be a "good person" and be saved by following the law of your heart. Very few would interpret it the way you did -- that it is talking about prevenient grace that will lead the ignorant to seek conversion -- because that is not the predominant impression that this paragraph leaves you with.
When St. Thomas teaches the same thing, look at how much more clear it is:
"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance."
If cornered, Pope Pius IX could have said exactly what you did: "Uh, it's about prevenient grace! That's obvious! I was referring to St. Thomas." But in reality, that he is talking about prevenient grace is very far from obvious. To COMMON SENSE it looks as if he is saying you can be saved by the natural law, by common morality, without even knowing Christ. The proof is that Pius IX's statement not only gave birth to the numerous heresies we see in VII about invincible ignorance, but that even some of the traditional clergy have taken it in that sense, that you can be saved as a "good person" outside the Church.
Take Pius IX's statement again:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. 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. "
Now section 847 of the 1983 "Code of Canon Law":
"Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE ETERNAL SALVATION".
Doesn't one just seem to lead naturally to the other?
Considering Pius IX was a Freemason before becoming Pope, do you really think this confusing paragraph which led to such havoc and doctrinal disorder was just a coincidence?
Do you think that he, though cleverly staying free of heresy by leaving multiple interpretations open, was being deliberately vague and leaving the door open to misunderstandings that would only later blossom into outright heresy?
Do you think his constant attacks on the Freemasons could have been a means of hiding in plain sight, exactly as Paul VI did when he said "The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary," to take the attention off of himself?
Notice I am only asking questions, not making any pronouncements. Except to say that Pius IX praised George Washington twice that I know of, sketchy behavior for someone who was supposedly an expert anti-Freemason ( CMRI praises the Founding Fathers too, disturbingly ).
I'll leave it there for tonight, with more questions raised than answers provided. Because I don't have the answers and am becoming very, very disturbed at just how deep the rot appears to go.
A Voice Crying in the Wilderness on Pius IX:
His first political act, on July 16, was that of granting an amnesty of political prisoners, which was contested by some who now denounced the new pope as one working with the Freemasons.
Topic: 1949 Letter from Holy Office Correcting Feeneyite Error (Read 20933 times)