Quote from: Jehanne

Makes me wonder if we are doing Protestants, Orthodox, etc., a disservice by proclaiming the Gospel to them.  After all, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and if we told a Protestant that he/she should come into full communion with the One True Church, could we be causing that person to sin?  On the other hand, if we just left that person where he/she was, then perhaps salvation would be easier for him/her if we simply did not tell that individual too much about the Catholic faith?

Exactly. The whole idea of "invincible ignorance" is so heretical and illogic that it baffles me to think how people actually believe in it and then even worse, dare to assert it as true doctrine. Incredible.

The whole thing is pure baloney. Supposed "invincibly ignorant" people making "implicit desires" about things they have no idea about and on top of that being saved? Baloney!

But it appears Bp. Fellay believes it, if this quote is accurate:
_________________________________________________________________

 Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:

“We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church?

 It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
 ______________________________________________________________

There is no contradiction. You need to understand that Baptism of water is the Sacrament, and Baptism of desire and blood are NOT the Sacraments....they only supply the grace of the Sacrament in rare cases.

Read this text from the article on Baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia from early 1900s:

X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood."

According to St. Thomas, “that is necessary without which something cannot be" Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 (Metaph. V).

So the Code says that both the Sacrament of Baptism "or at least the desire for it" are necessary unto all for salvation. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot be both true at the same time.

If I say that salvation cannot be without the sacrament, then obviously salvation CANNOT BE without the sacrament! And what is BOD but salvation without the sacrament?


And yes i have already read the encyclopedia, you dont need to quote it. It is infected with modernism.

St. Alphonsus wasn't opposed to implicit desire. And you have yet to prove Pius IX condemned it!

But it is not what he held either is it?

I did not say Pius IX "condemned it." I said he didn't teach it. Big difference.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

St. Alphonsus wasn't opposed to implicit desire. And you have yet to prove Pius IX condemned it!

But it is not what he held either is it?

I did not say Pius IX "condemned it." I said he didn't teach it. Big difference.

It was implicitly there, using Mit's quotation of that encyclical!

It was implicitly there, using Mit's quotation of that encyclical!

What exactly are you referring to? Me or Pius IX?

Yes, it is.  One would think that if Pius IX meant that the invincibly ignorant would not remain invincibly ignorant, that he would have said that.  He was anything but ambiguous.  And, considering the immense significance of someone being invincibly ignorant, it seems to reason that His Holiness of blessed memory would have clearly stated this significant change in the person from being invincibly ignorant to being miraculously not ignorant, and baptized with water by an angel, or some other extraordinary means.

Instead, he acknowledges the existence of the invincibly ignorant (at least in 1863) and states that God will not punish them if they do not deliberately sing, observe the natural law and are ready to obey God.
 
Re: the article posted, written by Fr. Mueller.  The objections in the article are not fit for this discussion, because I (nor do I think is anyone else) am not arguing that invincible ignorance is a means to salvation.  That is God's grace and mercy, not a merit (or demerit) of man.  

The principle of BOD/BOB/Invincible ignorance is not that man's salvation is an effect caused by his own action or state (in desiring baptism, dying for the faith before it, or being invincibly ignorant of it) but that his salvation comes about no differently than anyone else's: by the grace of God.

This is from the Dimond boys; although i disagree with them on many things, as far as i can tell they are right regarding this:

First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man “living in
error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of
salvation for the “invincibly ignorant”? Why, of course, it is the idea that a man living in
error and separated from the true Faith can be saved. So, the very concept of salvation
for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned as QUITE CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC
TEACHING in this very docuмent of Pope Pius IX.

Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly
ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by
God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel]
attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the
truth and into the Church by baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred
Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which
removes the ignorant from darkness.

Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord.
Walk then as children of the light.”

1 Thess. 5:4‐5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness… For all you
are the children of the light.”

Colossians 1:12‐13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy
to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the
power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His
love.”

1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a purchased people: that you may
declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous
light.”

2 Corinthians 4:3‐4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In
whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
not shine unto them.”

2 Timothy 1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior
Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and
incorruption by the Gospel.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I (+1870): “… no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the
Gospel,’ as he must to attain salvation, without the illumination and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and
believing the truth.”

So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the
good‐willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their
clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received
by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized. Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur
Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good‐willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the
Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will
enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.

Yes, it is.  One would think that if Pius IX meant that the invincibly ignorant would not remain invincibly ignorant, that he would have said that.  He was anything but ambiguous.

Or rather, you would think that. You are adding conclusions he never implied.

I read it and it is perfectly clear what he is saying.

You ignore the words “operating power of divine light and grace”. Well, the Bible verses clearly shows it means being illuminated by the light of the gospel. You have any problem with this?

And, considering the immense significance of someone being invincibly ignorant, it seems to reason that His Holiness of blessed memory would have clearly stated this significant change in the person from being invincibly ignorant to being miraculously not ignorant, and baptized with water by an angel, or some other extraordinary means.

What is the “operating power of divine light and grace”? To remain in invincible ignorance of Christ and the Gospel?

Instead, he acknowledges the existence of the invincibly ignorant (at least in 1863) and states that God will not punish them if they do not deliberately sing, observe the natural law and are ready to obey God.

Your conclusion, which simply ignores what he says.

Plus, your conclusion is the very heresy which he emphatically condemned numerous times, namely, that people can be saved "so long as morality is maintained."
 

Re: the article posted, written by Fr. Mueller.  The objections in the article are not fit for this discussion, because I (nor do I think is anyone else) am not arguing that invincible ignorance is a means to salvation.  That is God's grace and mercy, not a merit (or demerit) of man.  

It definitely is. You are teaching the very thing Fr. Muller exposed the liberals tried to say Pius IX taught. And I did not say you said invincible ignorance is a means of salvation, now you are creating a diversion and switching your positions because you are saying Pope Pius IX taught that invincibly ignorant people can be saved by simply following the natural law and "being ready to obey God". Nice try though.

The principle of BOD/BOB/Invincible ignorance is not that man's salvation is an effect caused by his own action or state (in desiring baptism, dying for the faith before it, or being invincibly ignorant of it) but that his salvation comes about no differently than anyone else's: by the grace of God.

Strawmans and smoke and mirrors.

And we are not even getting into the fact that it is a dogma that those who die in original sin cannot be saved.


Compare your heretical interpretation of what Pope Pius IX said with what St. Leonard of Port Maurice said:

Ungrateful sinner, learn today that if you are damned, it is not God who is to blame, but you and your self-will. To persuade yourself of this, go down even to the depths of the abyss, and there I will bring you one of those wretched damned souls burning in hell, so that he may explain this truth to you. Here is one now: "Tell me, who are you?" "I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suf-fering now." "Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for." Another one is coming; there he is. "Who are you?" "I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God." "You are not the one I want; return to hell." Here is another. "And who are you?" "I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith." "It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell." Brothers, my heart is broken upon seeing these wretches who never even knew the True Faith among the damned. Even so, know that the sentence of condemnation was pronounced against them and they were told, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They were damned because they wanted to be. They received so many aids from God to be saved! We do not know what they were, but they know them well, and now they cry out, "O Lord, Thou art just... and Thy judgments are equitable."

Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid.

The Little Number of those who are saved.