Lover of Truth,

As I said in another thread, it is possible for a man to live his whole life without committing sin, since God does not command the impossible.

Are there any such men? Are there any "non-members" who are saved?

If the answer to the second question is like the answer to the first, no.

And why wouldn't the answer be like the first? Because God would be unjust? Because it wouldn't be "fair" to those who never heard the Gospel or had a chance at baptism?

Only to those who inordinately elevate the freedom of man (or misunderstand the nature of man with original sin) while also diminishing the role of God in an individual man's salvation.

The "very hairs of the elect" are all numbered. You can believe God numbers them as "non-members" of the Catholic Church and without baptism, but you're making a radical judgment about the nature of man, God and Providence/Predestination that "Feeneyites" or the rest of us don't accept, and none of your fallible authorities, even when considered on their own language and terms, require us to accept it. Certainly the Church doesn't.

Sorry, your crusade is a tilting at bogeymen of your own imagination.

Justification is a process.  Even the good-willed according to the Church, with implicit faith can gain actual grace that moves them to a supernatural faith and perfect charity putting them within the Church in a salvific way.  

I don't make any of it up.  

I made rather clear that the number of non-members within the Church are those who have not had the gospel preached to them, have not heard of the Catholic Church, have not looked into the Catholic Church through no fault of their own and failing all that they still need supernatural faith and perfect 
charity for faith to be possible. 

How many do you believe fit into that category?

  You can deny the teaching if you like but it is the teaching of the Church.  It is a given as Alphonsus pointed out above.  The quibble is if 2 or 4 things must be believed at a minimum and with what necessity.  If you do not accept this point your problem is not with me but with the Church.  

Have you read the quote from Alphonsus?

Cornellius is an example and Saint Paul.  If either of them died before actually being baptized, supposing the other requirements were present they would have been saved.  

Lover of Truth,

First, define "implicit" faith "according to the Church."

If you manage to do that, then show us where the Church says the "the good-willed . . . with implicit faith can gain actual grace that moves them to a supernatural faith and perfect charity putting them within the Church in a salvific way."

This should be typical.

Lover of Truth,

None.

Then you should have no problem with the teaching.  But the Church clearly and infallibly teaches if there is such people they can be saved within the Church.  That cannot be legitimately denied.

A work of mercy.  :)

It'd better be... :cheers:

Seriously, not a gimme, cause that would be a lie too. It was legit.

Out.

Not sure why some of the words came out like they did. I was not yelling just sharing the quote I was speaking of and you asked about.

What does this prove, this advancing by Lugo et al of a minority opinion "even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers' testimonies oppose" no less?

Simply proves it had not been settled.  

Some theologians hold that view at least in regard to those who lived in pagan lands where the Gospel had not yet been preached. St. Alphonsus held it as the "more probable" and "more common" opinion that belief in the Trinity is required by all by necessity of means for salvation. However, he explains all three opinions, i.e. 1) that explicit belief in the Trinity is "necessitate medii" for all; 2) that explicit belief is "necessitate medii" for all but in some rare cases God makes exception to this; 3) that explicit belief in the Trinity is only "necessitate praecepti" and that only implicit belief in the Trinity is required "necessitate medii." He calls this third opinion (which he lists as the second) "also probable enough" and he quotes a number of eminent theologians who hold this opinion. Here is the passage in his works:
https://books.google.com/books?id=NR48AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA296