Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans  (Read 12533 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #120 on: August 08, 2019, 01:36:33 PM »
If its really the case that every single Catholic taught this for 1600 years, then I'd agree that that conclusion follows.  
Well OK I wanna backtrack from this a bit.  I'd also want to know why they thought the conclusion follows.  Since, if I recall correctly, the idea of invincible ignorance was originally a reaction to learning of the existence of the New World.  That is kind of understandably a paradigm shifter.  I'll have to think through the implications of that.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #121 on: August 08, 2019, 01:39:53 PM »
Quote
His point is that the apparent contradiction between BOD and one baptism could be resolved by finer distinction in the same way the mediator problem is resolved.
ByzCat makes an excellent point.  Most Feeneyites would say we need the Church to give us a finer distinction because as it is now, there seems to be a contradiction.  Most BODers say, no, there's no contradiction - either water or desire is ok.  You're a heretic for asking for a distinction because Trent mentions desire, therefore desire is "de fide".


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #122 on: August 08, 2019, 01:42:57 PM »
Invincible ignorance has nothing to do with BOD, because one cannot desire what one does not know.  The invincible ignorance error is the corruption of the belief that "desire" suffices for salvation, and this is what led to V2, and is what Fr Feeney was warning about when he said that we need a distinction on when and how "desire" works.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #123 on: August 08, 2019, 01:43:00 PM »
Someone posted a while back that the translation from latin to English was wrong and that Trent said "and" and not "or".  In other words, to receive baptism one must receive the sacrament AND have the desire to.  This totally changes the meaning and destroys BOD.  Can anyone confirm?

Yes, this is certainly true.  "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball."  On the face of it, it's ambiguous.  But it does not necessarily mean that I can play baseball if I have either a bat or a ball.  It could have been disambiguated inline with an "or else".  "I cannot play baseball without a bat or else a ball."  In fact, Trent does EXACTLY that when referring to justification through the desire to receive the Sacrament of Confession.  But not here.  And yet Trent disambiguates immediately afterwards in the case of Baptism.

"one cannot be justified without the laver or the desire for it, since one cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless he is reborn of water AND the Holy Ghost."

laver:water::desire:Holy Ghost ... since Trent spent a couple paragraphs explaining how the Holy Ghost inspires this desire and intention to receive Baptism.

So it would be like saying:  "I cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since you need both a bat and a ball to play baseball." actually means "I can play baseball with either a bat or a ball, since you need both a bat or a ball to play baseball."  That would be utter nonsense.

BoDers would have Trent teaching:  "one can be justified with either the water or the desire, since Our Lord taught that one cannot be justified unless he receive both water and the desire."

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #124 on: August 08, 2019, 01:45:57 PM »
Well OK I wanna backtrack from this a bit.  I'd also want to know why they thought the conclusion follows.  Since, if I recall correctly, the idea of invincible ignorance was originally a reaction to learning of the existence of the New World.  That is kind of understandably a paradigm shifter.  I'll have to think through the implications of that.

Not really.  St. Thomas spoke about the scenario of some ignorant native who had never heard of the faith ... and concluded that if the man were to be properly disposed, God would either give him a direct enlightenment or else send a preacher of the faith to him.  That conclusion implies that an enlightenment of faith is necessary for salvation.  Why else wold God need to provide such a thing?  And that is exactly what Pius IX was teaching, echoing St. Thomas precisely, about invincible ignorance, that such a one would be brought to justification by the work of light and grace.