Stubbon,

Souls "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion" and "souls invincibly ignorant of our religion" are one and the same thing.

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.

Doing good and avoiding evil, such souls will receive divine light and grace. Divine light is the gospel, which is the Catholic faith.



St. Thomas Aquinas

Quaestiones disputatae de veritate

Question Fourteen: Faith

ARTICLE XI: In the eleventh article we ask: Is it necessary to believe explicitly?

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/g3i.htm

1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.

Answers to Difficulties

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).

Summa Theologica

Question 76. The causes of sin, in particular

Article 2. Whether ignorance is a sin?

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article2

I answer that


(. . .)


Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

 

First, we aren't (well, I can only speak for myself) asserting that invincible ignorance *itself* saves, it just creates the possibility of not being damned.  

I thought about that a few years ago. Invincibly ignorant of our religion yet seeking good and avoiding evil, I thought that there might be souls who would go to Limbo who did not commit a mortal sin in their life as adults, but died without the faith.

Now, I don't believe God would fail to reveal the truths of our faith to anyone seeking good and avoiding evil.

I see only two options:

Invincibly ignorant of our religion and damned on account of other mortal sins, not for the sin of unbelief. It is on account of those other sins that God did not reveal the faith to them.

Invincibly ignorant of our religion, seeking good and avoiding evil, God will not fail to bring the truth to such souls and the chance for conversion. If they fail to convert with the truth presented to them then they damn themselves.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pius-ix-and-invincible-ignorance/



Pius IX, On Promotion of False Doctrines, 1863

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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.

19.


(. . .)


Let us pray that the errant be flooded with the light of his divine grace, may turn back from the path of error into the way of truth and justice and, experiencing the worthy fruit of repentance, may possess perpetual love and fear of his holy name.

Leo XIII, On Mission Societies, 1880

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13mis.htm

6.

(. . .)

Do men like these pour forth their prayers to God that in His mercy he may bring to the Divine light of the Gospel by His victorious grace the people sitting in the darkness?

Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 1832

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this dєαdlу error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”

The life of Pope Pius IX and the great events in the history of the Church during his pontificate

By John Gilmary Shea, published 1877

pgs. 97 - 103

https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfPopePiusIX1877

Allocution to the cardinals on the Consistory of the 17th of December, 1847, Pius IX:

It is assuredly not unknown to you, venerable brethren, that in our times many of the enemies of the Catholic faith especially direct their efforts toward placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or of confounding it therewith, and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions.

But quite recently, we shudder to say it, men have appeared who have thrown such reproaches upon our name and apostolic dignity, that they do not hesitate to slander us, as if we shared in their folly and favored the aforesaid most wicked system.

(. . .) as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life."

We are at a loss from horror to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done us.

You mean, it would also be known to the person who baptized them, right?  You can't convert to the Church without baptism.

A Protestant already baptized, an Eastern schismatic already baptized, etc.

Stubbon,

Souls "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion" and "souls invincibly ignorant of our religion" are one and the same thing.

No, they are two completely different things.

The one struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion is one who, being ignorant of the true faith yet is actively seeking to find out about the true faith, what he must do in order to gain salvation and is living a moral life etc., thus has a chance for salvation. This is what the "struggling" is all about. Such a person is able to attain salvation so long as he continues seek the truth and cooperate with the grace leading him to the truth and live a moral life.  

The other person is always the one wrongly referenced, this is one who is simply invincibly ignorant of our religion and is not struggling with anything, therefore is not seeking the truth at all, as such is not living a moral life. This person had better wake up and start struggling to find out about our religion and live a moral life like the other guy, otherwise he has no hope whatsoever of salvation.

This is why I say that the term "invincible ignorance" should be replaced with the correct term used by Pope Pius IX; "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion".

OK, I wasn't aware of the different definitions.  I think we are on the same page.

Someone posted here once a passage from a theologian discussing the different notions of "heresy" and "material heresy" and "formal heresy".

Where I have issues, as you know, is with those theologians who attempt to equate "formal" heresy with "bad faith" or "insincerity".  That's in line with the subjectivization of truth that has been trending for a few hundred years now.

So, a Catholic who believes a heretical proposition out of ignorance only, as soon as he's shown that the Church teaches the contrary, immediately rejects the opinion, because he accepts the Church's Magisterium as the rule of faith, and therefore has the formal motive of faith even if in material error about WHAT the Church teaches.

Meanwhile, a (former-)Catholic who knows what the Church teaches and rejects it anyway, that person is formally heretical because he's at least implicitly (sometimes explicitly) rejecting the authority of the Church, which is what underlies all dogma.  Thus the saying that if you reject one dogma you reject them all.  That person could be as "sincere" as anything, and be 1000% convinced that his error is true.  But he's a formal heretic anyway, because he rejects the authority behind all dogma and therefore doesn't have the proper formal motive of faith.

Material refers to the WHAT of belief, whereas formal refers to the WHY.  It has nothing to do with the subjective disposition of "sincerity".  But that's precisely what some modern theologians have morphed it into.  This similar to my objection to how "formal" cooperation with evil has been shifted over time.

St. Josaphat was described as not adhering to the schismatic error even while being among them.  To that extent he was a Catholic who happened to live among the schismatics.  I’ve clearly stated that it’s hypothetically possible that there are some Catholics living among Prots ... though this would be extremely rare since very few are unaware of the Catholic Church.  These are invariably converted even materially to the Catholic Church, as St. Josaphat was.  Those people however are NOT Protestants, but Catholics.  To say that Protestants can be saved is open heresy, a denial of constant Catholic teaching.  Xavier, might you be bothered to at least pay lip service to Catholic doctrine by asserting that such as these are not Prots but displaced Catholics?

You commit grave scandal and promote heresy in claiming that Prots can be saved.