You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the head, reducing culpability reduces time in purgatory if you should repent. Without Sanctifying Grace there is no salvation. You are an obstinate heretic and I will have nothing to do with you anymore.

Quote from: Caminus

I'll pass over that piling heap of confusion that passes for theology including errors that are proximate to heresy and repeat, once again, that even inculpable ignorance does not supply for a defect.      

You seem to refuse to realize that if there is no culpability, there is no mortal sin and thus no punishment for mortal sin (Hell). As I've established, the Church teaches that those outside the visible structure of the Church CAN be saved.

Therefore it is simple logic and moral theology analysis to conclude that athiests acting in good faith are in ignorance and thus not culpable and able to be saved.

You're not grasping the point.  Even supposing their ignorance is not culpable, this fact does not change their spiritual state (that's what "it does not supply for a defect" means), they are still deprived of sanctifying grace and the virtues necessary for salvation.  Even a mentally retarded person who is not at all culpable for any act cannot be saved unless he is baptized because there is nothing to remove the guilt of original sin.  Now an atheist is in a much worse position which includes numerous mortal sins.  These are matters about which men are bound to know and understand.  Thus, failure to gain such knowledge is negligent and renders their ignorance voluntary, i.e. culpable.    

You're not grasping the point.  Even supposing their ignorance is not culpable, this fact does not change their spiritual state (that's what "it does not supply for a defect" means), they are still deprived of sanctifying grace and the virtues necessary for salvation.  Even a mentally retarded person who is not at all culpable for any act cannot be saved unless he is baptized because there is nothing to remove the guilt of original sin.  Now an atheist is in a much worse position which includes numerous mortal sins.  These are matters about which men are bound to know and understand.  Thus, failure to gain such knowledge is negligent and renders their ignorance voluntary, i.e. culpable.    

I do grasp the point. My point is that your interpretation does not square with the Church's teaching that the invincibly ignorant can be saved without baptism.

Quote from: Caminus

You're not grasping the point.  Even supposing their ignorance is not culpable, this fact does not change their spiritual state (that's what "it does not supply for a defect" means), they are still deprived of sanctifying grace and the virtues necessary for salvation.  Even a mentally retarded person who is not at all culpable for any act cannot be saved unless he is baptized because there is nothing to remove the guilt of original sin.  Now an atheist is in a much worse position which includes numerous mortal sins.  These are matters about which men are bound to know and understand.  Thus, failure to gain such knowledge is negligent and renders their ignorance voluntary, i.e. culpable.    

I do grasp the point. My point is that your interpretation does not square with the Church's teaching that the invincibly ignorant can be saved without baptism.

You are evading the point which is that ignorance does not supply for want of divine faith or charity and the other virtues necessary for salvation.  An atheist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., by definition, possesses none of these, even if his ignorance is inculpable.  You refer to the privation of ignorance, but fail to account for the positive virtue and sanctifying grace necessary for salvation.  In essence, you are implying that a man can be saved without any of these; that no translation from a state of sin to a state of justification is necessary.  And it is a dogma of divine and catholic faith that those who die in a state of original sin alone cannot possess the Beatific Vision.

Quote from: Caminus

I'll pass over that piling heap of confusion that passes for theology including errors that are proximate to heresy and repeat, once again, that even inculpable ignorance does not supply for a defect.      

You seem to refuse to realize that if there is no culpability, there is no mortal sin and thus no punishment for mortal sin (Hell). As I've established, the Church teaches that those outside the visible structure of the Church CAN be saved.

Therefore it is simple logic and moral theology analysis to conclude that athiests acting in good faith are in ignorance and thus not culpable and able to be saved.

Santo,

Invincible ignorance only applies to ONE SIN: The mortal sin of unbelief. By saying someone is invincibly ignorant of the truth, it means their unbelief is not criminal.

But that does NOT constitute an infusion of sanctifying grace, without which NONE are saved.

They are in Original Sin, and mortal Sin. They have their conscience, and the natural law. If they WILLFULLY defy their conscience, even if it is badly formed, on a serious and grave matter (masturbation, adultery, killing, theft, etc.), which are universally acknowledged as GRAVE, it constitutes a mortal sin.

So then, how do they receive sanctifying grace? Does GOd mMAKE them saved just because they are ignorant? No.

God does not violate free will. The Person who lives in a state of invincible ignorance MAY be saved: If his ignorance is dispelled and the truth is revealed!

The invincibly ignorant have NO MORAL MECHANISM whereby they can recognize the grace of God and freely respond to it. How then, can they be saved? Like St. Paul says; "How can they believe unless they have heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?"

If you insist on it, explain it in a hypothetical real world desert island circuмstance. Explain to me how this can work.

The invincibly ignorant are saved the same as Jews: Repudiating their former faith and converting to the Catholic faith.

Where is your humility, Santo Subito? You have been proven to be wrong repeatedly and still make no apology or recanting of your erroneous posture.

Knock knock, hello???

Absurd. Atheism at least was one species of unbelief that the Second Vatican Council condemned.

19. ... Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.

21. In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence.

The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God's temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.

I would say it is at least morally certain that no atheist can be in invincible ignorance. And it is probably even dogmatically certain.