Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Pelele

Well that's not what the encyclical says.

It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.

Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Pelele

Well that's not what the encyclical says.

It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.

Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.

And what does that have to do with anything?

It means that every human being, without exception, is saved by sanctifying grace, a gift from the Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ; that (sanctifying grace) alone is what allows a soul to enter Heaven, life eternal.  Pope Pius IX was, clearly, at least tolerating the opinion that belief in only two of the four Articles of Faith is necessary for salvation, but he was also allowing the opinion that explicit faith in all Four Articles of Faith would be the minimum for salvation.  One can read his text either way.

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: bowler

Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent (it is an encyclical directed to the bishops of Italy, therefore fallible, and it does not explain how a person can be saved), as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe (Exactly, as YOU believe, and not as it is clearly written).

Well we can see the "explanations" that have emanated since then.

You have almost all the theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions etc.

The explanations that  "emanated since then", and the "theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions", are not Pius IX nor his encyclical which is what you are saying says something it does not say nor define further. It is the others who make of it something that it does not clearly define.

It is just like Vatican II, incomplete or ambiguous, and the liberals purposely take advantage of both (VatII & SQ) to go to town interpreting both to their own desires. It is a punishment reserved for our times.

The teaching of "theologians and almost all the traditional people today saying that you can be saved without supernatural faith, by implicit bod, in total ignorance, in false religions " is a perfect example of chastisement of our times:

Quote from: bowler

The Chosen Chastisement of Our Times

The chosen chastisement for our times is no chastisement. God has abandoned even Catholics to their own desires, even to the point of providing them with clergy that confirm them in whatever sin they desire. Scarcely can you find a Catholic that thinks anything but that we are living in the best of times. Truly we are living in the time described in 2 Timothy:

Quote

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)

Saint John Eudes  wrote in "The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations":

Quote

“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...

“When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15) Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge upon the people in consequence of sin.”

Good Catholics get what they pray for.

Catholics who are indifferent, CINO, and fallen away, get what they desire, AS A PUNISHMENT. We have bad clergy today because that is what 99% of Catholics wanted. They wanted priests who let them do and believe whatever they wanted to. That is what they got! What they consider to be great, is in reality A CHATISEMENT from God.

God's worst chastisement is no chastisement, the people are left to do as they please, God has given them up to their desires, and even provided blind guides to confirm them in whatever sin they desire.

Quote

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:

19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things.

24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,

30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them
(Romans 1:18-32)

[Our most holy predecessors along with highly esteemed bishops and even general Councils] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used.

For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

It is not a matter of the danger of only one or another diocese: Any novelty at all assails the Universal Church.

You could read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in that way, but i dont see how the same can be said about Singulari Quidem.

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

Quote from: Pelele

You could read Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in that way, but i dont see how the same can be said about Singulari Quidem.

Read your OP:

Quote

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

A Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, and even, an atheist, can all hope that they will go to Heaven; such does not mean that they will go to Heaven.  I can hope that I will win the Lottery just by playing, but that does not necessarily mean that my "hope" will result in bags of money!

Why is it that Fr. Michael Muller, when he dealt with Pius IX and I.I., didn't even mention Singulari Quidem, which was the first time the Pope mentioned I.I.? It is the most "objectionable" of the 3, but he didn't even address it.

Maybe it's a corruption of the original Encyclical? Maybe it doesn't appear in the original?

Bob Dimond wrote a whole book about the salvation dogma and he even wrote about Pius IX but he didn't even address Singulari Quidem either.

Why would that be?

This sounds like Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity".

So any time we find something heretical, we are supposed to ignore it and just "read it with tradition"?

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]
[Author - Vincent shows himself also as a man of such remarkable perception that there is a certain timelessness to his writing. What he has to say of preserving the faith and of keeping to the rule of faith fits any period and all times, and might have been written yesterday.  

Vincent develops the notion that our faith is based on the authority of divine Law, which must be understood and interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. And this Tradition, if it need be discovered, is quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus crediturn est: what has been believed in the Church everywhere, always, and by all.  Vincent’s doctrinal principle does not exclude progress and development; but it does exclude change. For Vincent, progress is a developmental growth of doctrine in its own sphere; change, however, implies a transformation into something different.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS says:

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.  I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is then truly and properly Catholic.  That is what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that embraces all almost universally. This general rule will be correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement.  And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those interpretations which, it is clear our holy predecessors and fathers solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all priests and teachers.

To announce, therefore, to Catholic Christians something other than that which they have received has never been permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. And to anathematize those who announce anything other than that which has been received once and for all has never been unnecessary, is nowhere unnecessary and never will be unnecessary.

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.

"Guard" he says, "what has been committed." What does it mean, "what has been committed”? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition;  a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. "Guard," he says, "what has been committed. "Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. For my part I do not want you to substitute one thing for mother; I do not want you impudently to put lead in place of gold, or, fraudulently brass. I do not want the appearance of gold, but the real thing.  O Timothy, O priest. O interpreter, O teacher, if a divine gift has made you suitable in genius, in experience, in doctrine to be the Beseleel of the spiritual tabernacle, cut out the precious gems of divine dogma, shape them faithfully, ornament them wisely, add splendor, grace and beauty to them! By your expounding it, may that now be understood more clearly which formerly was believed even in its obscurity. May posterity, by means of you, rejoice in understanding what in times past was venerated without understanding, Nevertheless, teach the same that you have learned, so that if you say something anew, it is not something new that you say.

But perhaps someone is saying: "Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?" Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself, by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion.  The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were. . . . For example: Our fathers of old sowed the seeds of the wheat of faith in this field which is the Church. Certainly it would be unjust and incongruous if we, their descendents, were to gather, instead of the genuine truth of wheat, the noxious error of weeds. On the contrary, it is right and logically proper that there be no discrepancy between what is first and what is last and that we reap, in the increment of wheat from the wheat of instruction, the fruit also of dogma. And thus, although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty, and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains. May it never happen that the rose garden of the Catholic sense be turned into thistles and thorns. May it never happen, I say, that darnel and monk's hood suddenly spring up in the spiritual paradise of shoots of cinnamon and balsam.

We must most studiously investigate and follow this ancient agreement of the holy fathers,   not in all the lesser questions of the divine Law, but certainly and especially in the rule of faith. . . . But only those opinions of the fathers are to he brought forward which were expressed by those who lived, taught, and persevered wisely and constantly in the holy Catholic faith and communion, and who merited either to die faithfully in Christ or to be killed gloriously for Christ. Those men, moreover, are to be believed, in accord with the rule that only that is to be held as undoubted, certain, and valid, which either all or most of them have confirmed by receiving, holding, and handing on in one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, and persistently, as if by a council of teachers in mutual agreement. But whatever was thought outside of or even against the opinion of all, although it be by a holy and learned man, or although by a confessor and martyr, must be removed from the authority of the common and public and general opinion, as being among his personal and peculiar and private views. In this way we shall not, as is the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, reject the ancient truth of universal dogma, to pursue, with great danger to our eternal salvation, the novel error of one man.

1.   This is the famous line: In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.