De Indis De Jure Belli by Francisco de Vitoria, Part 2

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Indis_De_Jure_Belli/Part_2

9. I say accordingly on this point that negligence with regard to the subject-matter is requisite for ignorance, even though it be vincible, to be imputed as, and to be, a sin, as, for example, that the man refused to hear or did not believe what he did hear; and on the other hand I say that for invincible ignorance it is enough that the man bestowed human diligence in trying to learn, even if in other respects he is in mortal sin. And so on this point our judgment is the same concerning one in sin and one in grace, both now and immediately after Christ's coming or after His passion. Adrian could not deny that after our Lord's passion the Jews in India or in Spain were invincibly ignorant of His passion, however much they were in mortal sin; nay, he himself has expressly conceded this in his first quaestio, fourth point, on the topic de observantia legalium. And it is certain that the Jews who were away from Judaea, whether they were in sin or not, had invincible ignorance about baptism and about the faith of Christ.

Just as there could at that time be a case of invincible ignorance on this matter, so there may also be nowadays among those who have not had baptism declared to them. But the mistake which the doctors in question make is in thinking that when we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith it follows at once that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith, which, however, does not follow. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief, as St. Thomas (Secunda Secundae, as above) says, namely, that if they do what in them lies, accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God's providence and He will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ, but it does not therefore follow that if their life be bad, ignorance or unbelief in baptism and the Christian faith may be imputed to them as a sin.

1) The entire praxis of the Church, particularly in Her missionary apostolates testifies to the contrary (e.g., in the oft-cited example of Archbishop Lefebvre to the catechumen who feared going to hell if he dies before the Archbishop returned).  Lefebvre did not make up his response out of thin air.  It is what the Church has been practicing in the field for 2000 years.

All this demonstrates is the pollution of +Lefebvre's thinking with the neo-Pelagianism that was running rampant in the pre-Vatican II Church.  2000 years my foot.  You lie like 98% of all BoDers do.

Quote from: Struthio on August 21, 2018, 06:58:52 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 21, 2018, 06:44:44 PM

An unbaptized but justified person [...]

I have never heard of an "unbaptized but justified person" other than by folks who say that this idea is an idea of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Now, a single Jesuit priest is not exactly a source of the Catholic Faith.

How can an unbaptized person be justified, while the Council of Trent teaches that the instrumental cause of Justification is the sacrament of baptism?

Fr. Feeney referenced the saints of the Old Testament, who were justified but not baptized - but being justified alone could not get into heaven when they died.

Thank you, Stubborn. Then there is no conflict with the Council of Trent which is not treating justification before the promulgation of the Gospel

He's not a member of the Church (russian orthodox boy), but being justified, he would be joined to it by grace through implicit baptism of desire.

That he has had water baptism is irrelevant (or, are you saying the Orthodox are members of the Church in virtue of their water baptism?).

I don't wan't to get too deep into your example, but it was quite contradictory.  If a person is baptized, they are members of the Church.  If a russian orthodox boy dies in the state of grace, they go to heaven.  Duh.

But your example presumed that the boy could have BOD post-baptism.  You only have BOD once, just like you can only get baptized once.  Unless you think one can receive BOD multiple times?? ??

The question of if a justified but unbaptized person goes to heaven is up to God.  If that's what the Church says, I'll believe it, but I think it's debatable.  You don't.  Let's move on.

--
The real question is:  Who is able to receive BOD?  Trent was VERY SPECIFIC about who qualifies to be justified by BOD.  Your (and +ABL's) heretical theory that a muslim "who wants to do what God wills" can receive BOD is an error.  Trent taught that said muslim must believe in 1) original sin, the Incarnation, Trinity, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, 2) learn and accept the faith/Church, and 3) make a decision to follow the 10 commandments and "begin a new life" in the Church (i.e. through baptism - whether expressed openly (explicitly) or implied by actions (implicitly).

No ignorant person COULD EVER qualify the above requirements.  Hence, they cannot receive BOD.
No non-catholic, still practiciing their false religion, COULD EVER qualify for the above requirements.  Hence, they cannot receive BOD.

You're main problem is a lack of understanding of what "implicit" means.  You falsely define implicit desire as meaning "subconscious" or "undefined/unspecific".  As if a muslim can become a member of the Church, only knowing the catholic dogma on Adam/Eve.  As if a muslim can join the Church through "good will" and a "desire for God" without knowing what baptism is or means (both errors condemned by Trent).

Implicit simply means 'implied but not expressed'; or "essentially connected with".  So a person who is attending catechism classes - they are IMPLICITLY showing they want to become catholic.  A catechumen who goes to sunday mass is "essentially or very closely connected with" the Faith.  One who is ignorant of, or practicing a false religion, by definition, cannot love the Faith, and is not essentially or closely connected with the Faith.  Therefore, BOD is not possible for them, per Trent.

The modernists have subtly replaced "implicit desire for baptism/Faith" with "implicit desire for God" and thus have turned BOD into heresy.  They have corrupted EENS, in an effort to create their hoped-for freemasonic, satanic, one-world religion, which necessarily is opposed by the Catholic Faith.

The example of the russian orthodox is unnecessarily complex for our debate.  One, they believe many of the doctrines that Catholicism does.  Are their masses/sacraments valid?  I don't know.  For your example, I was presuming yes.  My assumption was that a 7yr old baptized member of the Church, who goes to mass and receives the Holy Eucharist dies in the state of grace.  Also assuming he had not accepted error and hatred for true doctrine - because what 7yr old has the mental capacity to understand complex heresy?  Few.

A more clear cut example would be a 14yr old Baptist, who was validly baptized but rejected catholicism and who was old enough to know a little bit about theology and the bible.  In this case, such a one would NOT make heaven, for they are NOT members of the church.  Their rejection of the Faith would be a sin of heresy.

If you will say that the boy does not immediately lose membership upon attaining the age of reason, but only upon sufficient recognition and understanding of Catholicism, then you have just acknowledged that many (of all ages) who are members of false churches are actually joined to (and therefore saved by) the Catholic Church.

And that is precisely the argument I am making (and by extension, the same argument ABL was making).

And Vatican II did also!

Well, if this is so, then there is absolutely no heresy to be found in Vatican II Council and therefore, all Traditionalists who are in not in communion with Rome are in danger of perishing.

So for these people, an Orthodox (Or even a nonbaptized Jew, Moslem, or Hindu) can still be an invisible member of the Church; but a "Feeneyite" is for sure a heretic outside the Church...a non member...  

Indeed, Cantarella.  JohnSeanson just described the Vatican II definition of Church in a nutshell.  Since anyone who is saved must by definition be within the Church, all these non-Catholics are actually within the Church.  So we now have a Church that consists not only of Catholics proper, but also of all manner of heretics, schismatics, and infidels ... who while formally belonging to the Church have varying degrees of material separation from the fullness of truth that is held by Catholics in whom the Church subsists.  V2 in a nutshell.

It gets even sadder for these trads. They actually take it further than Vatican II ever did.

At least when Vatican II was applying varying degrees of communion to other sects in which the Church "subsists" and all that, it was referring to the other "CHRISTIAN" communities. (Meaning they are already waterly BAPTIZED and have Faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity, and some even have valid sacraments)

Have you ever even heard that there are THREE baptisms in Catholic theology?

That statement right there is a heresy.

Even if you believe that desire and blood can substitute the tangible water in martyrs and dying catechumens, you must confess that there is only ONE Baptism for the remission of sins.

"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins" Says the dogmatic Nicene Creed. This dogma that there is one baptism for the remission of sins comes from Our Lord Himself and the Apostles. It is affirmed by St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5:

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”