So Cano says that infidels can be justified (have remission of Original Sin) without explicit faith but not salvation ... but Father Sullivan here finds Soto's position "more satisfying". What does "satisfying" mean, that Fr. Sullivan likes it better?
This entire trend was motivated by the discovery of the New World, and this is the animus that has driven anti-EENS BoD speculation the entire time, this notion that it would be "unfair" of God not to allow all these infidels to be saved since they had never received the Gospel.
But what seems to be missing from their thinking is that the supernatural life and the beatific vision are not owed to anyone in justice, but are a free gift of God, nor, as St. Thomas taught in the context of Limbo, is it necessary for perfect happiness, since it's beyond the capacity of natural human perfection.
So if one applies that teaching of St. Thomas along with the justification/salvation distinction, where the former refers to justice and the latter to a free unmerited gift, the problem goes away. Justification is in fact etymologically related to "justice".
This also illustrates what St. Ambrose would have meant by "washed" but not "crowned", meaning that sins is remitted ("washed") and yet there's no entry into the Kingdom ("crowning").
Pope St. Siricius taught dogmatically that even those desiring the Sacrament would ALL (each and every one) forfeit the "kingdom" if they did not actually receive the Sacrament before they died.
This distinction between justification and salvation is in fact the key to making sense of all this.
Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 41843 times)