CathInfo.com

What Pope Pius IX taught was simple and clear ... and has nothing to do with that bullshit you're churning out above.

He reaffirms the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.  He then addresses the age-old question of ... what about those who are invincibly ignorant?  To which he answers, if they have not committed actual sin, they will not be punished for that, and then says that God will bring to salvation those who do not place obstacles in the way of his grace via sin by his divine light and grace.  As to how this would be done, and in terms of questions like, why God allows some to be born into situations where they do not become exposed to the faith, we will undrestand only when we leave this earth.  At no point does Pius IX say that those who are in ignorance can be saved IN THEIR STATE, but that they have a HOPE for salvation and that God will bring them to salvation if they do not resist His grace.  You attempt to inject into this you heretical retardedness that they can be saved IN their state of ignorance merely by following law.  That's where you inject the Pelagian heresy that is NOWHERE in his writing, but only in your heretically-depraved mind, and by reading it into the text, you also slander Pope Pius IX as a Pelagian heretic just like yourself.  He doesn't clarify how God will lead them to salvation ... but it's you who inject that into the text.  As St. Thomas taught, it could be by an direct interior inspiration or else by God sending a preacher to them, whether a person or an angel.  Pius IX simply does not offer examples, and you therefore decide to claim that this means that nothing else need happen before the individual can be saved, i.e. that he need not have supernatural faith (a heretical denial of Trent's teaching that none of the BoDers whom I've debated thus far have had the temerity to dispute), but can be saved in his current state of ignorance by following only the natural law (Pelagian heresy).

You clearly have no clue what Pelagian heresy even is ... and you honestly don't know your own ass from a hole in the ground where it comes to Church teaching, doctrine, and theology.

I reminder readers that you are the retard that adamantly claimed that Bergoglio could not have been validly elected because Ratzinger had not yet had his funeral rites (despite the fact that he was still very much alive), and absurdity that could lead to decades of sedevacante in the event that a pope resigned before he was close to death.

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. - Pope Pius XII

At no point does Pius IX say that those who are in ignorance can be saved IN THEIR STATE, but that they have a HOPE for salvation and that God will bring them to salvation if they do not resist His grace.

Yes.  This is why Angelus’ explanation of Pius IX’s phrase “divine light” is incoherent and circular.  The pope is saying that those who follow the natural law will be given divine light/grace TO CONVERT. 


Angelus says that the ignorant will be given divine light and then…remain ignorant.  The divine light only confirms to the ignorant that they keep following the natural law.  But that’s what actual graces are for.  Pius IX is not talking about actual grace.  

So Angelus is basically saying that divine light and grace is for natural purposes, and doesn’t lead to conversion.  As if God wastes grace like this.  As if ANY GRACE that God could give has, as its purpose, a natural purpose only.  No, all grace is meant for a supernatural end, because God mainly cares about salvation. 

The idea that God would NOT give a good-willed person the divine light to convert, however many years this takes, inch by inch, is so contrary to Scripture that it might be a NEW HERESY, in addition to Angelus’ Pelagianism.