Yeah, but Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI uphold the "invincible ignorance baptism of desire" theology that UNDERLIES religious liberty.
Explain the correlation because the mere force of the assertion only demonstrates what exists in your mind.
I already have, on numerous occasions. No one has actually addressed the logic of these posts, but "they" merely issue pseudointellectual edicts, platitudes, or statements of principle which may or may not even apply to the topic at hand, such as:
It is rather built upon a dubious philosophical foundation coupled with an illicit inference from the internal forum to the external which perverts the notion of law and ultimately the relation of the state to the Church.
Instead of making these abstract platitudinous quips, you may wish to address the point directly (every once in a blue moon).
According to the false implicit invincible ignorance baptism of desire, people please God and save their souls by faithfully following their consciences (even in error); the criterion for salvation moves from the objective to the subjective.
People have an objective right to please God and to save their souls.
Ergo, people have an objective right to follow their consciences (even in error).
If the Church or state were in any way to impede the following of their conscienes, they might in fact be compelling people to displease God and lose their souls.
So a certain Protestant group feels that they must go door to door trying to convert people in order for them to be doing the will of God. And the state bans their activity. So these Protestants, out of fear, stop doing what they believe God wants them to do. Because they stopped following their consciences, they lose their souls (because, after all, we are saved or lost depending upon how faithfully we follow our consciences and our own lights).
St. Thomas himself spoke of an implicit faith or an implicit desire.
NOT in the manner defined by the invincible ignorance baptism of desire proponents, but in the sense that given the minimum material requirements for belief (Holy Trinity and Incarnation) and the proper formal motive of faith (the authority of God revealing as proposed by the Church), the rest can be believed implicitly by virtue of having the formal motive of faith, i.e. by accepting the teaching authority of the Church. St. Thomas was NOT talking about the Aztec priest saving his soul by faithfully carrying out his perceived duty of slashing hearts out of live victims.