LoT,

The Syllabus of Errors came after both Singulari quadam and Quanto conficiamur moerore:

Quote

Condemned Error:  Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

In fact, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

Quote

"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

We must at least presume, if not assume, that all non-Catholics are damned and work under that assumption for the salvation of their souls.  Of course, we leave their eternal fate and judgment to that of the One and Triune God.  As Pope Pius IX said in Singulari quadam:

Quote

It is wrong to push our inquiries further than this.

Let's be accurate at least:

- One is NOT in the torments of hell because of EENS.
- No one is guilty of not joining the Church if he is ignorant of the fact that he has to join it.
- One is in the torments of hell for the the OTHER mortal sins he likely commits over his life that go unforgiven (Just like any Catholic) because he has no other way to gain forgiveness in the Sacraments.

Even the Feeney followers hold to that, as well as the MHFM.
Got it?
Good.

One who has not been baptized has original sin just the way a newborn does. Baptism of desire if it does exist, would be so rare as to be foolish to even argue over it.

What needs to be done is conversion of those who have never been invited to a church, and those who are in false sects like protestantism, Mormonism, JW's, Muslims. That would cover 99.999% of all the people we ever come in contact with.

FORGET about arguing if imaginary people are "saved" and get to work on doing some saving. Because while you are arguing about this imaginary person who allegedly has Original Sin removed by some mystical desire, (& their infants don't even have access to such a thing), the sects are converting multitudes into their own false religions

No, actually the problem is that you deny what the Church teaches in this area, regardless of the apparent laxity of some traditional Catholics.

Jehanne said:
Lover of Truth said:

We should never affirm that non-Catholics are saved, we merely acknowledge with Pius IX that they can be.  It is not as if he erred when he wrote Singulari Quadam and Quanto conficiamur moerore and then all of a sudden got enlightened and "changed his teaching" in the Syllabus.  I'm sure you will admit that.  He wrote all of the above as Pope no?


The idea that non-Catholics could receive sanctifying grace predates Pope Pius IX's birth:

Quote:
Q. 28.  But, in the case proposed, if a person in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?

A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.  (Bishop George Hay, Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.).


https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sincere_Christian/Volume_2/Chapter_29

Quote:
Jehanne said:
Lover of Truth said:

We should never affirm that non-Catholics are saved, we merely acknowledge with Pius IX that they can be.  It is not as if he erred when he wrote Singulari Quadam and Quanto conficiamur moerore and then all of a sudden got enlightened and "changed his teaching" in the Syllabus.  I'm sure you will admit that.  He wrote all of the above as Pope no?


The idea that non-Catholics could receive sanctifying grace predates Pope Pius IX's birth:

Quote:
Q. 28.  But, in the case proposed, if a person in his last moments shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?

A. Most undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5), which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism ... in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire for baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God, and therefore is said to be baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments - as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.  (Bishop George Hay, Sincere Christian, Vol. 2, pp.322-323.).


https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sincere_Christian/Volume_2/Chapter_29

People like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.

They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion",  can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.
 

That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.[/quote

Quote

We must at least presume, if not assume, that all non-Catholics are damned and work under that assumption for the salvation of their souls.  Of course, we leave their eternal fate and judgment to that of the One and Triune God.

This is mostly correct. If a man has given no external sign of conversion to the Faith prior to death, then we must judge with moral certainty that he is lost.

Most canonists and theologians also teach children baptized in heretical sects become culpable for the heresies of their parents at around 14 years. After this age, in the external forum they are presumed to have lost that membership in the Church that they acquired in baptism. Likewise, children who have never been baptized are presumed to be culpable for infidelity shortly past the age of reason. The reason is that there must be some element of moral or physical impossibility for ignorance to be said to be invincible. Those who live among and around Christians, where the Church has been established, must be presumed to be culpably ignorant.

Although Feeneyism is a very regrettable error, I don't judge Feeneyites harshly because, pre-Vatican II, just about every lay Catholic perfectly understood this. And the fruits of conversions from the heretical sects were abundant. Whereas, since that time, the proper understanding of ignorance and culpability has been thrown into the greatest confusion. Ignorance of what a man is bound to know is a sin, as all the Doctors teach. Ignorance that can be removed by due diligence is not invincible, and must be presumed to be culpable.

Still, Bowler's mistake is no different from saying, "If penitents think perfect contrition is a possibility, they will never want to come to confession". Noting that Trent says the sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation just as baptism itself is necessary (which evidently means in fact or in desire), I want to ask Bowler, If the possibility that the sacramental effect of penance can be received in desire does not undermine the necessity of the actual reception of the sacrament as soon as that becomes possible, why should it do so in the case of baptism?

Nice post.  Am I correct in saying that anyone who, in the eyes of God, can be reasonably expected to know a thing, but does not know it, is NOT invincibly ignorant?