Is there some reason why you're posting Singulari Quidem, gladius?  

 :wink:

Pius IX, Singulari Quidem:

"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

If he means what some thinks he means, I name no names, then he would be a heretic.  Read it closely.  If he means you can be saved through "ignorance beyond [your] control," while "outside the Church" he has rejected a dogma.  No one is saved outside the Church.  

In the invincible ignorance thesis, those who qualify are not outside the Church.  They are part of the Church despite invincible ignorance.  You can say they are part of the soul, or you can say they are part of the soul and body through desire, whatever.  But you have to be careful with your words.  You cannot say they are "outside the Church" and yet saved regardless.  That would be heresy.

Technically, what this really means is that people cannot hope for life and salvation if they are willfully and deliberately against the Church.  That is the only way to read it without falling into heresy.  

The key word is "hope."  Pius IX says that no one can hope for life or salvation unless excused by ignorance.   It follows logically therefrom that there is no hope for someone who outright rejects the Church, at least at the time they reject it.  That doesn't mean that someone who is ignorant has an excuse that may help them attain salvation.  It means that they may have an excuse to hope for salvation.  If they are following the natural law they are on the road to conversion and God will send them the truth somehow.

But it is interesting to note that until recently, according to Richard Ibranyi, this encyclical was almost never quoted by those who tried to prove the invincible ignorance thesis.  They used Quanto Conficiamur Moerere instead.  This checks out with all the evidence I've found.  For instance, Cardinal Newman in the 19th century believed that QCM was the first time that a Pope taught that you could be saved in invincible ignorance.  If Pius IX really taught the same thing over a decade earlier, Cardinal Newman sure didn't know about it.  ( I disagree that it taught that, but the point is that Cardinal Newman did not say anything about Singulari Quidem which predates QCM ).  

This led Richard Ibranyi to hypothesize that this encyclical was doctored somehow.  Laugh all you want and call him a crackpot -- for some reason there is more sympathy for the Dimonds -- but this is a very, very discomfiting sentence, no matter how you slice it.  At a glance, it makes it sound as if Pius IX is saying there is salvation outside the Church.  

As for the idea that someone can be saved in invincible ignorance, I don't buy it, but I realize that most theologians leading up to Vatican II taught it, and that St. Alphonsus said it was a probable opinion.  We'll leave it at that -- it's probable.  But I think the tide will turn in the other direction shortly, back to the view of Aquinas and Augustine, that one must have explicit faith to be saved.  I continue to fail to see how yo can say someone can be saved without knowing the name of Christ, through implicit faith, without falling into a covert Pelagianism.  This is so much like saying that you can be saved by being a "good person," or by the natural law.  I used to think it was heresy but considering the Popes for 500 years never said anything against it, and it was increasingly prominent, for now I believe it is an open question, an acceptable theological speculation.

Is there some reason why you're posting Singulari Quidem, gladius?

No, it happened while I was drooling on my keyboard during a nice nap :)

Actually, Dulcamara and I were having an exchange that related to the docs I posted.