I forgot to bold a section of what was quoted previously.


https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-why-don't-you-get-behind-father-chazal's-sede-impoundism/msg886368/#msg886368

This may be more clear from the following: If a person who has come to the use of reason and professes heresy at the time of his baptism, he is indeed indelibly marked as a Christian, but he is not sanctified—the other supernatural effects of baptism being suspended for want of the proper dispositions or preparations which are required to receive not only the sacrament, but also its supernatural effects. One of the most essential requisites to receive these effects is to have the true faith, i.e., to believe God, speaking through the Catholic Church. Now heresy, material heresy not excepted, is a want of this faith, on account of which the supernatural effects of baptism are suspended. God cannot unite himself with a soul that lives in heresy, even though it be only material heresy. As the supernatural sanctifying effects in this case are suspended, so they are for the same reason, destroyed in him who was baptized in his infancy and became a heretic, though only a material heretic, when he came to the use of reason. This person, to be again reconciled with God, must renounce heresy, believe the Catholic Church, and receive worthily the sacrament of penance; or if this cannot be had, he must have perfect contrition or charity with the desire (at least implicit) to receive the sacrament of penance. The other person, however, will be reconciled with God and truly sanctified, as soon as he renounces heresy, believes the Catholic Church, and has at least attrition (imperfect supernatural sorrow) for his sins, because it is then that the supernatural sanctifying effects of baptism take place. It is therefore evident that, if these persons and others like them were to die in heresy, they would be lost forever. (See Theolog. Curs. Compl. De Confirmatione, Part II., Q. II., art. vi.)

Sean's been given the answer multiple times, he keeps asking because he does not like the answer.

Correct.

Probably the same thing I don’t get about how I can lose grace by committing a mortal without the requisite full knowledge.

This is just the error of rationalism, since you are denying that one in the state of grace has a working conscience, a guardian angel, and the Holy Ghost's inspirations.  St John tells us in John 1:9...That was the true light (Christ), which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. 

If all men (baptized and unbaptized) are enlightened by God when they are born, how much moreso, is one enlightened who is baptized and in the state of grace?  Infinitely more.

One saint said that it could be a mortal sin if one did not say any prayers for a month.  Isn't it also a mortal sin for one to miss Mass on Sundays/Holy Days?  Even for a protestant, if they don't go to church, that's a mortal sin against the natural law and the 3rd commandment.

Children even as young as 3 can understand spiritual things, like guardian angels and God, etc.  One who has reached the age of reason has a DUTY to do the basics (pray, attend church).  If not, that's a mortal sin.

To say that God does not prompt all human beings to follow Him, to know Him, to worship Him is pure rationalism, naturalism and a denial of God's laws.  If He sought fit to create such laws, then He will give everyone an opportunity to follow them.  God does not command the impossible.  God gives everyone a choice in this life.  For there to be a choice, there must first be knowledge of what one is choosing - God vs not-God.  And He infallibly gives everyone such a knowledge because He wants them to choose. 

But this is the question Sean won't answer.  If some baptized infant reaches the age of reason without explicit belief in anything (say, raised as an atheist), how can this person continue to have supernatural faith, since no Catholic authority has ever posited that supernatural faith is possible for adults who are atheists.

Since you have conceded the issue by your inability to post Church teaching to back your innovative position that grace vanishes without grave sin once one reaches the age of reason (or conversely, show Church teaching explaining how the justified are nevertheless damned), I'm happy to follow you into this other discussion:

Please explain how an Orthodox baptized infant who reaches the age of reason can be described as being "without explicit belief in anything."  If your response is going to be, "We aren't talking about Orthodox, but about atheists," then you are willfully admitting you refuse to consider the scenario I set up at the beginning of this thread (i.e., sensing the weakness of your position, you desire to change my situational criteria, by moving the discussion from Orthodox to atheists).

Since you have conceded the issue by your inability to post Church teaching to back your innovative position that grace vanishes without grave sin once one reaches the age of reason (or conversely, show Church teaching explaining how the justified are nevertheless damned), I'm happy to follow you into this other discussion:

Please explain how an Orthodox baptized infant who reaches the age of reason can be described as being "without explicit belief in anything."  If your response is going to be, "We aren't talking about Orthodox, but about atheists," then you are willfully admitting you refuse to consider the scenario I set up at the beginning of this thread (i.e., sensing the weakness of your position, you desire to change my situational criteria, by moving the discussion from Orthodox to atheists).

Father Mueller was cited saying the exact same thing I did.  You have no understanding of what a virtue or a habit is.  I've also shown that this conclusion follows from Church teaching that for adults explicit faith is necessary in order to have supernatural faith and supernatural virtue, and you STILL haven't addressed that.  Instead of bloviating that your conclusion is true unless we can cite Church teaching to the contrary, why don't you cite Church teaching to support your position.  I'll be waiting.

I wasn't talking initially about an Orthodox-baptized infant, but was testing the principle based on the case of an atheist.  With your false principles, you would have to conclude that an adult who has reached the age of reason as an atheist, and yet has committed no actual grave sin, due to his being invincibly ignorant, can be saved.  But that's contrary to Church teaching.  Nice try changing the subject back to the Orthodox.  But then Father Mueller explains this too, but you completely ignore it.  You can only make an act of faith with the proper motive of faith, i.e., based on the authority of the Church teaching.  So those who reject that authority would not be able to make the act of faith, just like an atheist couldn't.

But stop changing the subject to the Orthodox-baptized infant and answer the question already about the one who grows up to be an atheist.  That is crucial to whether your principles are valid or not.  And you know it.  But in your intellectual dishonesty you refuse to answer the question because you realize that it's fatal to your position or else you'd have to assert that atheists can be saved without explicit faith in anything.

Sometimes I wonder if Sean doesn't create a controversy and take a wrong position on purpose, so that the truth can be explained in detail.  Kind of like creating a Q&A for the benefit of this forum.  But then, Sean never admits he's wrong nor does he acknowledge any valid points made by others, so his faulty positions must be real. 

Spot on 😂 so much great stuff came out to refute Sean's nonsense.

The big irony is he's sulking about people not answering his questions to his satisfaction but he refuses to answer my yes or no question.

A limbo if the justified who died in the state of grace?

Yes, that unheard of novelty sounds exactly like something he would invent.

But I do thank you for conceding the argument that those who die invincibly ignorant in the state of grace are saved.

I am probably not going to read the entire thread, nor am I particularly interested in giving my own position. I’m just trying to clarify things.

the question of whether someone who is baptized by water in Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy can be saved despite being invincibly ignorant  of the truth of Catholicism is a completely different question, then the question of whether pagans or members of can be saved through invincible, ignorance, and implicit baptism of desire, which is a different question then explicit baptism of desire for catechumens, which is a different question then whether there are practically speaking any invincibly, ignorant people left in the age of globalism and the Internet

of these, I find the last question to be the most useless because it is basically guesswork about fact claims. I guess if we do acknowledge that invincible, ignorance exists, we could then debate whether it is strictly limited to those who have never heard the claim, or if it could also be applied to those who sincerely and genuinely without fault of their own, are not convinced of the truth value of the claims 

I could be wrong, but I do not actually think Ladislaus is going to say that a baptized Eastern Orthodox who has simply never heard of Roman Catholicism, and so believes he is in the Catholic Church of the creed, is damned.  I guess, maybe he might say he was damned after he comes to some positive conclusion that’s contrary to Catholic epistemology, but if say, he died at 10 years old before he thought about theology beyond the basics of the creed, which he received, because the church gave it to him, I would assume Ladislaus would say that that 10 year old would go to heaven. But logically this is a separate question, then whether an invincibly ignorant. , I would assume Ladislaus would say that that 10 year old would go to heaven. But logically this is a separate question then, whether an invincibly ignorant pagan can be saved via invincible ignorance and implicit BOD without having faith in the holy trinity

I find the arguments about who is right tire son, because the premises of discussion aren’t even agreed on

The answer is a resounding "no," the atheist cannot be in the state of grace, baptized or unbaptized.  The reason is simple:  Since the church has defined in the Syllabus and elsewhere that man, by his natural unaided reason, can know of the existence of God, any man who denies what his reason tells him is true, cannot be saved.  This whole idea that we have "good-willed" atheists running around is one of the rotten fruits of Liberalism.  I have encountered a good number of atheists in the college classrooms, but how can any of them claim blissful ignorance?  Especially when we cover St. Thomas' five proofs of the existence of God which is based solely on natural reason.

I won't go in why I think it's relevant anyway but I was referring to the question about whether certain mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means.

Sean refuses to answer, presumably because he knows his options are to concede the whole debate or to get showered with quotes that demolish his claim.

This niche theological dispute is just a humongous diversion from the dogma of the necessity of the Catholic faith.