"one Flock And One Shepherd"

[Aloysius]

as Catholics we do not believe that Muslims share in our salvation, just that it is possible for a Muslim to reach eternal salvation. They are included in the plan for salvation, but Islam is not the plan for salvation. Islam is used to bring ppl to worship the true God, the Creator, therefore it is part of the plan of salvation. however, it is still not just as good to be a Muslim as to be a Christian. Some may attain salvation, but it will still be through Jesus Christ.

is this a good summary? as i do not have the time to read all of CMOM's stuff.

i shall perhaps read it on the weekend.

[Don John of Austria]

"THe Good Thief was not martyred, and did did not recieve the Sacraments"

Actually he did he was absolved of his sin personally by Christ and granted the Grace of salvation on the Spot--- That is most definantly sacramental.

"Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Pius XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God. . . . f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. . . . Charity . . . more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73)."

This has nothing to do with being a part of the Church or the requirement of Baptism for Salvation.

As I said The Ecumenical council of Trent Inffallably taught ( Lumen Gentium is not an inffallable document) that: "Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema"

And

"Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema"

If youu disagree with either of these statemments you are already anathamized by the Authority of the Church and therefore expelled from union with the Church in any way ( look up anathama if you like, it is more than simple excommunication) thereby rendering you outside the Church and therefore incapable of attaining salvation.

I don't mean this in any hostile way----This is the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH-- It cannot be superceded, it cannot be undone, it is the Truth, and the Truth, not feel good lies, will set you free.

[Don John of Austria]

"THe Good Thief was not martyred, and did did not recieve the Sacraments"

Actually he did he was absolved of his sin personally by Christ and granted the Grace of salvation on the Spot--- That is most definantly sacramental.

"Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Pius XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God. . . . f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. . . . Charity . . . more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73)."

This has nothing to do with being a part of the Church or the requirement of Baptism for Salvation.

As I said The Ecumenical council of Trent Inffallably taught ( Lumen Gentium is not an inffallable document) that: "Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema"

And

"Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema"

If youu disagree with either of these statemments you are already anathamized by the Authority of the Church and therefore expelled from union with the Church in any way ( look up anathama if you like, it is more than simple excommunication) thereby rendering you outside the Church and therefore incapable of attaining salvation.

I don't mean this in any hostile way----This is the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH-- It cannot be superceded, it cannot be undone, it is the Truth, and the Truth, not feel good lies, will set you free.

[cmotherofpirl]

Don this is the teaching of the Church

MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH

Vatican II, in its <Decree on Ecumenism> #11 taught: "It is

altogether necessary that full doctrine be lucidly explained.

Nothing is so foreign to true ecumenism as that false irenicism in

which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers detriment, and its

true and certain sense is obscured."

Sadly this injunction of the Council has often been violated.

Two outstanding breaches are to be noted:

I. <The Balamand [Lebanon] Statement of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic

Commission,> agreed on June 17-24, l993 and published July 15

(<Origins> Aug. 12, 1993). In #10: ". . . The Catholic Church

developed the theological vision according to which she presented

herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted." This view

seems to be rejected by the Commission. In #15: ". . . there is no

question of conversion of people from one church to the other in

order to ensure their salvation." And in #22: "Pastoral activity in

the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at

having the faithful of one church pass over to the other. . . ."

II. <Eugene J. Fisher> [of the U. S. Bishops' office for Jewish

relations], said in: "The Church's Teaching on Supersessionism" in

<Biblical Archaeology Review,> Mar-Apr. 1991. p. 58: "Rather, the

Jewish 'no' is properly understood as a 'yes' to God's continuing

call to them. Jewish refusal to convert to Christianity is not to

be understood as anything less than a faithful witness to God.")

To respond to these errors, we need to keep three points, in a

delicate balance. It is essential to hold each fully without any

trimming.

1. <There is no salvation outside the Church.> But it would be

terribly wrong to hold this in such a way as to say, in effect,

that if someone does not get his name on the register of some

Catholic parish, even if he never had a chance to hear there was

such a thing as the Church, such a one is damned. So God would beaver dam

millions upon millions without ever giving them a chance. But that

would not be a god, but a monster. And, logically, unbaptized

infants would have to be damned too. But that is ruled out by the

text of Pius IX (also cited below): "God. . . in His supreme

goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished

with eternal punishment who does not have the guilt of voluntary

fault."

L. Feeney committed such an error and was rightly condemned by

the Church for it. Cf. the Holy Office text cited below.

2. <Some who do not get their names on the register of any Catholic

parish can reach heaven.> This is taught repeatedly, e. g, Pius IX

in 1863; Pius XII in <Mystical Body Encyclical,> Holy Office in

condemnation of Feeney, Vatican II in LG #16, John Paul II in

<Redemptoris missio> #10.

Here are the texts: Pope Pius IX, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>

(1863: DS 2866): "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by

no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who

does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.

Pope Pius XII, <Mystici corporis> (1943:DS 3821): "They who do not

belong to the visible bond of the Catholic Church. . . [we ask them

to] strive to take themselves from that state in which they cannot

be sure of their own eternal salvation; for even though they are

ordered to the mystical body of the Redeemer by a certain desire

and wish of which they are not aware [implicit in the general wish

to do what God wills], yet they lack so many and so great heavenly

gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, <condemning doctrine of L. Feeney> (DS

3870): "It is not always required that one be actually incorporated

as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one

adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that

this be explicit. . . but when a man labors under invincible

ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name

because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a

man wills to conform his will to the will of God."

Vatican II, <Lumen gentium> #16:(1964 AD) "For they who without

their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church,

but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence

of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through

the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."

John Paul II, <Redemptoris Missio> #10 (Dec. 7, 1990): "The

universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to

those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.

Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely

available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many

people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the

Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. . . . For such people,

salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while

<having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them

formally a part of the church,> but enlightens them in a way which

is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This

grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is

communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain

salvation through his or her free cooperation." [emphasis added].

From all these texts it is definitely clear that some who do

not get on the register of a Catholic parish can reach salvation.

but it tell us only the <fact.> It DOES NOT TELL US the <how.> Yet

we are sure it tells us it is a fact, for since no one can be saved

outside the Church, these texts make clear <that in some way these

people are members or in some way pertain to the Church.>

Vatican II, in <Lumen gentium> #14: "They are <fully>

incorporated into the society of the Church, who, having the Spirit

of Christ, accept all its organization and all the means of

salvation instituted in it, and are joined in the same visible

union with Christ, who rules it through the Supreme Pontiff and the

Bishops. that is [they are joined] by the bonds of profession of

faith, of the acceptance of ecclesiastical rule and communion." We

notice the word <fully.> It implies there can be a lesser

membership, still sufficient for salvation. What is that lesser

membership?

St. Justin Martyr in <Apology> 1. 46 said that some in the past

who were considered atheists were really Christians, since they

followed the Divine Word, the Logos. He mentions Socrates as an

example. Then in <Apology> 2. 10 he says that the Divine Word, the

Logos is within each person. Now that presence is not spatial, does

not take up space. A spirit takes up no space. It means that the

spirit is present wherever he is causing an effect. What effect? We

turn to Romans 2:14-16: "The gentiles who do not have the law

[revealed religion] do by nature the things of the law. They show

the work of the law <written on their hearts.>" And according to

their response, they will or will not be saved. . . . So Socrates

perceives what the Spirit of Christ writes on his heart. That

means: Makes known to him interiorly how he should live. Socrates

believes this, has confidence in this, obeys this - and so has what

Romans 1:5 calls "the obedience of faith," that is, the obedience

that faith is. Now St Paul in Romans 3:29 asks: "Is He the God of

the Jews only? No, He is also God of the gentiles". He means that

if He had made salvation depend on keeping the law of Moses, He

would act as though He did not care for anyone but Jews. But He dos

care. So He has provided, and He does that by salvation

by faith, or justification by faith. Faith in Paul includes three

things, the three enumerated above.

Further, in Romans 8:9 we learn that if someone has and follows

the Spirit of Christ, he is a <member of Christ.> But in Paul's

terms, member of Christ = <member of the Body of Christ> - which is

the Church. So Socrates had a substantial, not a formal membership

in the Church. This agrees with John Paul II in <Redemptoris

missio> #10 who speaks of a grace offered to all that does not

<formally> make them members of the Church. But yet <it implies

that in some way less than formal, they are members.> That is the

way we have just described for Socrates. It applies to other people

too. (Socrates is often quoted in Plato as saying that the man who

seeks the truth should have as little as possible to do with the

things of the body. So he was far from being a homosexual).

Further, a person may be in good faith and have a subconscious

block that keeps him from seeing the force of the reasons for

joining. Then he may still be saved.

There are many other Fathers with broad view of membership in

Church. I have them all, with comments, in the 28 pp. appendix to

Our Father's Plan.

<How does this all relate to the statement of Vatican II in LG

#8 that "This church, in this world, as a society constituted and

ordered, subsists in the Catholic Church>. . . even though outside

its joints many elements of sanctification and truth are found,

which, as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel to Catholic

Unity." The <relatio> on this passage explains: "Now the intention

is to show that the Church, whose deep and hidden nature is

described and which is perpetually united with Christ and His work,

is concretely found here on earth in the Catholic Church. This

visible Church reveals a mystery - not without shadows until it is

brought to full light, just as the Lord Himself through his

'emptying' came to glory. . . . the mystery of the Church is

present in and manifested in a concrete society." [cited from

<Homiletic and Pastoral Review,> Jan. 1984, p. 14]. <This does NOT

mean that the Catholic Church is merely the aggregate of the

visible Catholic Church plus the orthodox, and perhaps even

Protestant churches. By no means.> It means only what we have

explained above: some who fulfill the conditions given by St.

Justin Martyr, and St. Paul, as found concretely in men like

Socrates, are substantially, not formally, members of the Church,

not with visible adherence, but yet to an extent sufficient for

salvation. They have true membership, otherwise they could not be

saved. But this is <as individuals> not <as members of another

church. It is this merely substantial, yet true membership, that

makes possible their salvation. Hence the words of Redemptoris

missio #10 can say this sort of membership does not make them

FORMALLY members of the Church, i.e., fulfilling all the

conditions given in Mystici corporis,> and repeated in LG #14 cited

above.

3. <Anyone who really knows that the Church is founded by Christ

for our salvation, and refuses to enter cannot be saved.> It is not

enough to be a Jew, or an orthodox etc., IF one knows that the

Catholic Church is the true Church, and yet refuses to enter. This

does not wipe out the possibility of #2 above. Again, there is such

a thing as a <subconscious block,> that is a person perceives

subconsciously, not consciously, that if he joins, there will be

unacceptable consequences for him. This may not cause a person to

reject what he knows explicitly is true (then he would be guilty

and not saved), but it may keep him from perceiving the force of

the reasons for the conclusion that he should enter the Catholic

Church (and so he is not guilty, and comes under <Lumen gentium>

#16 and, and <Redemptoris missio> #10 and other texts). If we deny

this, we imply that anyone in the US, since all know about the

Catholic Church, if he does not enter it, goes to hell. This is

terribly false.

However, to say as does Eugene Fisher (Office of US Bishops for

relations with Jews, in his statement in <Biblical Archaeology

Review> of March-April 1991, p. 58) that when a Jew says no to

Christ he is saying yes to God, is a terrible error. And a similar

thing is to be said about the Orthodox who say no to the Church in

a way not explained by the subconscious blocks.

In fact, for even a Jew to be a member of the People of God,

this conversion is necessary. Yes, we know that St. Paul in Romans

11:1 and 28 wrote: "Has God rejected His people?. Of course not!. .

. . God's gifts and His call are irrevocable." How then could the

same St. Paul, in the middle of the same chapter, give the image of

the two olive trees, the tame tree standing for the People of God,

the wild olive standing for the Gentiles - how could Paul give that

imagery which clearly implies the Jews who reject Christ have

fallen out of the People of God, like the branches broken from the

tame olive? The problem is not difficult: God's call to them to be

His people still stands, will always stand. But it is one thing for

Him to call - another for them to accept. If they do not accept,

they are out of the tame olive, the People of God. The Pharisees

understood this to their horror when Jesus had finished giving the

parable of the unfaithful tenants of the vineyard that was Israel,

when he said: (Mt 21:43): "The kingdom of God will be taken away

from you and given to a nation that will yield a rich harvest."

In Romans 9:25-16 St. Paul quotes their prophet Hosea: "Those

who were not my people, I will call my people" In the original

setting. Hosea was saying that the Jews, because of their sins,

brought on the Babylonian exile, and had fallen out of the People

of God. But after their repentance, God would gladly take them

back: "Those who were not my People I will call my People. In the

original words of Hosea 2:23: "I will say to <lo ammi> [not my

people]: "You are my people." For they had ceased being God's

people, and had remained many days (Hosea 3:4) "without king or

prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim,"

but when they repented, He would gladly say to them the words just

cited: "You are now my people again".

So St. Paul looks forward to the day when the same words will

be applied to the Jews who rejected their Messiah (Rom 11:25): "A

blindness in part has fallen upon Israel until the fullness of the

Gentiles enter" the People of God. Then, Paul adds "all Israel will

be saved" - will enter the kingdom of their Messiah.

[Donna]

Cmom, what's the source?

[Don John of Austria]

Cmom First where did you get this?

Second no one here dinies that in cases of incvincable ignorance salvation is possable for those who have not recieved formal baptism--if they are truely victims of INVINCABLE ignorance then they could be baptised by there disire to follow God, there by achieveing the baptism needed for salvation, this would be an extraordinary means, but still with in the infalllable teaching orf the Church. However, NO ONE in the western world fits in to the catagory of INVINCABLE ignorance, at best it is vincable ignorance , normally it is probably willful ignorance, and sometimes just willfulness,still we do not KNOW how one might be saved out side formal union with the Church( which protestant baptised in the name of the Trinity do have in some measure), Muslims however do not.

It might be that the beduin Saudi Arabia suffers from invincable ignorance and therefore might have the possability of baptism by desire but not the Muslim living down my block He has had ample oppertunity to here of Christ and Choose him.

Even the Beduin hoever is not garunteed a place, he might be saved, not he will be saved, this is a great distinction and to overlook it does a great disservice to all concerned.

Agian the Council of Trents decrees are Binding Dogmatic teaching--THEY AREE THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. All other documents must be interpreted to keep in line with their teachings.

Edited October 16, 2003 by Don John of Austria

[cmotherofpirl]

Cmom, what's the source?

Father Most, Catholic theologian

Type his name into EWTN or Petersnet.

He is considered by many to be one of the best Catholic theologians of the 20th Century.

[cmotherofpirl]

EWTN is down, because of the anniversary, you'll probably have to try tomorrow.

Edited October 16, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Adeodatus]

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA

The Catholic Church teaches that the only way for salvation is through Christ--- THE MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE A SHARE IN THAT SALVATION as far as we know, only those baptised as Christians can be saved by ordinary means, anyone else must rely on the mercy of God and extraordinary means which we hope exist but have no direct knowledge of. " Outside of the Church there is no salvation"!!!

Don John,

What you've said really worries me. Remember that Father Feeney, by teaching 'Outside the Church there is no salvation' in a way that the Church herself does NOT actually teach, ended up outside that very Church himself!

Christ is the only way to salvation. That's true. But when we say it we don't mean it like a magic formula (e.g. Accept Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour and hey presto! You're in!). What we mean is that the only way any human can be saved is through the blood of Christ, by his sacrifice on the Cross out of love for all mankind. So even non-Christians, if they are saved, are saved through Christ.

I agree with you. The anathemas (or anathemata, if you prefer ) attached to the decrees of Trent are still binding. But what they criticise and condemn is a laxity with regard to the necessity of the sacraments and the role of Christ in saving us. They do not presume to tell us where God's mercy ends. Only God can be God. Let's not dictate his job to him.

'Outside the Church there is no salvation'. That's true. But God joins people of good will to the Church. We don't know who they are. We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

And as for the Muslim down your street not being able to plead invincible ignorance---how do you know that? The only way such people will be won over is by our love. You cherish truth, well and good! But remember that Scripture calls us to 'speak the truth in love'. The pagans were won over to Christianity because they saw the early Christians and said, 'See how the Christians love each other!'

Bad examples drive people away. Gandhi said, 'I love your Christ, but I hate your Christians'.

By the way CMOM, I think your replies were fantastic!!!!! :D

PS Hello everybody!

Edited October 16, 2003 by Adeodatus

[Aloysius]

great first post, Adeodatus!!!

i was just considering mentioning this thread should be in the Back Alley, but after ur kewl clear explanation, i don't think it will need to. as far as i kan see u shined the Church's teaching through the Council of Trent and Lumen Gentium, and it cleared everything up. i 4 one think i agree with everything in your post as far as i understand it!

PS there's a check in thread pinned to the top of the Open Mic section. Be sure to introduce yourself!

[PedroX]

Adeodatus,

I think Don John's post in regards his Muslim neighbor is that it is hard for anybody living in America to have not "heard" of Jesus, the Catholic Church, etc. Thus "invincible ignorance' does not apply. One can not be "invincibly ignorant" and be aware of Christianity. While your point on Charity is true, it did not address this point of Don's.

peace...

[cmotherofpirl]

PedroX there is a big difference in being aware that Chrisitanity exists and being aware of the compelling evidence of the truth of Christianity.

God judges if someone is invincibly ignorant, not us.

Our job is to present the case for God in a clear and present way at all times.

Work as if it up to us, pray because its up to God.!

Edited October 16, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Don John of Austria]

Actually Cmom it is the Church which coined and defined the term invincible ignorant and here is said definition from the Catholic encyclopidia

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence".

Anyone in the united states CAN dispel their ignorance through moral diligence, I mean come on why even be Catholic or try and evangilize if it just doesn't matter.

Adeodatus-- I don't know you so I am going to try and say this as tactfully as I can, I am well aware of church teaching on salvation outside of the Church and while I am no Feeneyite( is that how you spell that) , I am also aware that many have misused the more lax interpretation to argue that this Infallable Truth is not really true. I already siad that some one could be saved if they were invincably ignorant, and that allows for those who have never heard of christ, that they might ( I.E. that it is possible) be saved. It was never intended to say that those who had had an oppertunity to hear the Good News and rejected it, would be or even could be saved.

I agree with you. The anathemas (or anathemata, if you prefer  ) attached to the decrees of Trent are still binding. But what they criticise and condemn is a laxity with regard to the necessity of the sacraments and the role of Christ in saving us. They do not presume to tell us where God's mercy ends. Only God can be God. Let's not dictate his job to him

First weather you agree or not they of course are still binding niether your consent nor mine nor Cmoms nor anyones is needed for that to be the case. Second they don't Criticize anything the CONDEMN something. They condemn, by anathema, anyone who says baptism is not necessesary for salvation. They do like wise in defense of the other sacraments as well.

-

We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

I am so sick of hereing that load of garbage. YES HE IS. UNLESS GOD IS A LIAR, He has told us what is needed, he is bound to hold to the Truth of what he has told us, furthermore, the Church has bound it and therefore by Christ promise it is bound in heaven.

They do not presume to tell us where God's mercy ends. Only God can be God. Let's not dictate his job to him.

Yes they do presume to tell us where God's mercy ends, it ends when you say that baptism is not needed for salvation, and you are expelled from the salvific power of His( or his if you prefer) Church. Only God can be God well no disagreement there, but His Church can and does speak for Him and She has spoken.

The pagans were won over to Christianity because they saw the early Christians and said, 'See how the Christians love each other!'

This is simply not the Case, the pagans where won over to Christianity when one of there generals saw a cross blazen over the sun and on it where the words( a imperative) " In this sign counquer" and he proceeded to stomp every pagan who got in his way, at the time of Milvian bridgeten to twenty percent of the Empire was Christian( depending on what figure you believe) this was not the Case at his death. It was not Charity that influanced the Ancient pagans but the Power of God expressed through Constantine and his hiers. And before that the courage of the Christians on going to their death during the persecutions it was not

" 'See how the Christians love each other!' "

but" see how the Christians die, they are unafraid"

Bad examples drive people away. Gandhi said, 'I love your Christ, but I hate your Christians'

Gandhi was a Pagan who knew well the Truth of Christ, I hope he fell under that extraordinary means, but I suspect he is in the gates of Hell with all the other virtous pagans.

P.S. Cmom

Father Most, Catholic theologian

Type his name into EWTN or Petersnet.

He is considered by many to be one of the best Catholic theologians of the 20th Century.

Father Most may be a learned and holy man, but he is not infallable, Trent is.

Edited October 17, 2003 by Don John of Austria

[cmotherofpirl]

Don you are entitled to your interpretation of documents, I'll stick with what the Church says.

From EWTN:

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

[hyperdulia again]

Don, if I were a girl and you weren't married...I'd propose!