Eens

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1176544' date='Jan 26 2007, 12:36 AM']
stthom... did you say this because you think they cannot be saved... or because you think that that particular passage was limited only to catechumens and wasn't implying anything else?
[/quote]

I say that because invincible ignorance is not baptism of desire. For one to be saved, one has to be baptised by water, blood or desire. I think that baptism of desire only applies to catechumens (or others who actually have the desire, implicit or explicit, to be baptised), and not to those who have never heard of baptism. Therefore it is my opinion that only those who actually desire baptism implictly or explicitly or have already been baptised validly(such as Greek Orthodox or Protestants) can be saved by invincible ignorance, which, it seems, is what the passage from the Catechism of St. Pius X alludes to.

[quote]If they can be saved who are ignorant, wouldn't they have to also be united? If they are saved by the CC, wouldn't they then be united?[/quote]
They would be united to the soul but not to the body of the Church.

[quote]StThom.. do you believe the hypothetical muslim who hasn't heard is damned, or that the CC just has not ruled on the issue? (and the QandA quote you offered to me is limited simply to affirming that the catechumen can be saved)[/quote]
No it's not, it's saying that catechumens, as well as other persons who have a baptism of desire, along with the invincible ignorant who are baptised or desire baptism, can be saved if they are also following the will of God to the best of their extent.

[quote]You mention that invincible ignorance thing as if you think it at least may be possible. But if you think that, how do you reconcile that it's only possible with the following?[/quote]

[quote name='Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican']Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — [b]those too may achieve eternal salvation[/b][/quote]

That says almost the exact same thing as

[quote name='The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X']29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can [b]such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation[/b][/quote]

and I've already affirmed that I believe what the Catechism of St. Pius X says... so I don't see what your question is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the way you clarified there's no question anymore. you did a good job on that too. thanks
i thought i heard it all regarding EENS, but you have an interesting take.

It seems to me that stthom is saying they "may" achieve salvation as anyone who is willing to become catholic "may" achieve it when they indded do become it.
Jeff on the otherhand says that "may" means there's a possibility they may be saved even while not being catholic. By "may" he means God might allow them, but we don't know.

If I characterized that right.... stthom.. what do you think of people like Jeff's interpretation? (if i misunderstood Jeff's then about that interpretation in general without regard to Jeff)

Jeff.. or peple with the interpretation i attributed to jeff... what do you think of StThom's interpretation?

[quote]
QUOTE(Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican)
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation

That says almost the exact same thing as

QUOTE(The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
[/quote]

edit: and jeff's interpretation is pretty much the norm for more conservative contemporary catholics, so if you can take that into account.
then there's people like raphael below, who i think i could take as saying not just may but will be saved if truly invincilbly ingnorant the way he defined it. i think raphael's is the norm of understanding. "may" means they indeed have persmission as if they will sort of way.

Edited January 27, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175514' date='Jan 25 2007, 01:02 AM']
Catholic teaching is that if you are not united to the Body of the Church, you must by united to the Soul of the Church to hope be saved. Nowadays, the only way to be united to the soul of he Church if by invincible ignorance, so there probably are many who do not go to heaven. Moreover, Heaven is a free gift from God that we in no way deserve and without the Redemption, all the good people would go to Limbo and all bad people (who would be far more numerous if it weren't for the Church) would go to hell.
[/quote]
You have to define invincible ignorance. A Muslim who has heard of the Church, but has not heard the Gospel, is probably invincibly ignorant. A Muslim who has heard of the Church and has heard the Gospel is possibly invincibly ignorant. A Muslim who has heard of the Church, read the Gospel, knows a great deal about the Gospel, etc., could still possibly be invincibly ignorant, if he has never seen any reason to believe in the Gospel. Vincible ignorance, as I understand it, is not just when you know what the Church believes or teaches and don't accept it. As I understand it, vincible ignorance is when, interiorly, you know or have sufficient reason to believe that the Gospel is true, but refuse to believe or refuse to look further, particularly out of a desire not to come to the point where you can know for certain that it is true.

Thus, a man who hates the Church because he was raised to do so might, even though he is fully aware what Catholics believe, be said to be invincibly ignorant because the hatred he has for the Church has blinded him to even considering the possibility that it might be true. Likewise, if this man started to see that the Catholic Church was starting to make sense and, perhaps because he knew he couldn't live with himself if he became Catholic or perhaps fearing that others would harm him if he became Catholic, he refused to dig any deeper, but to continue to attack the Church, he would be in a state of vincible ignorance because he was aware of the possibility of losing his ignorance and would rather stay ignorant, whereas in the first scenario, he was never aware of the possibility that he was ignorant.

This is because it's not the teachings of the Church that should lead to conversion or an awareness of the Church's teachings, but rather an awareness of the truth of the Church's teachings. Therefore, a person who knows that the Church exists, knows everything the Church teaches, etc., won't be any different from one who doesn't know that the Church even exists because neither of them have seen any reason to believe that the Church's teachings are true. Now, that's of course an extreme situation...most people in our society see at least a little good and truth in the Church's teachings, so the door is a little open and they are responsible for investigating so that the door can be pushed open wider, but in theory, I think that's what the case is. Anyway, that's my understanding.

Ultimately, it boils down to what a person is responsible for. If you had no reason to believe that Catholicism was right because all the Catholics around you were horrible sinners and you just had a horrible experience, you're not going to be all that responsible for not showing much interest in Catholicism. Of course, if there ever is a good reason for you to dig into it, and you're aware that you should, but don't, then you've acted irresponsibly and you'll be held accountable.