These are different cases altogether. The catechism refers to those who do not know the Gospel at all. Not those who claim to and have been exposed to Catholic teaching.
But that’s a different claim than the one you and John are making! You hadn’t been talking about “those who have been exposed to Catholic teaching”.
Your claim was that “truth… is vital to salvation” and I have demonstrated, utilizing the Catechism, that one can be saved even though they do not know the truth. QED.
The catechism further states that all salvation derives from the Catholic Church, but again…we see a difference between the fullness of truth, which the catechism states exists in the Catholic faith, and those with less. Many of which only have a valid baptism because of their trinitarian form, though even that might be called into question since one of the conditions for such is the intent to do what the Church does, and if they do not intend the sacramental cleansing of sins, then there would be some question, now, wouldn’t there.
I’m not disputing this statement: however, it isn’t relevant to either of your claims (that ‘God wants everyone to be Catholic’ and ‘truth is vital to salvation’).
Actually you failed in that regard rather badly…
Again, an assertion without any proof to back it up. We can sit here and sling accusations back and forth, or we can discuss the merits of the two claims that have been made, and which I reject.
It’s not non sequitur at all, it is a matter of fact.
Psst… it’s also a matter of fact that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth. That fact, too, would be a non sequitur if it were introduced into the discussion at this point…
The extent of one’s belief is directly relevant to whether it matters that they evangelize or not.
Really, now, CM…! If we’re going to have a discussion, might I ask that we stick to the same subject? You’ve just introduced a
third and new point: “what is relevant for those who wish to evangelize.” That can make for an interesting discussion, but it’s not directly related to either of your first two claims (which, by the way, you haven’t supported in the face of my rebuttals).
It’s the same as if one has to choose between two individuals wanting to perform brain surgery on you. One is untrained or poorly trained and the other is a highly trained doctor who expertly specializes in brain surgery. Which one does one logically turn to for this surgery?
Nice anecdote. Irrelevant to the two points you were attempting to defend. If you want to start a discussion about evangelization, then sure, we can go there – but please be so kind as to admit that you can’t defend your earlier assertions before we move to a third one, ok? Thanks…!
ETA: I thought of a way to resolve our disagreement, but I don’t think that it’ll work. If you were to say that “truth is vital to salvation” simply means “the notion of truth is vital to the existence of salvation in general”, then I could agree: without truth, there would be no possibility for the notion of salvation. In other words, if there were no truth of Christ’s salvific action, then salvation qua salvation could not exist. (However, I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. In particular, I’m arguing against what I think you’re asserting – that “truth is vital to the salvation of any person or group of persons”; and that notion just doesn’t hold. And, of course, given that it doesn’t hold, it cannot be true that “God wants everyone to be a Catholic.” I mean, it’s a nice tag line, but it doesn’t work as a theological assertion…)
