Limbo?

[SFD]

"FRRJBoyd:

The objection of a protestant is not the same thing as mentioning minority opinions of Catholic theologians that are in good standing with the Church. From the Tanqurey section you sent me by private message:

“If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.”

In the interest of clarity, as FrRJBoyd is no longer a participant, I offer the following clarifications:

Tanqurey is saying, “different schools” of theology…not a few theologians who might teach differently. We are speaking of moral unaniminity here…not numerical unanimity.

Tanqurey makes this quite clear.

It’s not really strange at all. An exhortation that we may hope is not the same thing as formally teaching a doctrine. Regarding reformable teachings of the magisterium, one may hold a different opinion, if that opinion is based upon solid ground (such as previous magisterial teachings); however, we must always admit that this is subject to a later, more authoritative, magisterial decree.

But truth does not change…it may be defined later…but it is not created in the definition.

How would a layman reading the CCC know this (the bold above)? Fr Boyd does not want to defend the CCC because he believes it is wrong on this count…therefore he must hold that the CCC here is just an opinion and it may be lawfully disputed (and he admits that 800 years of approved theologians are against it). The CCC does not say this…Fr Boyd does. What a mess.

SFD

 

[CarolsDaughter]

As a non-Catholic I always found the concept of limbo to be rather sweet. Its a lot better than saying unbaptized babies go to hell!

Why did the RCC abolish it? I think they should have kept it. I used to hear Catholic friends talk about limbo when I was a kid (one girl had a mom who lost a baby, which is how the subject arose.) I remember thinking at the time that it was so sweet of the Catholic church to come up with a place for babies that were not baptized.

Later in life, I lost four stillborn babies, and even though I am Jewish and not Catholic, it reminded me of the limbo I used to hear about as a child.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

No, I don’t think you care what St. Thomas taught in total. You seek to discredit him as a theologian and Doctor of the Church. Why?

Now, of course, having failed on the merits of the original contention, you attempt to shift the argument to my motivation. This is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

Who was not happy?

You really think the entire Church only consisted of Thomists. Superior General of the Jesuits, please pick up the courtesy phone.

Does the above bother you? Do you think the Church erred in Her decision to make St. Thomas a Doctor of the Universal Church?

Yes it does bother me. And IMHO part of the modern “mess” is the attempt to impose Thomism on everyone, which IMHO is a severe abuse of authority, which has blown up in its face. I simply reject that the Church hierarchy has the right to mandate me to “inviolately hold” the principles, doctrines, arguments, philosophy, etc., of St. Thomas.

Does this bother you as well?

Yes, quite so. The Church’s response to modernity was to attempt to impose medieval viewpoints by force of law. There should probably be a new thread devoted to this topic, however, if you or someone else wishes to discuss the topic further.

No, it is a presentation of what was actually taught by St. Thomas on the nature of Our Lady.

And what was actually taught, among other things, is that she was not sanctified at the moment of her conception but some time after that but before birth.

I highlighted it because you imply that St. Thomas was somehow opposed to the mind of the Church.

SFD

Ridiculous. I never implied any such thing.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

In the interest of clarity, as FrRJBoyd is no longer a participant, I offer the following clarifications:

Tanqurey is saying, “different schools” of theology…not a few theologians who might teach differently. We are speaking of moral unaniminity here…not numerical unanimity.

Tanqurey makes this quite clear.

Quite right.

But truth does not change…it may be defined later…but it is not created in the definition.

How would a layman reading the CCC know this (the bold above)? Fr Boyd does not want to defend the CCC because he believes it is wrong on this count…therefore he must hold that the CCC here is just an opinion and it may be lawfully disputed (and he admits that 800 years of approved theologians are against it). The CCC does not say this…Fr Boyd does. What a mess.

SFD

No, absolutely, the CCC does not say this; John Paul II proclaimed it a “sure norm” for teaching the faith.

So, again we have the following three options:

1. The Holy Spirit was not assisting the unanimity of theoogians.
2. The Holy Spirit was not assisting the magisterium in the CCC.
3. The Holy Spirit was assisting both, but understanding of truth is “evolving” .

 

[SFD]

Now, of course, having failed on the merits of the original contention, you attempt to shift the argument to my motivation. This is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

No, I only reject the false idea that St. Thomas clearly and absolutely opposed the Immaculate Conception.

You really think the entire Church only consisted of Thomists. Superior General of the Jesuits, please pick up the courtesy phone.

The Church has made Her stance on St. Thomas known. You reject the teaching of the Church…very similar to a modernist.

Yes it does bother me. And IMHO part of the modern “mess” is the attempt to impose Thomism on everyone, which IMHO is a severe abuse of authority, which has blown up in its face. I simply reject that the Church hierarchy has the right to mandate me to “inviolately hold” the principles, doctrines, arguments, philosophy, etc., of St. Thomas.

It is precisely the abandonment of Thomism that has contributed to the mess. The 1917 CIC contains an “abuse of authority”?

Yes, quite so. The Church’s response to modernity was to attempt to impose medieval viewpoints by force of law. There should probably be a new thread devoted to this topic, however, if you or someone else wishes to discuss the topic further.

What is modernity? Explain it for us. Do you believe in evolution and the idea of progress?

And what was actually taught, among other things, is that she was not sanctified at the moment of her conception but some time after that but before birth.

And the definition in 1854 was based on his principles…the Summa says what it says…St. Thomas is not the Church and his status in only a result of the approval of the Church.

SeekingCatholic:

In the first place, I am Catholic because only the Church has provided satisfactory answers to deep questions regarding conscience, right and wrong, sin and redemption, and so on.

However, I do not and cannot accept what appears to be a Catholic worldview, or ethos. In many cases it appears to me to be either way too simplistic, just plain wrong, or pathetic, and its proponents to be childishly petulant in the face of intelligent opposition. (This is why Modernism is still around. Its questions are never answered intelligently, but only usually with a wave of the hand with arguments to authority.) I’ll give a few examples (there are plenty more). But I, for one, refuse to turn off my brain and will always say the argument to evidence trumps the argument to authority.

I reject the God of St. Augustine. … The Church can laud St. Augustine with as many praises as it chooses. I don’t care. His God is pathetic.

You don’t sound like a Catholic to me. You only accept only what YOU agree with. Here’s a few things you and other’s may want to consider:

From Liberalism Is a Sin, Ch. 7:

"Strange as may seem that anomaly called Liberal Catholicism, its reason is not far to seek. It takes its root in a false conception of the nature of the act of faith. The Liberal Catholic assumes as the formal motive of the act of faith, not the infallible authority of God revealing supernatural truth, but his own reason deigning to accept as true what appears rational to him according to the appreciation and measure of his own individual judgment. He subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God’s authority. He accepts Revelation, not on account of the infallible Revealer, but because of the “infallible” receiver. With him the individual judgment is the rule of faith. He believes in the independence of reason. It is true he accepts the Magisterium of the Church, yet he does not accept it as the sole authorized expounder of divine truth. He reserves, as a coefficient factor in the determination of that truth, his own private judgment. The true sense of revealed doctrine to him is not always certain, and human reason therefore has something to say in the matter, as for instance, the limits of the Church’s infallibility may be determined by human science.

…]

The Liberal Catholic calls himself a Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgment does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects; he is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus, unwittingly, he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence, he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand, they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Also consider this, Seeking Catholic, as it seems to perfectly describe you:
And from Scheeben, Concil, III, 232:

“[The Liberal] measures divine and Catholic faith with the standard of human faith; he regards it, consequently, as an act of free trust and sovereign approbation whereby one accepts and makes his own a truth that is seen to be sufficiently attested. The testimony of another appears to him as authority only insofar as he allows himself freely to be influenced and moved by it; but it is not authority in the sense that the testimony, as an imperious, absolutely binding judgment, necessitates him to an obedient acceptance of its content. According to, this theory, faith, insofar as it is referred formally to the word of God as to its source, is not an act of obedience and submissive homage, but the simple acknowledgment that God has spoken the truth.”

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

No, I only reject the false idea that St. Thomas clearly and absolutely opposed the Immaculate Conception.

His opinion was that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb. That is clearly contradictory to the immaculate conception. I have no reason to suspect he might not have changed his mind if better argumentation and/or evidence had been presented to him. But obviously it wasn’t. So what. St. Thomas wasn’t infallible. Big deal. I see absolutely no good reason for the attempted history revisionism.

The Church has made Her stance on St. Thomas known. You reject the teaching of the Church…very similar to a modernist.

The Church has no authority to demand I adhere to a specific philosophical system. This unreasonable demand is what stoked the fires of Modernism.

It is precisely the abandonment of Thomism that has contributed to the mess. The 1917 CIC contains an “abuse of authority”?

And just why did that abandonment of Thomism occur, if not for the fact that its tenets were no longer felt tenable, especially in the light of the findings of modern science. Do you really think that you can simply impose Thomism by force of law, without even making an attempt to show how Thomism is consonant with science, or expecting scientists to shoehorn all their findings into the mold of Thomism? Thomism is not Divine Revelation.

And yes, there were many groups in the Church (e.g. Jesuits, Franciscans, etc.) that were not Thomists. Were they expected to change their course of training?

What is modernity? Explain it for us. Do you believe in evolution and the idea of progress?

Modernity encompasses a number of notions. I don’t have space to detail all of them here. Yes I believe in evolution and progress. Life forms have evolved and progressed over time in the earth’s history. The scientific data clearly shows this. Doctrines have evolved (or “developed” if you prefer) and progressed in the Church. The limbo issue is just another example of this. The fact is you DON’T have a good explanation for this one. If the ordinary Magisterium is in fact correct, then the doctrine has, in fact, EVOLVED. Thomistic and scholastic explanations as to how evolution is impossible, especially evolution of doctrine, are shown to be plain wrong by the facts of the case.

And the definition in 1854 was based on his principles…the Summa says what it says…St. Thomas is not the Church and his status in only a result of the approval of the Church.

I do not dispute the 1854 definition was based on his principles. But yes, St. Thomas is not the Church. My point exactly.

You don’t sound like a Catholic to me. You only accept only what YOU agree with. Here’s a few things you and other’s may want to consider:

SFD

I could make the same charge in your direction. You reject the magisterium of the Church in the CCC regarding the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants and only accept what YOU agree with. You choose your own “private judgment” over the Magisterium.

As for all your quotes, I am afraid you are going to have to do better than the medieval “believe what we say because we say so, and simply because we say so.” The days of “pay, pray, obey” are over in the Church. Let’s look at this:

“[The Liberal] measures divine and Catholic faith with the standard of human faith; he regards it, consequently, as an act of free trust and sovereign approbation whereby one accepts and makes his own a truth that is seen to be sufficiently attested. The testimony of another appears to him as authority only insofar as he allows himself freely to be influenced and moved by it; but it is not authority in the sense that the testimony, as an imperious, absolutely binding judgment, necessitates him to an obedient acceptance of its content. According to, this theory, faith, insofar as it is referred formally to the word of God as to its source, is not an act of obedience and submissive homage, but the simple acknowledgment that God has spoken the truth.”

And just what makes the testimony of another an imperious, absolutely binding judgment? Humans are fallible, they can be mistaken, or even intentionally lie. Claiming that they have a Divine Revelation is begging the question. How do you know they have a Divine Revelation?

 

[SFD]

SeekingCatholic:

I could make the same charge in your direction. You reject the magisterium of the Church in the CCC regarding the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants and only accept what YOU agree with. You choose your own “private judgment” over the Magisterium.

You misunderstand. I don’t reject the magisterium; I don’t believe these claimants are/were true popes. This conclusion is based entirely on the indefectability of the Church. It is supported by sound Catholic theology. Even FrRJBoyd rejects the CCC teaching…he justifies that rejection by saying that teaching is merely a “hope” expressed by the Church. I think he’s wrong there…but he and I agree with the tradition of the Church and the morally unanimous teaching of the approved theologians for the past 800 years. I place that commonality above all other “facts” on this issue. We accept the tradition of the Church…you don’t.

You disagree with Her in all areas where She does not agree with you. You are a modernist by definition and you don’t even realise it.

SFD

 

[SFD]

SeekingCatholic:

And just what makes the testimony of another an imperious, absolutely binding judgment? Humans are fallible, they can be mistaken, or even intentionally lie. Claiming that they have a Divine Revelation is begging the question. How do you know they have a Divine Revelation?

It’s called Faith. “He who hears you, hears Me.”

Pray for it.

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You misunderstand. I don’t reject the magisterium; I don’t believe these claimants are/were true popes. This conclusion is based entirely on the indefectability of the Church. It is supported by sound Catholic theology.

Ah, so you are a sedevacantist. I agree that sedevacantism is the only alternative to admitting doctrine has evolved on this issue. However forum rules don’t allow us to discuss sedevacantism so unfortunately the discussion will need to end here.

Even FrRJBoyd rejects the CCC teaching…he justifies that rejection by saying that teaching is merely a “hope” expressed by the Church. I think he’s wrong there…

That “hope” is precisely what is contradictory to the previous teachings of the theologians. His argument was that that teaching (of theologians) was not morally unanimous, which he didn’t succeed in showing in the slightest.

…but he and I agree with the tradition of the Church and the morally unanimous teaching of the approved theologians for the past 800 years. I place that commonality above all other “facts” on this issue. We accept the tradition of the Church…you don’t.

No, I don’t. It does not matter how loudly you proclaim tradition as authoritative when it is a fact that Church authority has broken with that tradition numerous times. Where is the support for the idea that it was the traditional interpretation that the inspired writers of Scripture were merely going by what sensibly appeared (cf. Leo XIII), rather than the true nature of things? This was not the traditional approach. You see all the cartwheels and history revisionism FrRJBoyd went through to attempt to deny that a change in scriptural interpretation had occurred. Where is the support for “invincible ignorance” in tradition? And yet it appears for the first time in Pius IX. I could go on and on. I’m sure, being a sedevacantist, you’d agree that Vatican II is a break from tradition. Where is the support from tradition that the spirit of Christ uses other ecclesial communities as means of salvation? And, of course, where is the support from tradition for hope of salvation for unbaptized infants?

You disagree with Her in all areas where She does not agree with you. You are a modernist by definition and you don’t even realise it.

SFD

Inconvenient facts don’t go away merely by calling your opponents “modernist”. Do you believe (you don’t) that every exercise of Magisterial power and authority is as pure as the driven snow, or that it can be motivated by considerations of political expediency and so on? I’m not going to think something, merely because the current Church hierarchy wants me to think it, or a past Church hierarchy would have wanted me to think it.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

It’s called Faith. “He who hears you, hears Me.”

Pray for it.

SFD

See? You don’t really have an answer for this one. You know the witness has a Divine Revelation because you have Faith, but you were supposed to get Faith by listening to those witnesses in the first place. It’s question-begging.

 

[Genesis315]

I hope this hasn’t been posted, but people really, really should read this work by the International Theological Commission. It doesn’t say what some people make it out to. It also traces all the relevant Magisterial texts on the issue.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The point is, loss of the beatific vision is and has always been the punishment of original sin. Therefore, someone dying in original sin alone would not have torments due to actual sin, but would be deprived the beatific vision (a state often call “Limbo.”)

God’s is and has always been necessary for salvation for every human being.

The question is, whether God grants the grace to those infants who for no fault of theirs are deprived of Holy Baptism. Since none of us can pass such a judgment on the state of any individual soul, it’s speculation but one is free to place hope in God’s salvific will.

 

[SFD]

I hope this hasn’t been posted, but people really, really should read this work by the International Theological Commission. It doesn’t say what some people make it out to. It also traces all the relevant Magisterial texts on the issue.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The point is, loss of the beatific vision is and has always been the punishment of original sin. Therefore, someone dying in original sin alone would not have torments due to actual sin, but would be deprived the beatific vision (a state often call “Limbo.”)

God’s is and has always been necessary for salvation for every human being.

The question is, whether God grants the grace to those infants who for no fault of theirs are deprived of Holy Baptism. Since none of us can pass such a judgment on the state of any individual soul, it’s speculation but one is free to place hope in God’s salvific will.

From the ITC report:

The commission is trying to say what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1260, 1261, 1283) has already said: that we have a right to hope that God will find a way to offer the grace of Christ to infants who have no opportunity for making a personal choice with regard to their salvation.** It’s trying to provide a theological rationale for what has already been proposed in several magisterial documents since the Council.**

So the decision was made and the theological commission set out to “explain” it?

The commission was instructed to study the salvation of unbaptized infants in light of pastoral reasons…a pastoral presentation is subject to doctrine and to be conformed to it; it is at the service of doctrine. Doctrine cannot be at the service of “pastoral reasons”. To say otherwise is Modernist and is explained here in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 13:

“13. Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas [truthes], must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma [truth]. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma [truth] is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points of their teaching is this which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence; that religious formulas, to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. This is not to be understood in the sense that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made for the religious sentiment; it has no more to do with their origin than with number or quality; what is necessary is that the religious sentiment, with some modification when necessary, should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which spring the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be changed.”

SFD

 

[SFD]

Ah, so you are a sedevacantist. I agree that sedevacantism is the only alternative to admitting doctrine has evolved on this issue. However forum rules don’t allow us to discuss sedevacantism so unfortunately the discussion will need to end here.

I don’t wish to discuss it with you…you and I are extremely far apart.

That “hope” is precisely what is contradictory to the previous teachings of the theologians. His argument was that that teaching (of theologians) was not morally unanimous, which he didn’t succeed in showing in the slightest.

I don’t think he quite got to that argument…and I also believe you muddied the waters with the Galileo discussion.

No, I don’t.

You are then at odds with the teaching of the Church.

It does not matter how loudly you proclaim tradition as authoritative when it is a fact that Church authority has broken with that tradition numerous times.

And this is your belief because it is consistent with what you believe on your own.

Where is the support for “invincible ignorance” in tradition? And yet it appears for the first time in Pius IX.

What is the teaching of Pius IX on invincible ignorance? Are you sure you understand it correctly?

I could go on and on. I’m sure, being a sedevacantist, you’d agree that Vatican II is a break from tradition. Where is the support from tradition that the spirit of Christ uses other ecclesial communities as means of salvation? And, of course, where is the support from tradition for hope of salvation for unbaptized infants?

There isn’t any.

Inconvenient facts don’t go away merely by calling your opponents “modernist”.

All due respect to you SeekingCatholic…but I did not “call you a modernist”…I showed that your ideas were modernist.

Do you believe (you don’t) that every exercise of Magisterial power and authority is as pure as the driven snow, or that it can be motivated by considerations of political expediency and so on?

Can you be more specific? Can authority be abused? Yes, of course it can.

I’m not going to think something, merely because the current Church hierarchy wants me to think it, or a past Church hierarchy would have wanted me to think it.

How did you learn the truths of the Faith then? The proximate rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium.

SFD

 

[SemperFidelis]

Sorry SFD, I just realized I never responded to this post:

SemperFidelis,

First, I don’t think it’s a “revelation” for you.

Second, I’d ask you if you think the Catechism of the Council of Trent could contain errors?

I think it could contain errors, but I don’t think that it actually does.

Then I’d ask you how you could ever know what those the errors were?

Contrary to what some neo-cons might tell you, it is possible for Catholics to know what Catholic teaching actually is regarding many things.

Maybe there are errors that you just haven’t found yet?

Completely possible.

 

[SFD]

Sorry SFD, I just realized I never responded to this post:

I think it could contain errors, but I don’t think that it actually does.

Errors in Faith and Morals? Or would you say it was infallibly safe?

Contrary to what some neo-cons might tell you,

I don’t learn my theology from “neo-cons”. Nor “neo-Cath’s”.

it is possible for Catholics to know what Catholic teaching actually is regarding many things.

Yes, and it is possible also, for Catholics to recognise a heretic.

Completely possible.

Again, errors in Faith and Morals? Or would you say it was infallibly safe?

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You are then at odds with the teaching of the Church.

Not if the teaching of the Church itself went against tradition.

And this is your belief because it is consistent with what you believe on your own.

No, it is my belief because I was forced there by the facts.

What is the teaching of Pius IX on invincible ignorance? Are you sure you understand it correctly?

Quite sure, having read the relevant documents on the matter (such as Singulari Quidem and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore).

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

Where is the support for this in the writings of any of the Fathers, Doctors, etc.?

There isn’t any.

Well there’s your direct admission that Catholic teaching went against tradition. (Of course you deny that Vatican II and the CCC really are Catholic teaching, and we’re not allowed to discuss sedevacantism here. But at least I’ll give you this much, you’re not engaged in a hopeless quest for history revisionism like some are.)

All due respect to you SeekingCatholic…but I did not “call you a modernist”…I showed that your ideas were modernist.

That’s as may be. Doesn’t make them wrong though.

Can you be more specific? Can authority be abused? Yes, of course it can.

Sure, I can give you some specifics. For instance, the mandated “24 Thomistic Theses”. That the intellect is a power intrinsically independent of any bodily organ. Neuroscience doesn’t support that. Proofs for the existence of God: a priori ones no good, but the proofs of St. Thomas unquestionable.

How did you learn the truths of the Faith then? The proximate rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium.

SFD

First of all, it’s not truths of Faith of which I speak. Second of all, it’s just a little cute for you to be using this argument, you reject the “preaching of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium” on the grounds that they are not the Ecclesiastical Magisterium on the grounds they are not preaching the Faith.

 

[SFD]

SeekingCatholic:

SFD:

What is the teaching of Pius IX on invincible ignorance? Are you sure you understand it correctly?

Quite sure, having read the relevant documents on the matter (such as Singulari Quidem and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore).

These documents are CONDEMNING indifferentism. I’m quite certain you don’t understand them…they are commonly misunderstood when taken by themselves. They are commonly misinterpreted as claiming “an exception” to the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus.

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

Where is the support for this in the writings of any of the Fathers, Doctors, etc.?

Excused of what? Where did this quote come from?

SFD

 

[SFD]

First of all, it’s not truths of Faith of which I speak.

Do you think the “truths of the Faith” are ONLY defined dogmas?

Second of all, it’s just a little cute for you to be using this argument, you reject the “preaching of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium” on the grounds that they are not the Ecclesiastical Magisterium on the grounds they are not preaching the Faith.

That’s not my argument at all. Mine is that of St. Robert Bellarmine, based on the visibility of the Church and Her indefectibility.

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

These documents are CONDEMNING indifferentism. I’m quite certain you don’t understand them…they are commonly misunderstood when taken by themselves. They are commonly misinterpreted as claiming “an exception” to the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus.

As I said, I have read both documents in their entirety. I did not say they were supporting indifferentism but only that they supported the idea of “invincible ignorance”. Which they do. And which there is no support from tradition for. The traditional view is that God would either send a preacher, or an internal inspiration such that at least the basic absolutely necessary truths of Faith could be known.

Excused of what? Where did this quote come from?

SFD

The quote came right from Pius IX himself in Singulari Quidem.