Pope on Jesus' redemption for all, inc atheists

[ringil]

Atheists have a good chance just like people before the time of Christ and those who haven’t heard His name. We Catholics should not be so comfortable in knowing the truth. God expects more out us and ultimately it is our fault that they are atheists.

Indeed!

I totally agree with your post. Much is expected of us as we have heard Christ and profess him as Lord.

 

[jwinch2]

A point worthy of clarification is that someone who is not in a state of grace, with supernatural faith, cannot perform the sort of good acts which are meritorious in nature. Now, any person can do good works, Catholic, atheist, or otherwise, and these works, performed by a person who is not in a state of grace, may or may not merit the graces which will bring God to reveal the Truth of the Catholic Faith to them. For those who are already Catholic but not in a state of grace, such good acts can perhaps through God’s grace, lead to a conversion of heart and mind. As noted above in the doctrine of the Church, God can choose to reveal that Truth to those whom He chooses and dispense His graces where he desires, but if they are saved, it is through the Church. Blessed Columba Marimon, OSB speaks about this quite directly in Christ, the Life of a Soul.

 

[jwinch2]

strangenotions.com/atheists-redeemed/?utm_content=buffere9f7f&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_source=buffer

*…Christ’s redemptive sacrifice on the Cross is not the same thing as salvation. Salvation is the result of accepting Christ’s redemption and applying it to our lives. Catholics know that Christ died for our sins but that we must receive that free gift by trusting in him, accepting his proposal of love, and following him with our life.

So while it’s true that Christ redeemed all people, even atheists, that doesn’t mean all atheists have accepted this gift or will be saved.*

 

[Jonatello]

Regardless of what the Holy Father meant by this particular address, it is Catholic doctrine that atheists can receive salvation in Christ while not explicitly believing in him. We have a doctrine of baptism by implicit desire. It is possible that the Holy Father might be implying this. We don’t know how many fall into that category, so lets hope for the maximum number if we are genuinely good people. What we do know is that this does happen and that God wills to save everyone, even if that salvation needs to be accommodated to their erroneous but sincere conscience and circumstances.

It is also stated in the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes and reiterated in the Catechism that believers can be the cause of atheism because of the way they represent the faith, as a previous poster indicated:

thank you for this post

 

[jwinch2]

Regardless of what the Holy Father meant by this particular address, it is Catholic doctrine that atheists can receive salvation in Christ while not explicitly believing in him. We have a doctrine of baptism by implicit desire.

I do not believe that is an accurate depiction of the doctrine of Baptism by Desire. Rather, as taught by the Church, Baptism of Desire is the desire for sacramental baptism along with as EWTN describes it “an act of perfect love of God” or as Ott describes it “an act of perfect contrition”. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that Baptism of Desire is a desire to belong to the Church.

What is Baptism of Desire?
Baptism of desire is the implicit desire for baptism of water by a person who makes an act of perfect love of God, based on faith and with a sincere sorrow for one’s sins. Such was the case in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter encountered pagans who, moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the greatness of God. “Peter himself then said, ‘Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these people, now they have received the Holy Spirit…?’” (Acts 10:46-47). ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Baptism of desire is the explicit or inlplicit desire for sacramenta] baptism (votum baptisnu) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity) (Chapter 3).

St. Thomas, agreeing with Tradition, teaches the general necessity of the Church for salvation. Expos. symb. a. 9. On the other hand, he concedes that a person may be saved extrasacramentally by baptism of desire and therefore the possibility of salvation without actual membership of the Church by reason of a desire to be a member of the Church. S. th. III 68, 2 (Chapter 5).
archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Neither an act of perfect love for God or perfect contrition, nor a desire for sacramental baptism, nor a desire to belong to the Church are indicative of being an atheist. A person who denies the existence God in the first place would certainly not believe in the concept of personal sin, the power of the sacraments, or the necessity of the Church.

 

[Vouthon]

I do not believe that is an accurate depiction of the doctrine of Baptism by Desire. Rather, as taught by the Church, Baptism of Desire is the desire for sacramental baptism along with as EWTN describes it “an act of perfect love of God” or as Ott describes it “an act of perfect contrition”. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that Baptism of Desire is a desire to belong to the Church.

This desire can be explicit as in the case of Catechumens, or implicit. What is implicit baptism by desire according to church doctrine?

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.”

Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, explained this well:

"…There are three ways of receiving baptism: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

***- Archbishop Lefebvre, (Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Founder of SSPX ***

Now you might ask, how can atheists conform their will to “the will of God”?

It is by adhering to the dictates of their (admittedly erroneous) conscience and leading a life without any serious violations of that conscience.

Vatican II confirms that for those who have not reached an explicit faith in God, with no blame on their part, that they can still attain to salvation:

“…Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”

- Vatican II [Lumen Gentium 16]

That the above applies to atheists is made clear by reading about the discussions amongst the council Fathers which led to the writing of Lumen Gentium. Atheism and the lack of culpability for the sin of denying God was expressly spoken of, as a result of rejecting a false conception of God caused by believers.

The Catechism further makes this clear:

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

In theory therefore it is possible for atheists to receive salvation. How many do is a different topic (you may legitimately argue very few) but to deny the possibility is in conflict with church doctrine as it has developed.

 

[jwinch2]

That the above applies to atheists is made clear by reading about the discussions amongst the council Fathers which led to the writing of Lumen Gentium. Atheism and the lack of culpability for the sin of denying God was expressly spoken of, as a result of rejecting a false conception of God caused by believers.

The Catechism further makes this clear:

In theory therefore it is possible for atheists to receive salvation. How many do is a different topic (you may legitimately argue very few) but to deny the possibility is in conflict with church doctrine as it has developed.

I don’t deny the possibility, as the Church has taught consistently that God can give His graces where He desires. However it is important to note that all three of the sources I cited above discuss implicit as well as explicit desire, so they are certainly relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, since multiple popes have stated that Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine nor did it alter previous doctrine, any discussion of Baptism by desire which accurate prior to the council, remains so today.

In the end, if anyone is to be saved, it will be through the Church be it directly, or by God showing those who have sought His will the truth of the Catholic Faith. Furthermore, an atheist who is not deliberately seeking the truth of God, but who still does good things for other reasons, would not seem to fall into the category.

In this day and age, with the amount of information available, it would be quite hard for anyone to make the claim that they cannot find out the truth should they desire to do so. This is particularly true in light of the natural law, which so many other Christian groups are falling away from. Recognizing it as the truth is another matter entirely, but seeking it out is still an explicit requirement based upon everything I have seen on the doctrine.

Furthermore, the question of mortal sin and violations of the natural law come up. If one has mortal sin on one’s conscience or has violated the natural law, without the sacraments or perfect contrition, it becomes very unclear how one achieves salvation.

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.” (emphasis mine)

 

[Vouthon]

I don’t deny the possibility, as the Church has taught consistently that God can give His graces where He desires. However it is important to note that all three of the sources I cited above discuss implicit as well as explicit desire, so they are certainly relevant to the discussion.

Yes, I am fully aware that your sources mention implicit baptism by desire I simply wanted to go into deeper detail about what implicit actually means. It is one thing using the word, another explaining its meaning.

In the end, if anyone is to be saved, it will be through the Church be it directly, or by God showing those who have sought His will the Truth of the Catholic Faith. Furthermore, an atheist who is not deliberately seeking the truth of God, but who still does good things for other reasons, would not seem to fall into the category.

We cannot judge others. Only God can. The only ones who cannot attain to salvation are those “who care little for truth”. We cannot possibly know whether an atheist has ardently searched after truth and failed to find it or not. Really its a moot topic. All we can do is state the fact that the church leaves it as a possibility. The possibility does exist for those who do not believe in God still to attain to salvation.

In this day and age, with the amount of information available, it would be quite hard for anyone to make the claim that they cannot find out the truth should they desire to do so. This is particularly true in light of the natural law, which so many other Christian groups are falling away from. Recognizing it as the truth is another matter entirely, but seeking it out is still an explicit requirement based upon everything I have seen on the doctrine

I think you would do well to remember Blessed Pius IX’s words:

“…It is to be held for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not bound by any fault in this matter in the eyes of the Lord. Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?..”

***- Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854 ***

Pius resolutely refuses to set definitive limits to the application of “invincible ignorance”. To this end I will not set limits since I can never fully understand the underlying psychological, social, moral or even physical factors which influence people. I thus cannot simplify human nature. I cannot judge a person who may genuinely have searched after truth and tried to inform his conscience but, for whatever vast number of reasons, still has an erroneous conscience and is bound to follow that conscience.

In this vein Pope Pius XI was so bold as to proclaim to one of his Cardinals who was going on a diplomatic visit to Libya:

"…Do not think you are going to a country of heathens [or “among infidels”]. Muslims attain to salvation. The ways of God are infinite…”

***- Pope Pius XI, 1934 (L’Ultima, Florence, Anno VIII) ***

I think we do a great disservice to our Lord to “set the parameters” of his mercy. Lets just admit the possibility yet equally stress the essential membership of the church, whether formally or more imperfectly spiritually, for salvation - EENS (no salvation outside the church).

What you cannot undermine is the frequency with which conscience can err, even with a flood of information and genuine seeking. The media preaches so much contrary to natural law, that conscience’s voice can be considerably dulled and people are left in great confusion. I think the modern world has caused more confusion and less culpability, the opposite from yourself:

As Vatican II teaches: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said when someone cares but little for truth and goodness, and conscience by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of a practice of sinning” (Gaudium et Spes)

How can we know if an atheist “cares little for truth”? We cannot get inside his head. Its impossible. Saint Edith Stein (Teresia Benedicta of the Cross) once noted:

“…I am not at all worried about my dear Master. It has always been far from me to think that God’s mercy allows itself to be circumscribed by the visible church’s boundaries. God is truth. All who seek truth seek God, whether this is clear to them or not…”

***- Saint Edith Stein (1891 - 1942), Jewish Catholic mystic & Holocaust victim, speaking about her atheist/agnostic mentor Edmund Husserl ***

Back in the 40s, their were these great and very orthodox priests who held an American Catholic talk show on radio by the name of Rumble and Carty. Read this transcript, its about Judaism but its points are somewhat applicable here too:

179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

***Source: Radio Replies, third volume, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minn., U.S.A., copyright 1942, page 43. ***

I don’t think we’re actually “at odds” greatly. We are both sincere Catholics looking at the same doctrine and many similar sources but reaching somewhat nuanced interpretations from each other. I can only state it as I see it, as can you.

I leave it for others to decide which one of us is closer to the truth

 

[Vouthon]

Furthermore, the question of mortal sin and violations of the natural law come up. If one has mortal sin on one’s conscience or has violated the natural law, without the sacraments or perfect contrition, it becomes very unclear how one achieves salvation.

The sacrament of penance, as well as the Eucharist, can also be had by implicit desire. If a person is physically unable to partake of the sacraments but is genuinely penitent, their sins will be forgiven provided they are sincere.

In his encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), 103 Pope Pius XII said that:

“…Even though, by a certain unconscious desire and wish, they [non-believers] may be related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they remain deprived of so many and so powerful gifts and helps from heaven, which can be enjoyed only within the Catholic Church…”

In that respect, your point stands true, but this does not suggest that they are damned, merely that they are deprived of the great gifts Catholics have. It should make us grateful, rather than lead us to believe that those so deprived are judged more harshly. It may very well be the contrary.

Six years later, this encyclical formed the basis for the response of the Holy Office to the teaching of Father Feeney. And so, the following paragraph gives an official interpretation to the teaching of Pius XII:

“With these prudent words [of Pius XII], the Pope censures those who exclude from eternal salvation all men who adhere to the Church only with an implicit desire; and he also censures those who falsely maintain that men can be saved equally well in all religions”

• (Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing, 1949).

I want to make myself clear: I admire your defence of Catholic truth, I simply wish to present it in the fashion I believe to be most accurate.

 

[brian614]

Yes, I am fully aware that your sources mention implicit baptism by desire I simply wanted to go into deeper detail about what implicit actually means. It is one thing using the word, another explaining its meaning.

We cannot judge others. Only God can. The only ones who cannot attain to salvation are those “who care little for truth”. We cannot possibly know whether an atheist has ardently searched after truth and failed to find it or not. Really its a moot topic. All we can do is state the fact that the church leaves it as a possibility. The possibility does exist for those who do not believe in God still to attain to salvation.

I think you would do well to remember Blessed Pius IX’s words:

Pius resolutely refuses to set definitive limits to the application of “invincible ignorance”. To this end I will not set limits since I can never fully understand the underlying psychological, social, moral or even physical factors which influence people. I thus cannot simplify human nature. I cannot judge a person who may genuinely have searched after truth and tried to inform his conscience but, for whatever vast number of reasons, still has an erroneous conscience and is bound to follow that conscience.

In this vein Pope Pius XI was so bold as to proclaim to one of his Cardinals who was going on a diplomatic visit to Libya:

I think we do a great disservice to our Lord to “set the parameters” of his mercy. Lets just admit the possibility yet equally stress the essential membership of the church, whether formally or more imperfectly spiritually, for salvation - EENS (no salvation outside the church).

What you cannot undermine is the frequency with which conscience can err, even with a flood of information and genuine seeking. The media preaches so much contrary to natural law, that conscience’s voice can be considerably dulled and people are left in great confusion. I think the modern world has caused more confusion and less culpability, the opposite from yourself:

As Vatican II teaches: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said when someone cares but little for truth and goodness, and conscience by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of a practice of sinning” (Gaudium et Spes)

How can we know if an atheist “cares little for truth”? We cannot get inside his head. Its impossible. Saint Edith Stein (Teresia Benedicta of the Cross) once noted:

Back in the 40s, their were these great and very orthodox priests who held an American Catholic talk show on radio by the name of Rumble and Carty. Read this transcript, its about Judaism but its points are somewhat applicable here too:

I don’t think we’re actually “at odds” greatly. We are both sincere Catholics looking at the same doctrine and many similar sources but reaching somewhat nuanced interpretations from each other. I can only state it as I see it, as can you.

I leave it for others to decide which one of us is closer to the truth

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[jwinch2]

Yes, I am fully aware that your sources mention implicit baptism by desire I simply wanted to go into deeper detail about what implicit actually means. It is one thing using the word, another explaining its meaning.

No worries, I appreciate the sources you provided.

We cannot judge others. Only God can. The only ones who cannot attain to salvation are those “who care little for truth”. We cannot possibly know whether an atheist has ardently searched after truth and failed to find it or not. Really its a moot topic. All we can do is state the fact that the church leaves it as a possibility. The possibility does exist for those who do not believe in God still to attain to salvation.

Agreed. My concern becomes when possibility is taken as probability. This would not seem to be consistent with Church teaching on the topic.

Pius resolutely refuses to set definitive limits to the application of “invincible ignorance”.

Actually, in the quoted I added above, Pius IX appears to set limits on violations of the natural law and deliberate sin. (I added the quote after you responded, sorry about that)

Now, a fair argument can be made about atheists and sin, but I have not seen a convincing one yet related to natural law. As the Church teaches, the natural law is written on the hearts of men, and therefore it would seem that people are indeed culpable.

What you cannot undermine is the frequency with which conscience can err, even with a flood of information and genuine seeking. The media preaches so much contrary to natural law, that conscience’s voice can be considerably dulled and people are left in great confusion. I think the modern world has caused more confusion and less culpability, the opposite from yourself:

Agreed completely. Though, as Aquinas taught, no one is saved by invincible ignorance. People do have an obligation to seek to inform their conscience properly. Where they end up, as you correctly noted, is another matter entirely. Doing some good deeds without making a deliberate attempt to find the truth would again, not seem to fall into the category of those discussed in the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. In fact, Aquinas would seem to describe that as willful or vincible ignorance, which is certainly not meritorious. Aquinas, in his discussion on invincible versus vincible ignorance, also spoke of things which people are bound to know naturally, which would seem to coincide with Pius IX’s thoughts on natural law.

I don’t think we’re actually “at odds”. We are both sincere Catholics look at the same doctrine and many similar sources but reaching somewhat nuanced interpretations from each other. I can only state it as I see it, as can you.

I leave it for others to decide which one of us is in the right

Fair enough. In fact, I have enjoyed the discussion with you a great deal.

God Bless!

 

[jwinch2]

I want to make myself clear: I admire your defence of Catholic truth, I simply wish to present it in the fashion I believe to be most accurate.

And I yours. In fact, if we were to sit down and hash this out over a beer, I suspect we would end up in a very similar place. A high quality beer would be needed of course, to properly facilitate discussion.

 

[Vouthon]

And I yours. In fact, if we were to sit down and hash this out over a beer, I suspect we would end up in a very similar place. A high quality beer would be needed of course, to properly facilitate discussion.

LOL That isn’t in dispute my friend!

I’ve got to dash (its late here). I will get back to you on your other points, tomorrow, as I would like to discuss a few more areas (not to drag it on, ultimately there comes a point where we must simply let others decide for themselves on the basis of the evidence we have presented) but I feel there is a little more we could ponder and perhaps enrich each others’ perspectives in the process, for example in the yet unexplored in this thread [by me] topic of natural law.

I truly appreciated your (name removed by moderator)ut, thoughts & sources. You are a good debater. May God Bless you richly too!

 

[Sirach2]

Six years later,** this encyclical formed the basis for the response of the Holy Office to the teaching of Father Feeney.** And so, the following paragraph gives an official interpretation to the teaching of Pius XII:

It also formed the basis for article 16 in V-II’s Lumen Gentium, Ch. II.
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will** as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience**.” (19*)

The footnote (19*) reads: Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

You’re doing an exceptionally good job, Vouthon!

 

[jwinch2]

LOL That isn’t in dispute my friend!

I’ve got to dash (its late here). I will get back to you on your other points, tomorrow, as I would like to discuss a few more areas (not to drag it on, ultimately there comes a point where we must simply let others decide for themselves on the basis of the evidence we have presented) but I feel there is a little more we could ponder and perhaps enrich each others’ perspectives in the process, for example in the yet unexplored in this thread [by me] topic of natural law.

I truly appreciated your (name removed by moderator)ut, thoughts & sources. You are a good debater. May God Bless you richly too!

Cheers!

 

[Sirach2]

Furthermore, the question of mortal sin and violations of the natural law come up. If one has mortal sin on one’s conscience or has violated the natural law, without the sacraments or perfect contrition, it becomes very unclear how one achieves salvation.
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.” (emphasis mine)

Vouthon:

The sacrament of penance, as well as the Eucharist, can also be had by implicit desire. If a person is physically unable to partake of the sacraments but is genuinely penitent, their sins will be forgiven provided they are sincere.

I understand Pius IX’s encyclical to mean that if one is genuinely repentent, he no longer carries the “guilt” of sin. In that sense, Pius’s words are true. In his state of invincible ignorance, man’s forgiveness is not dependent upon sacramental absolution, but God alone sees the heart and may grant His mercy. Ps. 50:19 “A contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”

 

[jwinch2]

[/INDENT]

I understand Pius IX’s encyclical to mean that if one is genuinely repentent, he no longer carries the “guilt” of sin. In that sense, Pius’s words are true. In his state of invincible ignorance, man’s forgiveness is not dependent upon sacramental absolution, but God alone sees the heart and may grant His mercy. Ps. 50:19 “A contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”

Aquinas also says that those who are invincibly ignorant are that way due to their sins. In addition, one who is an atheist and does not subscribe to the reality of sin, is hardly in a position to be repentant for them. On the other hand, Aquinas has argued that those who are invincibly ignorant, not deliberately ignorant as in not looking for the truth, are not entirely culpable for their sins in the first place.

Read in context, Aquinas seems to be saying that people who have not properly formed their conscience through no fault of their own, while not being entirely guilty for their sins, still experience some of the effects of them which can lead to the inability to recognize truth when they see it. Put in context with the Holy Father’s statement which I cited above, and other teaching on this issue, I do not see how one can rationally argue that we can have any sort of reasonable expectation in the salvation of those who are in such a state. Their chances of being saved would seem to be dramatically higher were we to properly evangelize them so that they can receive the grace and power of the sacraments.

The discussion on natural law, however, is a bit more clear in my opinion. Violations of the natural law are not dependent on formation of conscience or implicit versus explicit desire. I am unable to find anything in Sacred Tradition which would suggest that those who are guilty of violations of the natural law are inculpable for doing so. Barring reception of the sacrament of reconciliation or perfect contrition (which would by definition make someone no longer an atheist), I fail to see the chance of them being saved as anything other than a distinctly remote possibility due to the fact that God can choose to give His grace where he desires.

In fact, all of these scenarios we are talking about were consistently treated by the Fathers as remote possibilities, rather than what often seems to be bordering on certainty by many today. For the good of the souls of the many, it makes far more sense for us to evangelize as best as we can to bring such people into the arms of Holy Mother Church so that they can receive the sacraments and properly form their consciences.

I’m pretty much done on this at this point. You can have the last word should you desire.

 

[Abu]

Vouthon has been very clear on this topic, and is supported by Msgr Cormac P Burke who was for many years a Judge of the Roman Rota, High Court of the Church, and has a Doctorate in Canon Law; he is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei.

He has explained that the Latin extra can mean either “without” or “outside” and, with the Magisterium, gives the true meaning of the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. His contribution to the ECD (OSV) explains.

“Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus” • What are we to say about those who, lacking Baptism, are not members of the Church in any of the senses explained above? Here it is necessary to clarify the meaning of an old theological principle whose interpretation has caused difficulty in the past: Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

“The Latin word “extra” is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as “beyond” or “outside of” (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated “without” (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, “Without the Church there is no salvation.” This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.”
[Gray, Philip C. L. "Without the Church There Is No Salvation”, *Lay Witness (April, 1999).
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.htm

Atheists who are sincere can to follow their consciences and do what is true and good. Antony Flew, a most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

 

[Sirach2]

Aquinas also says that those who are invincibly ignorant are that way due to their sins. In addition, one who is an atheist and does not subscribe to the reality of sin, is hardly in a position to be repentant for them. On the other hand, Aquinas has argued that those who are invincibly ignorant, not deliberately ignorant as in not looking for the truth, are not entirely culpable for their sins in the first place.

Read in context, Aquinas seems to be saying that people who have not properly formed their conscience through no fault of their own, while not being entirely guilty for their sins, still experience some of the effects of them which can lead to the inability to recognize truth when they see it.

I am unable to find anything in Sacred Tradition which would suggest that those who are guilty of violations of the natural law are inculpable for doing so. Barring reception of the sacrament of reconciliation or perfect contrition (which would by definition make someone no longer an atheist), I fail to see the chance of them being saved as anything other than a distinctly remote possibility due to the fact that God can choose to give His grace where he desires.

In fact, all of these scenarios we are talking about were consistently treated by the Fathers as remote possibilities, rather than what often seems to be bordering on certainty by many today. For the good of the souls of the many, it makes far more sense for us to evangelize as best as we can to bring such people into the arms of Holy Mother Church so that they can receive the sacraments and properly form their consciences.

I had a post ready to go earlier, but did not submit it. Seems I should have, in hindsight. You place a lot of faith in Aquinas here, yet in the thread about John the Baptist, you dismissed his views, preferring that someone post articles from the Church Fathers. Rightly so, he is a Saint and Doctor, but not the Magisterium invested with infallibility – besides, he lived in late 1200’s, whereas doctrine has developed substantially since his era.

I’m in agreement with Vouthon, however; it is not our business to judge or to proffer such ideas of God’s mercy in a narrow, almost impossible chance of salvation. Is this how you would evangelize?

I agree wholeheartedly that we must evangelize as best we can, since the sacraments are far more effective a remedy for sin than trying to effect remorse with a 'humble, contrite heart" – be it ever so perfect a contrition.

With regard to the natural law, St. Paul taught in Romans 2 that those who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it. In that sense, you are correct - they are culpable.

OTOH, he continues, “14. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.”

Therefore, saying that it is an impossible situation for salvation unless there is perfect contrition or the absolution of the sacrament, is ascribing to oneself the judging that should be God’s alone. We leave that to His mercy, and do our best to bring light in our own corner of the world.

 

[jwinch2]

Therefore, saying that it is an impossible situation for salvation unless there is perfect contrition or the absolution of the sacrament, is ascribing to oneself the judging that should be God’s alone. We leave that to His mercy, and do our best to bring light in our own corner of the world.

You have been quick to chide people for improperly restating your words, so please do not do it to me. I did not say it was impossible, I said I failed to see it. In addition, I did not judge them in anyway. Judgement of souls is for God alone. I readily acknowledge that.