Salvation & Hope

[rescath]

Yes, I prefer the word “conversion” as well.

And I much prefer the term “apologetics” over “dialogue” . I’m not really interested in dialoguing for the sake of dialoguing. I don’t really feel that I have anything of value to learn from, say, a Martin Luther. If I dialogue with non-believers it’s only with a desire and goal to have them convert and become Catholic.

 

[paramedicgirl]

And that’s why the Church never taught dogmatically: “No salvation if formally outside the Church”. Speculating about the salvation of those outside the Church should probably be completely forbidden; nothing good comes of it except the undermining of missionary zeal.

I’d put money on the fact that the North American Martyrs who died horrible deaths attempting to convert the natives never entertained the thought that those people could be saved. Nowadays, most people, even Catholics, just assume that people are saved by default unless they commit some almost surreally horrible crimes – so what would be the motivation to go and suffer like that?

Good points. The martyrs for conversion indeed seem to have been forgotten in the name of ecumenism.

 

[Joysong]

MTD:

Before you imply that I am preferring my own interpretation to the truth, perhaps you could p(name removed by moderator)oint where exactly I have deviated from the teaching of the Church and am preferring my own interpretation.

If you read my post again, I was speaking generally of some traditionists, not fingerpointing at you. But I do find a problem with the way your presented this:

But these quoted by Joysong are way off:

Thus I think those paragraphs from the Catechism are very misleading, to say the least. They completely leave out the element of faith that is necessary for salvation. Of course, this is somewhat made up for in no. 161; nevertheless, someone who did not make the connection could easily be fooled into believing that someone can be saved without faith in the Incarnation, provided he is in invincible ignorance. But such is not the case.

It seems to me that you put your own interpretation above the CCC and the Church, who is “misleading us and allowing us to be easily fooled.” Shall I say it sounds terribly arrogant? Like maybe the Church is “way off,” too? You may wish to write the Holy See and ask them to publish a retraction.

Nevertheless, I do ask that you write the Holy See, for I see that you are still incorrectly holding the belief that invincible ignorance must be coupled with supernatural faith, or else it is not capable of achieving salvation. Did you read the link St_Benedict posted? The Church never dealt with the invincibly ignorant people in the new world prior to the Council of Florence, and had to discern the mind of the Lord with this new development. Each new age and new scientific problem requires new studies and teaching.

This is why I believe the latest documents from Councils or Popes hold more weight of understanding than those of older ages. Many will cite the former documents and refuse to adhere or listen to the new. Jesus said He did not come to do away with the Law, but to perfect it. I believe this is also the mission of the Church, not to abolish former teachings but to correctly interpret them in the current age with its new problems.

[Thanks for that article St_Benedict … Excellent!!!]

 

[MTD]

Maria: I abosolutely did not intend to sound like a wise mouth!!!

I actually didn’t think you did. I apologize for being a little on the defensive side.

I’ve been turning over in my head whether or not that was the theological virtue of hope or sort of a self-deception.

If I’m not mistaken, the theological virtue of hope concerns one’s own salvation, not really the salvation of others. I think hope for others’ salvation is something else although I can’t think of it off the top of my head.

Maria

 

[MTD]

I see your points and I will think about them. I want to re emphasize I never spoke of Invincable ignorance.

You’re right; you did.

Being lazy and not bothering to find the truth is not invincable ignorance its merely ignorance. Borderline willful ignorance.

Or am I again mistaken?

No, I don’t think you’re mistaken.

And no I did not state my thoughts to incite a debate about individual protestants as much to explain who and under what circumstances I thought the Church was condemning from my understanding., which I am open to be corrected on. Gently.

I’m sorry for being harsh in my previous post to you.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Another ad absurdum type of problem I have with saying that Protestants in good faith can be saved involves the following.

Most Protestants don’t believe in the concept of mortal sin; consequently, since committing a mortal sin involves full knowledge regarding the gravity of the sin, it would actually be EASIER for Protestants to be saved than for Catholics. For Catholics, you could consent momentarily to one gravely sinful thought, then die, and lose your soul. Consequently, more Protestants than Catholics would be saved, and you would have to say that being Catholic is an impediment to salvation. There are probably some things that Protestants would have at least a vague notion of being gravely sinful and perhaps might be able to commit a mortal sin, but there are many things that wouldn’t bother their consciences at all which would nevertheless cause a Catholic to lose his soul.

But this argument is based on a wrong notion of what constitutes a mortal sin. We have grave matter, full advertence, and full consent. Full advertence does not mean that one must know that an action is classified as mortal; it means that one must know that the action is gravely contrary to Divine law. And since the knowledge of violations of the natural law as grave matter is engraved on our consciences, there is no escaping the fact that anyone who commits an act gravely contrary to the natural law is committing a grave sin. One need not know the word mortal to know that an action is gravely wrong. Sins against the natural law are rarely not mortal, no matter what religion or culture one is a part of.

No one can tell me a Protestant doesn’t commit a mortal sin when he fornicates, commits adultery, procures an abortion, or commits homicide. No one can tell me he doesn’t commit a mortal sin if he decides to worship false gods or blasphemes. It is simply of no matter that he does not know the classification of those actions as mortally sinful; the fact is, he knows in his heart that such actions are gravely wrong.

Maria

 

[MTD]

It’s more than just a disadvantage. Protestants do not have the formal motive of faith; they do not believe what they believe on the authority of the Church – which theologians call the sine qua non of faith.

…]

From the standpoint of Tradition, I’d love to see a citation from any theologian from more than about 150 years ago who even in speculative theology ever entertained the notion of a non-Catholic being saved. And I’m not talking about baptism of desire, because all the texts I’ve seen from theologians always ask the question: “Can catechumens who die before receiving baptism be saved?” I’ve never seen the question asked: “Can infidels or Protestants living in good faith?” be saved.

Isn’t this the Feeneyite view of EENS?

Maria

 

[rescath]

But this argument is based on a wrong notion of what constitutes a mortal sin. We have grave matter, full advertence, and full consent. Full advertence does not mean that one must know that an action is classified as mortal; it means that one must know that the action is gravely contrary to Divine law. …

You may notice that I made allowance for certain things that might be obviously contrary to divine law. But many things are not so obviously contrary to divine law. It’s those borderline things to which I referred.

No one can tell me a Protestant doesn’t commit a mortal sin when he fornicates, commits adultery, procures an abortion, or commits homicide. No one can tell me he doesn’t commit a mortal sin if he decides to worship false gods or blasphemes. It is simply of no matter that he does not know the classification of those actions as mortally sinful; the fact is, he knows in his heart that such actions are gravely wrong.

Yeah, but how about things such as impure thoughts – things a bit less obvious than the above. Say, for example, use of birth control, or divorce & remarriage, etc., etc. – things that are disputed outside of the Catholic Church?

So Catholics would be damned for divorce & remarriage and Protestants would not be?

If you can say that Protestants should somehow know that sins are mortal sins, then I would argue that they should also somehow (by the same mechanism) know that they are bound to obey the Church. So, ipso facto they commit mortal sins for rejecting the Church’s teaching, no?

 

[rescath]

Isn’t this the Feeneyite view of EENS?

Maria

Firstly, I don’t believe that categorizations such as “Feenyite” are at all helpful. Secondly, Father Feeny focuses a lot more on baptism than I do. I am up in the air, for example, regarding explicit baptism of desire. I don’t recall having read anything from Father Feeney along the lines of this argument. I came to my conclusions independently of Father Feeney.

 

[MTD]

It seems to me that you put your own interpretation above the CCC and the Church, who is “misleading us and allowing us to be easily fooled.” Shall I say it sounds terribly arrogant? Like maybe the Church is “way off,” too?

Okay, maybe my words were a little strong, and I apologize for giving the wrong impression. However, I stand by my claim of those quotes being quite misleading to someone without a background of the proper religious instruction…especially if you compare them to no. 161 of the same CCC.

Nevertheless, I do ask that you write the Holy See, for I see that you are still incorrectly holding the belief that invincible ignorance must be coupled with supernatural faith, or else it is not capable of achieving salvation.

Are you sure that truly is a wrong belief? What do you have to say about no. 161 of the CCC?

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. Since “without faith it is impossible to please (God)” and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"

This is why I believe the latest documents from Councils or Popes hold more weight of understanding than those of older ages. Many will cite the former documents and refuse to adhere or listen to the new.

No. I am simply adhering to the perennial teaching of the Church and seeking to understand the latest documents in light of those teachings.

Maria

 

[MTD]

You may notice that I made allowance for certain things that might be obviously contrary to divine law. But many things are not so obviously contrary to divine law. It’s those borderline things to which I referred.

You’re right.

Yeah, but how about things such as impure thoughts – things a bit less obvious than the above.

Uh…someone who engages in a lot of impure thoughts likely also engages in impure desires. They know very well impure desires are gravely wrong.

Say, for example, use of birth control, or divorce & remarriage, etc., etc. – things that are disputed outside of the Catholic Church?

I do not think a Protestant can do these things without grave sin. There are different degrees of mortal sins; the fact that these things are disputed in their denominations would mitigate the severity of the mortal sin, but it would not eliminate the grave nature altogether.

If you can say that Protestants should somehow know that sins are mortal sins, then I would argue that they should also somehow (by the same mechanism) know that they are bound to obey the Church. So, ipso facto they commit mortal sins for rejecting the Church’s teaching, no?

No, because that’s not part of the natural law. Besides, they do know they are bound to obey the Church; the problem is that they don’t know what that true Church is.

Maria

 

[Joysong]

MTD:

Are you sure that truly is a wrong belief? What do you have to say about no. 161 of the CCC?

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. Since “without faith it is impossible to please (God)” and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"

You are putting restrictions on the following tenets of the CCC and redefining the mind of the Church:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

847 **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: **
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.

The two statements that I presented above speak clearly of those who do NOT know Christ or his Church, but you are saying [incorrectly] that those who are invincibly ignorant must have faith in Christ.

The CCC would not have spelled it out this clearly if the meaning was as you say. The doctrine is well defined in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, not only in the CCC. When you read the footnote of #847, it refers the reader back to this document for its teaching.

Maybe it is your lack of faith or misunderstanding of the CCC and V-II documents promulgated from the Magisterium that is at the root of your difficulty. Look at #160 just before your #161:

160 To be human, “man’s response to God by faith must be free, and. . . therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.” “God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. “For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom. . . grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself.”

Do you see that you are coercing the invincibly ignorant, saying they MUST have faith in Christ or else they are NOT saved? Those who lived “just lives” prior to the time of Christ … what of them?

 

[cor]

The Church has always believed and taught that only those who die as Catholics can be saved.

paremedicgirl, a lot of the magisterial statements on EENS seem at first glance to state that non-Catholics are damned in an unqualified way, but I found one papal teaching, well prior to the Council, that gives a qualification. Please read it:

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX

AUGUST 10, 1863

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

“8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.””

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

So it’s only those “stubbornly” separated who cannot obtain “eternal salvation.” Those who are separated in good faith and who strive to do God’s will “are able to attain eternal life.”

Remember this is in 1863. So the CCC’s presentation is not that novel.

Also remember that – as far as I am aware – it is the unanimous teaching of Catholic theologians of all ages that all those who die with the habit or virtue of charity (love for God for his own sake) are heaven-bound – the presence of the virtue of charity always corresponds with the presence of sanctifying grace (the presence of one entails the presence of the other and vice versa – some theologians have maintained the two are distinct whereas others have said they are identical)

 

[Walking_Home]

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

[Page 30]
Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.

DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION

Proem.
Whereas there is, at this time, not without the shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine disseminated touching Justification;…by the providence of God, Pope,-purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillising of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.

CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; …

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, …

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

…when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;/COLOR]…

CHAPTER VIII.
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[gorman64]

paremedicgirl, a lot of the magisterial statements on EENS seem at first glance to state that non-Catholics are damned in an unqualified way, but I found one papal teaching, well prior to the Council, that gives a qualification. Please read it:

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX

AUGUST 10, 1863

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

“8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.””

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

So it’s only those “stubbornly” separated who cannot obtain “eternal salvation.” Those who are separated in good faith and who strive to do God’s will “are able to attain eternal life.”

Remember this is in 1863. So the CCC’s presentation is not that novel.

Also remember that – as far as I am aware – it is the unanimous teaching of Catholic theologians of all ages that all those who die with the habit or virtue of charity (love for God for his own sake) are heaven-bound – the presence of the virtue of charity always corresponds with the presence of sanctifying grace (the presence of one entails the presence of the other and vice versa – some theologians have maintained the two are distinct whereas others have said they are identical)

Dear Cor:

You are misunderstanding Pius IX here. The point really is that without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved, not that ignorance of any sort can or can’t save, which is a nonsense. Following St. Thomas, we are saying is that a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide. If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation. Which is all that Ven. Pius IX is saying in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. In that place he is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or “unfairness” against God, having just laid down that there isn’t any salvation outside the Church. In other words, “Don’t worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won’t be left to die in that state. If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God’s light and grace.” That is, by His LIGHT - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith.

None of this was controversial when everyone followed St. Thomas.

Also note that this passage from Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, is under the heading of INDIFFERENTISM in Denzinger. It is not an exception to the Dogma of EENS.

Does this help?

Gorman

 

[MTD]

You are putting restrictions on the following tenets of the CCC and redefining the mind of the Church:

I don’t think so. I merely pointed out what no. 161 said. If it contradicts nos. 1260 and 847, I can’t help that. And that’s what I was referring to in my first post.

The two statements that I presented above speak clearly of those who do NOT know Christ or his Church, but you are saying [incorrectly] that those who are invincibly ignorant must have faith in Christ.

I am only stating in accordance with no. 161.

Don’t forget that those who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion and yet faithfully obey the natural law will be granted the theological virtue of faith before they die, which faith is necessary for salvation.

The CCC would not have spelled it out this clearly if the meaning was as you say. The doctrine is well defined in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, not only in the CCC. When you read the footnote of #847, it refers the reader back to this document for its teaching.

I say that the CCC would have added a qualifying phrase to no. 161 if the invincibly ignorant were excluded from the requirement of supernatural faith.

Maybe it is your lack of faith or misunderstanding of the CCC and V-II documents promulgated from the Magisterium that is at the root of your difficulty.

If the CCC and the VII documents mean what you claim they do, then they are heretical documents and we must not follow the church leaders who promulgated them because they are heretics and thus not Catholics at all.

Do you see that you are coercing the invincibly ignorant, saying they MUST have faith in Christ or else they are NOT saved?

I am coercing the invincibly ignorant? You mean it is not God who made the requirement that supernatural faith is necessary for salvation? I am not the one(s) who said:

“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

“He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

“But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.” (Heb. 11:6)

Those who lived “just lives” prior to the time of Christ … what of them?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains how those who lived before Christ believed in Him even before He came to earth: , IIa IIae, Q. 2, A. 7Summa Theologica.

Maria

 

[marybee]

Maria, based on your posts, I can say that you have the most narrow view of God I have ever seen in a person.

God is so infinite we can not understand him or his ways. May I suggest you read the diary of St. Faustina. You will read about the Mercy of God.

You are not obligated to believe it, but I think it would be a humble spiritual exercise.

Jesus will be the mediator between us and God the Father. He will defend us on our death bed, he died for all people, even babies and terrible sinners.

God is all loving and does not predestine anyone to hell, nor does he Will that anyone go to Hell.

 

[MTD]

Maria, based on your posts, I can say that you have the most narrow view of God I have ever seen in a person.

Believing that a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true religion and who faithfully obeys the natural law will be granted the supernatural gift of faith before he dies is a narrow view of the mercy of God?

Maria

 

[paramedicgirl]

Believing that a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true religion and who faithfully obeys the natural law will be granted the supernatural gift of faith before he dies is a narrow view of the mercy of God?

Maria

Only if you consider Church teaching narrow as well.

 

[Joysong]

Maria,

Your understanding of Church teaching is so mixed up, I’m not sure any explanation whatsoever will satisfy you. That is why I pray you will seek counsel from higher authority. Believe it or not, the Church did not stop with the Council of Trent.

You are limiting the further develpment and guidance of the Holy Spirit unless it agrees with what you formerly learned. Do you believe the Documents of V-II are inspired and given our assent? If so, then read L.G. #16:

1. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128)

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*) 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. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

You may recognize the blue portion as being in the CCC. This is where it came from. Obviously Mohamedans do not believe in Christ, huh? You stated:

Don’t forget that those who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion and yet faithfully obey the natural law will be granted the theological virtue of faith before they die, which faith is necessary for salvation.

However, Mohamedans already hold to the faith of Abraham and adore God. The scriptures and other encyclicals clearly state that God has willed that “faith comes by hearing.” He is not going to supernaturally infuse a special grace before the moment of death to bring them to faith in Christ so that therefore they can be saved. It’s just not true.