Salvation outside the Church

[TMC]

Over confidence is risky business. The one thing that we have to keep in mind is that the Church does not have the power to say who is in hell. She only has the power to say who is in heaven.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Sirach2]

Chypmonk:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

The error one makes in clinging to this older Council document is that there was no break occasioned by the Reformation, and one was either pagan or Catholic. The Pope in that century was stating truth as it was known in that era. However, now that the Reformation has taken place and children were born into these religions in later centuries, who were innocent of the truths of Catholicism, the Church had to address the problem of invincible ignorance. The teachings are set forth clearly in the Vatican Council II documents and are true and infallilble, not subject to one’s private interpretation.

These teachings have been set forth and debated in several threads ad nauseum, yet the same handful of protesters using the same faulty arguments appears once again. There seems to be a fixation that one is wiser than the Magisterium, and this entitles them to prefer their own interpretation of them.

History seems to be repeating its errors here. The scriptures tell the sad division created by Judaisers in St. Paul’s day, who were adamant that the new Gentile converts MUST come to the faith through following the entire Mosaic Law, as they did, and submit to circumcision. This controversy was settled in the first Council of Jerusalem, and despite the protests of some Judaisers, the Gentiles were exempt from coming into the Church in the manner the Jews were demanding.

In the same manner that the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, declared God’s will for those outside of Judaism, She declares today the will of God concerning those outside the fold of Catholicism. I would say that those who oppose this teaching are just as angry and indignant as the Judaisers of old who resented that the Gentiles were seemingly given privileges, and just as vociferous in trying to gain support for their point of view.

It is good to note that when the Holy Spirit fell upon the household of Cornelius, they had not received water baptism, yet the evidence was very clear that the Holy Spirit had been bestowed upon them. If the Spirit indwells many today who have not received officilal water baptism, then I ask, as did St. Peter, who can deny that they are part of the Mystical Body of the Church, albeit imperfectly?

 

[JReducation]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [Denzinger 714.]

Council of Lyons II“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra:: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)

These are their commentaries. They have never been taught as dogma. What has been taught as dogma is EENS. But EENS does not target individuals or groups. The names of individuals or groups were added by the popes who decreed the EENS, but that was not part of the doctrine of EENS. They were authoritative and binding while in place. As time passes, new popes make other commentaries. Sometimes one commentary reinforces that which was made by a previous pope and sometimes it adapts to new situations, while preserving the doctrine and making it clearer for the rest of us.

This is where Cardinal Levada’s example is helpful. A document can contain a dogma and embedded in the same document there can be a commentary by the pope who is promulgating the document. The future popes have the authority to separate the dogma from the commentary of the previous pope who promulgated it, for the sake of clarification or because the statement served a purpose at one time and no longer does. Whatever the reason, the current pope may sort through the document and separate the dogma out from the comments that come with it.

That’s why the Church says that she cannot say who is in hell, only who goes to heaven. Despite the statements about non-Catholics and non-Christians, by previous popes, even they and no one who followed ever said that the Jews or Muslims who have died are in hell. It is not up to the Church to make such a claim. The Church explains why in current documents.

We gain nothing by insisting that Muslims and Jews are going to hell, nor does that help evangelization. That’s why these positions by these popes were never carried around by those missionaries who served among them, mostly Franciscans who have served among Jews and Muslims since the 13th century. The missionaries understood the difference between the doctrine and the papal commentary that often accompanied the doctrine. Whenever the commentary was helpful, they used it. When it was not helpful, they did not make reference to it at all. What they have always done is to point to those Catholic truths found in Islam and Judaism and bring people to the faith that way.

Another issue that crept up with the Franciscans who were sent to Palestine and the Middle East by Pope Gregory IX was that St. Francis has promised the Sultan that if he allowed his brothers to pass in order to minister to the Christians, the brothers would not proselytize to the Muslims. There was a treaty signed, which is binding to this day. The Church recognized that treaty and to this day, she does not require that the friars preach to Muslims and Jews. They are to preach by their presence and their good works, but may not attempt to set up classes or other forms of instruction to bring the Muslims and Jews to Catholicism.

Their presence has born fruit. The Christians are allowed free access to the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem. In those places where the friars are working, the Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace and work together on ministries that serve the common good. There have been conversions. But these have been initiated by the individual Muslim or Jew and they are handled very carefully, because in some countries a conversion means the death penalty. The friars are bound, under obedience to Francis, never to compromise the lives of the people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

So, in your opinion, EENS is referring specifically to the Church Militant alone?

I notice none of the Feeneyites address my comments about the threefold nature of the Church. Could it be because if they do, their argument disintegrates?

I’m not Feeneyite but I will say that I think it’s obvious that the subject of the dogmatic definitions concerning EENS is about the Church Militant.

*Unum Sanctam speaks of the necessity of every human being being subject to the Pope. Only the Church militant is subject to the Pope.

*Council of Florence speaks of the necessity of being joined to the Church before death - this clearly does not relate to the Church Suffering nor the Church Triumphant.

*Athanasian Creed speaks of “whosoever will be saved”, which again does not apply to the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant since they’re already saved.

Attempting to say EENS refers to the Church Triumphant is an attempt to muddy the waters.

 

[chypmonk]

The error one makes in clinging to this older Council document is that there was no break occasioned by the Reformation, and one was either pagan or Catholic. The Pope in that century was stating truth as it was known in that era. However, now that the Reformation has taken place and children were born into these religions in later centuries, who were innocent of the truths of Catholicism, the Church had to address the problem of invincible ignorance. The teachings are set forth clearly in the Vatican Council II documents and are true and infallilble, not subject to one’s private interpretation.

Error to cling to a Dogma? If you read my posts I have no problem with Vatican II because it does not contradict “older” dogmas as you imply.
B16 said the Vatican II must be in continuity with the WHOLE tradition of Church teaching.
You seem to think history can change a Dogma but this is false:

Introduction of LAMENTABILI SANE, ( Condemnation of Modernist errors) Pius X July 3, 1907 [link here]:
"In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas. "

#24: The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .— condemned
#54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel. --condemed
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

It is good to note that when the Holy Spirit fell upon the household of Cornelius, they had not received water baptism, yet the evidence was very clear that the Holy Spirit had been bestowed upon them. If the Spirit indwells many today who have not received officilal water baptism, then I ask, as did St. Peter, who can deny that they are part of the Mystical Body of the Church, albeit imperfectly?

Hmmm… why did Cornelius send for St. Peter? So he could be Sacramentally Baptized? Was he Sacramentally Baptized? Was it an angel who told him what to do?
Did divine provedence bring him to th ewaters of Baptism? Hmmm

Ignorance is over played because God will provide a missionary to those who are open to his grace— they are ALL given a chance to respond by his providence.

“The importance of this conversion of substantial numbers of pilgrims on Pentecost who would soon be returning to their own homes in distant lands and could spread the Faith has often been missed… But this fact probably explains why, for instance, there are indications of Christianity in the Parthian realms as far back as we can trace Western contacts with it, after Christ.”[Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Christendom Press, Vol. 1 (The Founding of Christendom), p. 429, note 9]

St. Thomas traveled to India to convert the heathens that were going to hell.

Catholic Celtic evidence is found in North America before Columbus as the “legend” of St. Brenden’s voyages is proved true but because of sceptics a full evengelization was never done:
"…the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. The article described a stone carving in Wyoming County, West Virginia…The message thus deciphered read:

“At the time of sunrise, a ray grazes the notch on the left side on Christmas Day, the first season of the year, the season of the blessed advent of the savior Lord Christ. Behold he is born of Mary, a woman.”

dated between 500-800 AD
“…Since that time, other Ogham carvings have been discovered in West Virginia at Bears’s Fork in Fayette County and Horse Creek in Boone’s County; as well as at Red River Gorge in Kentucky; Shell Rock Canyon, Colorado, and Newfoundland!”
[America's First Christmas Card - Catholicism.org

](America's First Christmas Card - Catholicism.org)

It seems like God was sending his missionaries but few were responding.

 

[chypmonk]

These are their commentaries. They have never been taught as dogma. What has been taught as dogma is EENS. But EENS does not target individuals or groups. The names of individuals or groups were added by the popes who decreed the EENS, but that was not part of the doctrine of EENS. They were authoritative and binding while in place. As time passes, new popes make other commentaries. Sometimes one commentary reinforces that which was made by a previous pope and sometimes it adapts to new situations, while preserving the doctrine and making it clearer for the rest of us.

This is where Cardinal Levada’s example is helpful. A document can contain a dogma and embedded in the same document there can be a commentary by the pope who is promulgating the document. The future popes have the authority to separate the dogma from the commentary of the previous pope who promulgated it, for the sake of clarification or because the statement served a purpose at one time and no longer does. Whatever the reason, the current pope may sort through the document and separate the dogma out from the comments that come with it.

That’s why the Church says that she cannot say who is in hell, only who goes to heaven. Despite the statements about non-Catholics and non-Christians, by previous popes, even they and no one who followed ever said that the Jews or Muslims who have died are in hell. It is not up to the Church to make such a claim. The Church explains why in current documents.

We gain nothing by insisting that Muslims and Jews are going to hell, nor does that help evangelization. That’s why these positions by these popes were never carried around by those missionaries who served among them, mostly Franciscans who have served among Jews and Muslims since the 13th century. The missionaries understood the difference between the doctrine and the papal commentary that often accompanied the doctrine. Whenever the commentary was helpful, they used it. When it was not helpful, they did not make reference to it at all. What they have always done is to point to those Catholic truths found in Islam and Judaism and bring people to the faith that way.

Another issue that crept up with the Franciscans who were sent to Palestine and the Middle East by Pope Gregory IX was that St. Francis has promised the Sultan that if he allowed his brothers to pass in order to minister to the Christians, the brothers would not proselytize to the Muslims. There was a treaty signed, which is binding to this day. The Church recognized that treaty and to this day, she does not require that the friars preach to Muslims and Jews. They are to preach by their presence and their good works, but may not attempt to set up classes or other forms of instruction to bring the Muslims and Jews to Catholicism.

Their presence has born fruit. The Christians are allowed free access to the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem. In those places where the friars are working, the Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace and work together on ministries that serve the common good. There have been conversions. But these have been initiated by the individual Muslim or Jew and they are handled very carefully, because in some countries a conversion means the death penalty. The friars are bound, under obedience to Francis, never to compromise the lives of the people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You do realize that “Cantate Domino” is from the creed at the council of Florence? It was a profession of faith, it can’t change.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Pope St. Pius X:

Introduction of LAMENTABILI SANE, ( Condemnation of Modernist errors) Pius X July 3, 1907 [link here]:
"In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas. "

#24: The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .— condemned

#54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel. --condemed
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

 

[TMC]

You do realize that “Cantate Domino” is from the creed at the council of Florence? It was a profession of faith, it can’t change.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Pope St. Pius X:

Introduction of LAMENTABILI SANE, ( Condemnation of Modernist errors) Pius X July 3, 1907 [link here]:
"In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas. "

#24: The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .— condemned

#54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel. --condemed
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Chypmonk, I will make anotther attempt to engage on this topic, as Br. JR has convinced me I must, in all charity, assume you are sincere in wanting to discuss the topic and not merely deride and declaim against Catholic teaching.

So here is my question – we have all read the Church documents, encyclicals, papal statements and councilar documents you keep posting and quoting from. They are not secret documents known to only a few - most educated Catholics and all Catholic theologians and clergy are well acquainted with them. We have explained ad nauseum how the Church interprets and understands those documents, but you insist the Church is wrong. We are left with only two possible results: (1) that you are better positioned to properly interpret the Church’s own doctrines than the Popes, the bishops gathered in council and the Church’s theologians, or (2) for some reason, you have decided to dissent from the Church’s teaching in this area.

I am simply not prepared to accept that (1) could possibly be true, and I don’t see any other choices available to you, so that leaves (2). (If there is another choice I would like to understand what it could possibly be.) If you agree that these are the choices, and agree that you are not endowed with a special teaching charism that has been withheld from the Vicar of Christ and the Successors to the Apostles, I would urge you to retreat a moment, consider the possibility that the all of the bishops of the Church gathered in council may be correct, and that you may be wrong. If after doing so your conscience still requires that you dissent, I can understand that. But at least we will all agree as to what you are doing.

 

[Sirach2]

Error to cling to a Dogma? If you read my posts I have no problem with Vatican II because it does not contradict “older” dogmas as you imply.
B16 said the Vatican II must be in continuity with the WHOLE tradition of Church teaching.
You seem to think history can change a Dogma but this is false:

I did not “imply” that Vatican II contradicts older documents. That is your assumption, and it is not correct. V-II clarified church teachings with pastoral insight into those very dogmas that had not previously addressed the concept of children born in one of the many christian denominations that have arisen since the Reformation. To hold that all of these christians will be damned if they do not receive Catholic water baptism is an error of the most severe distortion and not at all in accord with the Church’s teaching.

Nor do I “seem to think” history can change a dogma, so your attempt to correct me with a sophistry of quotations was rather mundane and irrelevant.

Considering your rigid interpretation of all dogmas as presented by you in several threads, it is unlikely that we will have a meeting of the mind. I merely offered another POV for those following the thread.

 

[JReducation]

You do realize that “Cantate Domino” is from the creed at the council of Florence? It was a profession of faith, it can’t change.

You need to focus on what the Church is sayiing. The doctrine does not change, how it is expressed and the commentaries change. The doctrine itself is one sentence long. That has not changed. That’s what Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict are trying to say. Why do you have a problem with these two men?

I can see a problem if they changed the doctrine, but not because their comments on the doctrine are different from those of their predecessors.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chypmonk]

Chypmonk, I will make anotther attempt to engage on this topic, as Br. JR has convinced me I must, in all charity, assume you are sincere in wanting to discuss the topic and not merely deride and declaim against Catholic teaching.

So here is my question – we have all read the Church documents, encyclicals, papal statements and councilar documents you keep posting and quoting from. They are not secret documents known to only a few - most educated Catholics and all Catholic theologians and clergy are well acquainted with them. We have explained ad nauseum how the Church interprets and understands those documents, but you insist the Church is wrong. We are left with only two possible results: (1) that you are better positioned to properly interpret the Church’s own doctrines than the Popes, the bishops gathered in council and the Church’s theologians, or (2) for some reason, you have decided to dissent from the Church’s teaching in this area.

I am simply not prepared to accept that (1) could possibly be true, and I don’t see any other choices available to you, so that leaves (2). (If there is another choice I would like to understand what it could possibly be.) If you agree that these are the choices, and agree that you are not endowed with a special teaching charism that has been withheld from the Vicar of Christ and the Successors to the Apostles, I would urge you to retreat a moment, consider the possibility that the all of the bishops of the Church gathered in council may be correct, and that you may be wrong. If after doing so your conscience still requires that you dissent, I can understand that. But at least we will all agree as to what you are doing.

I am sincere and according to the liberal view point I can hold my belief and still go to heaven. It really doesn’t matter as long as I follow my conscience isn’t that what “modern” theology teaches?

And if the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith says it is OK that groups holding the strict understand and are Catholics in good standing, how can you give obloquy to my Catholic understanding?

I am following the Church even if you don’t like it. Communities with a strict understanding are Catholics in GOOD standing, as I am too See my posts:
#354 link
#322 link

This is the kind of attitude that accused Traditionalists (which I am not one) of be wrong for saying the TLM was never forbidden. People would deride them saying they are not Catholic that they were schismatic. We all now know this is not true.

When CA was started apologetics was a dirty word and offensive to "ecumenical spirit " of Vatican II. Now all see no problem in practicing apologetics.

I hope for the day when those who hold a liberal understanding of EENS can see the strict are just as Catholic as they believe themselves to be.

 

[TMC]

I am sincere and according to the liberal view point I can hold my belief and still go to heaven. It really doesn’t matter as long as I follow my conscience isn’t that what “modern” theology teaches?

And if the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith says it is OK that groups holding the strict understand and are Catholics in good standing, how can you give obloquy to my Catholic understanding?

I am following the Church even if you don’t like it. Communities with a strict understanding are Catholics in GOOD standing, as I am too See my posts:
#354 link
#322 link

This is the kind of attitude that accused Traditionalists (which I am not one) of be wrong for saying the TLM was never forbidden. People would deride them saying they are not Catholic that they were schismatic. We all now know this is not true.

When CA was started apologetics was a dirty word and offensive to "ecumenical spirit " of Vatican II. Now all see no problem in practicing apologetics.

I hope for the day when those who hold a liberal understanding of EENS can see the strict are just as Catholic as they believe themselves to be.

I didn’t say you weren’t a Catholic in good standing, I said you disagree with Church teaching on this point. One need not agree with every theological point the Church makes to be a Catholic in good standing.

I am not sure why you are bringing up the form of the liturgy and other irrelevant topics. I have not commented on any of those things and I never referred to your viewpoint as “traditional.” Frankly, I think it conflicts with the tradition, but I guess that is the whole point of this thread.

Whether or not you will be saved is between you and God, of course. I don’t think that one’s theological understanding plays a role in salvation - its not a theology test.

I also don’t understand what you are saying about apologetics. I first learned about Catholic apologetics in the 80s, long before CA (or the internet). I have never heard anyone suggest there was anything wrong with apologetics.

Finally, whether I “like it” or not is completely irrelevant. Nor is it about “liberal” versuse “strict.” The Church teaches what she does. The ideas you have expressed here are not consistent with Church teaching. That does not make you a bad person or a heretic, but I find it hard to belive you still won’t admit that what you are preaching is not what the Church teaches.

 

[StTommyMore]

I’m not Feeneyite but I will say that I think it’s obvious that the subject of the dogmatic definitions concerning EENS is about the Church Militant.

*Unum Sanctam speaks of the necessity of every human being being subject to the Pope. Only the Church militant is subject to the Pope.

*Council of Florence speaks of the necessity of being joined to the Church before death - this clearly does not relate to the Church Suffering nor the Church Triumphant.

*Athanasian Creed speaks of “whosoever will be saved”, which again does not apply to the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant since they’re already saved.

Attempting to say EENS refers to the Church Triumphant is an attempt to muddy the waters.

Not so much. Everyone saved is in the Church Triumphant. As such salvation is truly inseparable from the Church. To say that one must be formally a member of the Catholic Church to be saved is not what the Church teaches.

 

[Sir_Knight]

“God is not willing that any should parish, but that all would come to the truth.” Does it not stand to reason then that God would provide a way for salvation for those who had never heard the truth?

I couldn’t agree more.

The error one makes in clinging to this older Council document is that there was no break occasioned by the Reformation, and one was either pagan or Catholic. The Pope in that century was stating truth as it was known in that era. However, now that the Reformation has taken place and children were born into these religions in later centuries, who were innocent of the truths of Catholicism, the Church had to address the problem of invincible ignorance.

I, again, refer you to the infallible teaching of Pope Eugenius IV, at the Council of Florence in 1442 A.D. – “It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock”

What exactly is a pagan? Someone who has not been exposed to the truth. Why would those “innocent of the truths of Catholicism” prior to the Reformation be destined to everlasting fire but those who are “innocent of the truths of Catholicism” after the reformation be considered invincibly ignorant?

Is this something that we would expect from and ALL-just God?

 

[StTommyMore]

I, again, refer you to the infallible teaching of Pope Eugenius IV, at the Council of Florence in 1442 A.D. – “It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock”

What exactly is a pagan? Someone who has not been exposed to the truth. Why would those “innocent of the truths of Catholicism” prior to the Reformation be destined to everlasting fire but those who are “innocent of the truths of Catholicism” after the reformation be considered invincibly ignorant?

Is this something that we would expect from and ALL-just God?

Is this an infallible statement?

 

[laszlo]

Unum Sanctam speaks of the necessity of every human being being subject to the Pope. Only the Church militant is subject to the Pope.

Please meditate on the passage:

Luke 22:[28] And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: [29] And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; [30] That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If there are Apostles in the heaven ruling, what or who reveals you, that there are no popes?

*Athanasian Creed speaks of “whosoever will be saved”, which again does not apply to the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant since they’re already saved.

The Atanasian Creed probably was written in Latin (definitely not in English) and it starts:

Quicúmque vult salvus esse, where vult is the singular 3rd person present indicative of the verb volo = want. This is a timeless statement. Those who are saved hold the Catholic faith, which is God’s gift and not result of some decision.

Whosoever willeth to be saved, * before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.

 

[Sirach2]

Why would those “innocent of the truths of Catholicism” prior to the Reformation be destined to everlasting fire but those who are “innocent of the truths of Catholicism” after the reformation be considered invincibly ignorant?

When a child is born into another religion, is baptized, and taught the faith of their parents, they do not recognize that they are not in the one true faith. God will not hold them accountable for that which they do not know. Do you agree with our Church that their baptism is valid, and that they possess the Holy Spirit? They are therefore members of the Mystical Body of the Church, from which all grace of salvation flows. If these children live their faith, keep the commandments, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit to the best of their conscience, they can be said to be invincibly ignorant and will not be damned.

If a pagan or non-christian truly lives the natural law inscribed upon his heart by God, he too may be considered invincibly ignorant and still achieve salvation. This was taught by St. Paul in Romans. However, it depends upon his strictly following the inherent natural law, which is very difficult without the sacramental graces we are blessed to receive in the church. That is why it is incumbent upon us to send missionaries. The Church does not exempt us from this mission of evangelization.

The scriptures are full of examples and the Church has always taught the mercy of God. “I understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.” (Acts 10:34)

Judgment is without mercy to him who has not shown mercy. (James 2:13)

 

[laszlo]

What exactly is a pagan? Someone who has not been exposed to the truth.

Pagan proper is is a polytheist, who worship the objects of the concupiscence: sex, greed, money, power; instead of the true God.

In the time of the Council of Florence pagans were considered the Turks and Saracens who explicitly persecuted the Christians.

Still the council used them only as an example that even if they are making good deeds like fastings, alsmgiving or other functions of piety; in itself that is not enough for the salvation, which is conferred through the Church. The council did not defined what the adding to the flock meant, and how it shall be done.

714 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living
within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics
and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will
depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been
added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so
strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the
Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other
functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal
reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if
he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has
remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The scriptures are full of examples and the Church has always taught the mercy of God. “I understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.” (Acts 10:34)

Judgment is without mercy to him who has not shown mercy. (James 2:13)

Commentary on Acts 10
drbo.org/chapter/51010.htm

[35] “In every nation”… That is to say, not only Jews, but Gentiles also, of what nation soever, are acceptable to God, if they fear him and work justice. But then true faith is always to be presupposed, without which (saith St. Paul, Heb. 11. 6) it is impossible to please God. Beware then of the error of those, who would infer from this passage, that men of all religions may be pleasing to God. For since none but the true religion can be from God, all other religions must be from the father of lies, and therefore highly displeasing to the God of truth.

 

[laszlo]

Commentary on Acts 10
drbo.org/chapter/51010.htm

[35] “In every nation”… That is to say, not only Jews, but Gentiles also, of what nation soever, are acceptable to God, if they fear him and work justice.

But then true faith is always to be presupposed, without which (saith St. Paul, Heb. 11. 6) it is impossible to please God. Beware then of the error of those, who would infer from this passage, that men of all religions may be pleasing to God. For since none but the true religion can be from God, all other religions must be from the father of lies, and therefore highly displeasing to the God of truth.

There are two problems with this comment:

1./ Only God is the truth, everything in this world is just imperfect mirror of that truth, which reflect more or less the fullness of God. Every created being shares something from thet Truth, the error is the deficiency of the Truth

2./ It is up to God and not for any human being to decide who is pleasing Him. Jesus Christ dined with the sinners and publicans, and he came to the sinners, not to the perfect ones.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

If a pagan or non-christian truly lives the natural law inscribed upon his heart by God, he too may be considered invincibly ignorant and still achieve salvation. This was taught by St. Paul in Romans. However, it depends upon his strictly following the inherent natural law, which is very difficult without the sacramental graces we are blessed to receive in the church. That is why it is incumbent upon us to send missionaries. The Church does not exempt us from this mission of evangelization.

Natural law does not put someone in a state of justification nor does invincible ignorance - so there is a problem there in your assertion. The 1st Vatican Council teaches that one cannot be justified w/o faith. So someone who is theoretically invincibly ignorant and has followed the natural law could never hoped to be saved by those facts alone. Instead, God would provide the means for that individual to come to faith as St. Thomas teaches:

“If anyone was brought up in the wilderness or among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of nature to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe that God, by an inward inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as He sent Peter to Cornelius.”