Salvation outside the Church

[AnneElliot]

Let me say what proposition is not condemned.

1. “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents with the remissions of sins."

“33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, if the remission of sins has been obtained.By desire”

That should be sufficient.

Except that there is no remission of sin outside the Church.

p.s Original sin is a nasty bugger to understand. It seems that it can exclude infants from Heaven (but not perfect happiness), however since the Popes say that those who obey the natural law can gain eternal life it seems that the only conclusion one can draw is that original sin can be remitted in adults without a baptism when they live a Holy life.

This would seem to have been the case before Christ’s incarnation - so given that Christ came to save the world - it would seem to be theologically incorrect to think that Christ would withhold that mercy once he had come.

Br. Paul

It was not the case before Christ’s incarnation that persons could be saved by following the natural law… no one was saved before Christ. The justified of the Old Testament awaited Christ’s descent into Hell (/Limbo).

How can an adult live a holy life without Baptism?

Persons sincerely seeking the Lord, with open hearts… WILL be led to the Church, to the Truth of the Catholic Faith.
Lumen Gentium #16 “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. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

Except that there is no remission of sin outside the Church.

It was not the case before Christ’s incarnation that persons could be saved by following the natural law… no one was saved before Christ. The justified of the Old Testament awaited Christ’s descent into Hell (/Limbo).

You seem to not understand something here.

The just in the Old testament are saved now.

What you are trying to say is equivalent to saying that the very existence of baptism now precludes all the pagans who had absolutely no chance of hearing about it, who lived lives that God would would not have condemned them for in the old testament now all of a sudden are damned through no fault of their own.

If God would not have condemned them for their lives following the natural law in the old testament then he wont do it now.

It really is this simple.

**If they do not mortal sin by seriously breaking the natural law and do not sin against God’s revelation by culpably rejecting His revealed truth then they can attain eternal life. **

God Bless

Br. Paul

 

[AnneElliot]

You seem to not understand something here.

The just in the Old testament are saved now.

I did not say that they weren’t… I said they awaited Christ’s descent into Hell… which He did after His death on the Cross.

What you are trying to say is equivalent to saying that the very existence of baptism now precludes all the pagans who had absolutely no chance of hearing about it, who lived lives that God would would not have condemned them for in the old testament now all of a sudden are damned through no fault of their own.

If God would not have condemned them for their lives following the natural law in the old testament then he wont do it now.

What do you mean they had absolutely no chance of hearing about it? I don’t know about you, but I know God has worked greater miracles in the past (and present!). Venerable Mary of Agreda bi-located over 500 times to convert the Native Americans who “through no fault of their own” were ignorant of the Gospel of Christ. God can bring anyone to the truth necessary for salvation. He’s God. He’s Provident. And Omnipotent. Great qualities for getting things done.

It really is this simple.

**If they do not mortal sin by seriously breaking the natural law and do not sin against God’s revelation by culpably rejecting His revealed truth then they can attain eternal life. **

“by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”
“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. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

I did not say that they weren’t… I said they awaited Christ’s descent into Hell… which He did after His death on the Cross.

Yes and in the sense I was talking about it - they were effectively saved. Now one cannot conclude that those before Christ who would have been saved (ie: would have been sent to Limbo until Christ came to us) would now be damned because they were not baptized through no fault of their own.

What do you mean they had absolutely no chance of hearing about it? I don’t know about you, but I know God has worked greater miracles in the past (and present!). Venerable Mary of Agreda bi-located over 500 times to convert the Native Americans who “through no fault of their own” were ignorant of the Gospel of Christ. God can bring anyone to the truth necessary for salvation. He’s God. He’s Provident. And Omnipotent. Great qualities for getting things done.

Well are you going to conclude that all of the pagans and all of those who were invincibly ignorant of Christ and obeyed the natural law received a visit from a bilocating saint?

The essence of the statement that I have quoted from Pope Pius IX encyclical is that those who are outside the church through no fault of their own (ie: have not commited a mortal sin of rejecting God’s revealed truth) and have not commited any other mortal sin can attain eternal life.

“by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”
“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. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

Salvation is gratuitous on God’s part - all that this means is that God’s grace can save those who do not mortally offend Him.

---

Narrow interpretation of EENS

2 Dogmas

1. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
2. No man is damned through their own fault

Therefore if

1. A man in invincible ignorance after having followed the natural law with the help of God’s Grace is damned anyway - then this means that Dogma number 2 is wrong.

or if

1. If God did not send them a baptizer then we must conclude that they all mortally sinned in some other way so that God withheld the baptizer.

This is a very cynical judgement which says they were all evil anyway. If you want to think that this is true, I would be worried about the “judge not lest you be judged” statement.

---

Catholic Teaching of EENS

1. A man who follows the natural law and is invincibly ignorant of the Church can attain eternal life.

Please note that to do this you need Grace. Nobody can be saved without the help of Grace and I do not think you are willing to say that they who are ignorant of the truth are bereft of the help of God.

1. Those who pertinaciously reject the truth are damned. Why? because it is a mortal sin to reject revealed Truth.

---

** 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. LG.**

Does the fact that LG follows this up with the statement that it is a preparation for reception of the Gospel take away from the truth it contains?

If the Gospel does not get to them 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.]]]] Do you conclude that they are damned? No of course not? This would be wrong especially because of the repeated teachings of the magisterium on this subject.

---

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. Pope Pius IX

Just because the Pope uses the phrase bolded does this mean that we can interpret the statement here in a manner opposite? No of course not!

Everyone who is saved is saved because of Gratuitousness on the part of God. The encyclical clearly states that those who obey the natural law and are in invincible ignorance can attain eternal life.

Those of us in the Catholic Church who submit to the documents of the Church can also be saved by the Efficacious virtue of Divine light and Grace.

Br. Paul

 

[JM3]

So, are you suggesting a man can be born again by water alone without the Holy Ghost? I think you’re reading the text wrong…

“…This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man be born again of water **AND **the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

If you separate the laver of regeneration and its desire, then you are separating “water and the Holy Ghost”… are you sure you want to go there?

You asked for a document that showed baptism of desire and I gave you one. How you personally interpret the teaching of the Church is your problem, not mine.

 

[AnneElliot]

Well are you going to conclude that all of the pagans and all of those who were invincibly ignorant of Christ and obeyed the natural law received a visit from a bilocating saint?

Of course not. But I’m not going to suggest that someone was, or could be saved outside the Church.

The essence of the statement that I have quoted from Pope Pius IX encyclical is that those who are outside the church through no fault of their own (ie: have not commited a mortal sin of rejecting God’s revealed truth) and have not commited any other mortal sin can attain eternal life.

The problem is that you keep cutting HOW they CAN attain to eternal life… that is, “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace”. God will somehow reveal to that person what needs to be believed in order to be saved. Whether it’s sending a missionary, or some miraculous means is up to God.

1. No man is damned through their own fault

I’m hoping this is just a typo… right? Every man who is damned, is damned through his own fault…

1. A man in invincible ignorance after having followed the natural law with the help of God’s Grace is damned anyway - then this means that Dogma number 2 is wrong.

Everyone must cooperate with God’s grace. God’s grace will lead them to His Church.

1. If God did not send them a baptizer then we must conclude that they all mortally sinned in some other way so that God withheld the baptizer.

God does not withhold grace from anyone. God WOULD send them someone to baptize them. I don’t see how anyone could say that there was a man who wanted Baptism, but God (in His Divine Providence) *never *provided that man with the opportunity to be baptized. That’s withholding grace.

** 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. LG.**

Does the fact that LG follows this up with the statement that it is a preparation for reception of the Gospel take away from the truth it contains?

If the Gospel does not get to them 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.]]]] Do you conclude that they are damned? No of course not? This would be wrong especially because of the repeated teachings of the magisterium on this subject.

How would the Gospel not get to them? Are you saying God would withhold the graces necessary for their salvation? Baptism is necessary for salvation, right? So, here’s a man somewhere ignorant of the Gospel, but trying his darnedest to live a good life and cooperate with the graces given to Him, but somehow Divine Providence is going to fail him and he will never be provided with the opportunity to be baptized? That’s not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that God will not deny the helps necessary for salvation.

You keep setting up the situation so as to think I’m condemning someone. I am not damning anyone to Hell. What I’m saying is that God will provide! I trust in Divine Providence to give everyone everything they need to be saved, they only have to cooperate with the graces given to them.

Are you saying that God only provides SOME of the graces necessary for salvation? He will help them follow the natural law, but He will withhold from them explicit faith and Baptism and then save them because it “wasn’t their fault”… but His?

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. Pope Pius IX

Just because the Pope uses the phrase bolded does this mean that we can interpret the statement here in a manner opposite? No of course not!

Everyone who is saved is saved because of Gratuitousness on the part of God. The encyclical clearly states that those who obey the natural law and are in invincible ignorance can attain eternal life.

Those of us in the Catholic Church who submit to the documents of the Church can also be saved by the Efficacious virtue of Divine light and Grace.

You still have not solved the problem of Original Sin.

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

Also, I would like to know what you think divine light and grace is… just for clarification. I wholly agree with Pope Pius IX that those in invincible ignorance can be saved by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. But you seem to think that divine light and grace does not entail explicit faith in Jesus and the Most Holy Trinity and the grace of Baptism. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[AnneElliot]

You asked for a document that showed baptism of desire and I gave you one. How you personally interpret the teaching of the Church is your problem, not mine.

Correction: I asked for a papal encyclical or Conciliar document that contained the phrase “baptism of desire”. The Conciliar text of Trent does not contain that phrase.

The teaching of the Church is explicit… one is not required to read into Conciliar texts what is not said. In doing so, it causes other problems, as I demonstrated.

 

[simple_soul]

So JR, can a person who knows the Gospel exists and rejects the Divinity of Christ and the New Covenant be saved ?

*Dear At Trent,

Just in case you did not notice and with all due respect, it is Brother JR.*

 

[StTommyMore]

Correction: I asked for a papal encyclical or Conciliar document that contained the phrase “baptism of desire”. The Conciliar text of Trent does not contain that phrase.

The teaching of the Church is explicit… one is not required to read into Conciliar texts what is not said. In doing so, it causes other problems, as I demonstrated.

You must be joking. Just because the Church doesn’t use your articulation of the idea does not mean it in not taught.

 

[AnneElliot]

You must be joking. Just because the Church doesn’t use your articulation of the idea does not mean it in not taught.

I never said the Church had to use my articulation of anything in order to be taught. I said the teachings of the Church are explicit. One does not have to read anything into texts of the Magisterium in order to find a teaching. Do you disagree?

 

[StTommyMore]

I never said the Church had to use my articulation of anything in order to be taught. I said the teachings of the Church are explicit. One does not have to read anything into texts of the Magisterium in order to find a teaching. Do you disagree?

Baptism of desire IS explicit in Trent.

 

[At_Trent]

*Dear At Trent,

Just in case you did not notice and with all due respect, it is Brother* JR.

It’s ok, he calls me Turkey

 

[At_Trent]

You must remember that there are lots of statements by the above Pope’s saints and Theologians - that nobody is damned except through their own fault.

**The only two points that I think you need to admit are

1. That if** a person is invincibly ignorant of the true faith and if They have not committed a mortal sin that they can be saved.
2. That EENS refers to those who are outside the Church through their own fault.

This does not mean that you can start assuming that people are saved and/or not saved who are not catholic.

Basically just because the above propositions - one and two are contained in the Popes encyclical and in magisterial pronouncements since then - are actually Catholic teachings, this does not mean that our command to go out and convert the nations is any less true.

God Bless

Br. Paul

Does invincible ignorance = one who refuses to accept the New Covenant once it has been presented to them ?

There is vincible ignorance as well, that = say, a pagan deep in the Amazon ?

The answer to those questions may be in the thread, but it’s so long, I may have missed it.

 

[AnneElliot]

Baptism of desire IS explicit in Trent.

Except the phrase “baptism of desire” is not found in the Conciliar texts of Trent.

… Can one be born again through water without the Holy Spirit?

 

[JReducation]

Here is the problem. Before even proceeding with this discussion, any good theologian has to ask the question.

How is it possible that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI can all be wrong in their understanding of EENS?

How is it possible to still call these men, the Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, and the ultimate and highest authority in the teaching of the faith and while claiming that their subordinates: clergy and laity are right and they are wrong? How does one justify to the non-Catholic world the power and authority of popes, if one can say that they are right only when their subordinates agree?

If what these men are saying is truly contrary to the faith, wouldn’t that make them heretics?

If they are heretics, then are they really popes?

The argument that blind obedience or absolute obedience is unorthodox is contrary to the tradition of the Church. Law givers such as Benedict, Augustine, Albert and Francis of Assisi bound their sons and daughters to absolute obedience, without questioning, even when authority is wrong, as long as authority does not mandate something that the Church condemns as sin and it was the popes who placed Papal Bulls on this mandates, binding them for all time so that they cannot be changed.

If absolute obedience is wrong, then Benedict, Albert, Augustine and Francis were wrong and their rules are invalid, which would make the religious orders founded upon those rules invalid, because a religious cannot vow to obey something that is invalid. However, we know that for 1200 years, religious men have been bound to obey, without questioning under pain of excommunication and in the case of the Franciscans, a threat of eternal damnation. The highest authorities in the Church, popes themselves, said that these rules were consistent with Divine Revelation and sealed them so that they can never be changed by anyone except another pope. To date, the Benedictine, Augustinian, Carmelite and Franciscan rules have never been touched by any pope. Therefore, absolute obedience is not as unorthodox as some people want to claim.

According to these law givers dissent was only permissible when the person in authority abused his authority in a manner that is sinful. Every other fault found in authority must be accepted in silence and be obeyed, accepting the sacrifice that is being made as a penance and an act of love.

Following this tradition, one has to conclude that unless one can prove that these popes have abused their moral authority, there is no justifiable reason for dissenting from their teaching on this matter. That takes us full circle to the question, if they have abused their moral authority or taught error, are they valid popes?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Does invincible ignorance = one who refuses to accept the New Covenant once it has been presented to them ?

There is vincible ignorance as well, that = say, a pagan deep in the Amazon ?

The answer to those questions may be in the thread, but it’s so long, I may have missed it.

Ignorance is not the absence of information. Ignorance is the inability to grasp the message. There are those who do not subscribe to the message of the Gospel because it’s inconvenient and there are those who do not subscribe to it, because they can’t grasp. To put it on modern English, they can’t wrap their head around it. I used teach theology and sometimes I’ll have a student who’ll say, “I hear you, but I just don’t get it,” or “I understand what you’re saying, but it does not make sense.” They are struggling with the truth being presented. They are not rejecting it out of malice, but out of an honest inability to appreciate it. The inability to grasp something may be invincible, because there are so many other obstacles in the person’s thinking.

Our ancestors did not know about this, because they had no knowledge of how human cognition works. To them, this looked like stubbornness. Today, we’re beginning to understand cognitive processes. We still don’t have all the facts. We apply the same principle to those who say that they know better than the popes what EENS means. They’re not being obstinate. They are simply unable to cognitively grasp what the current popes are saying and how it connects to what was said in the past. However, they are being very honest in their effort to try to understand. Even those who walk away, do so out of frustration, not stubbornness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StTommyMore]

Except the phrase “baptism of desire” is not found in the Conciliar texts of Trent.

… Can one be born again through water without the Holy Spirit?

But the idea that one who desires baptism but is prevented through no fault of theor on is in Trent.

 

[StTommyMore]

Here is the problem. Before even proceeding with this discussion, any good theologian has to ask the question.

How is it possible that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI can all be wrong in their understanding of EENS?

How is it possible to still call these men, the Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, and the ultimate and highest authority in the teaching of the faith and while claiming that their subordinates: clergy and laity are right and they are wrong? How does one justify to the non-Catholic world the power and authority of popes, if one can say that they are right only when their subordinates agree?

If what these men are saying is truly contrary to the faith, wouldn’t that make them heretics?

If they are heretics, then are they really popes?

The argument that blind obedience or absolute obedience is unorthodox is contrary to the tradition of the Church. Law givers such as Benedict, Augustine, Albert and Francis of Assisi bound their sons and daughters to absolute obedience, without questioning, even when authority is wrong, as long as authority does not mandate something that the Church condemns as sin and it was the popes who placed Papal Bulls on this mandates, binding them for all time so that they cannot be changed.

If absolute obedience is wrong, then Benedict, Albert, Augustine and Francis were wrong and their rules are invalid, which would make the religious orders founded upon those rules invalid, because a religious cannot vow to obey something that is invalid. However, we know that for 1200 years, religious men have been bound to obey, without questioning under pain of excommunication and in the case of the Franciscans, a threat of eternal damnation. The highest authorities in the Church, popes themselves, said that these rules were consistent with Divine Revelation and sealed them so that they can never be changed by anyone except another pope. To date, the Benedictine, Augustinian, Carmelite and Franciscan rules have never been touched by any pope. Therefore, absolute obedience is not as unorthodox as some people want to claim.

According to these law givers dissent was only permissible when the person in authority abused his authority in a manner that is sinful. Every other fault found in authority must be accepted in silence and be obeyed, accepting the sacrifice that is being made as a penance and an act of love.

Following this tradition, one has to conclude that unless one can prove that these popes have abused their moral authority, there is no justifiable reason for dissenting from their teaching on this matter. That takes us full circle to the question, if they have abused their moral authority or taught error, are they valid popes?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well thought out and charitable, as usual Bro. JR!

 

[tal]

Exactly The Pius X Catechism SEPARATES them:

"29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation"

It does not say that see above.

All very confusing here. How are they united to the Church?
Do they need to believe in the Trinity? The Incarnation? The necessity of Baptism for salvation?
Which infallible document defines “Baptism of Desire”?
Sources?

Pope Leo is saying it is a grave error to separate soul from the body but it is clearly stated as such in the Pius X catechism:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896:
“From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error:…It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature.”

Pius XII understood Leo like me:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 14), June 29, 1943:*
“Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: “the Church is visible because she is a body.” [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.” link

There are very few people left in the world who could claim invincible ignorance but even so this goes for especially for Protestants, Leo’s same encyclical says:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 8), June 29, 1896:
“He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.”

again
“Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).” link to Satis Cognitum

While in general the encyclical seemed to be aimed at Protestants it still well establishes that there is no way a person could belong to the soul of the Church with out belonging to the body but again Pius X catechism says:

“such a man is indeed separated from the body** of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation”**

clear I think

Chipmonk, If i’m reading you right you are giving conflicting points, you give all the right dogmas in favor of no salvation outside the church but then you quote a fallible statement made in a book with the name of Pope St. Pius X on it as to say that he actually endorsed that catechism. We can’t adhere to things that are fallible but only things that are infallible and protected by the HOLY GHOST, which you did in the beginning of you statement but went into error after that. Invincible ignorance is heresy because if it was true, it would be better for man to remain ignorant and no fault of his own, go to heaven than to know God and possibly not go to heaven because of some mortal sin we may have committed. St. Isaac Jogues went through hell trying to instruct and baptize the savages of North America, if invincible ignorance was valid then it would have been better for St. Isaac Jogues to leave them ignorant because of no fault of they own, they would go to heaven, don’t you get it, it doesn’t make any SENSE!!! One has to stay with infallible dogmas ONLY!!!

 

[StTommyMore]

Chipmonk, If i’m reading you right you are giving conflicting points, you give all the right dogmas in favor of no salvation outside the church but then you quote a fallible statement made in a book with the name of Pope St. Pius X on it as to say that he actually endorsed that catechism. We can’t adhere to things that are fallible but only things that are infallible and protected by the HOLY GHOST, which you did in the beginning of you statement but went into error after that. Invincible ignorance is heresy because if it was true, it would be better for man to remain ignorant and no fault of his own, go to heaven than to know God and possibly not go to heaven because of some mortal sin we may have committed. St. Isaac Jogues went through hell trying to instruct and baptize the savages of North America, if invincible ignorance was valid then it would have been better for St. Isaac Jogues to leave them ignorant because of no fault of they own, they would go to heaven, don’t you get it, it doesn’t make any SENSE!!! One has to stay with infallible dogmas ONLY!!!

Even non-infallible statements we have to give some level of assent to, but this level does vary depending on the document.