Your phrase about "reading into" signals to me you are about to launch into a McMasterian exercise of mental gymnastics. I'll get the parallel bars ready...
Look closely, however... he never actually said that the person in question had died without the actual sacraments necessary. It just isn't there. His meaning is entirely open ended such that the person he refers to can actually be the recipient of all that's necessary sacramentally
Oh geez. Talk about mental gymnastics! You barely got two sentences in before you went flying off of the rings, flipped over both uneven bars, did a handspring off the horse and landed on your rear!
Ah see, now you're just going to spin this conversation. I'm looking for something better than this, Steven.
Your spin is absolutely absurd on its face. Pius IX says " they who are in invincible ignorance
concerning our religion". Someone in invincible ignorance about Catholicism doesn't receive the sacraments. He's obviously referring to people like the natives in the wilderness who haven't a clue about the Catholic Church and may have not ever even met a Catholic. If he meant what you said, it wouldn't be worth him saying it because it would have been meaningless.
Clearly you have not understood my point. I was talking precisely about the same sort of native, and of course also, do not forget the babies who die unbaptised.
It is an excellent example of a pre-Vatican II ambiguous statement, even perhaps a bit weak in expression. After all, if we are to be consistent, if the post-Council pontiffs can be ambiguous and use weak expression, certainly the pre-Council pontiffs can as well. And sometimes, they actually did, of course.
Oh my goodness. There was nothing ambiguous about that statement at all. Not in the least.
I most clearly laid out exactly how it remained unqualified in certain respects, which is entirely the truth, but I'm going to need you to take the time to notice it. Again, read what I actually wrote.
You are forcing a meaning on the text that simply isn't there at all.
What I'm doing is forcing nothing over and above what's actually there. That's the entire point, Steven. I'm claiming that you are.
I don't know how he could have been much clearer. You are trying to play games to wiggle around statements that sink your position.
Not at all. Read what I wrote and attempt to understand what was written.
But the best position against Feeneyism (besides the fact it is not Catholic), is common sense. How anyone could believe in such formalistic rigorism that would condemn invincibly ignorant souls to Hell without exception is beyond me.
Try referencing the Council of Florence. Read and learn what the Council of Florence states on this matter. Far from any formalistic rigorism, my position is most likely in fact more in line with the mercy and omnipotence of God than your own. But more than this, I can see that you are not at all reading what I actually wrote. I specifically indicated that God can provide these natives and babies the actual sacraments if He wishes to do so. You must have missed this.
But in order for you to know this, you must first ditch the hysterics and actually try to understand what it is that I wrote.
Lastly, we know that those who die without baptism are denied the Beatific Vision, but will certainly not suffer torment for actual sins not committed.
Oh yes. That's what the Church actually teaches.
Last I checked the only two places we can eventually wind up are Heaven and Hell, unless you are speculating that all the invincibly ignorant go to some sort of Feeneyite limbo which would contradict Pius IX as well.
Did you not know that the Limbo of the Infants and the Limbus Patris were considered a part of Hell? That the justified souls of the Old Testament were waiting in this part of Hell until, per the Creed, Christ decended into it, releasing the justified souls of the Old Testament, Dismas included
, among other things? Did you ever notice that Bl. Mary of Agreda openly speaks of these things?
Wow! You've moved from the horse and you've now started doing a floor routine complete with Feeneyite colored streamers and leotard. Since going off the rails with a formalistic/ rigorist view of water baptism, you now have to create a construct to patch up the logical holes in your theory. So somehow I suppose, at the moment of death, Christ is going to physically appear to these souls and water baptize them so your theory can be fulfilled? Truly incredible.It's amazing to me that you go through all of this mechanation to justify sending countless ignorant souls to Hell on the one hand and then you are totally a-ok with abuse ridden NO Masses. It is mind boggling. I truly think you do have a split personality!
You know, Steven, you're dodging me.
Pasc, you never really "participated" in the last discussion on it. You simply repeated the same Canon we all agreed on 5,342 times!
I think I'd rather beat my head against a brick wall then go through that insanity again.
Ever heard the ancient phrase "repetition is the mother of learning"?
Hail Mary. If a truth is the truth, why should we not repeat it?