Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Cantarella]

If someone has venial sin only he is in the state of Sanctifying grace.

If someone has Original Sin, then commits a venial sin, this is the case I propose.  He therefore does not have Sanctifying Grace.

St. Thomas does not believe this is possible, since he believes at the point of the age of reason, you are required to think about God and avoid superstition and irreligion.

I disagree, and consider it possible that such superstition could be a venial sin.

His reason is that there is no place for someone with venial sin only.  I don't find that reason convincing.

You seem (here and in other posts) to be saying that if St. Thomas had known about different levels of hell, he wouldn't have had a problem with Original Sin going with Venial Sin - if only he had read Dante.  I think rather that St. Thomas did know about different levels of hell (by reason, not all should be punished equally, and some may be punished very little), and he certainly did know about limbo  I think his main reason for his belief about original and venial sin is his understanding of what happens at the age of reason. You disagree with that understanding; fine, but I feel safer with St. Thomas, even if I don't completely understand him.

==

Scattered thoughts if I consider venial sin and original sin together, just a bit, some questions:

The children's limbo (part of hell) is for those with Original Sin only - no actual sin, mortal or venial. There is no pain of sense, no "torments".  If you think children with Original sin and venial sin go there, do they go to purgatory first? If they go to a little higher level of hell, isn't God punishing venial sin with eternal torments, no matter how little? A venial sin is not a little mortal sin that gets less eternal torments.  It gets only temporary torments, in purgatory; and everyone in purgatory goes to heaven (at least by the Catholic teaching that I know).

Catholic doctrine teaches that the souls who are purgatory are saved souls who WILL reach Heaven. Purgatory will cease to exist at the General Judgment. Therefore, Heaven and Hell will be the only destinations where each soul will spend eternity according to its merit. Now, because the souls in purgatory are destined for Heaven, we know that the Original Sin has been removed from all of them via Baptism and they only get temporary punishment due to venial sins. In 2015 there is only one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we know of and it is the Baptism of Water given to infants / children before the age of reason and adults with the Catholic Faith. We can only administer the Baptism of water and cannot give anyone the Baptism of Desire (which it ever happens, it is always an invisible hypothesis to us).

[Non Nobis]

Cantarella and James,

James, I do agree that one reason St. Thomas said Original Sin and Venial sin couldn't go together (at least at death) was that he couldn't think of a "place to put such people".   But I don't think it was because he didn't know about different levels in hell.  Below I explain why I have St. Thomas' problem too.

Cantarella,

Scattered thoughts if I consider venial sin and original sin together, just a bit, some questions:

The children's limbo (part of hell) is for those with Original Sin only - no actual sin, mortal or venial. There is no pain of sense, no "torments".  If you think children with Original sin and venial sin go there, do they go to purgatory first? If they go to a little higher level of hell, isn't God punishing venial sin with eternal torments, no matter how little? A venial sin is not a little mortal sin that gets less eternal torments.  It gets only temporary torments, in purgatory; and everyone in purgatory goes to heaven (at least by the Catholic teaching that I know).

Catholic doctrine teaches that the souls who are purgatory are saved souls who WILL reach Heaven. Purgatory will cease to exist at the General Judgment. Therefore, Heaven and Hell will be the only destinations where each soul will spend eternity according to its merit. Now, because the souls in purgatory are destined for Heaven, we know that the Original Sin has been removed from all of them via Baptism and they only get temporary punishment due to venial sins.

C and J:

I agree with everything you (C) said above, and knew it before I wrote my post.  You put it much better then I did.  However, my post (which was not very clear) was not to lay out this doctrine but to show that James' claim than someone can die with both Original Sin and Venial Sin leads to absurd consequences, because they are contrary to this doctrine.  Doctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory. Doctrine: Original sin without Mortal Sin receives eternal punishment, including deprivation of the vision of God, but no sensible pain. Doctrine: those in Purgatory will go to heaven. You can't put both Venial and Original Sin together.  If you did,  Venial sin with Original  Sin would mean (to handle the venial sin) either that  there would be purgatory prior to Limbo, not heaven (contrary to doctrine), or that venial sin could have eternal punishment with any degree of sensible pain (also contrary to doctrine).  (That this sensible pain is very small in some levels of Hell is not relevant.) A statement with absurd consequences is false.

I would guess that you (C) think that having Original Sin at death means either that one has Original Sin alone (and goes to Limbo) or Original Sin with Mortal Sin (and goes to hell with eternal torments). I don't see how you can believe one can have Original Sin and Venial Sin (without Mortal Sin) for the reasons given above.

I think this is not the central issue of this thread.

[Michael Wilson]

Sorry I have not replied to you James, I just don't have a lot of time. Instead of a knee-jerk response, I will try to work something up with a little more thought. It may take a while.
Cantarella: I agree with De Lugo, add that name to the list of Catholic theologians who state it is possible to save one's soul, despite not having explicit faith in The Blessed Trinity etc.
These posts are really for general information to show what normal Catholic Theologians thought before Vatican II:

"The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See"; Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton. Pgs 109-114 (This constitutes a commentary by Msgr. Fenton on the document "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII).  The Letter was not published in full until the fall of 1952.

This paragraph brings out two truths about the Church as a necessary means to attainment of eternal salvation. First, there is the fact that the Church is a means necessary for salvation only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity. Second is the fact that means necessary for salvation by divine institution can produce their effects, as the document says, "in certain cases" when there is only a will or desire to possess these things;
When the document classifies the Catholic Church as a means of salvation which is necessary only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity, it likewise mentions two other realities which are also requisite for the attainment of salvation in this particular way. These are the sacraments of baptism and of penance. Both of these are necessary for salvation, and are necessary as means established by God for our attainment of this end.
In other words, is no reason apart from the positive will of God why a washing with water performed while the person administering the sacrament is uttering a definite formula should be necessary for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. There is not reason apart from the positive will of God why a man who is guilty of mortal sin committed after baptism cannot have this sin forgiven except by means of a judicial absolution pronounced by the authorized priest. Neither the baptism nor the sacrament of penance is by its nature part of the supernatural life itself in the way that sanctifying grace and charity are.
Similarly, it is by the positive will of God that men must be within the organized society if they are to attain the forgiveness of their sins or final blessedness. Faith, hope and charity are actually parts of the supernatural life. It is impossible to have the life of grace in this world, and thus, of course, impossible to pass form this world with the life of grace, apart from the faith, hope and charity.   The life of the Beatific Vision in heaven necessarily involves charity.
This must be distinctly understood: in any event the men and women who accept the supernatural teaching of God with the act of divine faith, and who love God with the supernatural love of friendship which we call charity, would belong to the kingdom of God on earth. These people would be, in any event, the individuals who subjected themselves to Gods supernatural law, and thus would belong to His supernatural kingdom in this world. But, as a matter of fact, God has willed that His supernatural kingdom should be a fully organized society. In His mercy He has decreed that there is no other social unit which can in any way properly be called His kingdom, or His "ecclesia".  If a man is going to belong to God's supernatural kingdom on earth at all, he is thus going to belong in some way to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society which the Bishop of Rome presides as the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
(8b)  The "Suprema haec sacra" then brings out the fact that, in the merciful designs of God's providence, such realities as the Church itself and the sacraments of baptism and penance can under certain circumstances, bring about the effects which they are meant to produce as means necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation when a man possesses them only in the sense that he desires or intends or wills to have or to use them.  Obviously the text cannot be understood unless we realize what the "certain circumstances" mentioned in the text really are.
   Basic among these circumstances is the genuine impossibility of receiving the sacraments of baptism or of penance or of entering the Church as a member.  It is quite clear that if it is possible for a man to be baptized, to go to confession and to receive sacramental absolution, or really to become a member of the Church, the man for whom this is possible will not attain to eternal salvation unless he actually avails himself of these means.   But, on the other hand, should the actual employment of these means be genuinely impossible, then the man can attain to eternal life by a will or desire to employ them.
   Here, of course, we must distinguish sedulously between the order of intention and the order of mere velleity.  What is required here is an effective desire, an effective act of the will, as distinct from a mere complacency or approval.  A non-member of the Church can be saved if he genuinely wants or desires to enter the Church.  With that genuine and active desire or intention, he will really become a member of the Church if this is at all possible.  If it is not possible, then the force of his intention or desire will bring him "within" the Church in such a way that he can attain eternal salvation in this company.  An inherently ineffective act of the will, a mere velleity, will definitely not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation.
   As the text of the Suprema haec reminds us toward the end of its doctrinal section, the desire or intention of using the means established by God can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation only when this act of the will is enlightened by true supernatural divine faith and animated by genuine charity. This, of course holds true, not only for the intention of entering the Church, but also for the desire of the sacraments or baptism and penance- which desire many suffice for the forgiveness of sin when the sacraments themselves are not available.
(9)The expression "a general help to salvation (generale...auxilium salutis)" applied to the Catholic Church in the text of the Holy Office letter describes the Church as something which, by Gods own merciful decree, is a means of salvation meant for the necessary for all men without exception. It is definitely not necessary merely for those who seek to live a higher levels of the spiritual life. It is a means and a help meant for the requisite for all men with out exception.
Thus, in the words of the Holy Office document, "in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually (reapse) as a member, but it is required that he be united to it at least by intention and desire (voto et desiderio)
(10)Previous paragraphs of the Holy Office letter had brought out the validity of two distinctions, long contained in the traditional works of Catholic theology, but never before stated so explicitly in an authoritative document of the Holy See. The first was the distinction between the necessity of means and the necessity of precept. The second was the distinction of belonging to the Church in re and in voto. This second distinction is used, in theology and in the text of the "Suprema haec sacra", in explaining how the Church is a means genuinely necessary for all men for the attainment of eternal salvation.
The present paragraph explains the distinction between the explicit and the implicit votum of entering the true Church, and teaches that even the implicit votum can be effective for the attainment of eternal life. It teaches that "this desire (of entering the true Church as a member) need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but, when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit  intention, which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
It is to be noted there that, according to the language of the "Suprema haec sacra" and of all the other authoritative documents which have dealt with this matter, the desire of entering the Church does not give a man anything like "a real though complete membership in the Church."Those who, like Father St. John[Cf. Henry St. John, O.P., "Essays in Christian Unity": 1928-1954, pg. 139]  speak in this way, simply fail to take the meaning of the expressions in the Church's documents into consideration.  A man. A man who intends or will to enter the Church is really not a member of it in any sort of way whatsoever.  If he were already a member, his desire would be absurd.
   The "Suprema haec sacra" describes an explicit desire of entering the Church as something found in catechumens.  The catechumen is the adult preparing to enter the true Church of Jesus Christ through the reception of the sacrament baptism.  His desire is said to be explicit because he has a clear and distinct (though not necessarily in any way adequate) knowledge of the society he seeks to enter. In other words, he is a man who knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ and who wants to become a member of that Church through the reception of baptism.
   On the contrary, a man has only an implicit desire when he wants a thing but does not realize definitely what it is that he desires.  The word "implicit" has the sense of something "folded in."  When a man desires an objective which cannot be obtained without the attainment of something else, and does not have any clear and distinct awareness of this other thing, he is said to have an implicit desire of this latter.
The "Suprema haec sacra" states explicitly that it is possible for a man to be saved if he has only an implicit desire of entering the Catholic Church.  Thus it teaches that a man can attain to the Beatific Vision without having had any definite and explicit knowledge of the Catholic Church during the course of his lifetime in this world.
11). In this paragraph the Holy Office document cites the passage in the Encyclical "Mystici Corporis" dealing with membership in the Church, the genuine supernatural kingdom of God of the New Testament.  In this context it is interesting to note that the text of the "Mystici Corporis" does not imply that there is some other sort of real though incomplete membership possessed by persons who do not have the qualifications mentioned here.  The encyclical is teaching about those who "actually" (reapse) are to be counted as members of the Church.  It insists that only these people who have the qualifications mentioned are to be enumerated "reapse" as members.  All others, are simply not members.
   Furthermore, this does not by any means imply that the word "reapse" in the text of the "Mystici Corporis" is a mere redundancy.  If this were so, words like "genuinely" and "truly" would not be part of any real vocabulary.  Moreover the word "reapse" as it is used here connects this teaching of Pope Pius XII with the traditional doctrine of the Catholic theologians who distinguished between belonging to the Church in "re,"  that is, as a member, and belonging to it "in voto," that is, by a desire or intention to enter it as a member. (pg. 114)
12. The following paragraph shows that the "Mistici Corporis" had taught very clearly that there is a possibility of salvation for those non-members of the Catholic Church
Mistici Corporis #22. "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Mistici Corporis #103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.[194] Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ"[195] and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.[196]


For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they
have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.[197] Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.

[james03]

 

(This constitutes a commentary by Msgr. Fenton on the document "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII)

So as not to scandalize pious Catholics:  There was no document "issued" by the Holy Office called "Supreme haec sacra".  There was a private letter written by an undersecretary to the bishop of Boston, which letter was entitled a Protocol and given a protocol number: 122/49.  Such protocols carry no doctrinal weight, and are used to set an agenda for discussion topics.

A document issued by the Holy Office is called a "Decree".

Furthermore the protocol was never published in the AAS, which proves it carries no weight since it was never promulgated.  This is odd, as a Decree addressing such a controversial subject would surely be promulgated.

I admit, the protocol reads like a Decree, so the fact that it is entitled a Protocol is again, very odd.   It is evidence of a deceit.

At the end of the day, however, what you have is a document officially entitled by the Church as an agenda for upcoming discussions.

edit:

For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they  have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer

Note:  protocol 122/49 has errors in it, such as this misquote.  Which is not surprising since it is just an agenda for upcoming discussions, according to the Church.

[james03]

Doctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory.

This is because the person who commits venial sin keeps sanctifying Grace, while Mortal Sin kills grace in the soul.

For someone in Original Sin, I don't think there is much of a distinction between mortal sin and venial sin, since if a heathen commits a mortal sin, he does not kill sanctifying grace, nor drive out the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity since he doesn't have them.

To be clear, someone who died with Original Sin, and venial sin(s), without what we consider mortal sin, he would indeed be punished for it eternally.  He would not be on the same level as Limbo, which could be called Paradise.  His condition might still be better than when he was running around savage.

[Michael Wilson]

 By Rev. W. Wilmers, S.J. from the German; trans. Rev. James Conway, S.J. Canisius College, Buffalo, July 21, 1891,   pg.425-427

233. Faith is necessary for salvation, not merely in virtue of a divine precept, but also of its nature- as a necessary means of salvation.
1. Faith is necessary in virtue of a divine precept . (a) That man  is bound to accept a given revelation  recognized as such has already been shown- [8].  But a revelation is accepted through faith, since faith is nothing else than the assent of the understanding on the authority of God (232). ...
2. Faith is, moreover, necessary of its very nature,  as a means of salvation-in other words, every adult, whether he has already received the grace of justification in baptism or not, must actually and explicitly believe certain truths in order to attain to salvation. ...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. XI. 5,6). ...As may be seen from the words of the Apostle above cited, that faith which is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation must extend to these two truths: that there is a God, and that He is our supernatural rewarder. By that faith which is necessary for salvation is understood faith in the strict sense of the word-the assent of the understanding on the authority of God.  Therefore a conviction resting upon natural revelation, or the light of reason, that there is a God, is not sufficient for salvation.  For the Apostle, where he speaks of the necessity of faith, evidently refers to faith in the strict sense, as is manifest from the context. The arguments advanced prove this same truth. Since God desires the salvation of all men, we must suppose that He in some way gives also to the heathens means sufficient to enable them to come to faith, and that it is only by their own fault that they are excluded from the light of faith (145).

[Michael Wilson]

APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE; A Two Years' Course of Religious Instruction for Schools and Colleges.
By: The Most Rev. M. Sheehan, D.D. Coadjutor Archbishop of Sydney; Formely of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. Part II page 15:

"THE ACTS OF EXPLICIT FAITH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION"-
The act of Faith which is absolutely necessary for Salvation.-No one who has come to the use of reason can be saved, unless he make a definite or explicit act of faith in the existence of one God who will reward the good and punish the wicked: "without faith," as we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (He. Xi. 6) "it is  impossible to pleas God, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him,," and, therefore, also a punisher of the them that avoid Him. Foot-note 23: [This act of Faith alone, accompanied by an act of charity or perfect contrition, suffices for the salvation of those who may never even have heard the name of Christ; hence it is easy to understand how very many outside the visible membership of the Church may be saved; but it must be stated that some authorities hold, and their opinion is probable, that an explicit act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation is also required. Hence, it is not lawful, outside a case of extreme necessity, to administer Baptism to an adult without having previously instructed him in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. See Part I., pg. 136: "The obligation of membership," and page 157, "Outside the Church there is no salvation." End of foot-note] this explicit act of faith is as necessary for salvation as eyes are for sight; without it, salvation is absolutely unattainable.

[Michael Wilson]

"Is There Salvation Outside The Catholic Church?" Rev. J. Bainvel, S,J. trans. By Rev. J.L. Weidenhan S.T.L.  1917 Herder, St. Louis. Tan.
Pg. 4:

We belong to the Church by desire (voto), when, though not members in the proper meaning of the term, we nevertheless desire to be such. This desire may be explicit, as was the case with the Catechumens of the early centuries.  Likewise it may be implicit, as in the case of those who are unaware that there is a divinely founded Church, yet desire to do all that God requires of them for salvation.  As we go along, we shall see how this desire to do all that God demands, really embodies the implicit wish to belong to the Church.
Pgs. 4-5 Membership in the Church is it a necessity of Precept or necessity of Means?
Necessity of Means: ...in the second case, either ignorance of the means or the impossibility of employing these means certainly would relieve one of all fault, and hence, from liability to punishment.  Nevertheless such ignorance or impossibility would prevent the realization of the end of man's creation, unless God in His mercy substituted some extraordinary means, just as whether by his own fault or not, no one can subsist without nourishment, save by a miracle.
Pg. 19: No Catholic denies, nor can he deny without running counter to the Church's teaching, that among Protestants, schismatics and pagans there are souls which are really on the road to eternal life.

[Michael Wilson]

(This constitutes a commentary by Msgr. Fenton on the document "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII)

So as not to scandalize pious Catholics:  There was no document "issued" by the Holy Office called "Supreme haec sacra".  There was a private letter written by an undersecretary to the bishop of Boston, which letter was entitled a Protocol and given a protocol number: 122/49.  Such protocols carry no doctrinal weight, and are used to set an agenda for discussion topics.

A document issued by the Holy Office is called a "Decree".

Furthermore the protocol was never published in the AAS, which proves it carries no weight since it was never promulgated.  This is odd, as a Decree addressing such a controversial subject would surely be promulgated.

I admit, the protocol reads like a Decree, so the fact that it is entitled a Protocol is again, very odd.   It is evidence of a deceit.

At the end of the day, however, what you have is a document officially entitled by the Church as an agenda for upcoming discussions.

edit:

For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they  have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer

Note:  protocol 122/49 has errors in it, such as this misquote.  Which is not surprising since it is just an agenda for upcoming discussions, according to the Church.

Not to scandalize pius Catholics who would see a Catholic profess to prefer his own opinion over that of the Pope and advising others to do so especially on such weighty matters:

"Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII).

Please disregard James' post.

[james03]

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......As may be seen from the words of the Apostle above cited, that faith which is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation must extend to these two truths: that there is a God, and that He is our supernatural rewarder.

The author contradicts Trent, which identifies the "faith" in the scripture quote with the Catholic Faith.  And this is witnessed to by Christ Himself who states that you must believe in Him to believe in God.  St. John C. Doctor of the Church, notes this in his discussion of the jews and how in reality they are worshipping demons.

[james03]

Please disregard Jame's post.

Yes, don't consider the facts:

1.  What evidence is there that he "approved" it?
2.  It was never promulgated.
3.  Even if he did "approve" it, whatever that means, he was under the impression he was "approving" an agenda for an upcoming discussion.

And again, consider the curious official title of the private letter: Protocol 122/49.

[Cantarella]

"Is There Salvation Outside The Catholic Church?" Rev. J. Bainvel, S,J. trans. By Rev. J.L. Weidenhan S.T.L.  1917 Herder, St. Louis. Tan.
Pg. 4:

We belong to the Church by desire (voto), when, though not members in the proper meaning of the term, we nevertheless desire to be such. This desire may be explicit, as was the case with the Catechumens of the early centuries.  Likewise it may be implicit, as in the case of those who are unaware that there is a divinely founded Church, yet desire to do all that God requires of them for salvation.  As we go along, we shall see how this desire to do all that God demands, really embodies the implicit wish to belong to the Church.
Pgs. 4-5 Membership in the Church is it a necessity of Precept or necessity of Means?
Necessity of Means: ...in the second case, either ignorance of the means or the impossibility of employing these means certainly would relieve one of all fault, and hence, from liability to punishment.  Nevertheless such ignorance or impossibility would prevent the realization of the end of man's creation, unless God in His mercy substituted some extraordinary means, just as whether by his own fault or not, no one can subsist without nourishment, save by a miracle.
Pg. 19: No Catholic denies, nor can he deny without running counter to the Church's teaching, that among Protestants, schismatics and pagans there are souls which are really on the road to eternal life.

You can cite as many theologians you want who may support your opinion, but the Church has already settled the matter long time ago. An example of this is the Athanasian Creed, solemnly reaffirmed by many pontiffs: "WHOEVER wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever... The Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ... He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity". 

Theologians do not constitute the infallible Magisterial teaching of the Church and when one puts theologian's works over the Church herself one is inverting their proper authority. Quoting the words of Pope Pius XII:

The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth.  The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.   

Your conclusions are further proof of how Invincible Ignorance becomes a destructive heresy, obliterating the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world, and yet, ironically you fail to recognize how the Salvation by Implicit Desire novelty you are fond of, is indeed the very foundation of all Vatican II ecclesiology you resist. To say that a soul can be saved ignorant of the Gospel, without explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity is no less than a betrayal to Our Lord's words himself, and a vile mockery of the heroic efforts of the Apostles to spread the Faith across the world, and the blood shed by the martyrs in the name of Jesus Christ.     

Here are a few words by Pope Gregory XVI on the necessity of the Catholic Faith and unity for attaining salvation:

" Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life ... You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic Faith and of unity for salvation ... Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church ... Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin Churches use, but also that which... other Eastern Catholics use.  We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction.  Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you.  But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies."

[Non Nobis]

Doctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory.

This is because the person who commits venial sin keeps sanctifying Grace, while Mortal Sin kills grace in the soul.

For someone in Original Sin, I don't think there is much of a distinction between mortal sin and venial sin, since if a heathen commits a mortal sin, he does not kill sanctifying grace, nor drive out the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity since he doesn't have them.

To be clear, someone who died with Original Sin, and venial sin(s), without what we consider mortal sin, he would indeed be punished for it eternally.  He would not be on the same level as Limbo, which could be called Paradise.  His condition might still be better than when he was running around savage.

I think:

The eternity of No Beatific Vision is due to the lack of Sanctifying Grace in one who has Original Sin.

If there is in addition an ACT of Mortal sin, the ADDITIONAL punishment for Mortal Sin, the Eternity of Sensible Pain, is due to the reasoned and deliberate Mortal Sin, not just to the lack of Sanctifying Grace. The Mortal sin has an unfathomable objective evil in itself, even if committed by one who already lacks Sanctifying Grace.

If there is only Venial Sin with the Original Sin, it seems most fitting that God would give only temporary punishment for the Venial Sin, along with the eternity of No Beatific Vision for the lack of Sanctifying grace.  But there is no such combination of punishments in Catholic teaching.

Anyway, I'll probably stop talking about this issue because I don't think is it going to get anywhere now. You can put me straight as you like; I probably won't respond. (I refer to the particular question, whether there can be Original sin with Venial sin alone, not to the general thread topic)

[Non Nobis]

Michael,

I am very interested in your response to this post.

I know you have mentioned (maybe lately) that theologians differ as to whether the Incarnation and the Trinity must both be explicitly believed by death for salvation, or can believed only implicitly.

Here is a quote by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton that seems to indicate that he thinks (at this point) that explicit belief in these is necessary:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/meaning.htm
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton

Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man "within" the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.

Also see my earlier post on this thread (I modified it here):

Michael and James (et al) :

I think that in the quotes below St. Thomas teaches BOTH the need for explicit faith AND the fact that heathens CAN (with God's help) live a good natural life, which DOES (always) result in God  giving the explicit knowledge they need by the end of life:

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)..

(St. Alphonsus taught similarly, as I showed in a previous post http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=12170.msg265918#msg265918)

Michael, I know some theologians teach that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is not always needed for Salvation, but here St. Thomas is talking about some explicit knowledge that is NOT available to heathens and that God WILL provide at the end if a heathen does good and avoids evil naturally (only possible with God's help).  (If only an explicit belief in the God of nature were needed, nothing would need to be revealed internally or taught by a preacher).

Here St. Thomas teaches the need for explicit faith of Christ and the Trinity for salvation (namely, "what had to be believed"):

However, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer.

Speculation Only:

I think that the explicit knowledge God provides at the end is of a different order than anything one would know through a preacher.  It comes in a flash of inspiration, not plodding through all the facts of faith one by one, as would happen with a preacher.  It is explicit (the same truths are directly and  individually known) but not laid out word by word like what we usually call explicit.

Also this Divine inspiration would be a "special part of dying" provided by God for every naturally good man who "has done what he can".  It would be a special part of Providence over our lives, not exactly a miracle in the normal course of events. Even in the case of a sudden death, God would pause the dying (in a mysterious way that takes no visible time) to give what is needed, but if the man rejected the faith, he would not die in the state of grace, having failed the final test.

End Speculation!

I see that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange thinks my opinion speculation is "singular":

Op. Cit., pg.225

Banez and Cano  hold that explicit faith in Christ to be always necessary for glorification in heaven, but not for justification on earth.[i.e. One can be "justified" in the state of grace, but this isn't sufficient for salvation]   In this they stand alone.  Many reject this singular opinion; for every just man, from the moment of his establishment in grace, is an heir to glory, with a title so valid that, were he to die in the state of grace, his salvation would be secure.  The condition would not prevent his having to pass through Purgatory-even though that would not happen "per se", nor all the time, nor often-but in Purgatory he would be equipped with explicit faith in Christ, ahead of his retarded admission into glory.

This, to be sure, makes me less confident in my opinion (or rather, speculation).

But to me it still seems the safest opinion is that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Trinity are needed.  I don't condemn you or anyone who thinks implicit faith is enough - the most important thing to me is that God WILL provide whatever HE knows is needed to one who has done what he can.

Importantly,  I do not think that explicit Faith is needed for Justification (here we agree, Michael).  But that is a further topic.

[Michael Wilson]

Non,
Here is another quote from Msgr. Fenton pg. 69: 

The Divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements.  It is quite manifest  that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained and implied in other doctrines. But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and withing which the rest of the revealed message is implied or implicit. Catholic theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly or explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as the head supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

I have no problem with those who hold that all 4 truths need to be held in order to be saved; it is with those who insist contrary to Catholic theology, that those who hold that only two of the truths are necessary for salvation are heretics.  This whole question has not been settled by the Church; not by the Quicumque creed or Trent (James) and not by the Council of Florence (Cantarella).