If your salvation must be procured by formal action by an outside party, then it is not something you actually possess right now.
It's not the case that, for anyone on earth, their "salvation is something they actually possess right now", so your objection is a red herring. The contrary position was condemned by Trent.
Address this:
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. -- Unitatis Redintegratio, section 3, paragraph 4
Ignorance excuses from culpability of sin. That's what Bl. Pius IX says in this regard: "God ... will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."
If you're "excused from culpability of sin," by definition, in justice, you are excused from the punishment of that sin. If hell is the punishment for the sins of schism and heresy, and you're excused from that punishment as a result of invincible ignorance, then you go to heaven.
[The following are prescribed errors:]
None of which I have embraced.
Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. ...[invincible ignorance quote here]... The Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is
You're ellipsizing exactly the part of the citation that supports my case. Why on earth do you suppose he discusses invincible ignorance in that context anyway?
Fr. Feeney and Co. got themselves into trouble over the denial of Baptism of Desire, the defined dogma whereby someone who believes in the Catholic Faith, but has the misfortune of being unable to be baptized prior to dying, can still be saved.
That is baptism of explicit desire. There is also baptism of implicit desire, as the catechism makes clear:
1260 ... Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicity if they had known its necessity.
How can it be any clearer than this? Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (a classic pre-Vatican II compendium of dogmatic theology), page 312, on the necessity of the church for salvation:
The necessity of belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but a necessity of means ... The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly (explicite) present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the word of God (votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.
Again, how can it be made any clearer?
And, one more time, is Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, the Pope of Rome at the present time?
Trent's position is condemned by God...So who ya gonna believe, man? or God???
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Oh yeah, we have eternal life, right now...The fellows at Trent tell you otherwise...They want you to think that 'they' have some sort of controlling authority over your eternal salvation...God says 'no they don't'...
Someone who is justified does possess salvation right now in the sense that if they were to die, they would merit eternal life. Again Trent:
we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace (Session 6, Chapter XIV)
The contrary position was condemned by Trent.
Perhaps you could explain yourself a little bit better than this sort of cryptic reference.
Address this: It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
I'll address this soley with a view to Protestants as members of communities without priests and thus without the sacramental system beyond Baptism and Marriage. I qualify this because what needs to be said concerning the Eastern Orthodox is completely different. Through the Sacrament of Baptism, Protestants can obtain to true justification if they meet the normal conditions of receiving it efficaciously. Thus little children baptised by Protestants who die in their youth are certainly saved, and owe their salvation to liturgical actions in the Protestant communities. Additionally, for adults, the graces imparted in Baptism, along with the inspiration imparted by the Holy Spirit through the reading of the Holy Bible can lead them to the truth of unity in the Catholic faith if they are open to the grace of God.
If you're "excused from culpability of sin," by definition, in justice, you are excused from the punishment of that sin. If hell is the punishment for the sins of schism and heresy, and you're excused from that punishment as a result of invincible ignorance, then you go to heaven.
Let me know when you find this mythical Protestant whose only mortal sin is his sin in ignorance of not being a Catholic!
Those who are outside the Cahtolic Church out of ignorance are not condemned on account of this, but are condemned because of their other crimes. The Roman Catechism states:
Among these figures the ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God, in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism, may be safe from danger of eternal death, while such as are outside of the Church, like those who were not in the ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes.
Why on earth do you suppose he discusses invincible ignorance in that context anyway?
Because he is addressing those who to salve their consciences regarding their lack of evangelizing fervor and "are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion." (Bl. Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadem, 9 December 1854).
The Pope was discussing their propositions concerning the lot of those living apart from Catholic unity, and granting that it is correct that the ignorant will not be condemned for not being Catholic if they are ignorant of that necessity, and that furthermore those persons who are "zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life" (Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 10 1863).
Left unstated by him is your assumption that you put into his teaching that they obtain eternal life by remaining mired in ignorance. This is why you complain that "You're ellipsizing exactly the part of the citation that supports my case."
No, what I am doing is trying to get you to look beyond your beloved ellipse and read the entire document in context. Bl. Pope Pius IX very clearly teaches how people such as these are to obtain salvation in this same document.
... those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love ... [the sons of the Catholic Church] should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them ... and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and "being fruitful in every good work" (Collosians 1:10), they may attain eternal salvation. (Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 1863)
Di you read that carefully? The way these righteous but ignorant souls can "attain eternal salvation" is to "lead them back to Catholic truth" and "call them back to [Holy Mother Church's] bosom."
As I said, this is the same thing said by Lumen Gentium and the Catechism.
Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark 16.16) takes zealous care to foster the missions. (Lumen Gentium 16)Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 851)
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (a classic pre-Vatican II compendium of dogmatic theology), page 312, on the necessity of the church for salvation
Dr. Ott (or perhaps his rather poor translators) says what he does by way of distinguishing members of the Church in act vs. members of the Church in desire. Lost in your reading of this is that the Church, following the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, consists of those who are baptized and profess the true faith. In the case of someone who has received baptism of desire, they would also be united to the Church in desire, but not in formal act. This union is brought about by the profession of the one true faith and the desire for the sacrament.
Protestants are, in general, formally baptized but do not hold the true faith. A person who is not one in the faith can hardly be united to the Church. And its certainly pointless to get into discussions of implict membership in the Church among those who were incorporated into the Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. No, the situation of the Protestant, for the most part, is determined by their faith, which, for the most part, and as they are only to happy to point out, is most definitely not the Catholic faith.
On the other hand, we confess "One faith, one Lord, one Baptism" in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Just as there is not one faith in two Holy Churches, so there is not two faiths in one Holy Church.
If a man is a Protestant, he by definition does not hold the Catholic faith. And if he does not hold the Catholic faith, he is not in the Church in any way.
Again, how can it be made any clearer?
Maybe by not using phrasology that excludes those attached to the Church by desire in such a way as to make the dogma mean its exact opposite. If a person is a member of the Church by desire, then they are not outside the Catholic Church.
The question to you then, is how do you make Protestants members of the Catholic Church when we do not share the same faith?