Visible versus "invisible" membership?

Lionel,

You've made a lot of the so-called "distinction" of those visible members of the Catholic Church versus the "invisible" camp, which, you have acknowledged may not even exist. "Seeing the dead" is a phrase that you have used. In analyzing your paradigm, let's begin with what Pope Boniface infallibly declared:

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Simple enough; it is clear what Pope Boniface understood by the phrase "every human creature." However, what did he understand by the word "submit"? It seems that we have multiple categories here:

1) An infant who is validly baptized, something which "anyone whatsoever" can do. So, to be cleansed of original sin is, for those who have not yet attained the Age of Reason, to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff. No doubt that he, per Saint Thomas who had just died, understood that martyrdom, or even being "sanctified in the womb," would also put an infant into this category, even in the absence of sacramental Baptism. (Note that some clerics attacked Saint Thomas, after his death, on some things which he taught, but not the aforementioned ideas.)

2) An unbaptized catechumen who, by his/her own testimony, had explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff.

3) Salutary repentance. Certainly, Pope Boniface believed that the One and Triune God could raise people from the dead to give them another chance at Heaven, and if God could do that, no doubt Pope Boniface believed in some sort of at least possible repentance at "death's door." He, after all, understood the final sacraments, and especially, those who, through no fault of their own, were not able to receive them.

4) Implicit submission vis-a-vis geographical "invincible ignorance". Here we are going into the "maybe" categories. Certainly, Pope Boniface understood that there were virtuous people whom the Gospel had never been preached to but would the Holy Spirit provide the explicit truths of Catholic revelation to such folks? It would seem so, at least to Pope Boniface, as he no doubt believed that no one was created by God solely for the final purpose of being damned to eternal Hell.

5) Implicit submission vis-a-vis psychological and/or cultural "invincible ignorance". Pope Boniface would likely reject this one, a favorite of the modernists. Basically, he would say that this category is a "catch-all", meaning that no one is basically ever capable of heresy and/or schism, rendering those categories meaningless and moot. No doubt that he would say that human beings, having free will and through the graces of the Holy Spirit, always had the capability to leave false religions to embrace the One True Faith, and if they failed to do that, then such was their own fault.

In closing, I think that Pope Boniface would have rejected your visible/invisible dichotomy saying, instead, that "every human creature (needs) to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Indeed, this is the very definition which we find in the present Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Note that while heresy only applies to those who have been baptized, no such "qualification" is made with respect to schism; it applies to everyone, just as was proclaimed by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam.

visible/invisible dichotomy

I make the invisible/ visible distinction only because people, good people, associate invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me there is no connection between the two, as before the 1940's.

So I am usually responding to reports on the Internet which assume that the baptism of desire is visible to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me it is a non issue.When Pope Pius XII mentioned these cases in Mystici Corporis etc he did not say that they were exceptions to the dogma or that they were visible. Simple reason tells us that he did not have to say anything. Since we know that these cases are invisible. One can be an uneducated villager in Asia, with no knowledge of the Faith, to know that those who are in Heaven are not visible to us.

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Yes this is true it applies to every one in 2013 and we cannot see (invisible) caes in Heaven who could be exceptions.

Lionel A wrote:to know that those who are in Heaven are not visible to us.

We may be splitting hairs here. While they may not be "visible" to us, we can know that those whom the Catholic Church has canonized are, in fact, in Paradise, all of whom lived and ended their lives in "submission to the Roman Pontiff."

Lionel A wrote:

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Yes this is true it applies to every one in 2013 and we cannot see (invisible) caes in Heaven who could be exceptions.

That's the point, Lionel; there are no exceptions, visible or otherwise. When Pope Boniface VIII, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wrote those words down, that was his understanding and that of the Catholic Church.

That's the point, Lionel; there are no exceptions, visible or otherwise. When Pope Boniface VIII, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put those words down, that was his understanding and that of the Catholic Church..

Agreed!

So when the Archbishop mentions invincible ignorance as an exception is he saying that those saved in invincible ignorance are visible or invisible for him?

Regardless, unless the Archbishop wants to become a public heretic, he must acknowledge that all of the visible and any of the "invisible" (assuming, of course, that such a category of persons even exists), must, if they are saved, end their lives "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." If he claims that someone, anyone, is saved outside the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," then he is a heretic, regardless if that person is "invisible" or not.

There are two ways of looking at those saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
A
1.They are known only to God and are possibilities AND ALSO
2. They are exceptions to the dogma which says all need to be visible members of the Church for salvation.

B.
1.They are known only to GOd and are possibilities AND
2. They are not exceptions to anything.


Another way of saying the same thing is:-

A
1.They are (visible)known only to God and are possibilities AND ALSO
2. They are (visible )exceptions to the dogma which says all need to be visible members of the Church for salvation.


B.
1.They are (visible) known only to God and are possibilities AND
2. They are not (physically visible) exceptions to anything.(since they are invisible).

How would you respond to the above. Which would you choose.?

None of the above. Those who end their lives in a state of sanctifying grace go to Heaven either right away or via Purgatory; those who don't, go to eternal Hell. Some of the latter folks will have been visible members of the Catholic Church.

See the "Second Vatican Council II does not agree..." thread. Let's pick things up there.