You misunderstand my explanation with respect to Cantate Domino and other official declarations that treat of the topic of salvation outside the Church in a limited and specific manner. I do not argue that the declarations do not apply to the invincibly ignorant because the documents do not mention this group by name. I argue, instead, that the declarations do not concern the invincibly ignorant because the background, context, and purpose of the declarations, as well as the content, indicate that they do not intend to address this group. The declarations do not mention this group “nominatim” because they are not concerned with it, and not vice versa.

One must consider the background, purpose, and context of any document, as I have tried to explain, to arrive at the correct meaning of the document. I am not certain as to which of Innocent III’s extant letters or bulls you are referring. I do not know, therefore, what the specific background, context, and purpose of the phrase you quote from him are. Consequently, I cannot explain the meaning of the quotation, especially since omnino can modify either the noun or the verb in the phrase. I would note, however, that Innocent III wrote much to promote the authority of the Papacy. My preliminary conclusion would be, therefore, that his comment is related to Papal primacy, rather than to teaching generally about salvation outside of the Church.

By the way, as Father Brian Harrison has pointed out, “pagans,” were not only non-monotheists. This category also included (in the time in question) Moslems, who are monotheistic.

You’re raising the bar a bit on the specificity requisite in Church teaching when you say that Jews “in general” and Pagans “in general” are included (again, gratuitously so), but invincibly ignorant ones are ruled out because not mentioned nominatim. I could apply your high standard here to other areas of Church teaching and say that the prohibition on fornication has never specifically been applied to red heads from Brooklyn who do it on Wednesdays; nor has it been clarified that, while all men, “in general” have inherited Adam’s sin, the doctrine of original sin does not necessarily extend to Algonquin midgets, therefore there could be exceptions. Yours is an overly fastidious parsing of magisterial decrees.

Lastly, when Innocent III very “innocently” stated that there is one universal Church of the faithful extra quam nullus omnino salvatur, he said it all — or said, rather, “AT all.” OMNINO does not translate “in general.”

Cantate Domino affirms, among other truths, both the existence of the “one true God omnipotent” and the Triune Godhead. Hence its decalaration concerns not only schismatics and heretics but also those who deny monotheism (generally termed Pagans) and the Trinity (particularly the Jews). That is to say, the declaration concerns Pagans, in general, and Jews, in general. The Church has always taught that these two groups, taken generally, must enter into the Church to be saved. It has never taught, however, including in Cantate Domino, that Pagans or Jews who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and, therefore, of the Church and seek the truth and voluntarily do the will of God as they understand it must be within the Church to be saved.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit…”

In 1441, theologians and the Magisterium could distinguish between those who were members at one time and left, and those who were never members of the Church, and even those who never heard of it. To say, for instance, that Cantate Domino presumes that the category “Jews” includes only those who explicitly rejected the Christian faith after being convinced of its truth, or that the category “Pagans” includes only those who had heard Christian preaching and rejected it, would be gratuitous.

The Church’s teaching on this subject is easily misunderstood, in part, because the Church’s official declarations presenting this teaching have, until recently, been limited and specific, i.e., not addressing the topic fully. The Magisterium has usually made official declarations about the necessity of the Church for salvation in response to those who have belonged to and then rejected the Church or her doctrines (e.g., schismatics and heretics). The declarations contained in Unam sanctam and Cantate Domino are of this type. An objective examination of both the historical background of the documents and the context of the pertinent passages within the documents themselves reveals this fact. The Magisterium has always confirmed that it is necessary for members of these groups to be re-united to the Church to be saved. The Church has discussed this topic officially in a general way (i.e., with respect to every kind of person) only relatively recently, e.g., in Mystici corporis, at the Second Vatican Council, in Dominus Iesus, and in the Catechism. It has affirmed in these general discussions that it is possible for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and, therefore, of the Church (notwithstanding God’s desire that all men be saved) and yet seek the truth and voluntarily do the will of God as they understand it to be saved without being within the Church (see Lumen gentium, 16; Dominus Iesus, 20f.; and CCC, Para. 1260). Those who have failed to recognize the difference in subject or scope between these earlier and later declarations have erroneously perceived a conflict in the Church’s teaching on this topic. They have been unable to reconcile the teaching of the declarations; and they, therefore, instead defend their position by claiming that the declarations that favor their view have a status superior to those declarations that do not do so. They consequently limit the trustworthy teaching of the Church to extraordinary declarations of the Magisterium.

The Church has never implied, let alone taught, in any of its declarations that one should not strive to enter fully into the Church, since it might be possible for one to be saved without doing so in certain extra-ordinary circumstances (see, for example, Mystici corporis, 103). Some have, regrettably, concluded otherwise; for they have been so hyper-sensitive to the relativism and latitudinarianism of our age (a significant threat, no doubt) that they have mistakenly found these modern ideologies present in the Church’s more recent and developed teaching on the matter. They have confused the Church’s sober recognition of the limits both of its knowledge of the final disposition of the souls of men and of its direct role in the universal salvation of all humanity with a de-emphasis or rejection of the actual knowledge and role it has as the universal sacrament of salvation (see CCC, Paras. 774-780). Their extreme desire to defend the Church’s teaching in one area has caused them to misunderstand and reject its teachings in another, closely related area.

Aquinas taught that it was necessary to believe explicitly in the Gospel to be saved since the Resurrection because he also believed, as you have pointed out, that God would reveal the Gospel in some way to those who sought His truth. That is to say, Aquinas concluded that all were bound to an explicit knowledge and acceptance of the Christ, since all obtained knowledge of it in some way, unless that knowledge were avoided through some fault of their own.

If all have true knowledge of the Gospel, then, of course, all are responsible for that knowledge. The canons of the Councils of Florence and Trent that you cite confirm this fact. They address those who have had knowledge of the Gospel and have rejected it (i.e., schismatics and heretics) Mirus’ hypothetical Muslim is not, however, among this group. Can he be saved without explicit knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel out of invincible ignorance? The Second Vatican Council and Catechism, elaborating upon or developing the Church’s teaching at Florence and Trent, indicate that, under certain conditions he can (see Lumen Gentium, 16 and CCC, Para. 1260).

Now you can argue, as you seem to, that Mirus’ hypothetical Muslim is an impossibility; but you are not then addressing Mirus’ actual argument. You are simply rejecting the hypothesis that Mirus assumes. You must accept his hypothetical Muslim and then argue from that hypothesis actually to address Mirus. If you do so, then the authorities you cite are not applicable, since they do not assume Mirus’ hypothesis either.

The real issue under discussion is whether Mirus’ hypothetical Muslim could be saved, and not, as you seem to think, whether there could actually be such as Muslim as Mirus hypothesizes. Mirus’ argument pertains to the former, and not the latter, issue.