Could someone show me?

[CB_Catholic]

The Church allows for the possibility that one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church might be able to attain salvation. Unfortunately, that does not apply to you.

So, unfortunately, the answer to your question no. Unless you enter the Roman Catholic Church you will, without a doubt, perish for all eternity.

If I can do anything at all to help you, let me know and I will.

I’ll end with a few question.

1.) Jesus said that to enter into life we must keep the commandmants (Mt 19). Do you believe that?

2.) In 1 John we are told that those who say they knoweth Him, but keepeth not his commandments are liars" (1 John 2:4-5). Do you believe that?

3.) In 2 Thess 2:14,15, we are told to hold fast to both written and oral traditions. What oral traditions do you hold fast to?

4.) In John 20:23, Jesus told the apostles “whosoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them”. Do you believe that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins? If so, why? If Jesus intended for us to confess directly to him, why would he give the apostles the ability to forgive sins?

5.). In James 2:24, it says we are “justified by works, and not by faith alone”. Do you believe that?

6.) In Mt 18:17, Jesus says that we must “hear the Church or be as the heathen an publican”. What Church do you think he was talking about?

7.) In Acts 20:28, it says that “the Holy Ghost has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God”. Do Bishops rule your Church?

Test your beliefs against these verses and see how you come out. Then ask yourself, given what Jesus said in John 20:23, how you have your sins forgiven.

Before you consign this person to damnation, it might be helpful to read Jimmy Akin’s article on Invincible and Vincible Ignorance. I still can’t figure out how to post a link, my bad, but it is on CAF in This Rock magazine. Also, read the Catechism about it. I do not know by what criteria you have determined that this person is not invincibly ignorant, and in any case, that is not your call to make. Only God knows that.

Telling a person they will perish for all eternity if they don’t join the RCC is bad, bad, evangelization, and it is also not our determination to make as to who will perish for all eternity. Do you like the same tactic used on you? How do you feel when a non-Catholic states you are going to hell if you don’t leave the Catholic Church and join them? Does it make you want to run and join their church? Be careful how you approach people, and on any judgments you make about them or their salvation–some things are up to God alone to decide.

 

[Dauphin]

Before you consign this person to damnation, it might be helpful to read Jimmy Akin’s article on Invincible and Vincible Ignorance. I still can’t figure out how to post a link, my bad, but it is on CAF in This Rock magazine. Also, read the Catechism about it. I do not know by what criteria you have determined that this person is not invincibly ignorant, and in any case, that is not your call to make. Only God knows that.

Telling a person they will perish for all eternity if they don’t join the RCC is bad, bad, evangelization, and it is also not our determination to make as to who will perish for all eternity. Do you like the same tactic used on you? How do you feel when a non-Catholic states you are going to hell if you don’t leave the Catholic Church and join them? Does it make you want to run and join their church? Be careful how you approach people, and on any judgments you make about them or their salvation–some things are up to God alone to decide.

“Invincible ignorance” means ignorance that cannot be overcome. Someone reading this thread is most certainly not “invincibly ignorant”. They are not even ignorant, never mind invincibly so! Not even Jimmy Akin and CAF would be able to twist and distort the teaching enough to make it say that!

 

[Dauphin]

Now, I hope I answered your questions thoroughly and that the link to “Is Fennyism Catholic?” is helpful.

I conclude with the Truth.

If you are not fully in Communion with the Catholic Church, you are at a material disadvantage for you salvation. You must consider the teachings of the Church very carefully and not treat theology as a game or a sport as those who frequent internet chat rooms often do.

Go to the Catholic tradition, go to the Catechism, and go to RESPECTED theologians and apologists to get the Truth. You won’t find in a Catholic answers chat-room. Especially in the “traditional Catholicism” forum.

Being out of communion with the Catholic Church isn’t merely a “disadvantage”. Salvation isn’t a matter of likelihood.

Even if you don’t think Pope Pius IX was a “respected theologian”, you’re still bound to his teaching:

“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control” - Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem

Your “nuance” is a human attempt to corrupt a Divine teaching. So many people hide what the Church actually teaches in an attempt not to offend.

 

[Dauphin]

When you came to the Traditionalist part of this forum you invited responses from those who in many ways, are also protestant.

These are the SSPX, and there are others. They refuse to recognize the authority of the Second Vatican Council and the Popes.

Now, an important point. They will tell you they represent what the Church taught before the Council. HOWEVER, what they IN FACT represent is a new and pseudo-traditionalism that evolves almost entirely AFTER the Council out of polemic with the Bishops of the Church of Rome. Wether or not a formal schism with them can be avoided remains to be seen. However, you need to take what they say with a large dose of salt. They represent a tiny portion of the Catholic Church, and do not speak for Her. The Popes do. The Mageserium does. If you want an authentic representation of Church teaching, go to well balanced sources, like the Catechism.

Consider: these people posting here told you that no one who is not a card carrying Catholic gets into heaven. But EVEN THE SSPX they claim to follow says otherwise through their official publishing house! (see the link I provided in my previous post. Angelus Press is the OFFICIAL publishing house of the SSPX) These folks PRIDE themselves on taking positions to the right of the Popes. That is silly.

The Pope has said to return to communion with Him they must accept the Second Vatican Council and the authority of his magesterium.

Please know that the Church has ALWAYS taught, since it was founded, in the possibility of baptism by blood and baptism by desire. These are Catholic teachings. Fennyism is an exaggeration of Catholic tradition that goes too far to an extreme that even the SSPX does not hold. Fennyism is a modernist view of no salvation outside the Church.

In short: two extremes: 1) Only card-carrying Catholics can hope to be saved is one extreme 2) All people are saved, or all who profess Christ are saved is another extreme.

I hope this answers your question.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Nobody here is talking about Feenyism, as far as I can tell.

Feenyism is the idea that the grace of baptism can only be conferred through the rite of the sacrament, using water and the correct fomula. This denies baptism of desire, which is the authentic teaching of the Church (some argue it’s even dogmatic).

There’s a thread I started called “baptism of desire”, in which I debate with a Feenyite. This has very little to do with the subject at hand, however, since no one here has proposed that there’s no such thing as baptism of desire.

 

[cathguy]

Being out of communion with the Catholic Church isn’t merely a “disadvantage”. Salvation isn’t a matter of likelihood.

Even if you don’t think Pope Pius IX was a “respected theologian”, you’re still bound to his teaching:

“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control” - Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem

Your “nuance” is a human attempt to corrupt a Divine teaching. So many people hide what the Church actually teaches in an attempt not to offend.

Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: “How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?”

Answer: “Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”

Or is the Baltimore Catechism liberal/moderinst too?

And how do YOU know what qualifies as ignorance beyond their control? Can one be so angered by what evil they THINK the Church teaches, that they will not even consider the Truth?

As Fulton Sheen said: “There aren’t 10 people in the United States who hate what the Church teaches. There are millions who hate what they THINK the Church teaches.”

Could you perhaps be part of the problem here?

 

[Dauphin]

Oh boy…

I know you do not trust me, do you trust the SSPX?

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3093/is-feeneyism-catholic

The reason the protestant poster is so glad you gave him your flawed and poorly nuanced quotations taken out of the context of the larger Catholic tradition and Church teaching is because he now thinks he has “proof” that the Catholic apologists who oppose him are wrong.

Good job.

You even contradict the sheppards you profess to follow (the SSPX)

Pride. Arrogance. Folly.

Again, what are you going on about?

1. I’ve simply presented the infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Church. That this has provoked such a reaction from you is very revealing. We must accept the Church’s teaching with docility.
2. I’ve never even met a member of the SSPX, never mind attended one of their chapels. Maybe you’ve confused me with someone else?

3.What on earth does this have to do with Feenyism? I’ve presented quotes from Councils and Popes! You’re implying that they contain heresy.

 

[cathguy]

Again, what are you going on about?

1. I’ve simply presented the infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Church. That this has provoked such a reaction from you is very revealing. We must accept the Church’s teaching with docility.
2. I’ve never even met a member of the SSPX, never mind attended one of their chapels. Maybe you’ve confused me with someone else?

3.What on earth does this have to do with Feenyism? I’ve presented quotes from Councils and Popes! You’re implying that they contain heresy.

Oops. I confused you with someone else. I apologize. Sorry!

Fennyism is attached to what we are discussing here. One CAN IN FACT BE SAVED who is not a Catholic through no fault of their own. What constitutes fault? That is a very good question, and only God can judge that.

When Benedict XVI said that protestants are at a “material disadvantage” for their salvation, was he watering down the truth so not to offend?

 

[Dauphin]

Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: “How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?”

Answer: “Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”

Or is the Baltimore Catechism liberal/moderinst too?

No! Baptism of Desire is the teaching of the magisterium. I can provide you with quotes from the most eminent theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus Liguori, all Doctors of the Church who taught baptism of desire!

Where on earth did you get the idea that I deny baptism of desire? Not to long ago, I started a thread in which I specifically refuted Feenyism!

 

[Dauphin]

Absolutely not.

When Benedict XVI said that protestants are at a material disadvantage for their salvation, was he watering down the truth so not to offend?

He may have been speaking about protestants in innocent ignorance of the Catholic Church, not those who have free access to Catholic answers. Could you provide the quote?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: “How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?”

Answer: “Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”

Or is the Baltimore Catechism liberal/moderinst too?

No one in this thread has denied baptism of desire or baptism of blood. You are creating your own straw man and refuting it. Is that the only way you can win an argument with Traditionalists? You did the exact same thing with me about the Jews - “who killed the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess 2:14-15) - in the Bishop Williamson thread.

 

[cathguy]

No one in this thread has denied baptism of desire or baptism of blood. You are creating your own straw man and refuting it. Is that the only way you can win an argument with Traditionalists? You did the exact same thing with me in the thread about the Jews.

Win an argument with Traditionalists? I am a Traditionalist. How about you address arguments in the threads where they belong?

How do you know that anyone with access to Catholic Answers isn’t invinceably ignorant? Who made you judge? I thought only God could do that. You have no evidence whatsoever about 99% of the posters here. How could you draw such a conclusion?

 

[Dauphin]

And how do YOU know what qualifies as ignorance beyond their control? Can one be so angered by what evil they THINK the Church teaches, that they will not even consider the Truth?

As Fulton Sheen said: “There aren’t 10 people in the United States who hate what the Church teaches. There are millions who hate what they THINK the Church teaches.”

Could you perhaps be part of the problem here?

Ignorance beyond one’s control is ignorance which cannot be overcome. Having a “hardened heart” isn’t an excuse for rejecting the Church any more than it’s an excuse for rejecting Christ himself. No one can be saved unless, moved by grace, they enter the Church of Christ. Only if one is innocently prevented from doing this can they be excused.

“The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation” - Pope Pius IX, Mortalium Animos

 

[Yours_Truly]

Win an argument with Traditionalists? I am a Traditionalist. How about you address arguments in the threads where they belong?

I did

How do you know that anyone with access to Catholic Answers isn’t invinceably ignorant?

Because I know what invincible ignorance means.

St. Thomas: Whether Ignorance is a sin:

"I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. **On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; **but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be overcome by study for whatever reason. If someone is on a Catholic message board and arguing against Catholic teachings, not only are they not invincibly ignorant, but they aren’t ignorant at all. They are rejecting the truth.

That is how I know that the person in question is not invincibly ignorant.

 

[Dauphin]

Win an argument with Traditionalists? I am a Traditionalist. How about you address arguments in the threads where they belong?

How do you know that anyone with access to Catholic Answers isn’t invinceably ignorant? Who made you judge? I thought only God could do that. You have no evidence whatsoever about 99% of the posters here. How could you draw such a conclusion?

By definition, someone with access to Catholic Answers is not invincibly ignorant, since their ignorance can be overcome.

The question becomes whether they are culpable for their failure to discover the Catholic faith. If a person could not have discovered the Catholic faith by some reasonable effort, then they may be innocently ignorant.

 

[asnlady]

My understanding is say you are baptised and NEVER sin, then you get into Heaven. But if you commit a sin and are not RC, you’d go to Hell since you haven’t been confessed. Missing Mass is a mortal sin, so the chances of anything short of a death bed baptism will send one to Hell.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I did

Because I know what invincible ignorance means.

Invincible ignorance is ignorance that cannot be overcome by study for whatever reason. If someone is on a Catholic message board and arguing against Catholic teachings, not only are they not invincibly ignorant, but they aren’t ignorant at all. They are rejecting the truth.

That is how I know that the person in question is not invincibly ignorant.

ANYONE CAN ANSWER THIS!!!

Hi,
Is invincable ignorance the only way a non-catholic could make it into heaven? Which leads me to another question
What would be the way to heaven by someone who is invicably ignorant of the RCC?
What about someone like me who has studied catholocism for almost 4 years and doesnt believe most of what the CC teaches but does believe in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross to forgive me of my sins(with all my heart, body, mind and soul) ,follows biblical teaching,loves my neighbors as myself etc. you get my point

If I follow biblical teaching but never enter into membership with the RCC does that mean Im damned to hell? If so, is the teaching of the RCC then become more important then what Christ taught about salvation
I dont recall Christ EVER saying a person had to belong to the RCC in order to be saved.
What about John 3:16–that is a pretty simple message

 

[Yours_Truly]

ANYONE CAN ANSWER THIS!!!

Hi,
Is invincable ignorance the only way a non-catholic could make it into heaven? Which leads me to another question
What would be the way to heaven by someone who is invicably ignorant of the RCC?

Here’s a way: If a baby is baptized in a heretical sect, as long as the baptism was done using the correct words they would receive sanctifying grace (the indwelling Holy Ghost). If they died before they reached the age of reason, they would certainly go right to heaven.

What about someone like me who has studied catholocism for almost 4 years and doesnt believe most of what the CC teaches but does believe in Jesus Christ

First of all, thank you for confirming what I wrote in another thread - that you are not invincibly ignorant. The answer to your question is that you don’t believe in Jesus. You believe in “another Christ” even though you don’t realize it.

You don’t realize it, but you deny most of the Bible in favor of the few verses that make you feel good and confirm you in your errors. You have unfortunately been listening to “false teachers” who have been quoting the same versed over and over and drawing the same false conclusions. You now know John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 by heart. It is verses such as these that you have heard over and over your entire life. You are now at the point when you pass right over other verses when they contradict what you have concluded based on these verses. We must accept all of the Bible, and not form a theology around one or two verses that make us feel good.

Like I wrote earlier, I will do all that I can to help you. It is not difficult for a sincere person to realize that Protestantism is a heresy and very contrary to the Bible. Keep in mind that all heretics have a few verses. Even the Arians, who denied that Jesus was God, had a few verses to support their teaching.

If I follow biblical teaching but never enter into membership with the RCC does that mean Im damned to hell?

If you follow the biblical teaching *you will *enter the Church. The fact that you reject the Church means that you are not follow the biblical teaching.

If so, is the teaching of the RCC then become more important then what Christ taught about salvation

The teaching of the RCC is what Christ taught about salvation. That is how we can be absolutely sure that you do not believe the bible. It you believed the Bible, you would believe what the RCC teaches.

I dont recall Christ EVER saying a person had to belong to the RCC in order to be saved.

But He did say we must “hear the Church or be as a heathen” (Mt 18:17). The only Church that can trace it roots to Jesus is the Catholic Church. Whatever church you attend was started within the past 500 years - and probably within the past 50 years - and teaches things that no one ever heard of during the first 1500 years of Christianity.

What about John 3:16–that is a pretty simple message

What about the verses I quoted earlier? If you isolate one verse from the rest of the bible, and then reject the other verses based on your interpretation of the one verse, you will not arrive at the truth.

Jesus also said we must “keep the commandments” to enter into eternal life (Mt 19). **In fact, according the the Bible, the only way we can be sure that we know Jesus is if we keep the commandments. ** That is not what you believe, yet it is what the Bible teaches (see 1 John 2:4-5).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Here’s a way: If a baby is baptized in a heretical sect, as long as the baptism was done using the correct words they would receive sanctifying grace (the indwelling Holy Ghost). If they died before they reached the age of reason, they would certainly go right to heaven.

First of all, thank you for confirming what I wrote in another thread - that you are not invincibly ignorant. The answer to your question is that you don’t believe in Jesus. You believe in “another Christ” even though you don’t realize it.

You don’t realize it, but you deny most of the Bible in favor of the few verses that make you feel good and confirm you in your errors. You have unfortunately been listening to “false teachers” who have been quoting the same versed over and over and drawing the same false conclusions. You now know John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 by heart. It is verses such as these that you have heard over and over your entire life. You are now at the point when you pass right over other verses when they contradict what you have concluded based on these verses. We must accept all of the Bible, and not form a theology around one or two verses that make us feel good.

Like I wrote earlier, I will do all that I can to help you. It is not difficult for a sincere person to realize that Protestantism is a heresy and very contrary to the Bible. Keep in mind that all heretics have a few verses. Even the Arians, who denied that Jesus was God, had a few verses to support their teaching.

If you follow the biblical teaching *you will *enter the Church. The fact that you reject the Church means that you are not follow the biblical teaching.

The teaching of the RCC is what Christ taught about salvation. That is how we can be absolutely sure that you do not believe the bible. It you believed the Bible, you would believe what the RCC teaches.

But He did say we must “hear the Church or be as a heathen” (Mt 18:17). The only Church that can trace it roots to Jesus is the Catholic Church. Whatever church you attend was started within the past 500 years - and probably within the past 50 years - and teaches things that no one ever heard of during the first 1500 years of Christianity.

What about the verses I quoted earlier? If you isolate one verse from the rest of the bible, and then reject the other verses based on your interpretation of the one verse, you will not arrive at the truth.

Jesus also said we must “keep the commandments” to enter into eternal life (Mt 19). **In fact, according the the Bible, the only way we can be sure that we know Jesus is if we keep the commandments. ** That is not what you believe, yet it is what the Bible teaches (see 1 John 2:4-5).

Thank you for being honest with me and yes I agree Im not invincably ignorant about catholocism. I should also tell you Im not ignorant about the bible either. I have been studying the whole bible for awhile now.
Im currently studying Revelation.

 

[dang71]

in order for an act to be considered a mortal sin, it must meet three conditions:

1. must be a grave matter
2. the person committing the act must have full knowledge it is a grave matter
3. it must be committed with full consent of the will

if the rejection, or non-acceptance, of Catholicism by a person does not meet the previous three conditions, then it is NOT a sin, and does not separate that person from God.

God is just AND merciful. since Jesus is our final arbiter, let’s let Him decide who is allowed entrance into heaven.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Thank you for being honest with me and yes I agree Im not invincably ignorant about catholocism. I should also tell you Im not ignorant about the bible either. I have been studying the whole bible for awhile now.
Im currently studying Revelation.

Revelation is an interesting book. Not the easiest to understand, but interesting. I hope you and I have the chance to talk about the Bible and doctrinal issues.