B
beng
Guest
Which part of my statement is the one that is not endorsed by Popes and magisterium?
- Status
B
beng
Guest
JGC said:
Already posted.
P
pnewton
Guest
JGC said:
Thank you for the link. I just finished reading it. I would recommend it to anyone wading through the differing opinions of this topic.
B
beng
Guest
I’d rather anyone wading through differing opinions of this topic read Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII. Very good on EENS. Also Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I spent a good part of the day online researching this, as I am the only Roman Catholic in my family and am the first Catholic in many generations. My feet were set on the path that led to Holy Mother Church by the sanctity and loving fidelity to Christ of my Prostestant grandparents. I don’t imagine I will convince any Feeneyite or SSPX devotees who either contribute to this thread or read it, but I hope it assuages the fears of any who, like me, have faithful and committed Christian family members who will never swim the Tiber. Read 817-822 of the Catechism as promulgated by the Holy Father. If you don’t have a Catechism, you can pull it up online. It puts to rest the arguments of the rigid traditionalists and Feeneyites, and illuminates Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in charity, which Saint Paul said was the greatest of gifts. This is my last posting to this thread.
B
beng
Guest
I don’t see any SSPX or Feeyenite devotes. Shall I label you as Liberal, indifferentist Neo-Catholic?
Do you think NONE of us have a family member or people that we love who is not Catholic?
Let me tell you that I have an aunt. This aunt is my mom younger sister. from all my mom kids, she loved me the most. She took me to Mass where she’s still discerning Catholicism, NONE of my mom’s family (or my dad’s) were Catholics. I heard from my mom that when I was small I acted and dropped the consecrated host (or was it blood I can’t remember). She got scolded by the priest and I heard that she never attend Mass after that.
Sometime later we had a car accident (I was also on the car). SHE DIED! She was not baptized.
So PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME I DO NOT FEAR OR CONCERN ABOUT FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IN THEIR LIFE!!!
I KNOW the dogma. I hope for the best, that she received in votum baptism and enter Church at the nano second of her life.I prayed for her and do indulgence for her. But I shall not cheapen the meaning of the dogma just to rest assured my conscience.
I have provided NONE of the rigid traditionalist argument (whatever that is) nor Feeyenite argument.
Do you even know what Feeyenite position on EENS is exactly?
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
‘Another thread regarding saints outside the Church spurned me to start this thread.’
spurn - To reject disdainfully or contemptuously; scorn.
just fyi.
spurn - To reject disdainfully or contemptuously; scorn.
just fyi.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Try being just Christian and not labeling at all.
I’m out of here too. Take your 700 year old psuedo-dogma and enjoy yourself with it.
One parting message:
John
B
beng
Guest
John Higgins:
Pope John XXIII
“How beautiful is the Church of Christ, the ‘fold of the sheep!’ Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved.”
“Outside the true Catholic Faith no one can be saved, so help me God!”
**Pope Paul VI **
“Is the hierarchy perhaps free to teach what they find most to their liking on matters of religion, or what they expect will be most pleasing to the proponents of certain current views opposed to all doctrine? Certainly not! The prime duty of the episcopate is to transmit strictly and faithfully the original message of Christ, the sum total of the truths which He revealed and confided to the Apostles as necessary for salvation.”
“The means of salvation and sanctification are known by all men, and are necessary to everyone who wishes to be saved.”
“Not without sorrow can we hear people continually claiming to love Christ but without the Church; to listen to Christ but not to the Church; to belong to Christ but outside of the Church. the absurdity of this dichotomy is clearly evident in this phrase of the Gospel: ‘Anyone who rejects you, rejects me’.”
**Pope John Paul I **
“Jesus and the Church are the same thing; indissoluble, inseparable. Christ and the Church are only one thing. It is not possible to say: I believe in Jesus, I accept Jesus, but I do not accept the Church.”
“The ship of the Church is guided by Christ and by His Vicar… It alone carries the disciples and receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea, but outside one would perish immediately. Salvation is only in the Church; outside it one perishes.”
**Pope John Paul II **
“As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside whom there is no salvation.”
“**The mystery of salvation **is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church, and from this genuine and single source, like ‘humble, useful, precious and chaste’ water it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the Faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious of and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition: there is no salvation outside the Church. From Her alone there flows surely and fully the life giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.”
“We are the guardians of something given, and given to the Church universal; something which is not the result of reflection, however competent, on cultural and social questions of the day, and is not merely the best path among many, but the one and only path to salvation.”
I did not.
Are these look like a 700 years old pseudo-dogma?
Pope John XXIII
“How beautiful is the Church of Christ, the ‘fold of the sheep!’ Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved.”
“Outside the true Catholic Faith no one can be saved, so help me God!”
**Pope Paul VI **
“Is the hierarchy perhaps free to teach what they find most to their liking on matters of religion, or what they expect will be most pleasing to the proponents of certain current views opposed to all doctrine? Certainly not! The prime duty of the episcopate is to transmit strictly and faithfully the original message of Christ, the sum total of the truths which He revealed and confided to the Apostles as necessary for salvation.”
“The means of salvation and sanctification are known by all men, and are necessary to everyone who wishes to be saved.”
“Not without sorrow can we hear people continually claiming to love Christ but without the Church; to listen to Christ but not to the Church; to belong to Christ but outside of the Church. the absurdity of this dichotomy is clearly evident in this phrase of the Gospel: ‘Anyone who rejects you, rejects me’.”
**Pope John Paul I **
“Jesus and the Church are the same thing; indissoluble, inseparable. Christ and the Church are only one thing. It is not possible to say: I believe in Jesus, I accept Jesus, but I do not accept the Church.”
“The ship of the Church is guided by Christ and by His Vicar… It alone carries the disciples and receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea, but outside one would perish immediately. Salvation is only in the Church; outside it one perishes.”
**Pope John Paul II **
“As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside whom there is no salvation.”
“**The mystery of salvation **is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church, and from this genuine and single source, like ‘humble, useful, precious and chaste’ water it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the Faithful, like Brother Francis we have to be conscious of and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition: there is no salvation outside the Church. From Her alone there flows surely and fully the life giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.”
“We are the guardians of something given, and given to the Church universal; something which is not the result of reflection, however competent, on cultural and social questions of the day, and is not merely the best path among many, but the one and only path to salvation.”
B
beng
Guest
John Higgins:
Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at the Council of Florence (seventeenth ecumenical council):
“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that** the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation**, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, **even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." **(Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)
Or maybe we should also scrap Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Theotokos etc, since they are, after all, 1700+ years pseudo-dogma?
Btw, this is also not 700 years old
Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at the Council of Florence (seventeenth ecumenical council):
“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that** the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation**, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, **even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." **(Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)
Or maybe we should also scrap Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Theotokos etc, since they are, after all, 1700+ years pseudo-dogma?
P
pnewton
Guest
Larger letters do not make better points.
No thanks John Higgins, but I would just as soon avoid Fr. Feeny and his ilk, but thank you for the heads up. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks likes a duck, it is a ________.
No thanks John Higgins, but I would just as soon avoid Fr. Feeny and his ilk, but thank you for the heads up. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks likes a duck, it is a ________.
B
beng
Guest
John Higgins:
Do tell me if the quotes are fake. Could you?
And Fr Feeney was a very prominent priest, scholars and intelectual. He founded many organization.
Oh, can you still tell me what error did Fr Feeney hold that was reprimanded?
Yes. I did get it from there.
Do tell me if the quotes are fake. Could you?
And Fr Feeney was a very prominent priest, scholars and intelectual. He founded many organization.
Oh, can you still tell me what error did Fr Feeney hold that was reprimanded?
T
tru_dvotion
Guest
Let’s take a look at this. There is no need to spurn anyone or do any name calling. We are all Catholics, we do not all agree on this point, but I see no reason to be discourteous to one another.
I checked out the thread Michael started on the Ask an Apologist Forum. I am posting the answer to his question in full:
CA Apologist Michelle Arnold in response to Do bushmen go to heaven? (bold added)
“All that this says is that those who were blamelessly ignorant either of Christ or of the necessity to join the Church that he founded will not be excluded from heaven simply because of their innocent lack of knowledge. They will only be held accountable for what they do know and for how they lived their lives in light of what they did know.
That means that non-Catholics and non-Christians may go to heaven. On a level playing field, Catholics have a better chance at salvation because they have the fullness of divine revelation and access to the supernatural grace offered normatively through the sacraments, but no one will be barred from the heavenly gates through no fault of his own.
all who are saved – including non-Catholics and non-Christians – will be saved through Jesus Christ and through his mystical body, the Church. But some may not realize how they were saved until the next life.”
I must say, I did not find anything contradictory in the apologist’s response. Although, I do believe the question failed to address the core of the topic, because we were not discussing bushmen. No one denies, that those who are truly ignorant of the Gospel, and I can think of others, such as an Arab woman who never has access to anything outside of her own culture or a Chinese peasant who lives a grueling life in Northern China and never heard of Christ. But these were not the ones we were discussing, we were discussing the Protestant brethren and their level of responsibility, their level of understanding Scriptures and sin and their access to the truth.
I checked out the thread Michael started on the Ask an Apologist Forum. I am posting the answer to his question in full:
CA Apologist Michelle Arnold in response to Do bushmen go to heaven? (bold added)
“All that this says is that those who were blamelessly ignorant either of Christ or of the necessity to join the Church that he founded will not be excluded from heaven simply because of their innocent lack of knowledge. They will only be held accountable for what they do know and for how they lived their lives in light of what they did know.
That means that non-Catholics and non-Christians may go to heaven. On a level playing field, Catholics have a better chance at salvation because they have the fullness of divine revelation and access to the supernatural grace offered normatively through the sacraments, but no one will be barred from the heavenly gates through no fault of his own.
all who are saved – including non-Catholics and non-Christians – will be saved through Jesus Christ and through his mystical body, the Church. But some may not realize how they were saved until the next life.”
I must say, I did not find anything contradictory in the apologist’s response. Although, I do believe the question failed to address the core of the topic, because we were not discussing bushmen. No one denies, that those who are truly ignorant of the Gospel, and I can think of others, such as an Arab woman who never has access to anything outside of her own culture or a Chinese peasant who lives a grueling life in Northern China and never heard of Christ. But these were not the ones we were discussing, we were discussing the Protestant brethren and their level of responsibility, their level of understanding Scriptures and sin and their access to the truth.
T
tru_dvotion
Guest
We do not need to be Feeyenites to disagree with the notion that all a Protestant has to do is be a good Protestant to get to heaven. There are those who consider themselves good Catholics who will not make it, let alone “good Protestants”. Humor me and read the following thesis, I could not supply you with a link, because it is members only. The writer is not a Feeyenite, he is faithful to the Magisterium but he does not make the type of sloppy blanket statements than the writer of the thesis supplied by the Ask an Apologist Forum.
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
By James Akin
In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of. For example, a person who did not know the square root of 1429 would be ignorant of it if he were taking a math test, but he would be nescient of it if performing a task that didn’t require the number.
Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and *vincible. *Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.
The gravity of a question is determined by how great a need the person has to know the answer. The answers to fundamental questions (how to save one’s soul, how to preserve one’s life) have grave weight. The answers to minor questions (the solution to a crossword puzzle) have light weight.
The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession. The graver the question and the greater the resources available, the more diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable. The lighter the question and the fewer the resources available, the less diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable.
Just as it is possible to show less than reasonable diligence, it is also possible to show more than reasonable diligence. Diligence can be supererogatory (and praiseworthy) if one shows more diligence than would be expected from an ordinary, conscientious person. Diligence can be excessive or scrupulous (and blameworthy) if someone spends so much time seeking the answer to a particular question that he fails to attend to other matters he should attend to, or if he refuses to come to a conclusion and continues seeking even when he has enough evidence.
Depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one’s culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859). Conversely, it may have the same effects on one’s imputability for a materially righteous act. Here we will deal only with the effects of ignorance on one’s culpability for sin,
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
By James Akin
In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of. For example, a person who did not know the square root of 1429 would be ignorant of it if he were taking a math test, but he would be nescient of it if performing a task that didn’t require the number.
Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and *vincible. *Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.
The gravity of a question is determined by how great a need the person has to know the answer. The answers to fundamental questions (how to save one’s soul, how to preserve one’s life) have grave weight. The answers to minor questions (the solution to a crossword puzzle) have light weight.
The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession. The graver the question and the greater the resources available, the more diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable. The lighter the question and the fewer the resources available, the less diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable.
Just as it is possible to show less than reasonable diligence, it is also possible to show more than reasonable diligence. Diligence can be supererogatory (and praiseworthy) if one shows more diligence than would be expected from an ordinary, conscientious person. Diligence can be excessive or scrupulous (and blameworthy) if someone spends so much time seeking the answer to a particular question that he fails to attend to other matters he should attend to, or if he refuses to come to a conclusion and continues seeking even when he has enough evidence.
Depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one’s culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859). Conversely, it may have the same effects on one’s imputability for a materially righteous act. Here we will deal only with the effects of ignorance on one’s culpability for sin,
T
tru_dvotion
Guest
Invincible ignorance removes one’s culpability for a materially sinful act, whether one of omission or commission (CCC 1793). Vincible ignorance may variously affect one’s culpability for a sinful act, depending on the kind of vincibility. If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or *studied. *
If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.
Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).
Potentially, ignorance can diminish or remove imputability for any kind of sin. However, no one is presumed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law since these are written on the heart of every man (CCC 1860). It is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that an act is required by natural law. This may be true if the act involves a point that is not obvious, if the person is not mentally quick enough to discern the application of natural law to the case, or if he has been raised to strongly believe in a system that denies the point of natural law. However, such ignorance must be proven, not presumed.
In practical use, the terms vincible and invincible may pose problems for those unfamiliar with Catholic moral terminology. For many, vincible is a wholly unfamiliar term and invincible can suggest that which can never be overcome, no matter how much diligence is shown. Because of these difficulties, it may be advisable in practice to speak of innocent (invincible) and culpable (vincible) ignorance when addressing such people.
However, other individuals (notably radical traditionalists and Feeneyites) may view one as suspect if one substitutes the innocent/culpable ignorance terminology. When addressing such individuals, the standard terminology should be used.
A special case is the application of vincible and invincible ignorance to salvation. Failure to embrace the Christian faith (infidelity), total repudiation of the Christian faith (apostasy), and the post-baptismal obstinate denial or willful doubt of particular teachings of the Catholic faith (heresy) are objectively grave sins against the virtue of faith. Like any other grave sins, if they are committed with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent, they become mortal sins and will deprive one of salvation.
Also like any other grave sins, their imputability can be removed, diminished, unaffected, or increased by the varying types of ignorance. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for the sins against faith, merely vincible ignorance diminishes culpability (sometimes to the point of being venial), crass or supine ignorance will affect culpability for them little or not at all, and hard hearted, affected ignorance will increase culpability for them.
If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.
Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).
Potentially, ignorance can diminish or remove imputability for any kind of sin. However, no one is presumed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law since these are written on the heart of every man (CCC 1860). It is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that an act is required by natural law. This may be true if the act involves a point that is not obvious, if the person is not mentally quick enough to discern the application of natural law to the case, or if he has been raised to strongly believe in a system that denies the point of natural law. However, such ignorance must be proven, not presumed.
In practical use, the terms vincible and invincible may pose problems for those unfamiliar with Catholic moral terminology. For many, vincible is a wholly unfamiliar term and invincible can suggest that which can never be overcome, no matter how much diligence is shown. Because of these difficulties, it may be advisable in practice to speak of innocent (invincible) and culpable (vincible) ignorance when addressing such people.
However, other individuals (notably radical traditionalists and Feeneyites) may view one as suspect if one substitutes the innocent/culpable ignorance terminology. When addressing such individuals, the standard terminology should be used.
A special case is the application of vincible and invincible ignorance to salvation. Failure to embrace the Christian faith (infidelity), total repudiation of the Christian faith (apostasy), and the post-baptismal obstinate denial or willful doubt of particular teachings of the Catholic faith (heresy) are objectively grave sins against the virtue of faith. Like any other grave sins, if they are committed with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent, they become mortal sins and will deprive one of salvation.
Also like any other grave sins, their imputability can be removed, diminished, unaffected, or increased by the varying types of ignorance. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for the sins against faith, merely vincible ignorance diminishes culpability (sometimes to the point of being venial), crass or supine ignorance will affect culpability for them little or not at all, and hard hearted, affected ignorance will increase culpability for them.
T
tru_dvotion
Guest
For those who have had their culpability for sins against faith removed or diminished to the point of veniality, they are not mortal sins and thus will not of themselves deprive one of heaven. A person who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (or, by extension, through his merely venial fault) can be saved—if he otherwise does what is required for salvation, according to the level of opportunity, enlightenment, and grace God gives him (CCC 847, 1260).
In such cases, people are not saved apart from the true Church. Though they are not “fully incorporated” into the mystical Body of Christ, they are “joined” or “related” to the Church Vatican II’s language) by the elements of saving grace God has given them. One might thus speak of them as having been “partially incorporated,” though not obtaining membership in the proper sense (Pius XII, Mysitici Corporis 22).
In such cases, people are not saved apart from the true Church. Though they are not “fully incorporated” into the mystical Body of Christ, they are “joined” or “related” to the Church Vatican II’s language) by the elements of saving grace God has given them. One might thus speak of them as having been “partially incorporated,” though not obtaining membership in the proper sense (Pius XII, Mysitici Corporis 22).
T
tru_dvotion
Guest
Unfortunately, there are a number of erroneous views regarding salvation and invincible ignorance that need to be pointed out. First, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant of the true faith is not a ticket to heaven. A person who is not culpable for sins against faith may still be culpable for *other *mortal sins—the same ones people of faith can commit—and may be damned on that account.
Second, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they should not be evangelized. Even if they are not culpable for sins against faith, the fact they are ignorant of the true religion and do not have access to the sacraments means that they are more likely to commit mortal sin and thus more likely to be damned. Christ did not leave us the option of only evangelizing some peoples (Mark 16:15) or of only teaching them some doctrines (Matt. 28:20). Consequently, it is a false understanding of evangelism or a false spirit of ecumenism that would suggest that classes of people can be left in total or partial ignorance of the true faith on the pretext that they are invincibly ignorant and should not be disturbed.
Third, those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, “not deserting if he [God] be not deserted.” As a result of this special grace, “those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it” (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis.
Fourth, some radical traditionalists, those known as Feeneyites, assert that while invincible ignorance might excuse sins against faith, one would not thereby be excused from the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is false, since invincible ignorance excuses from acts of omission (such as failure to be baptized) as well as acts of commission. If one is invincibly ignorant of the requirement of baptism but *would *seek baptism if one knew it was required, then the lack of baptism will not be held against one. This is expressly taught by the Church (CCC 1260). One would thus be recognized as having baptism of desire, at least implicitly.
Fifth, Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him.
In many parts of the world it is easy for people to display reasonable but not supererogatory diligence and be invincibly ignorant concerning the Christian faith in general or the Catholic Church in particular. The assertion that there are no invincibly ignorant people also is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which acknowledges that there are “righteous people in all religions” (CCC 2569). the end
I am looking forward to your responses.
Second, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they should not be evangelized. Even if they are not culpable for sins against faith, the fact they are ignorant of the true religion and do not have access to the sacraments means that they are more likely to commit mortal sin and thus more likely to be damned. Christ did not leave us the option of only evangelizing some peoples (Mark 16:15) or of only teaching them some doctrines (Matt. 28:20). Consequently, it is a false understanding of evangelism or a false spirit of ecumenism that would suggest that classes of people can be left in total or partial ignorance of the true faith on the pretext that they are invincibly ignorant and should not be disturbed.
Third, those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, “not deserting if he [God] be not deserted.” As a result of this special grace, “those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it” (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis.
Fourth, some radical traditionalists, those known as Feeneyites, assert that while invincible ignorance might excuse sins against faith, one would not thereby be excused from the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is false, since invincible ignorance excuses from acts of omission (such as failure to be baptized) as well as acts of commission. If one is invincibly ignorant of the requirement of baptism but *would *seek baptism if one knew it was required, then the lack of baptism will not be held against one. This is expressly taught by the Church (CCC 1260). One would thus be recognized as having baptism of desire, at least implicitly.
Fifth, Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him.
In many parts of the world it is easy for people to display reasonable but not supererogatory diligence and be invincibly ignorant concerning the Christian faith in general or the Catholic Church in particular. The assertion that there are no invincibly ignorant people also is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which acknowledges that there are “righteous people in all religions” (CCC 2569). the end
I am looking forward to your responses.
B
beng
Guest
Then what do you think those large letter say?
If those quotes comes from St Benedict Center would that make the quote irrelevant?
But I would think it would be very easy to just brush off the quote because it’s from some center that is related to Fr Feeney wouldn’t it?
Well what about this?
POPE JOHN XXIII (1958 - 1963 AD)
“It is impossible to be joined to God except through Jesus Christ; it is impossible to be united to Christ except in and through the Church which is His Mystical Body.”
POPE PAUL VI (1963 - 1978 AD)
“**We believe that ‘the Church is necessary for salvation. For, Christ, who is the sole Mediator and the one way to salvation, makes Himself present for us in His Body which is the Church’ **[Vatican II LG 14]. But the divine design of salvation embraces all human beings; and those ‘who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church but seek God with a sincere heart, and under the influence of grace endeavour to do His will as recognised through the prompting of their conscience,’ they too in a manner known only to God ‘can obtain eternal salvation’ [LG 16].”
POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978 - present)
“The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church, and from this genuine and single source it reaches the whole world…We have to be conscious of and absorb** this fundamental and revealed truth, contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition: ‘There is no salvation outside the Church.’** From her alone there flows surely and fully the life-giving force destined, in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.”
“It is a revealed truth that** there is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church, inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation…People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ…This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’”**
All from PhilVaz’ website who has been very generous to moi.
Now, what do you think these letter say? I could make it larger for you.
T
tru_dvotion
Guest
It pains me to see you people squabbling. You are probably all are decent and caring people in your private lives. Do you not wish to debate and stay on the topic without cutting each other down? I think if we sat in a room over a cup of coffee and were face to face… there would be more respect and more tolerance shown to one another. At my age, I find it almost surreal sometimes… it feels as if I am on the playground once again and the bad boys are hurling the stones at one another. Good people, we may disagree… but could we not get along and be kinder to one another? I am thinking of leaving this place. What is the use of all this?
- Status