Invincible Ignorance and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[Latinitas]

Hi all,

I’m sure many questions have been asked about this, but I was reading a work by Bishop Hay, who lived in the 18th and early 19th centuries (because that’s what all 18 year-olds do in their free time, right?) and he takes a very stern view of the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and basically says that all who are not in the visible Catholic Church will be damned, and that those in invincible ignorance who live according to the dictates of conscience will infallibly be brought into the visible Catholic Church.

Now, I’m a strong defender of this doctrine, probably moreso than many others, but I don’t think I would go that far; I thought that a person could a member of the Church in voto.

Admittedly, I can only find the source on radical traditionalist websites, and I’m wondering has anyone else read the source? Is this true?

The source is The Sincere Christian, and the pages are 285 to 290. Here is the link (free e-book): play.google.com/books/reader?id=wbcHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA285

Thanks,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
**

 

[Sirach2]

I suggest you go to the forum’s “search” pull-down and select “google search” and type in the words invincible ignorance or the latin words from your post. There you will find at least 100 replies on this. It has been on Catholic Answers as a hot-button topic for over four years now, and it is extremely wearying to post an explanation each time a newcomer wants an answer, for it is not an easy quick answer to type out.

Quick answer to “Is it true?” We must understand the dogma as the Church herself understands it.

Peace.

 

[Latinitas]

I suggest you go to the forum’s “search” pull-down and select “google search” and type in the words invincible ignorance or the latin words from your post. There you will find at least 100 replies on this. It has been on Catholic Answers as a hot-button topic for over four years now, and it is extremely wearying to post an explanation each time a newcomer wants an answer, for it is not an easy quick answer to type out.

Quick answer to “Is it true?” We must understand the dogma as the Church herself understands it.

Peace.

Yeah, I know what they say on this, since I’ve read this before; I’m really looking for a view on this source.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Sirach2]

I never heard of George Hay. Is he Catholic? This is all the info that I found on him at Amazon.

This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world’s literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

Since the work is claimed to be “antiquarian” I suspect it does not contain the latest teachings of the Magisterium, so you would do well to disregard it unless it conforms to the Church’s teaching … today… especially since the Council, framed new conditions for invincible ignorance, under the Spirit’s guidance

 

[Latinitas]

George Hay was Catholic, yes. I must say that the Council cannot lay out new conditions for invincible ignorance; the Church’s teaching has always been the same.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[JamesTheJust]

I never heard of George Hay. Is he Catholic? This is all the info that I found on him at Amazon.

Since the work is claimed to be “antiquarian” I suspect it does not contain the latest teachings of the Magisterium, so you would do well to disregard it unless it conforms to the Church’s teaching … today… especially since the Council, framed new conditions for invincible ignorance, under the Spirit’s guidance

The Church’s teaching has not been and never will be “updated” or “changed”. The whole point of the Magisterium is that it was just as infallible 2000 years ago as it is today, and vice versa. There is no such thing as the “latest Church teaching”. The Second Vatican Council didn’t change any doctrines; that would be impossible, as the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sirach2]

George Hay was Catholic, yes. I must say that the Council cannot lay out new conditions for invincible ignorance; the Church’s teaching has always been the same.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Oh boy, I can see you totally misunderstood my post, but maybe I was too vague. The conditions have changed, since the Church recognizes that the children far removed from generations of those who broke away from Her during the Reformation, are not culpable for the sins of their ancestors. Having been raised and formed in these religions, they are invincibly ignorant of Catholicism, yet being baptized and having the Holy Spirit, the Church accepts them as members of the mystical Body of Christ, albeit imperfectly due to their lack of full formation in our truths.

If other unbaptized persons live their faith in accord with Romans 2:14-16 (the natural law inscribed in the hearts of all men) to the best of their ability with a desire to follow God’s perfect will, it is salvific, an implicit baptism of desire…

THAT is the difference in the development and understanding the Church has with regard to E.E.N.S. Dei Verbum addresses this very succinctly also, besides the passages you have read in the CCC from Lumen Gentium and elsewhere with respect to this topic.

If this is problematic for you, then I have no desire to debate it, since it is readily available all over the forum and I have truly wearied of repeating it due to the rigid stance some folks take on this issue, and come here only to argue; whereas,. I uphold the teaching of the Church, as we all should do, according to Her mind on this.

There is a thread on E.E.N.S presently in Apologetics, and it contains the letter from the Church addressing the issue regarding Fr. Feeney. This very letter formed the basis of Lumen Gentium’s teaching, as it is cited in the footnotes of that document.

 

[O_Sanctissima]

Oh dear, not the old Baptism of Desire debate again. Sigh. Dear OP, this is not impatience at your post, just frustration over the topic in general.

My best understanding of EENS is that one must be a member of the visible Church to be saved. In the case of invincible ignorance, one is saved by the graces of the Church, and most definitely NOT whatever false religion they belonged to. Sanctifying grace is not available except through the Catholic Church.

Where I think people go wrong on this today is assuming that everyone is afflicted with invincible ignorance, and I think that in this day and age that isn’t very likely. But I am not God, or anything but a poor sinner, so I can’t know this of course. I just can’t see considering today’s information age as being altogether comparable with the indigenous people in far-off lands centuries ago. And it’s very important to convert people to the One True Faith- because counting on this to save people is risky indeed. I always pray for all the dead, because one never knows whether they might be in Purgatory even if Protestant or whatever their whole life (or even atheist), but it is very imprudent to count on it.

And yes, the teachings of the Church cannot and do not evolve.

If anything I said is contrary to Her teachings, then I accept correction humbly.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Oh dear, not the old Baptism of Desire debate again. Sigh. Dear OP, this is not impatience at your post, just frustration over the topic in general.

My best understanding of EENS is that one must be a member of the visible Church to be saved. In the case of invincible ignorance, one is saved by the graces of the Church, and most definitely NOT whatever false religion they belonged to. Sanctifying grace is not available except through the Catholic Church.

Where I think people go wrong on this today is assuming that everyone is afflicted with invincible ignorance, and I think that in this day and age that isn’t very likely. But I am not God, or anything but a poor sinner, so I can’t know this of course. I just can’t see considering today’s information age as being altogether comparable with the indigenous people in far-off lands centuries ago. And it’s very important to convert people to the One True Faith- because counting on this to save people is risky indeed. I always pray for all the dead, because one never knows whether they might be in Purgatory even if Protestant or whatever their whole life (or even atheist), but it is very imprudent to count on it.

And yes, the teachings of the Church cannot and do not evolve.

If anything I said is contrary to Her teachings, then I accept correction humbly.

I agree, this topic just won’t stop coming back. However, you seem to have gotten everything correct, as far as I can tell.

 

[Latinitas]

Oh dear, not the old Baptism of Desire debate again. Sigh.

There is no debate over baptism of desire except if you’re a radical Feeneyist. Even the bishop mentions this.

Dear OP, this is not impatience at your post, just frustration over the topic in general.

My best understanding of EENS is that one must be a member of the visible Church to be saved. In the case of invincible ignorance, one is saved by the graces of the Church, and most definitely NOT whatever false religion they belonged to. Sanctifying grace is not available except through the Catholic Church.

This is my understanding as well. The “problem” I have with the position of Bishop Hay is his position that those in invincible ignorance who live and believe in accordance with conscience and reason will without doubt be brought into the visible Catholic Church.

Where I think people go wrong on this today is assuming that everyone is afflicted with invincible ignorance, and I think that in this day and age that isn’t very likely.

I couldn’t agree more.

But I am not God, or anything but a poor sinner, so I can’t know this of course. I just can’t see considering today’s information age as being altogether comparable with the indigenous people in far-off lands centuries ago. And it’s very important to convert people to the One True Faith- because counting on this to save people is risky indeed. I always pray for all the dead, because one never knows whether they might be in Purgatory even if Protestant or whatever their whole life (or even atheist), but it is very imprudent to count on it.

I agree again.

And yes, the teachings of the Church cannot and do not evolve.

Again, I agree, although he did clarify what he meant.

If anything I said is contrary to Her teachings, then I accept correction humbly.

Same.

Thanks for all your posts. My question really is directed towards the source I posted above. I probably should have renamed the thread as like “troubling book by Bishop Hay” or something like that, rather than what I did, since as it is now, people just think it’s how to understand EENS, and don’t read the book I provided.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Sirach2]

This is my understanding as well. The “problem” I have with the position of Bishop Hay is his position that those in invincible ignorance who live and believe in accordance with conscience and reason** will without doubt be brought into the visible Catholic Church. **

I couldn’t agree more.

Thanks for all your posts. My question really is directed towards the source I posted above. I probably should have renamed the thread as like “troubling book by Bishop Hay” or something like that, rather than what I did, since as it is now, people just think it’s how to understand EENS, and don’t read the book I provided.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Since it is an antiquated book, I doubt seriously that anyone would be interested in purchasing it. There is enough information available from the Church that one does not need to resort to opinions of a lay person far removed from Her present teachings.

It does seem curious that, since your mind was already made up as per this post, you are a bit disingenuous in bringing up this thread, which apparently is to get others to agree with you. You have dismissed solid information without a blink of the eye, telling me you have no desire to learn.

Baptism of desire was taught by Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and has been the Church’s constant teaching in the Catechisms. Invincible ignorance and/or baptism of desire does not translate as “”**without doubt they will be brought into the visible Catholic Church." **The Church teaches that they “may be”, not “will be.” That’s the main difference expressed by Mr. Hay.

I think you are creating your own religious belief here, rather than what the Church teaches, and attempting to bring others to accept your POV. :tsktsk:

 

[Sirach2]

One more very important observation
There was nothing whatsoever mentioned in the pages you presented about EENS. I assume you have misapplied George. Hay’s writing on your own initiative in order to discredit the Church’s teaching, using the heavy condemnations of Mr. Hay to back you up.

 

[Sirach2]

Another critical point:

Admittedly, I can only find the source on radical traditionalist websites, and I’m wondering has anyone else read the source? Is this true?

Why would you suppose anything found on these websites accurately conveys Catholic teachings? The site you pulled this from, as near as I could tell, since it is the only site that hosts portions of your letter, is <Catholictradition.org.> FYI and all those reading this thread, the site is flagged as red/danger by CatholicCulture.org. for its radical views not in accord with the Church.

So, reader … BEWARE!

And OP, since you are only 18 with lots of time on your hands, isn’t there something better you can do with your time that would not offend Our Lord by absorbing these poisons?

 

[Latinitas]

Since it is an antiquated book, I doubt seriously that anyone would be interested in purchasing it. There is enough information available from the Church that one does not need to resort to opinions of a lay person far removed from Her present teachings.

Well, I have managed to find the source not on radical sites.

It does seem curious that, since your mind was already made up as per this post, you are a bit disingenuous in bringing up this thread, which apparently is to get others to agree with you. You have dismissed solid information without a blink of the eye, telling me you have no desire to learn.

Well, I thought that I had understood this doctrine correctly before, but it seems at least, according to the bishop, that my views are too liberal. I never said I didn’t want to learn or I never would have posted this.

Baptism of desire was taught by Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and has been the Church’s constant teaching in the Catechisms. Invincible ignorance and/or baptism of desire does not translate as "“without doubt they will be brought into the visible Catholic Church.” The Church teaches that they “may be”, not “will be.” That’s the main difference expressed by Mr. Hay.

Bishop Hay does clearly affirm baptism of desire, but only if one has the Faith; otherwise he’s a bit more vague. He also does address invincible ignorance; but it seems, however, that they will be brought into the Faith and Church.

Hopefully not, if I have, I recant.

Another critical point:

Why would you suppose anything found on these websites accurately conveys Catholic teachings? The site you pulled this from, as near as I could tell, since it is the only site that hosts portions of your letter, is <Catholictradition.org.> FYI and all those reading this thread, the site is flagged as red/danger

by CatholicCulture.org. for its radical views not in accord with the Church.

I was reading it on GoogleBooks, and then I looked the source I up and this radical source came up (which, as you rightly point out, does not accurately reflect Church teachings), but I found it on several other places, as well, most of which seemed legitimate.

So, reader … BEWARE!

Yeah, and this is why I originally wasn’t sure, but the source definitely does seem legitimate.

And OP, since you are only 18 with lots of time on your hands, isn’t there something better you can do with your time that would not offend Our Lord by absorbing these poisons?

What else should I be doing? The work is legitimate. I’m pretty good (not perfect though), at sifting the cockle from the wheat, so to speak.

Anyway, thanks for your time in responding,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Sirach2]

It is my pleasure to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are really sincere about knowing the truth as taught by the Magisterium, rather than follow the personal views of an individual bishop, there are some really good excerpts from papal encyclicals on this website that may be helpful to you.

You will notice that these were written prior to Vatican II Council, so it will be clear that blame cannot be placed on this Council for allegedly “changing doctrine.”

 

[Latinitas]

It is my pleasure to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are really sincere about knowing the truth as taught by the Magisterium, rather than follow the personal views of an individual bishop, there are some really good excerpts from papal encyclicals on this website that may be helpful to you.

You will notice that these were written prior to Vatican II Council, so it will be clear that blame cannot be placed on this Council for allegedly “changing doctrine.”

Thanks. I’ve kind of come to an interpretation that fits, and since this bishop was well-known for sanctity, I don’t take him lightly. He reaffirms with St. Thomas that even an angel from heaven would bring him to the right faith (which could be implicit) for those who are in invincible ignorance, and this is the orthodox position of this doctrine.

I know full well that this doctrine was taught before Vatican II, heck Augustine mentions it.

Thanks,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks. I’ve kind of come to an interpretation that fits, and since this bishop was well-known for sanctity, I don’t take him lightly. He reaffirms with St. Thomas that even an angel from heaven would bring him to the right faith (which could be implicit) for those who are in invincible ignorance, and this is the orthodox position of this doctrine.

Can you roll this by me please? What is it you are believing?

Is Bishop Hay’s doctrine below what you are accepting as the Church’s teaching? Or are you saying that an angel from heaven will bring all of these to faith, leaving no room for invincible ignorance?

**Q. 7. **But suppose a person to be invincibly ignorant of the Faith of Jesus Christ and His Church, will not this invincible ignorance save him?

A. This is also a very specious proposition, and I am afraid that from not being properly considered it is an occasion of a dangerous mistake to many; we shall therefore endeavor to examine it thoroughly. And here we must observe, that two different questions are commonly mixed together when people speak of invincible ignorance: the first is, Will a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith or Church of Christ be condemned precisely on account of that ignorance? That is, will that ignorance be imputed to him as a crime? Or will this his invincible ignorance excuse him from the guilt of not believing? To this I reply, that as no man can be guilty of a sin in not doing what is absolutely out of his power, therefore a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith and Church of Christ will not be condemned on account of that ignorance; such ignorance will not be imputed to him as a crime, but will undoubtedly excuse him from the guilt of disbelief: in this all divines agree without doubt or hesitation.

A heathen, for example, who never heard of Jesus Christ, will not be condemned as criminal precisely for want of Faith in Him; a heretic who has never had any knowledge of the True Church of Christ will not be condemned as guilty because he is not joined in communion with that Church.

 

[Sirach2]

I know full well that this doctrine was taught before Vatican II, heck Augustine mentions it.

St. Augustine mentions … what, exactly? Have you seen this post?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10958241&postcount=1

A beautiful writing! Somehow, unless I’m interpreting your words wrong, I get the feeling you are not in accord, which is why I asked for feedback on your true understanding.

 

[Sirach2]

Looks like the OP has determined his own theology. Right or wrong, no help wanted. :ehh:

 

[Latinitas]

Can you roll this by me please? What is it you are believing?

Is Bishop Hay’s doctrine below what you are accepting as the Church’s teaching? Or are you saying that an angel from heaven will bring all of these to faith, leaving no room for invincible ignorance?

**Q. 7. **But suppose a person to be invincibly ignorant of the Faith of Jesus Christ and His Church, will not this invincible ignorance save him?

A. This is also a very specious proposition, and I am afraid that from not being properly considered it is an occasion of a dangerous mistake to many; we shall therefore endeavor to examine it thoroughly. And here we must observe, that two different questions are commonly mixed together when people speak of invincible ignorance: the first is, Will a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith or Church of Christ be condemned precisely on account of that ignorance? That is, will that ignorance be imputed to him as a crime? Or will this his invincible ignorance excuse him from the guilt of not believing? To this I reply, that as no man can be guilty of a sin in not doing what is absolutely out of his power, therefore a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith and Church of Christ will not be condemned on account of that ignorance; such ignorance will not be imputed to him as a crime, but will undoubtedly excuse him from the guilt of disbelief: in this all divines agree without doubt or hesitation.

A heathen, for example, who never heard of Jesus Christ, will not be condemned as criminal precisely for want of Faith in Him; a heretic who has never had any knowledge of the True Church of Christ will not be condemned as guilty because he is not joined in communion with that Church.

St. Augustine mentions … what, exactly? Have you seen this post?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10958241&postcount=1

A beautiful writing! Somehow, unless I’m interpreting your words wrong, I get the feeling you are not in accord, which is why I asked for feedback on your true understanding.

Looks like the OP has determined his own theology. Right or wrong, no help wanted. :ehh:

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

You kind of understand what I’m saying. But if an angel from heaven were to come down from heaven and teach one in invincible ignorance, he may come to believe, but implicitly, since angels are purely spiritual beings, rather than physical, and do not ordinarily speak human language.

I fully understand invincible ignorance: the man who, through no fault of his own, does not know about the Catholic faith (or any other teaching) is not held guilty by God for their actions, even if they be wrong.

So my interpretation is this: all who are to be saved must hold the Catholic faith (cf. Creed of St. Athanasius), but some, if taught by an angel from heaven, will believe implicitly, and thus be baptized by desire, and, as long as they possess the virtue of charity by following the dictates of their sincere conscience, they will be saved.

If there is anything wrong in this interpretation, please correct me.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas