Invincible ignorance/material heresy

[Brian777]

i found this quote from pope pius x…

Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis, 15 April 1905, Paragraphs 2, 26 >
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’ (…) These truths, indeed, far surpass the natural understanding of the people, yet must be known by all - the uneducated and the cultured - in order that they may arrive at eternal happiness.”

how does this hold with the ideas of Inv. Ign. and material heresy? as it says in Lumen gentium, those who through no fault of their own know not the faith are not culpable for eternal punishment, but here, both Holy fathers seem quite adamant that those souls are in fact damned because of their ignorance.
needless to say i am confused, as St Francis Xavier also told the Asians when they asked him if there was a way to save the departed souls of their pagan ancestors who passed on before the missionaries came that “Alas there is none…” or something very close to that

 

[rwoehmke]

So, are we pitting an Encyclical against the teaching of an Ecumenical Council? Why and to whom was the Encyclical written? Just what mysteries are being referred to? Diffucult to draw conclusions without more information.

 

[ravenonthecross]

A General council was solely and purely pastoral in nature; neither putting forth any dogmatic nor doctrinal issues, definitions, or anathematising of error.

The Council declare itself non-binding in matters of dogmata and doctrine; ergo, who are we to presume that, contrariwise to the intial premise that Bl. John XXIII summoned the council upon, a course continued by Pope Paul VI, that such has changed? Most especially when neither Pontiff, nor has any pontiff decreed to the contrary up till this very day; and even still today remaining: none have retracted or revoked this basic premise whereupon the General Council of Vatican II operated.

 

[Brian777]

A General council was solely and purely pastoral in nature; neither putting forth any dogmatic nor doctrinal issues, definitions, or anathematising of error.

The Council declare itself non-binding in matters of dogmata and doctrine; ergo, who are we to presume that, contrariwise to the intial premise that Bl. John XXIII summoned the council upon, a course continued by Pope Paul VI, that such has changed? Most especially when neither Pontiff, nor has any pontiff decreed to the contrary up till this very day; and even still today remaining: none have retracted or revoked this basic premise whereupon the General Council of Vatican II operated.

right so what does tthat say about the statements from earlier popes?

 

[diggerdomer]

A General council was solely and purely pastoral in nature; neither putting forth any dogmatic nor doctrinal issues, definitions, or anathematising of error.

The Council declare itself non-binding in matters of dogmata and doctrine; ergo, who are we to presume that, contrariwise to the intial premise that Bl. John XXIII summoned the council upon, a course continued by Pope Paul VI, that such has changed? Most especially when neither Pontiff, nor has any pontiff decreed to the contrary up till this very day; and even still today remaining: none have retracted or revoked this basic premise whereupon the General Council of Vatican II operated.

An ecumenical council is objectively a higher teaching authority than an encyclical.

 

[DavidJoseph]

A General council was solely and purely pastoral in nature; neither putting forth any dogmatic nor doctrinal issues, definitions, or anathematising of error.

The Council declare itself non-binding in matters of dogmata and doctrine; ergo, who are we to presume that, contrariwise to the intial premise that Bl. John XXIII summoned the council upon, a course continued by Pope Paul VI, that such has changed? Most especially when neither Pontiff, nor has any pontiff decreed to the contrary up till this very day; and even still today remaining: none have retracted or revoked this basic premise whereupon the General Council of Vatican II operated.

Vatican II has NEVER declared itself to be non-binding. Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI make that abundantly clear.
Paul VI said the following:

You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).

And Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became pope, said the following in “The Ratzinger Report”:**

**

It is … impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called “traditionalism,” also in its extreme forms … Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity (28-29).

There is no “pre” or “post” conciliar Church; there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord, ever deepening and ever better understanding the treasure of faith that he himself has entrusted to her. There are no leaps in this history, there are no fractures, and there is no break in continuity . . . (35).

 

[Brian777]

An ecumenical council is objectively a higher teaching authority than an encyclical.

how so? both have the infallibility mark, one from the pope himself, the other from the college of bishops gathered together. It would actually seem that they may be equal in authority in some sense. and even if not, the question still remains how to reconcile the statements from earlier popes with SEEMINGLY contradictory statements from the Holy Council

 

[AnneElliot]

There is no problem here. Lumen Gentium states that a person who is ignorant MAY be saved, because “whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a PREPARATION for the Gospel” and then goes on to speak of the importance of the Church’s missionary activity “to PROCURE the SALVATION” of them. (cf. Lumen Genium #16).

Ignorance will not save anyone at the Last Judgment.

 

[Ahimsa]

A General council was solely and purely pastoral in nature; neither putting forth any dogmatic nor doctrinal issues, definitions, or anathematising of error.

The Council declare itself non-binding in matters of dogmata and doctrine…

Then why would a Council write on doctrine?

 

[Ahimsa]

There is no problem here. Lumen Gentium states that a person who is ignorant MAY be saved…

What this implies, is that a Hindu, who dies a Hindu, may be saved.

Ignorance will not save anyone at the Last Judgment.

You just contradicted yourself. If “ignorance will not save”, then a Hindu, who dies a Hindu, will not be saved.

 

[AnneElliot]

What this implies, is that a Hindu, who dies a Hindu, may be saved.

No, it does not.

A Hindu, ignorant of the Catholic religion, who is open to the Truth, *may *be saved by accepting the faith a missionary offers him, and being received into the Church through Baptism… to *procure *his salvation.

You cannot divorce bits a pieces of Lumen Gentium from each other, especially those in the same paragraph!

If “ignorance will not save”, then a Hindu, who dies a Hindu, will not be saved.

This is correct. A Hindu who dies a Hindu will not be saved. He must die a baptized Catholic.

That does not contradict what I typed above.

 

[Ahimsa]

A Hindu, ignorant of the Catholic religion, who is open to the Truth, *may *be saved by accepting the faith a missionary offers him, and being received into the Church through Baptism… to *procure *his salvation.

In other words, such a Hindu is no longer a Hindu, but a Catholic. So, what you’re saying is, “A Catholic may be saved”, which is something we’ve known all along.

I doubt Lumen Gentium was referring to this-life-Catholics when it said: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

Let me clarify, also, that the issue of contention is whether someone may die a Hindu, and yet be saved (by accepting Christ, after death). The issue of contention is not whether someone can be saved without accepting Christ.

 

[chypmonk]

Anne Elliot is correct there is only a contradiction if you accept the erroneous belief that Vatican II change the way someone is saved.

The thing Vatican II is explaining is NOT that one can be saved without belief in Christ but if they are of good will they will be saved by responding to the graces given, ie eventually entrance into the Faith/Church which can not happen without knowledge of those things necessary for belief to be saved.

This thread has illustrated what EENSers have been saying for years. liberals have changed the understanding of how a person is saved. Liberals say people can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ. There is NO basis to believe anyone since Pentecost as been saved without believing in Jesus Christ Lord and savior and the Holy Trinity–NONE.

So the problem is not these two documents but a liberal bias.

 

[chypmonk]

In other words, such a Hindu is no longer a Hindu, but a Catholic. So, what you’re saying is, “A Catholic may be saved”, which is something we’ve known all along.

I doubt Lumen Gentium was referring to Catholics when it said: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

Do Hindus worship false gods? yes

Do Catholics worship false gods ? no

So HOW can a Hindu be Catholic?

Unless you reject the Law of Non- Contradiction (a round-square is a contradiction ie. not true). Hindus reject logic in theology but Catholic don’t

 

[Ahimsa]

Do Hindus worship false gods? yes

Do Catholics worship false gods ? no

So HOW can a Hindu be Catholic?

A Hindu can become Catholic by accepting the faith.

But Lumen Gentium is referring to those Hindus who, because of conscience, remain Hindus, and L.G. says that even those Hindus may be saved.

 

[chypmonk]

In other words, such a Hindu is no longer a Hindu, but a Catholic. So, what you’re saying is, “A Catholic may be saved”, which is something we’ve known all along.

I doubt Lumen Gentium was referring to this-life-Catholics when it said: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

Let me clarify, also, that the issue of contention is whether someone may die a Hindu, and yet be saved (by accepting Christ, after death). The issue of contention is not whether someone can be saved without accepting Christ.

After death there is NO hope of making a choice. Where did you come up with that?! (That is Mormonism not Catholicism)

Show me the official teaching of the Catholic Church that one can choose Jesus Christ after death.

Council of Lyons II“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

 

[AnneElliot]

In other words, such a Hindu is no longer a Hindu, but a Catholic. So, what you’re saying is, “A Catholic may be saved”, which is something we’ve known all along.

I’m not saying that, Lumen Gentium is… but yes, I agree!

I doubt Lumen Gentium was referring to this-life-Catholics when it said: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”
You need to keep reading the rest of that paragraph… they may only be saved by coming to an explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ and entering the Church. The paragraph is about the missionary activity of the Church (and it’s grave importance).

Let me clarify, also, that the issue of contention is whether someone may die a Hindu, and yet be saved (by accepting Christ, after death). The issue of contention is not

whether someone can be saved without accepting Christ.
“accepting Christ, after death”? Where does the Church teach such a possibility? There is no contention there… if a man dies a Hindu, he cannot be saved. There is no last ditch second chance after death.

 

[chypmonk]

A Hindu can become Catholic by accepting the faith.

But Lumen Gentium is referring to those Hindus who, because of conscience, remain Hindus, and L.G. says that even those Hindus may be saved.

This is liberal double speak.

So a man’s conscience saves him not belief in Jesus Christ?

Of course even Hindus can be saved so can abortionists and Nazis but not if they don’t take Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior ( to use a pop phrase of our Evengelical brothers).

Salvation without Jesus was called Pelagianism. This is what Liberals want you to believe but it isn’t true or even logical.

 

[Ahimsa]

After death there is NO hope of making a choice. Where did you come up with that?! (That is Mormonism not Catholicism)

Show me the official teaching of the Catholic Church that one can choose Jesus Christ after death.

The Orthodox Church (which is not in communion with Rome) and the Eastern Catholics (who are in communion with Rome) hold that prayers for the dead are efficacious; and that the Final Judgement does not occur until after Christ’s return. Until the Final Judgement, one’s final destiny is not set in stone.

The Latin Catholic tradition, though, does teach that one’s final destiny is set immediately after death.

 

[Shin]

“We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed…** We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.**”

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302) [Solemn Definition]

“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” (Matthew 25:41), 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. **No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
**
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445) (1441) [Solemn Definition]

Vatican II can only be understood in the light of the past. There are many parts of it, which understood outside of the past teachings, are incorrectly understood quite easily.

The reasons why things were worded this way, and who was responsible for it and their motivations, can be read in various books about the Council.