Invincible ignorance/material heresy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirach2 said:
This is authentic Church teaching and is in agreement with scripture. When the natural law written in man’s hearts is obeyed and followed, even though they know not God’s law, God will judge them and they will be justified.

To pull the last sentence out of context as though the preceding content was of no value, is erroneous. Yes, the Church views this as a preparation for the Gospel, but it She does not state that this will occur as a matter of fact. So we fall back on the previous sentence that God will continue to give these persons His actual graces to follow their conscience written in their hearts, and it WILL justify them.

It is unconscionable to me that there are people who assume for themselves the role of teacher of the Church’s doctrine, stating as fact their own private interpretation. Only the Church is the authentic teacher and interpreter of God’s revelation in the scriptures, and not finite man who reads a document and assumes to himself how it should be interpreted. If there is a lack of understanding, we need only go to the Church, rather to an internet forum where so many wild opinions are circulating that it would be difficult to believe what is the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
you wrote
“His actual graces to follow their conscience written in their hearts, and it WILL justify them”

Where does the Church or Vat II teach this?
Actual Graces can save?!!
This is in Discontinuity.

The Church has clearly ruled on this time and again that belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is necessary for salvation!!
**
Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind.* Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
*** “A. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.**”
Another question was posed at the same time and answered the same way.
Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes… although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
*** “A.* A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.”
 
Ahimsa said:
This Orthodox catechism explains things quite nicely. The Orthodox position on what happens right after death is that one may experience a ‘foretaste’ of one’s apparent destiny, but that foretaste is not the Final Judgement:

But the final division into the saved and the condemned will actually take place at the universal Last Judgment, when ‘many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt’ (Dan.12:2). Before the Last Judgment, the righteous souls anticipate the joy of Paradise, while the souls of sinners anticipate the torments of Gehenna.

Before the Final Judgement, the bodies of all are resurrected and then Judged:

Immediately after the common resurrection, will be the Last Judgment at which the final decision is taken as to who is worthy of the Kingdom of heaven and who should be sentenced to the torments of Hell. “Hell” here actually means “Gehenna”.] Before this event, however, there exists the possibility for the person in Hell [here, “Hell” refers to the state of existing in Hades, but being on the path towards eternal damnation, or Gehenna] to gain release; after the Last Judgment this possibility no longer remains.

(The place of the dead is called “Hades” or “Hell”, and in this place one may experience a foretaste of one’s ultimate destiny. “Hell” does not properly refer to the everlasting damnation, which is properly called “Gehenna”.)

Once the Final Judgement is made, there is no possibility of change. But before the Final Judgement is made, the person may indeed see an alteration of their apparent destiny. How does this happen? Who knows? Maybe Christ appears to people before the Final Judgement, even to Hindus?😉

Can there be an answer here to the complex question of whether or not there exists the possibility for non-Christians and non-believers to be saved? The Orthodox tradition has always asserted that there is no salvation outside Christ, Baptism and the Church. However, not everyone who during his earthly life did not meet Christ is deprived of the possibility of being liberated from Hell “Hell” here refers to being in Hades, and on the path towards Gehenna]* , for even in Hell [that is, Hades] the message of the Gospel is heard –because Jesus descended into Hell in order to preach the Gospel].

*So, according to Orthodoxy, those who have no encountered Christ on this earth, or who followed their conscience in remaining Hindu, may encounter Christ in Hades.
Click to expand...
It really doesn’t matter what they teach we are discussing what the Catholic Church teaches. If you want to start another thread on the subject I will join you.
The OP was talking about the Catholic Church.

So are you saying the Othodox are right —that there is a second chance ?

And that the Council of Lyons is teaching error by saying there is no second chance?

They both can’t be right! One is right the other wrong.
 
AnneElliot said:
Does Orientale Lumen state that that particular catechism is to be taken as communicative of the entire Eastern tradition? Does it even quote or reference that catechism?
Click to expand...
Catechisms are not central to the Eastern Christian tradition. Instead, what is said in liturgy, and what is depicted in icons, is central. The idea depicted in the catechism simply reflects what is said in liturgy and shown in icons:

As Bishop Hilarion writes:
Is it possible at all that the fate of a person can be changed after his death? Is death that border beyond which some unchangeable static existence comes? Does the development of the human person not stop after death?
Click to expand...
On the one hand, it is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. However, it may be possible for one to repent through a ‘change of heart’, a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel we have already mentioned. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as found himself in hell. Indeed, if in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, once in hell he realized that his only hope for salvation was God[76] . Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the Church. Thus, existence after death has its own dynamics. On the basis of what has been said above, we may say that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime.
Click to expand...
 
chypmonk said:
It really doesn’t matter what they teach we are discussing what the Catholic Church teaches. If you want to start another thread on the subject I will join you.
The OP was talking about the Catholic Church.

So are you saying the Othodox are right —that there is a second chance ?

And that the Council of Lyons is teaching error by saying there is no second chance?

They both can’t be right! One is right the other wrong.
Click to expand...
In Orientale Lumen, John Paul II says that they indeed both can be right – if they are seen as complementary, rather than contradictory.

Besides, Eastern Christian tradition IS part of the Catholic Church, because Eastern Catholics are part of the Catholic Church.
 
Ahimsa said:
Catechisms are not central to the Eastern Christian tradition. Instead, what is said in liturgy, and what is depicted in icons, is central. The idea depicted in the catechism simply reflects what is said in liturgy and shown in icons:

As Bishop Hilarion writes:
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is not on subject as far s I can see
 
chypmonk said:
Sorry but this is not on subject as far s I can see
Click to expand...
Read Orientale Lumen, in which JPII says that the Eastern Christian tradition (which involves ideas such as the timing of the Final Judgement) should not be rejected by Eastern Catholics.
 
Bishop Hilarion is not Catholic.

Orientale Lumen is not asking Catholics to embrace Orthodox falsities. I think you need to re-read, and read the entirety of the document.

But, such is beside the point.

You claimed that Eastern Catholics taught such an idea, yet you can only provide Orthodox sources? Are there no Eastern Catholic sources?
 
Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches

Canon 598

All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition,

that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and

also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium,

must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested

by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PGM.HTM
 
I am beginning to wonder where all of these message concerning EENS are coming from. Are the posters who are sending all of these messages trying to find a flaw in Church teaching, by claiming that this doctrine has changed??? Are they trying to say that the Catholic Church teaches that one must be physically united with the Church in order to enter heaven. If so, they are wrong in both instances.

Are they just wanting to debate?? They have started quote wars in so many threads…Do they realize that Father Leonard Feeney was defrocked & excommunicated for expressing the same views that they are?? Have they never heard of Baptism of Desire & Blood. :hmmm:
 
Tradycja said:
Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches

Canon 598

All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition,

that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and

also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium,

must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested

by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.
intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PGM.HTM
Click to expand...
Correct, and “tradition” includes Latin and Eastern traditions.
 
Ahimsa said:
In Orientale Lumen, John Paul II says that they indeed both can be right – if they are seen as complementary, rather than contradictory.

Besides, Eastern Christian tradition IS part of the Catholic Church, because Eastern Catholics are part of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Ok. You have already been proven wrong by the council of Lynons but here is the catholic Encyclopedia:

Dogma of Particular Judgment

The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God.

Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull “Benedictus Deus” of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV.

The prompt fulfilment of the sentence is part of the dogma of
particular judgment, but until the question was settled by the
decision of Benedict XII, in 1332, there was much uncertainty
regarding the fate of the departed in the period between death and
the general resurrection. There was never any doubt that the
penalty of loss (poena damni), the temporal or eternal forfeiture
of the joys of Heaven, began from the moment of death. Likewise it
was admitted from the earliest times that the punishment following
death included other sufferings (poena sensus) than the penalty of
loss (Justin, “Dial.”, v). But whether the torment of fire was to
be included among these sufferings, or whether it began only after
the final judgment, was a question that gave rise to many
divergent opinions.
newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

So the only question was whether they suffered fire not if there were second chances.
 
CradleCath said:
I am beginning to wonder where all of these message concerning EENS are coming from. Are the posters who are sending all of these messages trying to find a flaw in Church teaching, by claiming that this doctrine has changed??? Are they trying to say that the Catholic Church teaches that one must be physically united with the Church in order to enter heaven. If so, they are wrong in both instances.
Click to expand...
The Church’s teaching has not changed. EENS is still a Dogma of the faith which must be believed and defended in the same sense and understanding that it was declared.
Are they just wanting to debate?? They have started quote wars in so many threads…Do they realize that Father Leonard Feeney was defrocked & excommunicated for expressing the same views that they are?? Have they never heard of Baptism of Desire & Blood. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not heresy. He recited the Athanasian Creed in his reconciliation:

“Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.
So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.
Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.
Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
However, there are not three gods, but one God.
The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
However, there are not three lords, but one Lord.
For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.
The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.
The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.
There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.
So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshiped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.
He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.
It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity.
Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.
And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God.
He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.
As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ.
He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.”
 
40.png
AnneElliot:
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Click to expand...
Going back to the question posed to you in this same thread topic that was closed recently, are you saying that the Church teachings of Vatican II are in error? If so, then the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church against Jesus’ solemn word that He would remain forever and the gates of hell would not prevail against Her.

And who gives you or anyone else, for that matter, the right to interpret Church doctrine and say She is wrong? Oh yes, I know folks are quite able and happy to point out discrepancies, due to lack of knowledge and faith, regardless of the harm it does to others.
Problem is, that Denzinger only goes back to Blessed Pius IX, as well as some of the more weighty decisions of the Holy Office** prior to 1957**.

What the Church teaches today, not prior to 1957, is what we must give our religious assent to, as being the most current understanding of Church doctrine.

The gates of hell did NOT prevail against Her and stop teaching truth as of certain previous popes. That would make folks like you “sedevacantists” if you believe this. No matter how many antiquated documents are cited to back up one’s private opinion of what the Church means, it is the present teaching of the Church that is to be followed.

Did you not see the scripture from Romans 2 where St. Paul teaches the same as the Church, Anne? How do you reconcile that?

I leave you to your efforts that may ultimately destroy the faith of our readers as a result of your “expertise” in private theology.
 
QUOTE=AnneElliot;6695482]If they choose to remain Hindu and thereby reject Christ’s Church, they are definitively damned. There is no salvation outside the Church.
Click to expand...
Unless you accept BOD & BOB, & give the full explanation of the churches doctrine, you are preaching heresy.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html
 
Sirach2 said:
Going back to the question posed to you in this same thread topic that was closed recently, are you saying that the Church teachings of Vatican II are in error? If so, then the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church against Jesus’ solemn word that He would remain forever and the gates of hell would not prevail against Her.
Click to expand...
Clearly, you have not read many of my posts on this forum, as I vehemently defend the fact that Vatican II did not change the Church teaching on EENS, but rather, upheld it!
And who gives you or anyone else, for that matter, the right to interpret Church doctrine and say She is wrong? Oh yes, I know folks are quite able and happy to point out discrepancies, due to lack of knowledge and faith, regardless of the harm it does to others.
Problem is, that Denzinger only goes back to Blessed Pius IX, as well as some of the more weighty decisions of the Holy Office** prior to 1957**.
Click to expand...
Whoa, that’s a lot of assumptions there… I haven’t interpreted anything. The nature of Dogma is such that its definition needs no interpretation. It is defined-- that’s why it’s Dogma!
What the Church teaches today, not prior to 1957 is what we must give our religious assent to, as being the most current understanding of Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Actually, since the Church (and our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI) stresses the continuity of the Church, everything pre and post Conciliar must be taken into account. We still assent to the truths of the faith that were defined prior to 1957.
The gates of hell did NOT prevail against Her and stop teaching truth as of certain previous popes. No matter how many antiquated documents are cited to back up one’s private opinion of what the Church means, it is the present teaching of the Church that is to be followed.
Click to expand...
:confused:
The present teaching of the Church has not changed.

“So far as a man may be proud of a religion rooted in humility, I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition. I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated.” - G.K. Chesterton
Did you not see the scripture from Romans 2 where St. Paul teaches the same as the Church, Anne? How do you reconcile that?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you think St. Paul teaches anything different from what I have expressed in this thread.
I leave you to your efforts to destroy the faith of our readers with your “expertise” in private theology.
Click to expand...
You have a lot of misguided anger against me.🤷

I hope the rest of your day gets better! I will pray to Our Lady for you 🙂
 
40.png
AnneElliot:
Where has the Church defined BOD/BOB? I have not seen a Papal or Conciliar document that has defined either of them.
Click to expand...
Are you the same AnneElliot that was active in all the threads where a number of these documents were cited? :banghead: We do not need to keep presenting them over and over, but kindly do a search on those threads.
Clearly, you have not read many of my posts on this forum, as I vehemently defend the fact that Vatican II did not change the Church teaching on EENS, but rather, upheld it!
Click to expand...
Yes, Vatican II “upheld EENS” according to your sole interpretation, by pulling one sentence out of context with the entire teaching document. Read my post again, the part prior to the sentence that supposedly justifies your disbelief that others may be saved outside of the Church.

Again, the scripture from Romans 2 is very clear. How do you explain your way out of that? Please read it again, just a few posts back.

No, I do not have an anger issue with you at all, but you are overly sensitive whenever someone disagrees with you, as I have noticed in your several posts. If there is any anger whatsoever on my part, it directed towards the persistent attempts on the part of some to create division in the Church through their private misinterpretation of Her teachings. As Jesus wills all to be saved and come to knowledge of the Truth, so do I, and it is grievous to see their lack of prudence in dispelling false information.
Whoa, that’s a lot of assumptions there… I haven’t interpreted anything. The nature of Dogma is such that its definition needs no interpretation. It is defined-- that’s why it’s Dogma!
Click to expand...
Dogma as interpreted by AnneElliot by pulling quotes out of context of universal Church teaching of her own documents. This thread was closed over the same futile arguments, yet here we go again. Nothing has changed. You will just have to agree to disagree, as the saying goes, until someone with worthier credentials convinces you of your error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top