Invincible ignorance/material heresy

[chypmonk]

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.

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.

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.

Dear Sir you seem to be the one pulling things out of context. From what I have seen on this thread Anne has presented the true Continuity of Church thought on this matter. Your position however seems to breed Discontinuity. The reason for the OP was that he was confused because he had been taught the liberal view point that you seem to hold also.

I don’t think you can refer to other threads of hers, as you do, it is not a fair policy- you a disparaging her good name with no facts just hearsay–btw it is off topic Anne Elliot is not the topic of this thread–total ad homonym. To be fair and just to the discussion at hand, please limit your comments to this particular thread - thank you for your understanding
Peace

 

[Sirach2]

Dear Chypmonk,

You are off-base judging my reply to Anne, since you had no experience in the thread we both shared. I certainly am not engaging in ad hominem, but I reaffirm my words that the thread was closed by the moderator because it was a futile stalemate with no side seeing eye to eye, and it is continuing here with the same futile stalemate. It is not hearsay to see that disagreement exists and is unreconcilable. This has no inference whatsoever to Anne or her reputation, as you wrongly imply.

I believe you are attempting to discredit me in a matter you know nothing about.

Truth be told, this thread was in violation of forum rules, that when a thread is closed, it is not to be reopened for ongoing discussions. One look at the OP’s signature told me this thread would be more of the same EENS controversy, and I seriously doubt he is “confused.” Those who adopt such a signature as the OP uses, have done considerable research and are adamant in their beliefs. Read the irony, “What part don’t you understand?”

 

[WatchingMedia]

Nothing can be taken out of context - including time in history, to whom it is addressed, and why.
This is where people fall into errors. They do not have all the needed explanations.

However, the Bishops can not trump the Pope. Read your Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[AnneElliot]

Sirach2,

As I asked before, you will have to be more specific than just “read Romans 2”. I do not know what you want me to address of the second chapter of St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Please show me more clearly how I have pulled Lumen Gentium #16 out of context. Do you deny that the paragraph is speaking about the missionary activity of the Church?

Re: BoD/BoB… the only document used in attempting to cite these as official teachings of the Church was the Council of Trent. I simply pointed out that the Council does not use either of those terms, and presented a real historical situation to which the text seems more likely to be speaking. There is no mention in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (or any other Papal or Conciliar document, for that matter) of “invincible ignorance” “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood”. I prefer to stick with what the Council Fathers actually said, instead of relying on an inference, or “the spirit of the Council” as some would falsely do.

 

[Sirach2]

I don’t see a value in repeating the scripture or the reference to Vatican II LG16, since I posted it earlier here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6695570&postcount=31

And, Anne, not only did you avoid ncjohn’s answer in the other thread, but you avoid answering it again here. What is your answer to the question I asked earlier in this thread?

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.

AnneElliot:

There is no mention in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (or any other Papal or Conciliar document, for that matter) of “invincible ignorance” “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood”

They were clearly spelled out for you, but you have a memory problem or else you simply refuse to recognize the validity of them. It seems like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar, denying that there are crumbs on their fingers.

 

[chypmonk]

I don’t see a value in repeating the scripture or the reference to Vatican II LG16, since I posted it earlier here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6695570&postcount=31

And, Anne, not only did you avoid ncjohn’s answer in the other thread, but you avoid answering it again here. What is your answer to the question I asked earlier in this thread?

They were clearly spelled out for you, but you have a memory problem or else you simply refuse to recognize the validity of them. It seems like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar, denying that there are crumbs on their fingers.

Dear Sir,
You are doing it again referring to another thread of Ms. Anne’s. I have no idea, I admit, what they entailed, I know nothing about them only your hearsay reasons. You bringing it up appears to me to be ad homonym-- i.e. it is not addressing the points made in this thread. It is directed at a particular person, Ms. Anne. If you don’t want to address the points in this thread fine. You can leave but please don’t keep bringing up threads I have neither the time, nor the interest to read of ever exchange that you and Ms. Anne have had.

So I beg you cease with bringing up other threads I never participated in those threads and this one was quite interesting.

 

[chypmonk]

Dear Sirach2,

Back to the subject matter at hand: Do you believe that a person can be saved without accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior?

Peace
be with you

 

[Sirach2]

Chypmonk:

You are doing it again referring to another thread of Ms. Anne’s. I have no idea, I admit, what they entailed, I know nothing about them

That’s where you are completely out of line again. The other thread is the exact title of THIS thread, and the subject matter is the same. It was begun illegitimately against forum rules, but we are left with the results of that error. Perhaps a moderator will close it as they did the other one, most likely for the identical reasons.

It is not your place to moderate my posts, particularly when you do not know what has transpired. May I politely suggest you back off?

 

[AnneElliot]

I don’t see a value in repeating the scripture or the reference to Vatican II LG16, since I posted it earlier here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6695570&postcount=31

Thank you for clarifying.

You wrote Romans 2:4, and then included a 5, but I think you meant Romans 2:14-15… right?

My first reply to your contention with St. Paul is that St. Paul was speaking of the Old Covenant, and not the New Covenant. St. Paul is setting the stage for speaking about the Gospel of Christ… every Catholic commentary on the Scriptures I have says this as well. Paul is not pretending that anyone can get to Heaven without explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forebearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:21-26)
Nor is the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium.
“Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”

I did begin to reply to this earlier, but you did not answer my questions…

1. Is God Provident?
2. Is God Omnipotent?

And, Anne, not only did you avoid ncjohn’s answer in the other thread, but you avoid answering it again here. What is your answer to the question I asked earlier in this thread?

This is not true. That thread was closed before I could respond. And, I included you on the PM reply I sent to ncjohn…

I also replied directly to your question about Vatican II earlier AND in the PM. I am not a sedevacantist. Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope of the Catholic Church, and I embrace and defend the Second Vatican Council… as I have done in this and previous threads.

They were clearly spelled out for you, but you have a memory problem or else you simply refuse to recognize the validity of them. It seems like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar, denying that there are crumbs on their fingers.

They were not, as you say, “clearly” spelled out for me. As I said before, and just previously, you will not find the terms or phrase “baptism of desire” “baptism of blood” or “invincible ignorance” in the Council of Trent. If you contend they exist, then produce them here and prove me wrong.

 

[Sirach2]

Yes, I see my error, Anne. When I copied this from the USCCB website, the verse began with a 5, which referred to a footnote, rather than the actual verse number.

Nevertheless, this footnote from the Bishops’ website is key to understanding Paul’s message. I would say that whomever your sources are for commentary, the bishops’ has the correct understanding of it.

5 [12-16] Jews cannot reasonably demand from Gentiles the standard of conduct inculcated in the Old Testament since God did not address its revelation to them. Rather, God made it possible for Gentiles to know instinctively the difference between right and wrong
Romans 2:

1. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. 13. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

[The meaning is that those who have not known the law will nevertheless be judge in accordance with it. For those who observe it from the law of conscience that God places within the heart of all, they will be justified.]

1. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

15. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.

There is no doubt that Paul is speaking about gentiles who do not yet know the law of God, yet have no excuse for not following their conscience. God places His law within their hearts, and if they follow it and live according to it, they will be justified. This is what the Church calls baptism of desire, since many, even in the time of the apostles, did not know the gospel, nor have an opportunity to be baptized.

Even if they had been baptized, it is only those who observe the commandments of God who will be justified, according to this section of Romans.

I have to leave for awhile, so I’ll try to get back to you on the rest of your post.

 

[AnneElliot]

Sirach… you have to keep reading Romans! Just like with Lumen Gentium, a few sentences are not in a vacuum. St. Paul is not saying that the Gentiles can be justified without explicit faith in Jesus Christ. St. Paul is comparing how God revealed the Law to Moses, but the Gentiles still had the natural law (which was written on their hearts). When St. Paul says that the Gentiles observe the law if they follow the dictates of nature (ie., the “natural law”), he does not mean that supernatural grace is not necessary for salvation. Without the help of grace it is impossible to keep all the precepts of the natural law all the time. We NEED the light of Christ to illuminate our conscience so that we can follow the Christian path.

My two questions only needed a yes or no answer:

1. Is God Provident?
2. Is God Omnipotent?

 

[Bluegoat]

Sirach… you have to keep reading Romans! Just like with Lumen Gentium, a few sentences are not in a vacuum. St. Paul is not saying that the Gentiles can be justified without explicit faith in Jesus Christ. St. Paul is comparing how God revealed the Law to Moses, but the Gentiles still had the natural law (which was written on their hearts). When St. Paul says that the Gentiles observe the law if they follow the dictates of nature (ie., the “natural law”), he does not mean that supernatural grace is not necessary for salvation. Without the help of grace it is impossible to keep all the precepts of the natural law all the time. We NEED the light of Christ to illuminate our conscience so that we can follow the Christian path.

My two questions only needed a yes or no answer:

1. Is God Provident?
2. Is God Omnipotent?

AnnElliot - given your two questions here and where I think they are going, and your signature, it sounds to me like you may be a Jansenist!

 

[AnneElliot]

AnnElliot - given your two questions here and where I think they are going, and your signature, it sounds to me like you may be a Jansenist!

You assume a lot. Perhaps you could wait and see where I actually stand on things like predestination and grace before you label me.

 

[AnneElliot]

There.

I have changed my signature… so do you still think I am a Jansenist heretic?

EDIT: Though, I still think you ought to read Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence and see the quote from my previous signature in context

 

[Bluegoat]

There.

I have changed my signature… so do you still think I am a Jansenist heretic?

EDIT: Though, I still think you ought to read Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence and see the quote from my previous signature in context

Not if you say you aren’t - but I am a bit disappointed. Jansenists seem to be rather rare these days, I have never met one.

 

[Tradycja]

Wait a minute…what’s the problem with being a Jansenist? Are you by chance inferring that there is no salvation outside the Church?

Wouldn’t there be “salvific elements” in Jansenism?

 

[AnneElliot]

Not if you say you aren’t - but I am a bit disappointed. Jansenists seem to be rather rare these days, I have never met one.

It would not be good to encourage heresy. I don’t care for heresy. I care for truth.

 

[Sirach2]

AnneElliot:

St. Paul is not saying that the Gentiles can be justified without explicit faith in Jesus Christ.

Is this another “gospel according to AnneElliot?” I totally disagree with your private interpretation, and so do the bishops, and so does Pope John Paul II, who quotes this very passage in his encyclical twice.

Veritatis Splendor
II. Conscience and truth
Man’s sanctuary
54. The relationship between man’s freedom and God’s law is most deeply lived out in the “heart” of the person, in his moral conscience. As the Second Vatican Council observed: “In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: ‘do this, shun that’. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (cf. Rom 2:14-16)”.

1. The text of the Letter to the Romans which has helped us to grasp the essence of the natural law also indicates the biblical understanding of conscience, especially in its specific connection with the law: “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them” (Rom 2:14-15).

Nowhere does the Pontiff indicate that the Gentiles must be justified by faith in Christ. Nowhere. I am just as weary of this discussion as I was in the last thread, and I cannot deal with continual proliferations of private erroneous interpretations that will not even admit the possibility of being wrong. I’m done, Anne. You leave no open mind for dialogue.

 

[AnneElliot]

I find it telling, to say the least, Sirach2, that you berate me for not having an open mind to discussion, yet you refuse to enter into the discussion by answering/responding to my posts.

I do not deny Vatican II, nor even Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor, but the fact remains that none of these documents, nor Scriptural passages you quote claim that a person can be justified without explicit faith. As I have contended previously, you are leaving out the rest of the context from which you are pulling your quotes.

Romans 3:26 “… [God] justifies him who has faith in Jesus.”

Romans 3:27+ “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of faith. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and He will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and uncircumcised through their faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law… It will be reckoned to us who believe in Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

Sirach2:

Nowhere does the Pontiff indicate that the Gentiles must be justified by faith in Christ. Nowhere.

Veritatis Splendor 1. “Called to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, “the true light that enlightens everyone” (Jn 1:9), people become “light in the Lord” and “children of light” (Eph 5:8), and are made holy by “obedience to the truth” (1 Pet 1:22).”

 

[chypmonk]

Dear Sirach2,

You avoided answering my simple question.

Back to the subject matter at hand: Do you believe that a person can be saved without accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior?

Peace
be with you