Invincible ignorance/material heresy

[Genesis315]

I’m not sure if this has been posted yet, but if one looks at the sentence preceding the quote in the OP, its clear from the context that he is speaking of the “sinfully ignorant.”

 

[Brian777]

I apologize for openng a can of worms, I should have thought better before posting…

as I have been taught in seminary:

1. No salvation outside of the Church…

however…

1. For those who DO NOT KNOW(aka no missionary has shown up, they are completely seperated from the Church physically) they can be saved by seeking God with a sincere heart and following natural and moral law examples include, Natives in America before the arrival of the Spanish missionaries, or the natives in asia before the arrival of Jesuits
   -This however does NOT excuse those who live a life contrary to moral and natural law, even if those ways are simply part of their paganism(ex, Aztecs who sacrificed lik crazy thousands of human beings to their gods, one would have to reject this in order to be considered part of the above category.)

For those who know of Holy Mother Church but have anot formally rejected her(this almost doesnt exist id be willing to say becasue many heretics have either left the Church, were born outside and then had catholic relatives who they wont listen to, or truly dont know what the church teaches but are militantly on the “Great Whore” bandwagon…

we must remember we cannot judge any individual in these matters, only God can, but these categories are a very basic way of explaining Catholic teaching.

 

[Cristiano]

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

Are you asking about acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord once the person has been properly instructed?

What I am asking here is: Do you think that there is a difference between rejecting Jesus and not accepting Him?

In my understanding rejection implies knowledge, while lack of acceptance might imply lack of knowledge.

 

[AnneElliot]

1. For those who DO NOT KNOW(aka no missionary has shown up, they are completely seperated from the Church physically) they can be saved by seeking God with a sincere heart and following natural and moral law examples include, Natives in America before the arrival of the Spanish missionaries, or the natives in asia before the arrival of Jesuits.

Would you say these people are saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and/or Baptism?

 

[CradleCath]

Would you say these people are saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and/or Baptism?

I would say so, as does the Church. People who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ, who have no idea that Baptism even exists, cannot be held culpable for their lack of knowledge.

However, Catholics…like you claim to be…who preach heresy on the internet CAN & WILL be held culpable, because they have no excuse for not finding the truth.

How about something from the Vatican website:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has **always **held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
Now, if you cannot trust THIS website, it’s entirely fair for us to believe that you are a member of a Catholic “splinter group”…a follower of the dimond brothers, the most holy family monastery or some other dissident group.

You are obsessed with this notion that no one but people who are physical members of the Church…card-carrying, pew-sitting Catholics…can obtain Salvation, I am also done with you.

 

[AnneElliot]

I would say so, as does the Church. People who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ, who have no idea that Baptism even exists, cannot be held culpable for their lack of knowledge.

I agree that persons who have never heard the name of Jesus cannot be held culpable for their lack of knowledge.

What about their other sins? Violations of the natural law… they are to be held accountable for those sins, yes? There are certain things we can know are wrong through human reason, without Divine Revelation… certainly people who have never heard the name of Jesus are still culpable for the things that they do know and yet still violated.

However, Catholics…like you claim to be…who preach heresy on the internet CAN & WILL be held culpable, because they have no excuse for not finding the truth.
[snip]

Can you just hold on for two minutes and have a discussion before you start shoving words in my mouth and accusing me of heresy?

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Encyclicals are not means of teaching infallibly. If you disagree, give one example.

If it’s helpful, here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia (2003 edition) starts with in its entry regarding “Encyclical”:

A letter, “essentially pastoral in character” (John Paul II, Ut unum sint [May 25, 1995], no. 3), written by the pope for the entire Church. Encyclicals have not been used for dogmatic definitions, but rather to give counsel or to shed light on points of doctrine that must be made more precise or that must be taught in view of specific circumstances. For instance, the encyclical Veritatis splendor (Aug. 6, 1993), “limits itself to dealing with certain fundamental questions regarding the Church’s moral teaching” (no. 5).

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Yes, right, that’s what the Church teaches.

 

[diggerdomer]

I did not want to be obnoxious and fill the entire thread. I figured a few statements from the Church would suffice for Sirach2 … after all, how many Popes and Councils have to teach a thing for it to be infallible?

See Canon Law 749

 

[AnneElliot]

See Canon Law 749

My question was sarcastic, but thank you for further demonstrating that the infallible statements I posted were sufficient.

 

[Tradycja]

In my understanding rejection implies knowledge, while lack of acceptance might imply lack of knowledge.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.* St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance.* In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…"

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”
*

 

[Tradycja]

Let’s look at an infallible source that also supports this (Pope Pelagius I):

"In fact, the solemn profession of faith of Pope Pelagius I, promulgated for the universal Church in the year 557, affirms the doctrine that on judgment day, God will hand over “to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire” all of the wicked, who (he says) consist of “[those] who either did not know the way of the Lord, or, having known it, abandoned it, ensnared by transgressions of various kinds”. (Denzinger 443) In other words, it is proposed as de fide by Pope Pelagius that a pagan’s or Jew’s ignorance of the Christian Gospel at death does not in any way diminish the certainty that he will be damned.

 

[Bluegoat]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.* St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance.* In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…"

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”
*

These quotes don’t prove your point at all, especially if you understand how Thomas felt about faith and reason.

 

[Sirach2]

Tradycja:

God will hand over “to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire” all of the wicked,

This fails to prove your point, since this addresses punishment of the wicked, not those who follow the natural law written in their hearts with sincere devotion … these latter WILL be justified, per the scriptures quoted in Romans 2:14-15.

It would be wonderful if traditionalists were as diligent in using their search engines to find quotes that agree with current Church teaching, rather than struggle to find nonrelevant isolated texts that do not support one’s private point of view.

 

[Sirach2]

Brian777:

1. For those who DO NOT KNOW (aka no missionary has shown up, they are completely separated from the Church physically) **they can be saved by seeking God with a sincere heart and following natural and moral law ** examples include, Natives in America before the arrival of the Spanish missionaries, or the natives in asia before the arrival of Jesuits
   -This however does NOT excuse those who live a life contrary to moral and natural law, even if those ways are simply part of their paganism (ex, Aztecs who sacrificed lik crazy thousands of human beings to their gods, one would have to reject this in order to be considered part of the above category.)

Brian, since you are open enough to recognize the truth in what you just quoted, I have no problem discussing your initial post with you.

Brian777:

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.”

This papal encyclical dealt entirely with the importance of teaching Christian doctrine. Just prior to paragraph 2 that you pulled your quote from, the pope stated:

1. They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it. And so they arrive at life’s end in such a condition that, lest all hope of salvation be lost, the priest is obliged to give in the last few moments of life a summary teaching of religion,

And this is truth, that those who have “no anxiety to avoid sin or renounce it” … even those who ignore the natural law, will be lost. Because this encyclical did not deal with those following the natural law as did Lumen Gentium, the absence of such a declaration within the document does not prove that the Church is wrong or in error.

Brian777:

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.

Yes, this is true, and is the heart of the encyclical that all men come to know these truths through our teaching and evangelization. But you neglected to post the preceding statement [below] which gave the proper context of the one which you cited above.

1. They are mistaken who think that because of inexperience and lack of training of the people the work of catechizing can be performed in a slipshod fashion. On the contrary, the less educated the hearers, the more zeal and diligence must be used to adapt the sublime truths to their untrained minds;

Your quotes are from a papal encyclical and do not carry the full weight of teaching as the ecumenical councils. Lumen Gentium is one of the most important documents of the council, and specifically addresses those who fall into the category of natural law, with solemn pastoral teaching that is assented to by everyone except a few traditionalists who stubbornly cling to the God they have fashioned in their little box, sad to say.

Your seminary, is it FSSP, or SSPX?

 

[Sirach2]

Tradycja,

Please furnish the entire teaching surrounding the quote from De Veritate that you gave from St. Thomas. Are you able to do that? Many of you who hold to EENS have quoted this extensively, but none of you provide the background, which suggests to me that it was taken from a heretical website and not researched personally.

Since you value so highly the opinion of St. Thomas, maybe you will think more seriously about another very solemn teaching of his that proves BOB and BOD, both of which refute the incomplete understanding held by EENS-ists.

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved** without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed”.**http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2

 

[Tradycja]

Since you value so highly the opinion of St. Thomas, maybe you will think more seriously about another very solemn teaching of his that proves BOB and BOD, both of which refute the incomplete understanding held by EENS-ists.

I am aware that St. Thomas held BOD and BOB. But would you agree with him that explicit faith is necessary for salvation?

 

[Tradycja]

These quotes don’t prove your point at all, especially if you understand how Thomas felt about faith and reason.

This is not really an argument. Can you enlighten us as to how Aquinas understands faith and reason contradicts the necessity of explicit faith for salvation?

 

[Tradycja]

Tradycja,which suggests to me that it was taken from a heretical website and not researched personally.

I thought they are called “seperated brethren” now.

By the way, here is the whole De Veritate online:

dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm#11

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you for the link to De Veritate. I am glad to see that someone is finally able to present the full teaching. A couple of points St. Thomas wrote within it, do point again to the validity of natural law, especially #3 below. Namely, that there is no excuse for someone to claim ignorance of the natural law written within the heart, with respect to the commandments. If he lives them, though he knows them not explicitly, he can be saved - it is baptism of desire per St. Thomas.

Reply
And even these are not bound to believe everything explicitly in every age. For there is a gradual progress in faith for the whole human race just as there is for individual men. This is why Gregory says that down the ages there has been a growing development of divine knowledge. [This was manifested fully in Lumen Gentium]

Answers to contrary difficulties
3. The commandments of the Decalogue deal with things that are dictated by natural reason. Therefore, everyone is required to know them explicitly. A similar argument cannot be used for the articles of faith, which are above reason.

With respect to the quote you used below, I note the red part is not going to be a supernatural divine locution whereby God speaks to this man the full tenets of our faith. It may simply be affirmation and strengthening that he is pleasing to God, as we learn in Jn. 14:21 and elsewhere in the scriptures. The second part may happen if the person is in a christian country and if preachers/teachers/friends are evangelizing. We see many testimonies of these conversions on EWTN’s Coming Home. In a pagan nation, it’s not so likely that someone is going to reach them.

It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…"