Invincible ignorance/material heresy

[Sirach2]

Matorin,

Oops! I only read the content of your scripture verses, without recognizing that this is the same one we gave her. I was going to cross-reference it in my bible just now, thinking Paul taught this also in another epistle. That’s when I saw it was Romans 2. Thanks for sharing it again, anyway.

 

[AnneElliot]

Catechisms are not “papal documents” (i.e., encyclicals, papal bulls, apostolic letters/exhortations, etc.)

Is this the only ‘teaching’ of the Church to be found only in Catechisms and not in any papal or conciliar texts?

 

[AnneElliot]

From the EWTN site regarding the Catechism of Pope Pius X:
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

The Catechism of the Council of Trent was directed to all priests. The recently released Catechism of the Catholic Church was directed to all bishops. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X is that pope’s partial realization of a simple, plain, brief, popular Catechism for uniform use throughout the whole world. In other words it is directed to the layman. It was used in the ecclesiastical province of Rome and for some years in other parts of Italy. It was not, however, prescribed for use throughout the universal church.
Parts relating to canon law may not be up to date.

 

[AnneElliot]

Problem is, you want the cliché “baptism of desire” spelled out in clear exact abc’s or you refuse to believe. The theology and teaching of the Church is clearly implicit, even though the exact wording you demand is not used in all of the documents. This is akin to heresy for you to denounce what has been taught for many centuries merely because the words to describe BOD do not suit you.

What other ‘teachings’ of the Church are only to be found “implicitly”?

You accuse me of heresy (i.e., “this is akin to heresy”), yet there are at least three religious orders who follow the strict understanding of the explicit dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and are in good standing with the Church, and listed on the Diocesan website for the Diocese of Worcester, MA. Would you say the Diocese is supporting heretical groups?worcesterdiocese.org/vicar/ReligiousCommunities/tabid/478/Default.aspx
sistersofstbenedictcenter.org/index.html (Sisters of St. Benedict Center)
saintbenedict.com/ (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary)
abbey.org/ (Benedictines of Still River)

If BOD is truly taught by the Church, then you should easily be able to provide a papal or conciliar statement that mentions the teaching explicitly.

 

[chypmonk]

As for scripture used against Anne Eliot, I think she could accuse those who attack her of being blind too.

Does the Catholic Church believe this scripture literally and proclaimed that way infallibly?

John 3:5 (New International Version)

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

 

[diggerdomer]

Catechisms are not “papal documents” (i.e., encyclicals, papal bulls, apostolic letters/exhortations, etc.)

Is this the only ‘teaching’ of the Church to be found only in Catechisms and not in any papal or conciliar texts?

What do YOU mean/understand by “papal documents”?

If you mean things issued/taught by the Pope solely and personally, then yes of course Catechisms do not fit THAT definition.

However, Catechisms (which you have been provided numerous examples of in this Thread) are approved, personally, by the Pope, even though they are not solely the result of the Pope as an individual teacher. Rather, they are issued personally by the Pope as a teaching, from his Office, for the Church.

So, what exactly do you limit “papal documents” to? Does your definition fit the actual experience and teaching of the Church?

Whether the Pope approves/teaches something based on his own personal initiatve/teaching (e.g. encyclicals, motu proprios) or whether he does so as the Bishop of Rome (Apostolic Constitutions, decretal letters, etc.) in communion with the whole Church…they are all in that sense “Papal teachings”. No?

 

[AnneElliot]

As I have said numerous times already, the CCC in and of itself is not authoritative. The teachings are found OUTSIDE of the CCC in papal or Conciliar documents.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now our Holy Father!) wrote:
“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26

So if the Church authentically teaches BOD it would be found OUTSIDE the CCC.

What do I mean by “papal document”? Encyclicals, Apostolic letters/exhortations, Bulls, etc. In THIS context I’m looking for something written/proclaimed by the Pope (or a previous Pope) personally, yes, because, Catechisms are not in and of themselves authoritative. The teachings within receive their authority from their outside proclamations (i.e., the authority “they already possess”). If you can’t find a teaching being taught by the Magisterium outside of a Catechism… then it has no authority. The CCC doesn’t grant it authority.

 

[Cinette]

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.

*This is very hard to believe that a merciful God would condemn an ignorant person to perpetual condemnation!!!

I worry because I was away from the Church for 27 years and had 4 children the youngest of whom is unbaptised. Only one of my children is Christian. My husband, who was atheist converted and is a daily communicant. Now what about my children. I pray for them daily. The thought that they might be condemned pains me. They are very secular but good.

It is my fault!

Cinette*

 

[AnneElliot]

Cinette,

I understand you. My family perverted from the faith when I was very young. They are not practicing or non-Catholics. I pray for them and their conversions.

God’s justice does not take away from His infinite mercy. I can live and preach the Truth, but I cannot force anyone to accept it-- I can only pray for them to be open to the grace of the Holy Spirit. God will enlighten the ignorant who truly seek Him.

Do not underestimate the powerful effect of prayer, but do not fall into the trap of denying Dogma for reasons of sentimentality, either.

I will pray for your children along with my family. Trust in God.

 

[Cinette]

Cinette,

I understand you. My family perverted from the faith when I was very young. They are not practicing or non-Catholics. I pray for them and their conversions.

God’s justice does not take away from His infinite mercy. I can live and preach the Truth, but I cannot force anyone to accept it-- I can only pray for them to be open to the grace of the Holy Spirit. God will enlighten the ignorant who truly seek Him.

Do not underestimate the powerful effect of prayer, but do not fall into the trap of denying Dogma for reasons of sentimentality, either.

I will pray for your children along with my family. Trust in God.

Thank you Anne and I will pray for your family also

Have you or anyone else on this thread know of the concept of implicit Faith?

Cinette*

 

[AnneElliot]

Thanks for the prayers

Have you or anyone else on this thread know of the concept of implicit Faith?

The Church doesn’t teach that implicit faith is salvific either. Anyone with sincere “implicit faith” would be brought to explicit faith by Divine Providence.

This whole thread also underscores the importance of the missions… not just abroad, but at home as well.

 

[Cinette]

Thanks for the prayers

The Church doesn’t teach that implicit faith is salvific either. Anyone with sincere “implicit faith” would be brought to explicit faith by Divine Providence.

This whole thread also underscores the importance of the missions… not just abroad, but at home as well.

*I was once a revolutionary and communist sympathiser living in a fascist state. The Church was in bed with the State and many people were alienated by the Church - who would want to belong to a Church in bed with a fascist state!!! (there were priests and religious working underground I learned later).

After I returned to the CC I thought of my deceased F in law who was a very good man - so much so that people remarked on it - both he and his wife were outstanding people. How can any man be so good on his own accord? He had to have the Spirit in him - he had been baptised after all! I agonised about this and then one day my husband was reading a book called Catholicism (written by a Catholic theologian although I believed he was censured at one time) and he came across the theory of “implicit Faith” which made a lot of sense to us. How can God condemn a really good man? Not possible - not a merciful God!

My husband converted when he was 70 and he has become a devout Catholic. The Spirit’s work! I used to say to him that he and his Father were angels and they did not know it. Such good men, such outstanding human beings!

There is hope for good people. Circumstances can drive people away. Circumstances can drive them back!

Cinette*

 

[diggerdomer]

As I have said numerous times already, the CCC in and of itself is not authoritative. The teachings are found OUTSIDE of the CCC in papal or Conciliar documents.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now our Holy Father!) wrote:
“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26

So if the Church authentically teaches BOD it would be found OUTSIDE the CCC.

What do I mean by “papal document”? Encyclicals, Apostolic letters/exhortations, Bulls, etc. In THIS context I’m looking for something written/proclaimed by the Pope (or a previous Pope) personally, yes, because, Catechisms are not in and of themselves authoritative. The teachings within receive their authority from their outside proclamations (i.e., the authority “they already possess”). If you can’t find a teaching being taught by the Magisterium outside of a Catechism… then it has no authority. The CCC doesn’t grant it authority.

If you are Catholic, you are incorrect in saying the CCC is not authoritative. Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism via his Apostolic Constiution “Fidei Depositum.” In the hierarchy of Church teachings, this kind of papal teaching outweighs others like encyclicals and motu proprios.

So, yes, it is papally authoritative.

No one but the Pope can issue an Apostolic Constitution. That is a fact.

Have you read Fidei Depositum?

 

[Aramis]

well i mean that in any “list” of the official dogmas of the church, it is always listed as simply “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

a link to a basic list is here… jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm …

not official by any means but this list or variations of it are all taken from from Denzinger I am almost positive…

"Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.) "

another list is here…theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

(PSi found this in my search, and im placing it here as an aside…this is to show that arguing over this might not be the best thing we could do…regardless of what we believe on this subject, we all can agree that anyone who believes this ( jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm ) is in grave error, heresy, and may be headed for damnation. perhaps we should be refuting this, instead of refuting each other on a point of doctrine that can be validly disagreed upon in its particulars, but not in its essence, which is exactly what the above link does not accept…just food for thought.)

Baptism, however, unites one to the church.

 

[AnneElliot]

If you are Catholic, you are incorrect in saying the CCC is not authoritative. Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism via his Apostolic Constiution “Fidei Depositum.” In the hierarchy of Church teachings, this kind of papal teaching outweighs others like encyclicals and motu proprios.

So, yes, it is papally authoritative.

No one but the Pope can issue an Apostolic Constitution. That is a fact.

Have you read Fidei Depositum?

You need to read Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you haven’t already. He is talking about Fidei Depositum when he wrote the sentence I quoted above.

Yes, I’ve read Fidei Depositum, it’s at the beginning of my copy of the CCC.

Do you deny that the teachings in the CCC derive their authority from elsewhere, outside the Catechism?

 

[benedictus2]

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

One has to be very careful when extracting quotes. Everything needs to be looked at in reference to the whole.
The implied conclusion in the above is much too close to Calvinistic which is not the intent of Acerbo Nimis.

Here is the paragraph that it was extracted from.

 .* It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life - for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones - but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there. They rarely give thought to God, the Supreme Author and Ruler of all things, or to the teachings of the faith of Christ. They know nothing of the Incarnation of the Word of God, nothing of the perfect restoration of the human race which He accomplished. Grace, the greatest of the helps for attaining eternal things, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments by which we obtain grace, are entirely unknown to them. 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, a time which should be devoted to stimulating the soul to greater love for God. And even this as too often happens only when the dying man is not so sinfully ignorant as to look upon the ministration of the priest as useless, and then calmly faces the fearful passage to eternity without making his peace with God. 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."[3]*

Notice that it is talking specifically of Christians who because of their own neglect fail to be instructed on the divine mysteries. The rest of the encyclical goes on to speak of the duties of priests to proclaim the truth.

Very timely in this day and age.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

That is true.** May** be saved. It hinges on how accepts the truth. That is why there is a great onus on Christians to proclaim the gospel. We cannot have this kind of thinking that all religions are equal so we will just sit back and relax.

Those who do not get the light because of our failure to evangelize (which is part and parcel of our baptism) cannot be totally blamed for their ignorance. But we are held accountable for their ignorance for neglecting our duty to evangelize.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I think you need to read this in the context of Matthew 16:31-46.

If one does not believe in Jesus because through no fault of their own have not heard of Jesus ( through our fault really because we have not evangelized), then God can hardly condemn them to hell.

That is why the relativistic rubbish we get fed these days is exactly that - rubbish.

We need to evangelize precisely because religions are not equal.

A lot of people misinterpret Vatican II regarding this.

 

[Sirach2]

Benedictus,

The OP, Brian777, has requested closure of the thread, since his original question was answered. You probably did not see this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6722800&postcount=124

ok everyone, my question has been answered, and i am no longer confused…there are probabaly hundreds of threads with this ridiculous argument**…**

i hold that baptism of blood and desire work in certian ways we may not be able to understand…God, somehow saves the truly invible ignorant soul who seeks Him with sincerity

…anyway I move this thread be closed as the OP has been answered and concluded.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus,

The OP, Brian777, has requested closure of the thread, since his original question was answered. You probably did not see this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6722800&postcount=124

Yes, he has requested that but the forum is still open.

Besides, the problem with the confusion in the OP arouse from a mis-understanding of the encyclical. No one has brought up that one yet, and that is a point that needs to be made. We need to be careful with things like this as his OP sounded like a Pope was teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine. And also the fact that this is a habit I have seen a few protestants do on this forum and it is not good when I see a Catholic falling into the same error.

So his question may have been answered as far as he is concerned but the matter is not exactly satisfactorily settled until you read the encyclical and realize it has been taken all out of context.