Invincible Ignorance....

[Sirach2]

Not disregard, but it distinguishes between the authentic teachings of the Church. Nothing is taught definitively in the Catechism that is not defined outside of it.

Well, since I provided the footnotes that prove the Church’s definition “outside of it” (the CCC) and they are all from the Vatican Council II, in case you did not recognize the abbreviations. These are listed in the back of the catechism, but most people familiar with the Council recognize the document the initials refer to.

With reference to your second question and catechumens, I submitted this earlier in the thread, but apparently not all of you read what has been presented. This is from the Catechism of the Counci of Trent, which many overlook in their haste to have Trent prove their stand on EENS, without looking any further to see what else the Church has to say that mitigates the circumstances. We see yet another instance where the Church has ALWAYS believed in baptism of desire.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
cin.org/users/james/ebook…nt/tsacr-b.htm

 

[ncjohn]

Not disregard, but it distinguishes between the authentic teachings of the Church. Nothing is taught definitively in the Catechism that is not defined outside of it.

So we get back to the real question. Are you claiming that these are NOT authentic teachings of the Church and are in contradiction with doctrine? We seem to keep dancing around the question without being able to get an answer to it.

I don’t expect that anyone is going to change your mind any more than you are going to change mine. I’m truly just trying to understand exactly what you and Sgt Rock are actually trying to say.

Can we just have a simple “yes” or “no”?

 

[Sirach2]

**BOB and BOD. **

Rather than type it again:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6671459&postcount=82

 

[2Chronicles]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/nonsalus.htm

this site tells what certain popes and saints have to say about no salvation outside the Church

 

[2Chronicles]

Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.

**Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274): “There is no enterning into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church.” (Summa Theologiae) **

wow, this is interesting because i htought the Church taught there IS salvation outside the Church as long as – there is invincible ignorance

 

[2Chronicles]

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside the ark on Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never recieved the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having recieved it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.”

 

[2Chronicles]

St. Francis of Assisi “And all of us humbly entreat and beseech everyone, all nations and all men in all the earth who are, and who shall be, that we may all of us persevere in the true faith: for otherwise no one can be saved.”

St. Louis Marie de Montfort “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes.” -

 

[DavidJoseph]

Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.

Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274): “There is no enterning into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church.” (Summa Theologiae)

wow, this is interesting because i htought the Church taught there IS salvation outside the Church as long as – there is invincible ignorance

If someone is invincibly ignorant and, through no fault of their own, never get the opportunity to hear the truth, then IF they go to heaven, you have to remember that they’re saved BECAUSE of Christ and His Church, not in spite of it. Thus, salvation in such cases is actually NOT salvation outside the Church, since such individuals, while not part of the BODY of the Church, nevertheless form part of the Church’s SOUL.

 

[MIKE46]

If someone is invincibly ignorant and, through no fault of their own, never get the opportunity to hear the truth, then IF they go to heaven, you have to remember that they’re saved BECAUSE of Christ and His Church, not in spite of it. Thus, salvation in such cases is actually NOT salvation outside the Church, since such individuals, while not part of the BODY of the Church, nevertheless form part of the Church’s SOUL.

How about those who have heard the truth such as protestants and who knowingly reject it? How about Jews and Muslims, both of whom know what the Catholic Church is and knowingly and willfully reject it?

How far does the term invincible ignorance reach? Does it apply to them as well? Does it apply to everyone regardless of his position in life?

 

[CradleCath]

**BOB and BOD. **

Rather than type it again:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6671459&postcount=82

Thank you for linking back to this postL:

Anne, I’m not sure how old you are, but if you are from the pre-Vatican II age, many traditionalists adhered to the old Baltimore Catechism (1941) as their rule of faith. It was felt to be the solemn teachings of the Church. Here is the wording:

Quote:
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
**Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire. **
catholicity.com/baltimore…/lesson24.html

I was born the same year that the Baltimore Catechism was. I attended 16 years of Catholic education & I remember this chapter very well. I first learned of it in the third grade. It gave me great comfort as my Mother’s parents & siblings were Lutheran.

We later discussed it thoroughly in high school where I was taught by the Madames of the Sacred Heart. By the time I was in college, it was “old hat”. The RSCJ’s were the “sister order” to the **then **great & scholastic order, the Jesuits & VERY well educated themselves…most of them worked on advanced degrees during the summer months.

It was the Father Feeney affair in the 50’s… & remember that he was a Jesuit…a member of the Brother order of the nuns who taught me theology…that the continuing & **lively ** discussions of his “take” on the doctrine of EENS became common.

BTW., Another poster was stunned that a poster who seems so engrossed in the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church was unaware of the Feeney fiasco. So am I. I’ve found a site that contains many records concerning his actions, his excommunication & the true teaching of the Church re this subject.

And if you are reeeeeallly old , here is the Catechism of St. Pius X:
Quote:
17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: **The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire. **cin.org/users/james/ebook…us/psacr-b.htm

My Catholic father, born in 1914 & my Catholic Grandfather born in 1871 were taught the **same doctrine re EENS **from the Catechism of St. Pius X.

continued in next post:

 

[CradleCath]

[Texts Condemning Feeneyism

Decree of Archbishop of Boston, April 18, 1949 – Suppressing Feeney and SBC

Letter of the Holy Office, August 8, 1949 – The True Sense of the Catholic Doctrine that There Is No Salvation Outside The Church

Decree of Excommunication, 13 February 1953 – Excommunicating Leonard Feeney

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949
**Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

** Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.**

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.

---

Pius XII – Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949

Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.

cont. in next post:

 

[CradleCath]

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom,** “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.**

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
**
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.**

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

** Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.**

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

** In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.** This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The rest of the document can be found at:
romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm

I was at a very impressionable age while Father Feeney was standing on street corners giving HIS opinion of a matter of Church Dogma. I listened the radio with my parents as he stood on street corners, quite soon after WW. II & condemned All Jews to Hell, while saying he was the representative of the Church in this matter. I saw the damage, he did to not only the Catholic Church, but to those who might have become Catholics if not for his “preaching”.

This is a Catholic forum, but many non-Catholics read these posts. I ask those of you who do not understand this Dogma in DEPTH, to please remember that.

I have a feeling that this thread is simply an exercise in intellectual “boasting”…a debate that the Sgt. et al wants to win…with no thought as to the damage that can be done with the false intreptation that he is giving.

 

[Tradycja]

I have a feeling that this thread is simply an exercise in intellectual “boasting”…a debate that the Sgt. et al wants to win…with no thought as to the damage that can be done with the false intreptation that he is giving.

So you can interpret Dogmas? How do you interpret the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Do you interpret the Dogma of Transubstantiation as well? Why when it comes to THIS dogma do we need to “interpret”?

Dogmatic “definitions” are just that—definitions. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then say, “Oh, gee, how do I interpret this?”

I am continually amazed at why this causes problems with people. WE (Catholics) believe -KNOW- that a piece of bread can and DOES become Jesus Himself. Yet some of the same people who claim to accept this have problems with the fact that truth is necessary for salvation.

Dogmatic definitions are to be accepted in faith:

---

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:***
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[Denzinger 2022]

 

[Tradycja]

I saw the damage, he did to not only the Catholic Church, but to those who might have become Catholics if not for his “preaching”.

Why would it be so necessary that those people become Catholics?

 

[AnneElliot]

If someone is invincibly ignorant and, through no fault of their own, never get the opportunity to hear the truth, then IF they go to heaven, you have to remember that they’re saved BECAUSE of Christ and His Church, not in spite of it. Thus, salvation in such cases is actually NOT salvation outside the Church, since such individuals, while not part of the BODY of the Church, nevertheless form part of the Church’s SOUL.

The Church is a body (The Body of Christ).
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’” (#57)

The idea I underlined from your earlier post (i.e., that people can belong to the “soul” of the Church without belonging to the body) was condemned as a heresy by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Satis Cognitum “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of **both **elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.” (#3)
And by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.” (#10)

“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, 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, * Cantate Domino

 

[DavidJoseph]

How about those who have heard the truth such as protestants and who knowingly reject it? How about Jews and Muslims, both of whom know what the Catholic Church is and knowingly and willfully reject it?

How far does the term invincible ignorance reach? Does it apply to them as well? Does it apply to everyone regardless of his position in life?

The Church teaches that anyone who **knows **the Catholic Church is true yet refuses to enter will go to hell. But how do you claim to know how much particular groups know? You can’t possibly know that. Only God knows.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=Tradycja;6672228]So you can interpret Dogmas?

Absolutely not. However, I can read the words of those who can & I can ask my priest when I need his help to find the documents that are true & COMPLETE in their teachings. You have just read, I hope, documents from Archbishops, Cardinals & the Pope, himself. I didn’t write them, I just passed them along. Did you read those words.

How do you interpret the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Do you interpret the Dogma of Transubstantiation as well? Why when it comes to THIS dogma do we need to “interpret”?

Don’t know quite how you did the mental gymnastics that it would take to go from reading the documents from the Magisterium of the Church…to accusing ME of interpreting Dogma.

Dogmatic “definitions” are just that—definitions. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then say, “Oh, gee, how do I interpret this?”

I am continually amazed at why this causes problems with people. WE (Catholics) believe -KNOW- that a piece of bread can and DOES become Jesus Himself. Yet some of the same people who claim to accept this have problems with the fact that truth is necessary for salvation.

This is just cruel & it really shows a lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Church. The Truth, or a deep desire to find the truth, are in fact necessary for salvation.

Dogmatic definitions are to be accepted in faith:

---

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:***
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[Denzinger 2022]

Absolutely. They are to be accepted as they are taught, they are to be accepted COMPLETELY & passing along errant teachings or partial teachings would be sinful IMO.

 

[DavidJoseph]

The Church is a body (The Body of Christ).
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’” (#57)

The idea I underlined from your earlier post (i.e., that people can belong to the “soul” of the Church without belonging to the body) was condemned as a heresy by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Satis Cognitum “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of **both **elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.” (#3)
And by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.” (#10)

“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, 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, * Cantate Domino

What I said was NOT espousing the Protestant idea of an invisible church. Far from it. If I were you, I’d be careful about accusing people of heresy willy-nilly. You assume that my understanding of Church dogma, as well as that of almost everyone else on here, is faulty. Why couldn’t YOUR understanding be faulty? Are you a theologian?

 

[CradleCath]

So you can interpret Dogmas? How do you interpret the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Do you interpret the Dogma of Transubstantiation as well? Why when it comes to THIS dogma do we need to “interpret”?

Dogmatic “definitions” are just that—definitions. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then say, “Oh, gee, how do I interpret this?”

I am continually amazed at why this causes problems with people. WE (Catholics) believe -KNOW- that a piece of bread can and DOES become Jesus Himself. Yet some of the same people who claim to accept this have problems with the fact that truth is necessary for salvation.

Dogmatic definitions are to be accepted in faith:

---

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:***
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[Denzinger 2022]

My fellow posters, please put the above quote into your search engine. It will lead you to **mostholyfamilymonastery sites. ** These will take you to sedevacantist sites. We are dealing with a bunch of sedes here who are giving Traditional Roman Catholics a horrible name & claiming false doctrines by giving partial quotes, etc.

I do hope that the moderators will check this out.

 

[CradleCath]

My fellow posters, please put the above quote into your search engine. It will lead you to **mostholyfamilymonastery sites. ** These will take you to sedevacantist sites. We are dealing with a bunch of sedes here who are giving Traditional Roman Catholics a horrible name & claiming false doctrines by giving partial quotes, etc.

I do hope that the moderators will check this out.

Sorry, I should have linked you to more info about mostholycatholicmonastery:

“Most Holy Family Monastery is a non-profit sedevacantist organization run by Michael Dimond. The Roman Catholic Church opposes it and its positions. Roman Catholic laymen rebut their theological claims, point by point.[1] The diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, condemns them as anti-Catholic”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery.