Invincible Ignorance....

[PJM]

=SGT ROCK 33;6661393]Proclamations after the reformation:

You really know your stuff my friend.

But I’m an OLDER GUY getting a bit tired from all this work.

So now we are down to a defination of therms.

Main Entry: 1re·ces·sion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈse-shən
Function: noun
Date: circa 1652
1 : the act or action of receding : withdrawal
2 : a departing procession (as of clergy and choir at the end of a church service)

The term seems to imply “backing away from.”

That seems to me to be the polar opposite of what is taking place. It is ADDING too understanding; NOT taking away or changing it. As the Pope an Mgisterium are impowered and guided by God in doing that.

God Bless you Sarge!

 

[Lormar]

PJM

Are you talking about the evolution of doctrine in the sense that it has to be updated from time to time to accommodate the times?

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

=SGT ROCK 33;6661393]Proclamations after the reformation:

You really know your stuff my friend.

But I’m an OLDER GUY getting a bit tired from all this work.

So now we are down to a defination of therms.

Main Entry: 1re·ces·sion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈse-shən
Function: noun
Date: circa 1652
1 : the act or action of receding : withdrawal
2 : a departing procession (as of clergy and choir at the end of a church service)

The term seems to imply “backing away from.”

That seems to me to be the polar opposite of what is taking place. It is ADDING too understanding; NOT taking away or changing it. As the Pope an Mgisterium are impowered and guided by God in doing that.

God Bless you Sarge!

 

[elts1956]

The only statement I can remember from my long ago Catholic High School education, taught by Notre Dame sisters, is that one can be saved, if not Catholic, only if one does not have any doubt about their relationship to God. If there is doubt, one must search for Truth. If doubt is felt, and not reconciled as well as one is able to do, then perhaps there is danger of no salvation.

Now what God has to say about folks who obstinately refuse to rid themselves of errors, I leave that for God to judge.

This could be about the most liberal statement I have ever made regarding the doctrines of the Church.

 

[AnneElliot]

1. What precisely is ‘invincible ignorance’?
2. What makes ignorance invincible?

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 ‐ Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” - Condemned

Below is a fuller teaching from the pope quoted above.

**Pius IX’s **encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) states,

“7. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

 

[CradleCath]

**There are many more references, but as you can see, the Church has always taught that baptism is necessary for salvation./**LEFT]

God Bless

,

Of course, but there are 3 types of Baptism:
Baptism by water, which is the most common type.
Baptism by blood, if one is martyred for his/her faith in Christ.
Baptism of Desire when one desires to live his/her life in Communion with God…but hasn’t the knowledge of the Catholic Church. (An old nun, in the 1940’s, explained it to my class in this way:

When the early missionaries brought the gospel to the American Indians, they had no knowledge of a man named Jesus Christ, Who died to save mankind. They had never heard of a Church, certainly not of the Catholic Church. Therefore they were victims of INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE. Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two to be considered here are invincible and vincible. **Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is invincible when a person can not remove it by applying reasonable diligence.
**. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

For the Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) sums up the
Catholic understanding of this doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by
saying (De Baptismo, cap. 1): "It is de fide [of the faith and required to
be believed by all Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the
baptism of the Spirit *. In
this he expresses the teaching of all the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and
theologians, including St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St.
Fulgentius, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa, Q. 68, A.2), St.
Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent
III, and Pope St. Pius X.

   Specifically, the Council of Trent dogmatically recognized the

doctrine of Baptism of Desire when it defined:

Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum
gratiae … post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis AUT EIUS
VOTO fieri not potest. [The translation from that state in which man is born
a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace … cannot, since the
promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the laver of
regeneration OR ITS DESIRE.] (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione, Caput IV:
Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in Statu Gratiae)

St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis, quotes this
passage and comments: “Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also
saved by Baptism of desire.” This dogma was confirmed by the Council of
Trent.
en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/salvation-outside-Church.htm#b*

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Below is a fuller teaching from the pope quoted above.

**Pius IX’s **encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) states,

“7. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

Convenient that you left out the beginning of #7 which states:
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore
7. “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching…”

The opening part of #7 is directly in line with what the Church has always taught. Nevertheless, this was only a letter to the Bishops in Italy and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore does not meet the requirements of infallibility.

It would be better to quote from the *Syllabus, * which has no mention of the invincible ignorance exception.

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

,

Of course, but there are 3 types of Baptism:
Baptism by water, which is the most common type.
Baptism by blood, if one is martyred for his/her faith in Christ.
Baptism of Desire when one desires to live his/her life in Communion with God…but hasn’t the knowledge of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one Baptism, not three:

The Nicene‐Constantinople Creed, 381, ex cathedra: “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “Having read these holy phrases and finding ourselves in agreement (for ‘there is one Lord, one faith, **one baptism’ **[Eph. 4:5]), we have given glory to God who is the savior of all…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer, April 13, 1053: “I believe that the one true Church is holy, Catholic and apostolic, in which is given one baptism and the true remission of all sins.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “One is my dove,my perfect one… which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra: “Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non‐exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile (# 8), Dec. 25, 1775: “… We exhort and advise you to be all of one mind and in harmony as you strive for the same object, just as the Church has one faith, one baptism, and one spirit.”

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) **may those fear **who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of
any religion whatever.”

Pope Leo XIII, Graves de communi re (# 8), Jan. 18, 1901: “Hence the doctrine of the Apostle, who warns us that ‘We are one body and spirit called to the one hope in our vocation; one Lord, one faith and** one baptism**…”

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

,For the Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) sums up the
Catholic understanding of this doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by
saying (De Baptismo, cap. 1): "It is de fide [of the faith and required to
be believed by all Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the
baptism of the Spirit *. In
this he expresses the teaching of all the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and
theologians, including St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St.
Fulgentius, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa, Q. 68, A.2), St.
Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent
III, and Pope St. Pius X.

St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis, quotes this
passage and comments: “Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also
saved by Baptism of desire.”*

While the doctors and Saints of the Church were all good men, they did not have the gift of infallibility. The Popes teach us:

Pope Benedict XIV, *Apostolica *(# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

Pope Pius XII, *Humani generis *(# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

St. Thomas wrote an entire book correcting some of his errors. The Church has never defined BOD or BOB as a dogma of the faith. Saints and Doctors have speculated on this a lot, but it has never been inallibly defined as a dogma of the faith.

Water has always been taught as the matter for the sacrament of baptism:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. **The matter of this sacrament is real and **natural water.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Specifically, the Council of Trent dogmatically recognized the doctrine of Baptism of Desire when it defined:

Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum
gratiae … post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis AUT EIUS
VOTO fieri not potest. [The translation from that state in which man is born
a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace … cannot, since the
promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the laver of
regeneration OR ITS DESIRE.] (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione, Caput IV:
Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in Statu Gratiae)
This dogma was confirmed by the Council of Trent.

The Sacrament of Baptism, infallibly defined by the Council of Trent:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

God Bless

 

[ncjohn]

It would be better to quote from the *Syllabus, * which has no mention of the invincible ignorance exception.

Better in what way? The Syllabus has no seal of infallibility either and has many things in it that are nothing more than matters of prudence specific to the era and circumstances. I have seen many people appeal to the Syllabus and try to confer infallibility on it but nobody yet who can produce any documentation whatsoever that such infallibility exists.

 

[CradleCath]

The Sacrament of Baptism, infallibly defined by the Council of Trent:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

God Bless

You know what? We could go on for a week cutting & pasting different articles about this, but I don’t want to. So…what do YOU think? Would the Native Americans, who had never heard the word Baptism…who knew nothing of Jesus Christ, but who believed, through the knowledge “written on the hearts of men” that there existed a Creator be culpable because they weren’t Baptized with water?

For instance, The Iroquois Nation was able to provide for the needs of it’s people & allowed for the development of a systematic belief system that was more developed than most other systems found among Native American civilizations. According to Lewis H. Morgan, their religion is characterized by a monotheistic belief in an all-powerful creator known as the “Great Spirit”, or “Ha-wen-ne-yu.” "The Iroquois believed in the constant superintending care of the Great Spirit. He ruled and administered the world, and the affairs of the red race."

So what do YOU believe about these people who lived before the time that Christ was brought into their lives by our Missionaries. Who had never heard the gospel, nor the word “Baptize”. Do you believe that they are all in Hell?

I believe that it would be VERY difficult to enter heaven, if one weren’t Catholic. Without the graces inherent in our Sacraments, alone, it would be quite a difficult journey. Still, I believe that it would be possible.

 

[ncjohn]

The Sacrament of Baptism, infallibly defined by the Council of Trent:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

God Bless

Yet none of your quotes rules out Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood or condemns any proposition that they could exist. They really do nothing more than confirm the necessary requirements for what would be considered “normal” baptism. There are many Church documents and teachings dealing with Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, specifically invoking such situations as the Holy Innocents and the “good thief”, without which there is no explanation of the Church’s belief in their salvation.

We have quotes from you defining that natural water is the matter of the sacrament. That’s fine. We don’t baptize with wine or milk.

Your quote here does nothing more than answer those objections that deal with those who claim that the water *in utero *is being “born of water” and that baptism in the spirit is all that is necessary thereafter. There is nothing in this quote either that states that ONLY bapitsm by water is salvific.

And by the way, your use of “ex cathedra” in your quotes is misleading at best as far as my understanding goes. *Ex Cathedra *refers only to those statements made by the Pope directly invoking that infallibility which belongs to him specifically and not to documents of an ecumenical council. To the best of my knowledge the designation of ex cathedra so far applies solely to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Statements–NOT documents–from an ecumenical council may indeed have their own seal of infallibility by virtue of their stated intent to bind the entire Church but not on an *ex cathedra *basis.

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt Rock 33:

Convenient that you left out the beginning of #7 which states:
**Quanto Conficiamur Moerore **
7. “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching…”

The opening part of #7 is directly in line with what the Church has always taught. Nevertheless, this was only a letter to the Bishops in Italy and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore does not meet the requirements of infallibility.

The only reason I left this out is because it is well understood, and there was no need to mention it anew. Catholics who know their faith realize they cannot attain salvation living in error and/or alienated from unity with the Church. This omitted sentence did not address the critical part of the paragraph which I cited for your reference, since that was the title of your thread alluding to the fact that no document had ever mentioned “invincible ignorance.”

You can justify it all you wish that papal encyclicals are not infallible, but you would be in error. This was, in fact, an encyclical, not simply a letter. It was addressed thus:

To Our Beloved Sons, S. R. E. Cardinals and to Our Venerable Brothers, the Archbishops and Bishops of Italy.
Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.

It was NOT simply an informal letter to the Italian Bishops, but formal teaching that included ALL of “Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers.”

Sgt, I would kindly refer you to Vatican I which defined infallilbility, and to Lumen Gentium from Vatican II which further defined and upheld that teaching, but I have the feeling you will find an excuse to cling to your malformed opinion. Why? Because you believe wholeheartedly in EENS. Yes? I have answered your opening question, but why do I sense you did not want to hear this answer?

Again, #7, the CRITICAL objection to your OP states:

“7. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency does not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt Rock 33:

While the doctors and Saints of the Church were all good men, they did not have the gift of infallibility. The Popes teach us:

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

On another matter, it is clear that whenever a saint/doctor states what is in accord with your opinion, it is upheld as infallibly correct, but you seem to pick and choose among them.

May I remind you, therefore, that St. Thomas Aquinas is also simply a saint/doctor, and his opinion does not supercede the judgment of the Church, no matter how well defined his argument. You quote him in many posts as if he overrides the teaching of the magisterium. Kindly take your own advice, please.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

On another matter, it is clear that whenever a saint/doctor states what is in accord with your opinion, it is upheld as infallibly correct, but you seem to pick and choose among them.

May I remind you, therefore, that St. Thomas Aquinas is also simply a saint/doctor, and his opinion does not supercede the judgment of the Church, no matter how well defined his argument. You quote him in many posts as if he overrides the teaching of the magisterium. Kindly take your own advice, please.

I have… The quotes of St. Thomas that I have used, fall directly in line with Church teaching and do not contain any recession from dogma.

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

The only reason I left this out is because it is well understood, and there was no need to mention it anew. Catholics who know their faith realize they cannot attain salvation living in error and/or alienated from unity with the Church. This omitted sentence did not address the critical part of the paragraph which I cited for your reference, since that was the title of your thread alluding to the fact that no document had ever mentioned “invincible ignorance.”

You can justify it all you wish that papal encyclicals are not infallible, but you would be in error. This was, in fact, an encyclical, not simply a letter. It was addressed thus:
To Our Beloved Sons, S. R. E. Cardinals and to Our Venerable Brothers, the Archbishops and Bishops of Italy.
Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.
It was NOT simply an informal letter to the Italian Bishops, but formal teaching that included ALL of “Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers.”

Sgt, I would kindly refer you to Vatican I which defined infallilbility, and to Lumen Gentium from Vatican II which further defined and upheld that teaching, but I have the feeling you will find an excuse to cling to your malformed opinion. Why? Because you believe wholeheartedly in EENS. Yes? I have answered your opening question, but why do I sense you did not want to hear this answer?

Again, #7, the CRITICAL objection to your OP states:

“7. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency does not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

Not ALL Papal Encyclicals are infallible, and this particular encyclical does not meet the requirements of infallibility. It is a formal letter addressed to the cardinals and bishops in Italy.

 

[Sirach2]

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX
AUGUST 10, 1863

My source, two ecumenical councils that officially defined infallibility will have to suffice for myself and loyal Catholics. Sgt, that is your personal decision to disregard Church teaching and explain it away under the guise of a letter. In truth, it is an encyclical, and these are infallible teachings. Maybe you are confusing the term with “ex cathedra”, and if so, I would agree that it is not “ex cathedra.” That does not make it any less infallible nevertheless.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Yet none of your quotes rules out Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood or condemns any proposition that they could exist. They really do nothing more than confirm the necessary requirements for what would be considered “normal” baptism. There are many Church documents and teachings dealing with Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, specifically invoking such situations as the Holy Innocents and the “good thief”, without which there is no explanation of the Church’s belief in their salvation.

We have quotes from you defining that natural water is the matter of the sacrament. That’s fine. We don’t baptize with wine or milk.

Your quote here does nothing more than answer those objections that deal with those who claim that the water *in utero *is being “born of water” and that baptism in the spirit is all that is necessary thereafter. There is nothing in this quote either that states that ONLY bapitsm by water is salvific…

Yet, you cannot come up with a dogma, rather a doctrine of the faith, concerning BOD or BOB, only speculation from the Saints and Doctors.

Why was BOB and BOD specifically excluded from the definitions that I have presented? That’s the question… These theories have always been excluded, rather than included when defining the sacrament of baptism. Why?

And by the way, your use of “ex cathedra” in your quotes is misleading at best as far as my understanding goes. *Ex Cathedra *refers only to those statements made by the Pope directly invoking that infallibility which belongs to him specifically and not to documents of an ecumenical council. To the best of my knowledge the designation of ex cathedra so far applies solely to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Statements–NOT documents–from an ecumenical council may indeed have their own seal of infallibility by virtue of their stated intent to bind the entire Church but not on an *ex cathedra *basis.

Ex cathedra simply means “from the Chair.”

"The Church teaches infallibly when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and the bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.

The Church teaches infallibly through the Pope alone, when he speaks **ex **cathedra (We Declare, We define, etc.) as the Supreme Head, the Vicar of Christ, for the entire universal Church. Our Lord told Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)

The Church teaches infallibly through the Pope and the bishops when convened in a general council. Upon confirmation by the Pope, a General Council’s decrees are binding on all Christians. It should also be noted, that the decrees of a General Council have no binding authority until confirmed by the Pope. There is no appeal from the Pope to a General Council." (My Catholic Faith)

God Bless