Invincible Ignorance....

[SGT_ROCK_33]

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.

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Encyclical

1. a papal** letter** to the bishops of the Church as a whole, or to those in one country.

I’d say that by definition, and encyclical is a letter.

Vatican I on infallibility:

Pope Pius IX,
Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, 1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH ,through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.

Please explain how Quanto Conficiamur Moerore meets the requirements of infallibility…

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt Rock 33:

Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra

Yes, but Pius IX was not speaking “ex cathedra” so your citation is moot. There were only two times in history that this was done, as ncjohn mentioned. However, when he speaks concerning faith or morals, (and I found another document that includes “disciplines,” as well), which he was doing in this “letter” (if you insist on calling it that), it is infallible.

Lumen Gentium 25.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

All in all, you are trying to get around EENS with some hand selected quotes that look authentic, but you do need to consider the harm you do to the Body of Christ in a public forum such as this, to propagate your own errors. May God enlighten you.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Yes, but Pius IX was not speaking “ex cathedra” so your citation is moot. There were only two times in history that this was done, as ncjohn mentioned. However, when he speaks concerning faith or morals, (and I found another document that includes “disciplines,” as well), which he was doing in this “letter” (if you insist on calling it that), it is infallible.

Lumen Gentium 25.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

All in all, you are trying to get around EENS with some hand selected quotes that look authentic, but you do need to consider the harm you do to the Body of Christ in a public forum such as this, to propagate your own errors. May God enlighten you.

You have still failed to prove that the encyclical you cited meets the criteria of infallibility. What doctrine of faith or morals does the encyclical specifically teach to the Universal Church? The doctrine of invincible ignorance?

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

All in all, you are trying to get around EENS with some hand selected quotes that look authentic, but you do need to consider the harm you do to the Body of Christ in a public forum such as this, to propagate your own errors. May God enlighten you.

Trying to get around EENS…how, specifically?

Hand selected quotes…from the Popes and Councils?

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt, here is the difference between an “encyclical” written by a pope, followed by a listing of “letters.” Letters do not require the same religious assent as does an encyclical. If Pius IX wished to simply call his communication an Apostolic Letter, the title would have used that language.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/index.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1990/index_en.htm
Lumen Gentium 25:

For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

You apparently do not have intentions of rendering religious assent, unless one has proof that the Pontiff is issuing a new teaching or definition on faith or morals. I have no intention of getting into a quote war with you, especially since you have your arsenal already loaded to prove EENS, regardless of V-II’s development that has mitigated your theory.

I would just like to mention that the real failure of Jonah was his intense anger when God showed clemency to the ancient Ninevites, who were people of “invincible ignorance,” never having received the Law. Somehow you remind me of him.

 

[ncjohn]

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?

Now I’m really confused. Nothing you have quoted is dogma. It is ALL doctrine. And BOD and BOB are both Tradition from the earliest times of the Church, specifically to the “good thief” and Holy Innocents as previously noted.

The definitions may have been excluded because the mechanisms are separate from the Church sacrament of Baptism which has its specific definition. It doesn’t exclude them as a means of salvation however. That is apparently something you have chosen to do on your own in your odd interpretation of Church teachings.

Ex cathedra simply means “from the Chair.”

I am well aware of what it means. I’m not sure you are though since the definitions you give explain exactly when it is used yet you act as if it applies to any infallible statement which it does not.

"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)

 

[Tradycja]

And BOD and BOB are both Tradition from the earliest times of the Church, specifically to the “good thief”

The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood (or salvation without baptism) primarily because the*** Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection***. For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

***Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: ***“Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

 In fact, when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to Hell.  As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection.  On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says.  He did not descend to the Hell of the damned, but to the place in Hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter Heaven until after the Savior came.

**1 Peter 3:18-19 **“Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison…”

 To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.”

John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary. She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”

Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection.  It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in Heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19.  ***Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.

---

 

[Tradycja]

And regarding invincible ignorance:

First of all NO ONE HAS DEFINED WHAT IT MEANS.

So, allow me to do it:
Essentially invincible ignorance is defined as that state of lack of knowledge of the dogmas of the Faith which is not attributable to the ignorant person. To put it slightly differently the invincibly ignorant person is not at fault for his ignorance.

Now let us analyze the two-word phrase:

First, what is meant by invincible? Invincible means a status which can not be defeated, nor conquered, nor overcome, nor wounded by its opponent. Invincible only has meaning if a conflict is present.

A loving mother never stands over her newborn and declares: “I’m invincible, my son, so do not try anything.” It sounds silly because it is silly.

But what is this invincibility material to? The second word, knowledge, reveals it. The invincibility is against knowledge. What knowledge? Knowledge of, and from, God and God’s truth. Have you got this? The invincibly ignorant person’s lack of knowledge is so powerful, so strong, so firm that it CAN NOT be overcome by . . . by what, or whom?

Well, where does knowledge of God and His truth come from? Let me call knowledge of God and His revealed truth by its other name: Faith. Now we all should know that Faith (the ability to accept and believe things as the Immaculate Conception as a historical fact equal in validity to the Civil War) is a gift. In other words it comes directly, and solely, from God. Of course, all gifts may be refused.

So where are we? The invincibly ignorant person is so strong that his ignorance can not be overcome by the grace of God.

Let me assume, for this piece, that God offers the Faith to this guy. But this guy can not learn the Faith, for otherwise he would not be invincible but “defeated” by truth.
Can anything, other than bad will, be invincible against ALMIGHTY God? Let me ask this differently. What is it that can resist the will of God? It is sin, and sin alone. Thus, if man is offered Faith, or truth which leads to Faith, then the ONLY way to remain ignorant of the result (viz. that Catholicism is true and other systems are not) is to be actively sinning in resistance to God.

Thus, allowing my assumption to remain, the invincibly ignorant person is, in fact, simply sinning and rejecting by his sin the truth of God. And such a person does earn damnation. Of course, a great deal depends on the assumption that man is offered truth which will lead him to acknowledge the one true Faith. In summary: if a man remains ignorant, he does so by an act of his own will. Thus, his ignorance is sinful.

 

[AdamC]

On defining the dogma, defining infallibly, not elaborating, outside the church there is no salvation, why was this exception of the invincably ignorant always left out?

I know of at least seven times that this dogma has been defined, and in fact, the exception of invincible ignorance has actually been excluded. As we all know, the Church cannot introduce “new” doctrines or dogmas, as everything had been revealed to the apostles. “The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (Db 1836 in The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 456)

Furthermore, it seems contrary to the dogma that “no one,” (Pope Pius IV; Benedict XIV; Pius IX) “nobody at all,” (Innocent III) “nobody, even if he shed his blood in the name of Christ”(Eugene IV) can be saved as a non‐Catholic.

So, how does this new teaching reconcile with prior infallible teachings which exclude this particular exception?

God Bless

Is this suggesting that non-Catholic Christians are damned? What I’ve read regarding that idea is that non-Catholics Christians are still saved by Christ, but because of their rejection of the Apostolic succession and the truth behind the Eucharist, they are to be cleansed in Purgatory before ascending fully into Heaven.

If it is the stance of the Church that non-Catholics are doomed to Hell, I find that to be completely unacceptable.

 

[Sirach2]

AdamC,
Please disregard the implications of that post, for it is NOT the teaching of Catholicism. Just as some misuse private interpretation of scripture, taking verses out of context, some unfortunately misuse private interpretation of Church documents. That doesn’t mean they are correct in their understanding, but are possibly very misguided due to malformation in catechesis. My suspicion, based on the OP’s other posts/threads, is that he is a member of SSPX and rejects the current teaching and popes of our Church.

Be at peace, and continue your pursuit of truth. This is a beautiful teaching from Pope Pius XII. Faith must be a free response, not coersion by scaring the “hell” out of people.

1. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the “faith without which it is impossible to please God” is an entirely free “submission of intellect and will.” Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act.

While the OP and others who uphold the EENS doctrine (outside of the Church is no salvation) often quote the older Council of Trent to back up their beliefs, here is a wonderful quote from that very Council’s Catechism which mentions Baptism of Desire. Some of our posters have tried unsuccessfully to show the OP that this has always been taught in our Church.

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/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-b.htm

And another reference found in Pius XII’s document above:

1. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.

 

[AdamC]

@Sirach2

OK, thanks a lot for those. You put my heart at ease.

In regards to SgtRock, he helped me understand some things before in regards to the Eucharist on a post I had, so be gentle. lol

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

You apparently do not have intentions of rendering religious assent, unless one has proof that the Pontiff is issuing a new teaching or definition on faith or morals. I have no intention of getting into a quote war with you, especially since you have your arsenal already loaded to prove EENS, regardless of V-II’s development that has mitigated your theory.

Pope Pius IX,
First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870,“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.

Pope St. Pius X,
Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54: “The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”‐ Condemned

I would just like to mention that the real failure of Jonah was his intense anger when God showed clemency to the ancient Ninevites, who were people of “invincible ignorance,” never having received the Law. Somehow you remind me of him.

That’s not very nice…I’m not angry with anyone Sirach, not the least bit.

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

My suspicion, based on the OP’s other posts/threads, is that he is a member of SSPX and rejects the current teaching and popes of our Church.

As a matter of fact, I am NOT a member of SSPX. Nevertheless, SSPX does not reject the Popes.

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

You apparently do not have intentions of rendering religious assent, unless one has proof that the Pontiff is issuing a new teaching or definition on faith or morals. I have no intention of getting into a quote war with you, especially since you have your arsenal already loaded to prove EENS, regardless of V-II’s development that has mitigated your theory.

As a matter of fact, the Church does not issue new teachings or definitions…

“The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (Db 1836 in The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 456)

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

AdamC:

OK, thanks a lot for those. You put my heart at ease.

In regards to SgtRock, he helped me understand some things before in regards to the Eucharist on a post I had, so be gentle. lol

Of course, I love him in the Lord, and my prayers for him are very fervent!

I’m happy you were blessed by my post, Adam.

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt,

You are very predictable. As I said, no more quote wars, for you will never give up the ship. It is not the Lord’s time to enlighten you, I’m afraid. My prayers go with you as I leave this thread. It is not productive.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Sgt,

You are very predictable. As I said, no more quote wars, for you will never give up the ship. It is not the Lord’s time to enlighten you, I’m afraid. My prayers go with you as I leave this thread. It is not productive.

Predictable? Why? Because I quote the Popes and Councils that uphold the doctrine?

Nevertheless, you have not provided any solid proof for your argument. I always appreciate prayers and I thank you for your good wishes. I would suggest that you study up on the meaning of infallibility and how it pertains to Church teaching.

Thank you for an engaging debate,

God Bless

 

[DavidJoseph]

Pope Pius IX,
First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870,“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.

PJM already corrected you regarding alleged recession from what a dogma means:

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.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Now I’d like to address certain definitions of “extra ecclesia nulla salus” by the Church.

Let’s begin with Pope Innocent III’s statement:

One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved,in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours… But the sacrament of baptism (which at the invocation of God and the indivisible Trinity, namely, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is solemnized in water) rightly conferred by anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults.

The first part of this decree is about what Catholics believe. Note that in this first decree there is absolutely no mention of those who have never heard the message of the gospel. The Pope does not say, for those who have never heard the message, they cannot be saved. The actual presumption in his writing is that the people who are reading this know who the Pope is, and that he is the head of Christendom. Those who are outside of the Catholic Church of their own volition are no doubt condemned. That is consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches today. In this decree we also see the mention of baptism and the Eucharist. It is in fact a de fide definition that one does not need to eat the Eucharist for salvation (baptized babies who die before the age of reasons achieve salvation even if they do not partake of the Eucharist).

In relation to baptism ** only seven years prior to this decree**, this same Pope Innocent III wrote in 1208 AD:

A certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water, while saying I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit… We respond that since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when said “Go baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The Jew must be baptized again by another. **If however such a one had died immediately he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the **

sacrament although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger section 413).

We see that the Pope shows that one who is so desperate for baptism he tries to baptize himself, but is unable to have someone baptize him before he dies, would rush to his heavenly home before he is baptized! 'Nuff said.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

PJM already corrected you regarding alleged recession from what a dogma means:

No… He defined recession and stated his opinion. Others have stated their opinion that adding to a dogma essentially changes it. Which, is what I happen to believe as well.

God Bless