Invincible Ignorance....

[DavidJoseph]

I would pose the same question to you concerning your post…

What I’ve posted is completely relevant, but you’ve chosen to put on blinders.

 

[ncjohn]

Before I can respond, I need to know what ncjohn means by “these” (i.e., I’m assuming, since it came up in a discussion regarding the Catechism, he has particular statements from the Catechism in mind… but I’m not a mind reader) but I really don’t know for certain to what he is referring to be able to give a definitive answer.

I can’t answer so simply without specifics.

It referred directly to your comment about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that you appear to be dismissing on the strength of them not having specific footnotes attached. So I will restate 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.

Just a simple “yes” or “no” please.

 

[CradleCath]

This thread was started to discuss invincible ignorance… It was not started so that certain posters could falsely accuse others in order to try to discredit their positions. It is a sad day when we have Catholics accusing other Catholics without having all the facts.

 

[ncjohn]

And since Sgt. Rock has also continued to just avoid the question and maintain that the Church has “never taught” BOD and BOB, I’ll bring it back from my previous post:
ncjohn to SGT ROCK:

What I’m trying to understand is whether you’re just trying to figure out an absence of specific terminology for a concept the Church claims it has always held, or whether you are holding to the position that you noted earlier that this is a “contradiction” and that in fact the Church is teaching a “new” doctrine. I’m just unclear, as I said before, as to what you’re trying to accomplish with the thread, whether it’s an attempt to figure out how the Church addressed invincible ignorance in the past or whether you are just telling us that it did address it, by the Feeney interpretation that there just aren’t any exceptions, period, in which case we’re back to saying that the Church is teaching error.

Can you answer simply which one it is? Or some other alternative that I’m missing?

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt Rock:

Originally Posted by Cardinal Ratzinger
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;…”

I did address this previously in a thread where you were active, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you missed it. But thank you for the opportunity to present it for others who follow this thread, even if you choose disregard it.

Yes, the Council was pastoral, with respect to implementing existing dogmatic truths in our modern times.

Although it addressed pastoral concerns, it was convened as an ecumenical council, and all of the Church’s ecumenical councils are infallible. Maybe it will help to read the statement of Pope Paul VI officially closing the Vatican II Council. And I would ask that you also read Pope John XXIII’s opening statement, specifically stating that the council is an ecumenical council, more than once in the speech. I know you can find this, since you are an avid Denzinger user and have promoted DB several times in this forum.

Keep in mind that it is NOT necessary for a Council to make dogmatic statements in order to be ecumenical and infallible. Nor is it necessary for a council of the magnitude of V-II with 2300 bishops to convene solely for issuing a dogma. The pope can do that himself ex cathedra.
Pope Paul VI Closing Speech:

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs, and, nourishing the flame of charity it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception.