Not-very-Catholic Answers

[pnewton]

Hi pnewton, which answer do you mean? The first one or the second one?

The first.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

The first.

The Catechism merely speaks of invincible ignorance; Fr Serpa actually seemed to indicate that the person in question was indeed invincibly ignorant. It just doesn’t seem to square with Catholic teaching on invincible ignorance, which means that one does not know of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

At any rate, Fr Serpa usually gives good responses, but stay far away from Michelle Arnold! A great many of her responses are littered with liberalism!

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

This sort of situation is a difficult one to discern, even for the best apologist out there. An apologist will look at the situation and interpret it in light of the Church’s teaching as best they can, but even the best are not always perfect. They will, however, take every precaution that they will give a response to an inquiry that is in line with what the Church teaches on the subject and will not lead a person into error.

Anyway, I think it is much more charitable that we uphold the man’s wife in prayer, that God will show her a way to bring her husband to conversion, through love, patience, and above all, through her non-verbal example of living as a Catholic Christian. We should also pray that the man will be open to God’s plan for him and that he will come to the Truth in whatever way God will lead him. God always has a plan when it comes to such things.

Would that we could all follow what St. Francis wrote in his Rule: “Preach the Gospel always; if necessary, use words.” He means that we should not only speak about God and His message of converting the heart, but that we should be an example to others of how to live this message, through our actions.

 

[SenorSalsa]

there seem to be an awful lot of people in this thread who seem to know exactly who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.

And to think, I thought there was only one God.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Really I have yet to see one.

Just people that point out invincible ignorance is over used. I agree with everyone else here you can’t call invincible ignorance when the info is right there and you don’t bother to look into it!

Edit: Seriously can you see a similar claim flying in court. A man running a stop light and claiming he didn’t bother to look at the traffic light figuring I’ll know once I am past it.

 

[pnewton]

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

CCC #1260

 

[a_pilgrim]

Yes, and God HAS determined the means to salvation, Yada–baptism, faith in His Son and His teachings, and membership in the apostolic Roman Catholic Church, outside of which is NO SALVATION!

And what becomes of me?? I am a lifelong, cradle Catholic, in full communion with the See of Peter, yet I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Byzantine Catholic. Since I am not a member of the sui iuris Roman Catholic Church that you speak of (although I am certainly aware of her existence) am I, by your reasoning, excluded from salvation??

 

[Miles_Mariae]

And what becomes of me?? I am a lifelong, cradle Catholic, in full communion with the See of Peter, yet I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Byzantine Catholic. Since I am not a member of the sui iuris Roman Catholic Church that you speak of (although I am certainly aware of her existence) am I, by your reasoning, excluded from salvation??

The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church,[1][2][3][4] is the world’s largest Christian church and represents over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population.[5][6] It is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

 

[cyberwolf001]

And what becomes of me?? I am a lifelong, cradle Catholic, in full communion with the See of Peter, yet I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Byzantine Catholic. Since I am not a member of the sui iuris Roman Catholic Church that you speak of (although I am certainly aware of her existence) am I, by your reasoning, excluded from salvation??

You know I really hate it when people play word games…

Of course it says a lot about an argument when people have to resort to semantics.

 

[mattwcu]

Perhaps I am not seeing this whole invincible ignorance thing as I should but the way I understand the faith is that the Church teaches that **Baptism is necessary for salvation, whether that be by Water, Desire, or by the Baptism of Blood. **

The latter two require perfect charity but without any of the three one cannot achieve heaven, regardless of someone being invincibly ignorant.

It seems to me a lot of what I hear from Catholics gives the impression that the invincibly ignorant are automatically “sainted” upon their death. That would mean knowing Christ and doing your best to follow him would be a more difficult path to salvation than having never heard of him. The consequences of that are huge.

If we take the whole of Catholic teaching into perspective it seems that those who were truly invincibly ignorant would need to have perfect Charity. Otherwise their invincible ignorance is irrelevant.

 

[Cat]

How many of you have actually been Protestant?

I was evangelical Protestant for the first 47 years of my life.

Why would I bother to investigate the Catholic Church? I was taught by men and women that I trusted that it was a pagan church that worshipped idols and added things to the Bible.

I don’t investigate Islam or Mormonism or Scientology and learn all the details. Do YOU? I assume that my Church is teaching me the truth, that these things are a heresies. I don’t need to do a deep studies to convince me.

And that was the mindset I had when I ignored Catholicism for so many years. It was not Christian. Why would a Christian spend many hours delving into something that is not Christian?

***Eventually, it was the Holy Spirit who orchestrated my family’s life in such a way that we were led to investigate the Catholic Church. ***

And after two years of study, my husband and I both experienced a specific moment in real time when the Holy Spirit actually said to us, “Now you know and understand the Truth. If you reject it, you will not go to heaven because you are rejecting Jesus.”

I believe it was at that moment that our invincible ignorance became “vincible.” We were now accountable and culpable for rejecting the Catholic Church.

I believe that up until then, we were NOT accountable or culpable. We didn’t have the KNOWLEDGE of the Catholic Church, and we were prevented by our circumstances (our Protestant churches, which we trusted) from even knowing that we should even try to obtain that knowledge.

Those of you who scoff at the doctrine of invincible ignorance need to make durn jolly big-time sure that you are doing everything you possibly can to tell your Protestant friends and relatives about the Catholic Church. DO YOU INVITE PEOPLE TO MASS SO THEY CAN SEE JESUS, even as Andrew led his brother Peter to see Jesus?

Praying is certainly the place to start, and I hope that all of you say prayers for those who are ignorant of Catholicism. But do you leave your prayer closet and never say a word to those around you? How are they supposed to know–do you believe that your “Catholicism” will just be transmitted to them like a virus? Or rub off on them like cat hair?

You must tell them. And with evangelical Christians, you must use words, preferably words from the Bible.

If you are not telling others about the Catholic Church, then I respectfully suggest that you refrain from commenting on this subject.

I believe that the Lord will hold Catholics accountable for not telling others about His Church and thus contributing to “invincible ignorance.” The Bible says, “How shall they believe in Him Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”

 

[mattwcu]

I was a Protestant and finally came into the Church. It would be nice to think I was not culpable but obviously that wasn’t really true…

I would also like to point out that you were not invincibly ignorant, and you actually attested to that fact in your conversion. There is no denying there are those who are invincibly ignorant. We were not two of those people.

Invincible ignorance does not mean ignorance in general. (as Pius X was clear about in Acerbo Nimis) Invincible ignorance doesn’t mean that in some sort of general way it would have been inconvenient or even uncomfortable to investigate the Church.

Invincible means that you would have been prevented absolutely from ever hearing the Catholic faith. This is obviously not the case here.

 

[Cristiano]

I think that we should also consider the fact that invincible ignorance does not allow you to go against natural law. Just look at the case where some protestants accept abortion! Someone could say that it is not a sin because it is covered by by the invincible ignorance clause; however, they are wrong because it is against natural law and thus it is sinful.

 

[EasterJoy]

Invincible means that you would have been prevented absolutely from ever hearing the Catholic faith. This is obviously not the case here.

Well, if it turns out not to have been a life-long ignorance, then obviously the point is moot, isn’t it? Surely the Church knows what it means by ignorance. Or would you punish a severely dyslexic child for not learning to read, reasoning that since she is obviously not stone-blind, she must just apply herself more diligently? Is that the kind of “report card” system we want applied to ourselves, and how we have used our own opportunities?

I think that we should also consider the fact that invincible ignorance does not allow you to go against natural law. Just look at the case where some protestants accept abortion! Someone could say that it is not a sin because it is covered by by the invincible ignorance clause; however, they are wrong because it is against natural law and thus it is sinful.

The thread is about whether Fr. Serpa should be criticized for saying that the case of that particular woman’s husband “sounds like” invincible ignorance, which, I believe, were the words he used. He did not say it was ignorance, nor that it was invincible, nor that the woman’s husband would, in fact, meet the Lord. He never said she shouldn’t continue to pray and witness for the purpose of her husband’s conversion.

One would think that there are posters here who think the woman should not be told “Fear not”, or as Paul would say, “Dismiss all anxiety from your minds” but rather “Fear! Fear! Be VERY AFRAID! If your husband doesn’t change his ways, he is going to BURN, BURN, BURN!!”

It is one thing to discuss what is and is not allowed by moral law. Of course we need to do this. How else can we properly form our consciences? We can discuss the *possible *consequences…of course we should. But we must never forget that the justice of God will not have to answer to us, nor to our understanding, nor to our sense of compassion, whether it be lacking or misplaced.

If you read Fr. Serpa’s answer to the man who wondered if it was OK to leave the faith to marry a Muslim woman who insisted the man convert to Islam, you will see that our dear apologist does not take the eternal consequences of rejecting the faith lightly. He knows the difference between self-indulgence and lack of faith. We would do better if we put ourselves in the position to learn from him, rather than setting ourselves as his teachers and judges.

If we teach the truth, but yet leave every case to the mercy of God, certainly we will not be condemned for that. That is what we have been commanded to do.

 

[mattwcu]

Well, if it turns out not to have been a life-long ignorance, then obviously the point is moot, isn’t it? Surely the Church knows what it means by ignorance. Or would you punish a severely dyslexic child for not learning to read, reasoning that since she is obviously not stone-blind, she must just apply herself more diligently? Is that the kind of “report card” system we want applied to ourselves, and how we have used our own opportunities?

---

One would think that there are posters here who think the woman should not be told “Fear not”, or as Paul would say, “Dismiss all anxiety from your minds” but rather “Fear! Fear! Be VERY AFRAID! If your husband doesn’t change his ways, he is going to BURN, BURN, BURN!!”

What does a severely dyslexic child have to do with a case like this? I have personally said on this discussion so far in several posts that invincible ignorance does exist. It does. An unfortunate physical handicap or mental disability would have to be judged by God. He knows what is going on better than any earthly person. He is all mercy and all justice after all.

Why do you think that holding a stricter and I think more orthodox position on Invincible Ignorance means we are saying people are going to BURN BURN BURN? **The woman should fear for her husband. We should fear for ourselves. If she doesn’t and we don’t, then we presume upon God’s mercy, which is a serious sin. ** In fact, Fear of the Lord is a gift given us at Confirmation.

As for BURN, BURN, BURN, do you honestly think we are being this mean? Btw, in my first response I DID defer to Fr. Serpa…and I still do…did you read it?

 

[AverageJohn]

Hes not ‘Ignorant’ . He simply ignores the truth, This doesn’t mean that he can’t be a good man.

This thread is about the apologetic, That is what in the Catholic Church we call " heresy".

 

[Unitas]

The new invincible ignorance has come to mean any person who doesn’t believe the Church’s teachings. It makes no differentiation between knowing-about-then-rejecting and not knowing at all. According to the new invincible ignorance, they’re both the same. Unbelief = Invincibly ignorant. They are not synonymous.

If a person hears the truth, then rejects it, then they are ignorant through their own fault. It is no longer “through no fault of their own” since they made the choice to not believe.

Let’s see what Pius IX said about it:

Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore “But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who *persistently separate themselves *from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom ‘the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,’ (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: ‘And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican’ (Matthew 18:17); ‘He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me’ (Luke 10:16); ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned’ (Mark 16:16); 'He that doth not believe, is already judged” (John 3:18); ‘He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth’ (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are ‘perverted and self-condemned’ (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the ‘false prophets … who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction’ (2 Peter 2:1)

So, “knowing the Church to be necessary” means knowing about the teaching, not absolute belief in it. The modernist version of II leads to the conclusion that membership in the Church is only necessry for those that believe it to be so. The words of Pius IX show differently.

Now can we judge this man’s soul according to our standard of if or not he’s heard enough about the truth to knowingly reject it? No, we may not. But this does show that the modern version of invincible ignorance is overly broad.

 

[pnewton]

How many of you have actually been Protestant?

I was evangelical Protestant for the first 47 years of my life.

Why would I bother to investigate the Catholic Church? I was taught by men and women that I trusted that it was a pagan church that worshipped idols and added things to the Bible.

I think I have to totally agree with what you have said here. I have been in that situation. Without any doubt, I know I was following Christ (at least most of the time) time the best of my knowledge. The idea that God would go out of His way to damn people who were doing all they could to follow Him is absurd. It makes God as cruel and petty as any of the pagan gods. I do not know all the answers. The Church doesn’t claim to know all the answers. Yet I know one thing; His name is Mercy!

 

[Tabby]

At any rate, Fr Serpa usually gives good responses, but stay far away from Michelle Arnold! A great many of her responses are littered with liberalism!

Really? Could you please give some examples of answers she’s given that you think contain liberalism?