Not-very-Catholic Answers

[Miles_Mariae]

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!

If a person really thinks that he is being a good Christian, and has no way to find out otherwise, then I suppose that even if he were Protestant he has no culpability. But if he does have a way to find out otherwise, then it seems that he should be culpable. After all, every man has the obligation to seek the truth.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

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

Well, the one that stands out most in my mind would actually be sinful to repeat here, as it had to do with the condoning of sodomy within marriage. Yes, she actually gave the advice that sodomy was permissible within marriage. How’s that for shocking?

Another off the top of my head: Someone wrote in saying she had seen her priest at an art class in which nude models were being drawn, and that this made her very uncomfortable to see the priest there. Mrs Arnold’s response? She said there’s nothing wrong with a priest doing that! How bizarre! Drawing nude models for the sake of “art” is absolutely absurd!

 

[Tabby]

Well, the one that stands out most in my mind would actually be sinful to repeat here, as it had to do with the condoning of sodomy within marriage. Yes, she actually gave the advice that sodomy was permissible within marriage. How’s that for shocking?

Another off the top of my head: Someone wrote in saying she had seen her priest at an art class in which nude models were being drawn, and that this made her very uncomfortable to see the priest there. Mrs Arnold’s response? She said there’s nothing wrong with a priest doing that! How bizarre! Drawing nude models for the sake of “art” is absolutely absurd!

Thanks for the examples. Could you please substantiate from Church documentation (Scripture, canon law, etc.) that Michelle Arnold was incorrect? Simply making the claim without evidence only demonstrates that you disagree with her answers, not that you are correct that her answers are wrong. Links to her responses for purposes of cross-checking would also be helpful.

 

[Writer]

The teaching of invincible ignorance has been distorted in such a way that it now include about everyone who does not firmly believe all that the Catholic Church teaches.

Not only those who are deserted on a desert island and have no access to the truth (the truly invincibly ignorance); not only those who have access to the truth but spend their time on “more important” things, such as sports (the vincibly ignorant); but now even those who have heard the truth but rejected it. The last group is included by claiming that they have not had the truth clearly presented to them. In fact, a few weeks ago I heard Karl Keating tell a fallen away Catholic that even fallen away Catholics are often invincibly ignorance - even though they have rejected the faith and left the Church. Where will this non-sense end?

No distinction is made between vincible and invincible ignorance, while those who have heard and rejected the truth are excused by claiming that they did not hear it clearly. And now, even the fallen away Catholics are now excused!

I agree with you. I firmly believe in the validity of invincible ignorance because of the loving nature of God, but this kind of thinking would remove culpability from someone who has rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[pnewton]

After all, every man has the obligation to seek the truth.

I agree, but consider my situation. I have always sought the truth. I adapted my beliefs as God led me to different understanding of things. Yet for decades, I did not seek God in the Catholic Church. Why? It never occured to me. It simply seemed a foreign concept, as I had the Bible. It was there alone I looked for truth.

As of yet, I have not sought for truth, other than a cursory glance, in Islam. Ditto Zorastrianism, etc. A person can be a true seeker of God and not turn to Catholicism first for any number of reasons he has not control over. Label it what you will. I have been there and know others that are still there. Never was there the slightest hint of rejection of Christ of the Church he founded when I was a Baptist.

 

[mattwcu]

I agree, but consider my situation. I have always sought the truth. I adapted my beliefs as God led me to different understanding of things. Yet for decades, I did not seek God in the Catholic Church. Why? It never occured to me. It simply seemed a foreign concept, as I had the Bible. It was there alone I looked for truth.

As of yet, I have not sought for truth, other than a cursory glance, in Islam. Ditto Zorastrianism, etc. A person can be a true seeker of God and not turn to Catholicism first for any number of reasons he has not control over. Label it what you will. I have been there and know others that are still there. Never was there the slightest hint of rejection of Christ of the Church he founded when I was a Baptist.

But having found the Church, you are not a case of Invincible Ignorance. Nor was I was a Presbyterian.

Also, I’m not sure Invincible Ignorance applies to the Baptized. (Could be wrong, I’m not a theologian) Because as someone who was Baptized, the gates of heaven were open to us pending an act of perfect contrition.

 

[pnewton]

You know all this discussion of the staff apologists and picking them apart is not going to help CAF be any more sensitive toward keeping the Traditionalist Forum operational. Fr. Serpa is also the chaplain to the ones paying to keep this site open. If their relationship is anything like me and my priest, I would be tempted to close this section down. It is like guests coming in with muddy feet and bad-mouthing your daddy. I know this is an emotional response and the people who own and run this site are much easier going than I, but it is something you may want to consider. I would at least encourage you to avoid the namecalling, like “neoCatholic”, and stick to issues. You might even consider following forum rules and contacting the staff with your issues.

 

[mattwcu]

Did someone start name calling? I thought I had read every post…

 

[pnewton]

But having found the Church, you are not a case of Invincible Ignorance. Nor was I was a Presbyterian.

Absolutly. I totally agree. Yet the whole process was a journey of years. When did I become knowledgable enough to be culpable? I do not know. Such things belong to God alone. In fact, I do not believe I was ever culpable to the point of going to Hell. In fact, as I learned more, I sought more until finally I joined the RCIA. Had I not already been baptized, one could say that I had the baptism of desire to the extent I knew of the need.

In any case, the point is that such a search can take a long time, even for an honest seeker. If one dies during that time, we can still have hope in their salvation.

 

[mattwcu]

Oh ok, well sure we all have our journeys. I believe God moved me to be Catholic. I responded. You responded. It is a great grace for sure. But of course all on God’s time right? God conditions us to respond to his grace (I firmly believe). If we are of good will then it will come. Even Paul got knocked off his horse, right?

I would say that God preserved us until it was time to make the decision because we were of good will and he put up with us while we milled around for a while searching. We’re weak and he knows it. When do you become culpable? Hrm, like you said, God only knows.

I think we are agreeing pnewton.

The Catechism says that any person on Earth can respond to the Holy Spirit, even if he is unaware of the Catholic Church. So if someone who is physically unable to connect with the Church for his entire life reforms himself and lives in perfect charity, completely and totally ignorant of Holy Mother Church through no fault of his own, yet would desire her if he knew her, then he can be saved.

 

[Dauphin]

Invincible ignorance means ignorance which cannot be overcome.

If someone is only vincibly ignorant, meaning it is possible for them to learn the truths of the Catholic faith but they do not, they cannot be saved. Ignorance isn’t a ticket to heaven. Salvation isn’t something deserved. The Church has repeatedly defined the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation, and no amount of obfuscation about “invincible ignorance” can change this.

Many of the posters on this thread are deeply uncharitable for trying to justify the seperateness of others from the Church. In the end, such people will be damned and those who confirm them in their error will pay a tremendous penalty.

 

[pnewton]

Many of the posters on this thread are deeply uncharitable for trying to justify the seperateness of others from the Church. In the end, such people will be damned and those who confirm them in their error will pay a tremendous penalty.

How could you know what we here justify of others? We are talking about Church teaching, not application to specific people. Yes, it could be an issue if one refrained from spreading the Gospel out of a belief that everyone is going to heaven anyway. But I have seen nothing of that here. Indeed, it is that very spreading of the faith that we have experienced and pass on to others. Your perspective of our souls is unique, if not particularly insightful.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Thanks for the examples. Could you please substantiate from Church documentation (Scripture, canon law, etc.) that Michelle Arnold was incorrect? Simply making the claim without evidence only demonstrates that you disagree with her answers, not that you are correct that her answers are wrong. Links to her responses for purposes of cross-checking would also be helpful.

Church documents to substantiate that sodomy within marriage is wrong?? Natural Law tells us as much! Sodomy is intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful, no matter when and where and between whom it takes place!

I’m too busy to search for the posts, but you can find them in the Ask the Apologist forum. Just do a search.

 

[Tabby]

Church documents to substantiate that sodomy within marriage is wrong?? Natural Law tells us as much! Sodomy is intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful, no matter when and where and between whom it takes place!

If it’s as obvious as you say, then why is it a problem to provide documentation? Is it possible that you are mislabeling as “sodomy” another practice Michelle Arnold was discussing? Without a link to the original question, how are we to know? I also notice that you didn’t substantiate your concerns about the second post you mentioned.

UKcatholicGuy:

I’m too busy to search for the posts, but you can find them in the Ask the Apologist forum. Just do a search.

Thanks, but I think your responses in this thread answer my original question sufficiently.

 

[pnewton]

I’m too busy to search for the posts, but you can find them in the Ask the Apologist forum. Just do a search.

Okay, I have just tried and failed. Perhaps in the future if hit and run accusations are the best we can do, silence it better.

And yes, Church documents. It is what we go by instead of everybody winging it themselves.

 

[pnewton]

Is it possible that you are mislabeling as “sodomy” another practice Michelle Arnold was discussing?

FYI - I justed tried a dozen different searches to no avail. It is probably best to let this one go as a case of simple unsubstantiated slander.

 

[EasterJoy]

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?

I think you missed that my response was not just to you. I quoted two different posters and went on to comment on “some posters” which, if it doesn’t apply to you, doesn’t apply to you. (And no, forgive me, but I did not go back and cross-reference all your responses.)

A severely dyslexic child has an inability which is not readily discernible from the outside. It’s not that they can’t see the letters. It’s not that no one is willing to teach them. It is that the letters do not and cannot make sense to them. I am saying that the handicap of lacking the gift of faith is certainly as debilitating as lacking the ability to see or to make sense of letters. Invincible ignorance need not be in any way a physical handicap. It could have organic aspects, but fundamentally, it is a handicap of spirit.

I don’t think that in being more strict (you are saying that you are more strict, right?) that you’re holding a more orthodox position than Fr. Serpa, because I think his response was entirely orthodox.

Let us clarify between us. Fear of the Lord is not terror of the Lord. It is not about anxiety. It is not about losing sleep over what is out of one’s hands. It is not the antithesis of “Fear not”, nor a limit upon that. It is reverence. It is a fear of presumption, a fear of one’s own blindness and sinfulness, yes, but it is in no way a limit on hope nor trust in God.

Why do I think I hear BURN, BURN, BURN? Because of all the ruffled feathers over the idea that a priest might tell this woman that her husband just might meet the Lord when he dies! If this thread is not about “how can a fully orthodox person make a suggestion like that?” then pray, tell me, what is it about? Perhaps there is some subtle meaning that I’m missing? (Unfortunately, I may be offline and won’t hear your answer for awhile. If so, don’t take my silence the wrong way.)

If those are not your ruffled feathers, BTW, then by all means do not take this thought as being offered for your consideration.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Okay, I have just tried and failed. Perhaps in the future if hit and run accusations are the best we can do, silence it better.

I know it would be easier to cast me off as just a “drive-by” traddy nut, because then you wouldn’t have to face the fact that your NeoCatholic experts don’t always dish out the right advice. But here’s the link to the second post, concerning the priest drawing a nude model.

As for the first post, it is no longer available due to (presumably) the CAF crash several years ago, in which tons of posts were permanently lost. So I guess you’ll have to take my word on it. I don’t know why you’d be surprised though . . . it’s nothing that Christopher West doesn’t say in his book “Good News about Sex and Marriage.”

And yes, Church documents. It is what we go by instead of everybody winging it themselves.

You miss the point. The Church obviously teaches that sodomy is a sin. Do you really doubt that documents stating as exist? Sodomy is intrinsically immoral.

I never fail to be blown away by the absolute legalism of NeoCatholics. “Sodomy with your wife is wrong? Where does the CCC say that? Where did John Paul the Great ever say that??”

Let’s get something straight: A large part of Catholic teaching is basic common sense and Natural Law. It’s obvious from the nature of sodomy itself that it flies in the face of what God planned for human conjugal relations! And how utterly disrespectful to do to one’s wife! It makes me want to vomit even considering that a “Catholic” would even contemplate committing such an act! Wow, the NewChurch (©1965) is obsessed with sexuality, thanks in large part to the false teachings of Theology of the Body.

If the Church (God forbid) declared tomorrow that murder was not sinful, that would not make murder ok, it would make the Church wrong.

At any rate, the Church agrees with my position on sodomy 100%. I challenge anyone on this thread to find me any sort of document that states sodomy is ever allowed! That’s the real challenge! (PS, I know it may be shocking to many NeoCatholics on NeoCatholic Answers, but quoting one of the staff apologists is not equivalent to official Church teaching).

 

[estesbob]

I know it would be easier to cast me off as just a “drive-by” traddy nut, because then you wouldn’t have to face the fact that your NeoCatholic experts don’t always dish out the right advice. But here’s the link to the second post, concerning the priest drawing a nude model.

As for the first post, it is no longer available due to (presumably) the CAF crash several years ago, in which tons of posts were permanently lost. So I guess you’ll have to take my word on it. I don’t know why you’d be surprised though . . . it’s nothing that Christopher West doesn’t say in his book “Good News about Sex and Marriage.”

You miss the point. The Church obviously teaches that sodomy is a sin. Do you really doubt that documents stating as exist? Sodomy is intrinsically immoral.

I never fail to be blown away by the absolute legalism of NeoCatholics. “Sodomy with your wife is wrong? Where does the CCC say that? Where did John Paul the Great ever say that??”

Let’s get something straight: A large part of Catholic teaching is basic common sense and Natural Law. It’s obvious from the nature of sodomy itself that it flies in the face of what God planned for human conjugal relations! And how utterly disrespectful to do to one’s wife! It makes me want to vomit even considering that a “Catholic” would even contemplate committing such an act! Wow, the NewChurch (©1965) is obsessed with sexuality, thanks in large part to the false teachings of Theology of the Body.

If the Church (God forbid) declared tomorrow that murder was not sinful, that would not make murder ok, it would make the Church wrong.

At any rate, the Church agrees with my position on sodomy 100%. I challenge anyone on this thread to find me any sort of document that states sodomy is ever allowed! That’s the real challenge! (PS, I know it may be shocking to many NeoCatholics on NeoCatholic Answers, but quoting one of the staff apologists is not equivalent to official Church teaching).

What is a neo-catholic?

Show me where the Church condems oral sex used as forepay among married couples

 

[mattwcu]

I think you missed that my response was not just to you. I quoted two different posters and went on to comment on “some posters” which, if it doesn’t apply to you, doesn’t apply to you. (And no, forgive me, but I did not go back and cross-reference all your responses.)

A severely dyslexic child has an inability which is not readily discernible from the outside. It’s not that they can’t see the letters. It’s not that no one is willing to teach them. It is that the letters do not and cannot make sense to them. I am saying that the handicap of lacking the gift of faith is certainly as debilitating as lacking the ability to see or to make sense of letters. Invincible ignorance need not be in any way a physical handicap. It could have organic aspects, but fundamentally, it is a handicap of spirit.

God’s gift of faith is free to those who want it. I don’t understand what you mean by organic aspects. Could you expand on what you meant?

I don’t think that in being more strict (you are saying that you are more strict, right?) that you’re holding a more orthodox position than Fr. Serpa, because I think his response was entirely orthodox.

Let us clarify between us. Fear of the Lord is not terror of the Lord. It is not about anxiety. It is not about losing sleep over what is out of one’s hands. It is not the antithesis of “Fear not”, nor a limit upon that. It is reverence. It is a fear of presumption, a fear of one’s own blindness and sinfulness, yes, but it is in no way a limit on hope nor trust in God.

I wasn’t comparing myself to Fr. Serpa at that point. Regarding the rest of this quote, scripture it pretty clear: “Those who believe and are baptized will be saved, those who do not believe will be lost.” Water baptism isn’t the only form of baptism, as the Church teaches. Implicit desire or rather Perfect Charity suffice but do not put an indellible mark on the soul.

Why do I think I hear BURN, BURN, BURN? Because of all the ruffled feathers over the idea that a priest might tell this woman that her husband just might meet the Lord when he dies! If this thread is not about “how can a fully orthodox person make a suggestion like that?” then pray, tell me, what is it about? Perhaps there is some subtle meaning that I’m missing? (Unfortunately, I may be offline and won’t hear your answer for awhile. If so, don’t take my silence the wrong way.)

If those are not your ruffled feathers, BTW, then by all means do not take this thought as being offered for your consideration.

I’m not ruffled. It is Fr. Serpa’s job to guide souls. It is his job to teach what the Church teaches. If he wasn’t exactly the clearest in his answer then I think we have to remember this is an internet forum and typing a book in response to her question isn’t probably very appropriate.