Protestants are right! (NOT!)

[BillyT92679]

steveandersen:

not “merely being good” but being good certianly helps

Any numbers to back this up?

What do you suggest?
Remember you catch more flies with honey and there is nothing wrong with evangelizing by example.
The many questions posted on this site emphasize that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the church. You’ve seen those posts here “Hi, I’m an (insert religion/non-religion here) I’m all for debate but you people say X but we all know that is wrong and whatever you say won’t change my mind”. If we act like those folks we’ve hurt the cause.

Does a JW sticking pamphlets in your door intrigue you? Does one of the random protestant posters here make you say, “Hmm maybe we DO worship Mary.” No. clearly those techniques have limited utility.

Similarly, the typical stand up comedian line of “I used to be Catholic but I’m better now” just perpetuates the myth of a dower, scrupulous, guilt ridden people. We need to show joyous happy, well adjusted people and starting off a conversation with it’s our way or the highway isn’t going to get you too far.

BTW Does anyone else find the term “CINO” offensive and dismissive?
Who can say that they are more Catholic than the next guy? How do you know what is in someone’s heart? If you want to spread the faith it doesn’t seem right to start off by driving away those already inside.

We shouldn’t be doing like Mother Teresa did? Do I understand you correctly?

I’m confused by your post. You appear to complain about Vatican II, mother Teresa, and the USCCB. Surely those are all Catholic and not in name only.

CINO isn’t pejorative, it’s simply a statement of fact. Everyone baptized Catholic is Catholic, but you have to really believe and profess your faith in every thing faith and morals-wise the Church advocates to truly be in* Communion* with the Church. CINO is very appropriate. Saying they aren’t Catholics at all would be wrong. People who claim Catholicity but openly disagree with the Church do not actually possess Catholicity though they are Catholic.

 

[bigdawg]

Ahimsa:

Invincible ignorance doesn’t mean “not having heard of the gospel”. It means “not being convinced of the truth of the gospel”.

Can you please quote some magesterial document that defines invincible ignorance as “not being convinced of the truth of the gospel”?

To me, this definition seems to make no sense and completely ignores the meaning of the word invincible.

 

[JSmitty2005]

bigdawg:

Can you please quote some magesterial document that defines invincible ignorance as “not being convinced of the truth of the gospel”?

To me, this definition seems to make no sense and completely ignores the meaning of the word invincible.

I totally agree. Ahimsa’s opinion is that the operative word in the Catechism on this subject is “knowing.” Obviously someone who truly knew and was convinced that the Church was necessary for salvation would NEVER leave the Church. It just doesn’t make sense. On the Journey Home last week, this topic came up and Marcus Grodi said that the operative word is “may” in the phrase “may achieve eternal salvation.” The Church doesn’t say that they will or even that they can achieve salvation. The Catechism simply says that they may. Now, the problem I have with this change is that it’s not in line with former Church teaching. Here, look at what Augustine had to say about it:

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”

 

[bigdawg]

JSmitty2005:

I totally agree. Ahimsa’s opinion is that the operative word in the Catechism on this subject is “knowing.” Obviously someone who truly knew and was convinced that the Church was necessary for salvation would NEVER leave the Church. It just doesn’t make sense. On the Journey Home last week, this topic came up and Marcus Grodi said that the operative word is “may” in the phrase “may achieve eternal salvation.” The Church doesn’t say that they will or even that they can achieve salvation. The Catechism simply says that they may. Now, the problem I have with this change is that it’s not in line with former Church teaching. Here, look at what Augustine had to say about it:

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”

I pretty much agree with you Smitty. To the best of my knowledge, the only exception to the “no salvation outside of the Church” is invincible ignorance. Not being convinced of a fact is not the same as being invincibly ignorant of the fact.

 

[JSmitty2005]

steveandersen:

not “merely being good” but being good certianly helps

Agreed, but refer to Pope Gregory XVI’s statement above.

steveandersen:

Any numbers to back this up?

I need no more evidence than my entire parish, especially my family and friends. If you have seen better in your experiences, then that’s great. I’ve also seen this among leading Church theologians like Hans Kung, who played a crucial role in Vatican II. Thankfully he’s been excommunicated.

steveandersen:

What do you suggest?
Remember you catch more flies with honey and there is nothing wrong with evangelizing by example.
The many questions posted on this site emphasize that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the church. You’ve seen those posts here “Hi, I’m an (insert religion/non-religion here) I’m all for debate but you people say X but we all know that is wrong and whatever you say won’t change my mind”. If we act like those folks we’ve hurt the cause.

As far as flies and honey, all I have to say is that Jesus talked more about HELL than anyone ever did in the Scriptures. This is something that you don’t hear many priests speaking about. Considering that we are supposed to be Christ-like (especially priests!), I think we should return to the old-school hellfire and brimstone preaching that used to be done. Omitting important Church teachings regarding sin, immorality, purgatory, hell, and “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is a sin. I’m tired of all the lovey-dovey, handholding, kumbaya-singing nonsense. Jesus didn’t proclaim a Gospel of diversity or tolerance like many do today.

steveandersen:

Does a JW sticking pamphlets in your door intrigue you? Does one of the random protestant posters here make you say, “Hmm maybe we DO worship Mary.” No. clearly those techniques have limited utility.

Pamphlets can be very effective. Maybe that’s why Catholic Answers makes them. Also, I know Protestants have misconceptions about what the Church teaches, but so do Catholics and that is the point of this thread.

steveandersen:

Similarly, the typical stand up comedian line of “I used to be Catholic but I’m better now” just perpetuates the myth of a dower, scrupulous, guilt ridden people. We need to show joyous happy, well adjusted people and starting off a conversation with it’s our way or the highway isn’t going to get you too far.

Jesus said that it is His way or the highway to hell. This is why the Church holds to this teaching as a dogma. Dogmas are divinely revealed truths.

steveandersen:

BTW Does anyone else find the term “CINO” offensive and dismissive?
Who can say that they are more Catholic than the next guy? How do you know what is in someone’s heart? If you want to spread the faith it doesn’t seem right to start off by driving away those already inside.

“CINO” isn’t offensive to me. It’s CINOs themselves that I find offensive. I never said I could know anyone’s heart. We are not to judge that. We can, however, judge the actions and words of others. In fact, as Christians we are called to do that. To help one another avoid sin and repent. And, I’m not trying to drive anyone away, but rather to arouse awareness to this 2000 year old dogma.

steveandersen:

We shouldn’t be doing like Mother Teresa did? Do I understand you correctly?

Wow, there’s a major assumption here. I’m not bashing Mother or saying that she wasn’t a very holy person. I think that she should be canonized. However, she’s still a human, is she not? She is also not infallible. She lived a very charitable life, but that doesn’t make her a theologian. I’m merely saying that when she claimed that we should encourage Hindus to be good Hindus, etc. that she was not in line with the Church’s teaching. Encouraging someone to continue in an ungodly religion is worse than neglecting to say anything at all.

steveandersen:

I’m confused by your post. You appear to complain about Vatican II, mother Teresa, and the USCCB. Surely those are all Catholic and not in name only.

Vatican II is alright, but I’m not real fond of it. I already addressed Mother Teresa. Finally, I have many reservations about the USCCB. I’m more loyal to Mother Angelica and EWTN than them . I’ll listen to Rome, not a bunch of liberal, pacifistic, democratic bishops that love getting indults to do absurd things like receive the Blessed Sacrament in the hands or excuse American Catholics from Holy Days of Obligation, but that’s just me.

 

[cynic]

JSmitty2005:

The Catechism simply says that they may. Now, the problem I have with this change is that it’s not in line with former Church teaching. Here, look at what Augustine had to say about it:

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”

why do you have a problem with it? do you actaully wish for everyone in the last 2000 years who never heard of christianity to be in hell - because circumstances didn’t allow for them to hear it? does that seem like it glorifies God more to you - by denying that these peoples souls had any value, I mean God must not have loved them right, otherwise he would have made christianity apparrent to them, in some way, and he did’nt.

So if you were living in China in the 8th century, and you’d never heard of christianity - then by this fact alone you will go to hell, without question. What separates that view from Calvinism?

 

[JSmitty2005]

cynic:

why do you have a problem with it? do you actaully wish for everyone in the last 2000 years who never heard of christianity to be in hell - because circumstances didn’t allow for them to hear it? does that seem like it glorifies God more to you - by denying that these peoples souls had any value, I mean God must not have loved them right, otherwise he would have made christianity apparrent to them, in some way, and he did’nt.

So if you were living in China in the 8th century, and you’d never heard of christianity - then by this fact alone you will go to hell, without question. What separates that view from Calvinism?

You’re trying to rationalize this teaching. We believe that it is Divine. God doesn’t have to have a reason, just as He didn’t need a reason for Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It’s just the way it is b/c that’s what He said. Similarly, despite it’s political incorrectness, the Church will never ordain women b/c Christ didn’t. He didn’t need to explain why, it’s just the way it is. Anyways, the Catechism calls Catholicism the “faith without which it is impossible to please Him.” We can’t apply modern sensibilities to God’s justice. Also, the Chinese people that you speak of would be considered invincibly ignorant in my opinion, but this exception can’t be overly applied. After all, there’s no exception to the rule that everyone likes to be the exception to the rule. Finally, I don’t will for anyone to go to hell nor do I deny that anyone’s soul lacks value. I simply want to make this teaching clear and get it straight for myself and for others. It seems like you have more of a problem with God than anything. (“I mean God must not have loved them right, otherwise he would have made christianity apparrent to them, in some way, and he did’nt.”)

 

[cynic]

JSmitty2005:

Also, the Chinese people that you speak of would be considered invincibly ignorant in my opinion, but this exception can’t be overly applied.

I was under the impression that you you didn’t believe in ‘invincible ignorance’.

 

[Ahimsa]

No one is saying the “invincibly” ignorant are definitely going to be saved. I don’t know where that impression even came from. The contention is over “Who can be considered invincibly ignorant?” and “Do we have a duty to evangelize, even the apparently invincibly ignorant?” The answer to the latter is, of course, yes (verbal, written, or silent evangelization).

bigdawg:

Can you please quote some magesterial document that defines invincible ignorance as “not being convinced of the truth of the gospel”?

To me, this definition seems to make no sense and completely ignores the meaning of the word invincible.

I would posit that 847 CCC offers support of the argument I am making.

To wit:

If some one does “not know Christ and his Church”, then that person could (1) be totally ignorant of even the word ‘Christ’; or (as the quote from the Zenit articles above indicate) (2) be aware of the general tenets of Christianity, but (due to various environmental and personal factors) not “know”, or be convinced, of the truth of Christianity.

In other words, “invincible” ignorance is “unconquerable” ignorance. This can manifest in two ways: (1) Never having heard of the gospel; or (2) being subject to cultural or social factors, or psychological and mental barriers, that prevent one from seeing/knowing/being-convinced-of the truth of Christ. Both ways may be described as unconquerable, incapable of being overcome (except through God’s grace, of course).

Give it up, fellas. Protestants often have some really neat ideas, but they are woefully off base on this one.

(All this, if true, would not in any way obviate the necessity for evangelization – whether verbal, written, or silent.)

 

[steveandersen]

JSmitty2005:

…I need no more evidence than my entire parish, especially my family and friends. … I’ve also seen this among leading Church theologians…

So it’s everyone else?

JSmitty2005:

………… Finally, I have many reservations about the USCCB. I’m more loyal to Mother Angelica and EWTN than them . I’ll listen to Rome, not a bunch of liberal, pacifistic, democratic bishops that love getting indults to do absurd things like receive the Blessed Sacrament in the hands or excuse American Catholics from Holy Days of Obligation, but that’s just me.

err so you’re a member of a hierarchical organization but you choose to discount a council made up of key members of that hierarchy (who AFAIK have delegated authority from Rome on pastoral matters) and instead listen to someone on TV?

Smitty you obviously care a great deal about this and please forgive me if I’m misreading you
BUT
In all charity, if I were the non-catholic whom you were trying to evangelize I would seriously question why I should join a group when the very evangelist who was trying to convince me had issues with his “entire parish” as well as his national Bishops.

Remember, it is their Church too.

 

[JSmitty2005]

This may surprise some of you, but here are some quotes of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI (they surprised me anyways):

•Pope John XXIII “It is impossible to be joined to God except through Jesus Christ; it is impossible to be united to Christ except in and through the Church, His Mystical Body.”

•Pope Paul VI “The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. The people of God and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing, both of them designating the Church. Membership in the Church requires conditions other than Baptism alone; it requires identical faith and unity of communion, so that by means of the Catholic Church alone, which is the unrestricted instrument of salvation, is it possible to obtain the fullness of the means of salvation. Indeed, the Church is both a sure and exclusive means of attaining salvation. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation, for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Outside this Body, the Holy Spirit gives life to no one: those who are enemies to unity do not participate in the charity of Divine life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!”

 

[JSmitty2005]

“The churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal.” -St. Augustine

This idea is easily backed up by Christ’s words in the Scriptures that unless you are born again of water and spirit and unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you cannot have eternal life.

 

[Ahimsa]

“The churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal.” -St. Augustine

This idea is easily backed up by Christ’s words in the Scriptures that unless you are born again of water and spirit and unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you cannot have eternal life.

From these quotes, it seems as if the person from China, 14th century BC, or 4th century AD (not having heard of Christ), would definitely not be saved, since they have not eaten nor been baptized. So much for invincible ignorance.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Ahimsa:

From these quotes, it seems as if the person from China, 14th century BC, or 4th century AD (not having heard of Christ), would definitely not be saved, since they have not eaten nor been baptized. So much for invincible ignorance.

Dude, I don’t know what to tell you. Take it up with God and the leaders of His Church and the saints throughout history b/c they have all always taught this. Sorry if you don’t like it.

 

[Sherlock]

JSmitty2005:

Dude, I don’t know what to tell you. Take it up with God and the leaders of His Church and the saints throughout history b/c they have all always taught this. Sorry if you don’t like it.

But the Church does teach that invincible ignorance affects culpability. And yes, you will see this understanding in some of the early Church fathers—I’ll have to look up the quote, but I believe Augustine (?) refers to some Greeks as being worthy (perhaps he had Socrates in mind).

 

[Ahimsa]

“The churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal.” -St. Augustine

Augustine, like many Church Fathers, actually stated both positions: visible membership in Church is necessary; and visible membership is not necessary. I submit more quotes by Augustine, this time supportive of “invincible ignorance”:

And further on in Epistle 102.15, [Augustine writes]: “And yet from the beginning of the human race there were not lacking persons who believed in Him, from Adam up to Moses, both in the very people of Israel . . . and in other nations before He came in the flesh.”[78]

We notice how Augustine, in line with so many earlier writers, ties his answer to the Logos who administered all things even before the incarnation, so that those who followed Him, the Logos, were saved–we think again of the words of St. Justin on Socrates and Heraclitus, whom he even called Christians. [Italics mine]

Father William Most, the author of this article, concludes by saying that both positions, the strict vs. non-strict positions, though seemingly irreconcilable, are indeed reconcilable. (And knowing this reconciliation is no excuse to not evangelize!):

So we seem to have found the much needed solution: Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church.

 

[cynic]

JSmitty2005:

Dude, I don’t know what to tell you. Take it up with God and the leaders of His Church and the saints throughout history b/c they have all always taught this. Sorry if you don’t like it.

It means that many people with the right predispostion who might have been forgiven, were not, because of the circumstances of their birth.