Salvation questions from some Protestant brothers

[Sirach2]

Not having faith to believe isn’t the definition of invincible ignorance. Otherwise all non-believers would be invincibly ignorant.

What then, is your understanding of invincible ignorance that differs from what I shared already below?

One is innocently ignorant if he has not seen sufficient evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith (given his mental faculties and any opposing evidence he has been given by anti-Catholics). But if one has seen sufficient evidence, or if he has seen enough evidence that he should investigate further but has failed to do so, his ignorance is not innocent.

I hope you have at least listened to Marcus Grodi of The Journey Home, Dr. David Anders of Called to Communion, or Scott Hahn. These Protestants exerted extreme efforts to try to believe and come to faith in Catholicism. It wasn’t a peripheral read of our doctrine and zap, they became Catholic. As you said, ALL who simply read our doctrines would then become Catholic. It takes much study, prayer, and listening to God in one’s heart before the leap is made.

 

[Gab123]

they are still invincibly ignorant

Invincibly ignorant is different than mere ignorance. Invincibly ignorant means not having access to the truth while searching for it. If one is ignorant and not searching that is not invincibly ignorant.

 

[Sirach2]

I understand (I think?) Between the two of you and your interpretation of the words, I see a wide difference.

Your words imply that invincible ignorance means “not having access to truth while searching for it.” What about those who search avidly for it but cannot really come to belief on the spot? (such as those I mentioned above) Some of them had to pore over the works of the Fathers of the Church in depth, etc. It is far more than a once-over read of the doctrines of our faith. It is often a long laborious process and study. Meanwhile, I would say that even while they are searching and in the presence of our truths, until they understand that what they read is true, and accept this, they are invincibly ignorant.

 

[Gab123]

what about those who search avidly for it but cannot really come to belief on the spot?

maybe we should clarify.
Invincibly Ignorant are those who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. Someone who has accepted Christ and repented from sin and received baptism, are certainly connected to the Church, even if they not be formal Catholics. Here is what the Catechism says about erroneous judgments:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith

 

[Sirach2]

So we can be on the same page with regard to this definition, I quote here what Newadvent describes:

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible . Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory.

 

[sunandstars]

catholic means universal.
Catholic means the Catholic Church.

Everyone is saved by grace. Grace comes through the sacraments. Protestants have two sacraments.
Catholics have all seven as instituted by Jesus.
More sacraments, more grace.
The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth: The sacraments, the scriptures, and tradition (all that stuff that Jesus told the apostles about but didn’t make it into the Bible).
Protestants don’t have all the sacraments, all of the Bible, nor most of Tradition.
If they are saved, it’s because the Catholic Church exists and grace flows from Her into the world.
In the end, no one knows if they are saved or not. We don’t know, it’s Gods decision.

 

[Sirach2]

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

I like this definition - thank you. The subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, but must work to correct his conscience.

However, if he is unaware of the error in order to correct it, he is not responsible. This might be Jesus’ meaning that the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with fewer stripes.

 

[Gab123]

So it’s an ignorance that is out of no fault of their own.

In other words, if someone spends half of their life watching television or devoted to following sports etc., and not lifting a finger to get out of ignorance of Christ, even though they have heard of Jesus Christ, that would not not be invincibly ignorant. That would be vincible ignorance— meaning they could have found the truth if they searched for it…

 

[sunandstars]

I’ve had this conversation with a Protestant friend of mine. He got hung up on his own interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” and his inquiry into the Church stopped in its tracks.
He was willfully misunderstanding this teaching.
He refused to accept the way the Church understands its own teaching, and pridefully told me that this wasn’t part of Catholicism (and he knew so much about the Church, you see…). Learned articles I sent him, the Ott book, and my parish priest couldn’t dissuade him from being insulted and he started in ad hominim attacks on me.
Needless to say, he’s still considers himself a part of the non specific Protestant ideology he started out from.
sigh
It’s not clear if our friendship of 50+ years is going to survive.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

If one is sincerely sorry and has perfect contrition for sin, God forgives.

I know that. Perfect contrition isn’t something you just come up with willy nilly. It’s a signal grace. And one certainly doesn’t just assume that a protestant is going to receive that signal grace sometime prior to his passing into eternity. Being connected to the church isn’t enough. If Catholics can go to hell with all the sacraments available to us, so much moreso those without them.

 

[Gab123]

However, if he is unaware of the error in order to correct it, he is not responsible. This might be Jesus’ meaning that the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with fewer stripes.

I think it’s more than being merely unaware. invincibly ignorant means there is no possibility of them overcoming ignorance.
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

What then, is your understanding of invincible ignorance that differs from what I shared already below?

One is innocently ignorant if he has not seen sufficient evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith (given his mental faculties and any opposing evidence he has been given by anti-Catholics)

Mental faculties would be relevant, but opposing opinions are not.

But if one has seen sufficient evidence, or if he has seen enough evidence that he should investigate further but has failed to do so, his ignorance is not innocent.

It’s not evidence that is required. It is Truth that is required. Supernatural faith is what brings us into the Truth, not evidence. Evidence is what a man might use to try to bring his horse to water. Faith is what makes the horse drink.

It takes supernatural faith to believe that Three persons share the same essence or that bread and wine become the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, even though they retain the accidents of bread and wine.

But the idea that one is duty bound to search and failure to do so is culpable is accurate.

I hope you have at least listened to Marcus Grodi of The Journey Home, Dr. David Anders of Called to Communion, or Scott Hahn.

I’ve heard Scott Hahn’s conversion story. It was terrific. I’ve heard of Marcus Grodi but never heard him and I haven’t ever heard of David Anders.

These Protestants exerted extreme efforts to try to believe and come to faith in Catholicism.

Some might say heroic effort. I agree. (I didn’t btw. God did it and did it quickly…sort of. I’m convinced someone prayed me into the Church…and hopefully they are praying me into heaven too )

As you said, ALL who simply read our doctrines would then become Catholic.

That’s not exactly what I was saying. I was saying that the inability to believe is not material to the concept of invincible ignorance. If it were, then all who don’t believe would be inherently invincibly ignorant. It’s a lack of knowledge and even more, the lack of availability of knowledge that makes one invincibly ignorant.

 

[annad347]

Is there any way to keep this thread open passed the 14 days or will it close in 6 days no matter what?

I only ask cause there is a lot to read, a lot to look up and without the winning lotto numbers I have to work. And after finding out being lazy at work is a sin, I can’t hid in a corner to do all that… so I have to do it when I get home… So, is there a way to keep this open pass the 14 days?

 

[Sirach2]

@annad347
I think it means that when nobody has submitted a reply for 14 days, it will then be closed. As long as we are communicating, it will remain open.

Ah, so you didn’t win the lottery yet? LOL! I’m happy you are still searching, Anna. May we, with the Spirit’s help, be able to answer all your doubts. God bless!

 

[Sirach2]

Marcus Grodi did give his testimony many months/years? ago. It was very interesting, for sure. I actually taped it, but when my system was upgraded, I lost all my old DVR entries.

Dr. David Anders is on every Saturday night at 4 PM EST, Called to Communion, on EWTN. Dr. Anders amazes me how much knowledge he obtained during his many years of searching. It boggles my mind how extensively he sought our truth. He was a former Calvinist.

Following this one-hour program, is Catholic Answers Live, with many of CA’s apologists giving responses to questions on the faith.

 

[Gab123]

If Catholics can go to hell with all the sacraments available to us, so much moreso those without them.

True. Though the judgment may be more severe and more strict for Catholics… Interestingly, From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.-Luke 12:48

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Don’t forget st. john chrysostom’s warning “I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.”

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Thank you. I assume they’re on youtube as well. I’ll try to check them out. That’s how I found CA.

 

[Gab123]

Don’t forget st. john chrysostom’s warning “I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.”

Every generation may be different. It sounds like there were many scandals back then too.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

It does seem the church is all too human sometimes.