SPLIT: Does Invincible Ignorance Apply to Devout Protestants?

[domandcarols]

 

[OraLabora]

TrueLight, congratulations on your posts, I agree with you. This is not so simple as hopping on the internet and quickly finding out what’s the truth.

Indeed. Just because it’s on the Internet doesn’t guarantee catechesis. A good example would be a Protestant stumbling onto this site. He’d read all sorts of arguments between Catholics themselves, on the validity of this or that Mass with this or that presumed liturgical abuse, about who is saved and who isn’t, about what is mortal sin and what isn’t, about what this or that Church teaching really means, about the impact of the sexual abuse scandal, about the Father Corapi scandal, about how Vatican II either wrecked the Church or saved it, he’d see lack of charity to those who don’t think the same way, etc.

He or she would be likely to simply shake their head and move on thinking “thank God mom and dad were Protestant”.

That would reinforce the invincibility of their ignorance because the person’s ignorance of the Truth contained within the Church would have been reinforced by Catholics themselves! To me, that makes us far more culpable in God’s eyes than the Protestant’s lack of conversion, because we would in fact be a big barrier to that conversion.

 

[TrueLight]

ACatholic, I did promise to respond to some of the points you made in the other thread, but my comments rightfully respond to this thread, since the comments were on invincible ignorance.

The early Protestant Churches were actually much closer in Catholic belief than they are now. Martin Luther had a great devotion to Mary, and the Anglican Church kept a semblance of the Mass, although gutting it entirely of substance. Until the 1930’s, all Protestant churches rejected artificial birth control as sinful, and certainly rejected abortion and homosexuality. Now these are freely accepted in all but the most fundamental churches. The Protestant churches of today are actually further away from Catholic belief than they have ever been, and that cannot be attributed to invincible ignorance.

Does it really matter what the Protestant church of reformation times believed 500 years ago? When you are born in 1980 and your parents raised you to be a Protestant, liberal or conservative, that is what you believe.

Nevertheless, no one here is referring to individual Protestants as heretics. We are talking about their beliefs, and having come from a Protestant background, I assume you would be one of the first to say that their beliefs are heretical, i.e., they reject the truths of the Catholic Church and most certainly don’t accept the Catholic Church as the one true church.

I agree their beliefs are heretical because they stem from original heresies.

What I want to help some understand is that there are a lot of Protestants who live their lives trying to serve God, but they are in error. We should pray for them.

What I find a little disappointing is that these Protestant threads appear to come from a place of superiority. It’s not like most people are saying, “How can we combat these type of heretical beliefs?”, although I do see some of that in the apologetics and Evangelization forums.

God is calling Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. to the Catholic Church because it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ

Amen! "No one comes to the Father, but through me. "

 

[Mike30]

I say it does.

Protestants who are raised by generations of Protestants are ignorant that the Catholic Church is a true church. To assert that anyone can go online and read about the Catholic Church and convert to the Church is the same as saying that any Catholic that stumbles upon a Mormon site, for example will suddenly convert to Mormonism.

The quote below expresses my feelings on the topic.

I am not saying this because I’m an ex Protestant. I can do as other Protestants have done and jump on the condemn all Protestants bandwagon.

That is not to say we are not to try to convert Protestants. I believe we should labor whether in prayer or through evangelical outreach to be God’s instruments in converting these souls.

I am posting this in the Traditional Catholics forum because Traditional Catholics tend to be very close-minded regarding this issue, and reject all Post-Vatican II documents on the topic as if they don’t exist.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t agree with the gist of some more modern documents, but as Catholics, we need to look as everything as a whole and make a decision based on past and present teachings, which should complement each other.

What say you?

Invincible Ignorance

**
Excerpt **

 

[NewsTheMan]

I think the confusion here is not understanding the terms (though I am willing to admit perhaps it is I who am confused!).

For invincible ignorance to “apply” there must be a lack of 2 things, namely, knowledge and understanding. All these stories people are telling us about how when they were protestant and saw a Catholic website - that is not invincible ignorance. Clearly, since you are now Catholic, and your ignorance has been overcome and was thus not invincible. The very fact that you were able to research the Catholic Church cancels out the invincible part. The same applies to protestants today. It doesn’t matter if they come across Catholicism and say “na, I can’t accept this for X Y Z reasons” - that doesn’t make them invincibly ignorant. That just makes them ignorant. They have chosen as an act of the will to not understand despite the knowledge being readily available. Furthermore, if the protestant is devout, they will respond to God’s grace such that the gift of faith moves their intellect and will towards understanding.

So I think it is conceptually impossible to say that “A devout protestant who comes across a Catholic website and rejects it can be invincibly ignorant”. That is not possible, since if they were devoutly devoted to God, and He would be pushing them toward the Church, it would require them to object to His will, and thus they are at fault. Furthermore, the very fact that they would research something on Catholicism makes them vincible. Why would they research it unless to either (a) make fun of it etc or (b) learn it’s truth. Both (a) and (b) are good enough reasons to no longer be invincibly ignorant. Ask any protestant what they think about the Catholic Church. The only way they are invincibly ignorant is if their answer is “What’s that”? If they say “Oh, you mean the Mary worshippers?” or “Oh, you mean those cannibals” or “Oh, those nice people who are wrong?” then you’re no longer dealing with invincible ignorance.

I think it’s important to remember that invincible ignorance means that someone is Catholic but joined to the Church invisibly. In other words, given the chance visibly they would join the Church in a heartbeat. How could that be said of someone who actively researches the Church but rejects it? That makes no sense and it doesn’t align with our understanding of invincible ignorance. Again, remember also that the invincibly ignorant must be responding to God’s grace and co-operating with Him. Lord knows what is impossible cannot be done, so to the invincibly ignorant they won’t be able to ever know the Church. To your protestant neighbour, this won’t apply.

Again, this is just the way I see it, which I admit is very clinical. I do, however, understand that levels of understanding may or may not make one culpable. I will keep looking today and see if I can find something definitive.

 

[NewsTheMan]

“I know Catholicism is the best, but I feel I am not going to convet. I feel that God does not want me to convert. I feel that God’s way to me is not convertion”

Yeah, that was wrong of her. Knowing Catholicism is best but not converting? God would never, ever keep someone out of His Church. Ever. That trivializes our faith and all religions are true or it makes God evil for placing someone outside the only means to salvation. I hope the Bishop corrected her.

I feel that God has a way for everyone of us.

The Catholic Church.

 

[Incomplete]

Just because they don’t believe it, it doesn’t make them invincibly ignorant. Once they come across the website, they know about the faith, yet they still do not accept it as truth, they cannot be invincibly ignorant. That makes no logical sense. Not in my mind anyway.

To know about the Catholic faith is not the same as to recognize that it is truth.

 

[NewsTheMan]

To know about the Catholic faith is not the same as to recognize that it is truth.

Exactly. If everybody knew the Church were true, we’d have no protestants. Just like if everybody knew God existed, we’d have no atheists. How often do we say to atheists, “yes, you are blind to the truth” and “but if God appeared to you now you’d have no choice but to worship Him, and that trivializes it all”. We can’t just go around excusing everybody because for some or other reason they don’t recognize it as truth. There’s a difference between recognizing something as true, knowing it is true, and it in fact being true. From your statement we simply cannot say that protestants are thus invincibly ignorant.

 

[A_Catholic]

ACatholic, I did promise to respond to some of the points you made in the other thread, but my comments rightfully respond to this thread, since the comments were on invincible ignorance.

Does it really matter what the Protestant church of reformation times believed 500 years ago? When you are born in 1980 and your parents raised you to be a Protestant, liberal or conservative, that is what you believe.

I agree their beliefs are heretical because they stem from original heresies.

What I want to help some understand is that there are a lot of Protestants who live their lives trying to serve God, but they are in error. We should pray for them.

What I find a little disappointing is that these Protestant threads appear to come from a place of superiority. It’s not like most people are saying, “How can we combat these type of heretical beliefs?”, although I do see some of that in the apologetics and Evangelization forums.

Amen! "No one comes to the Father, but through me. "

The Church recognizes natural law, which says that we are all innately aware of right and wrong, e.g. it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, etc. That 10 commandments for the most part are natural law. If you abide by these laws, you will reap good results That is what we see with “good” Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Budddhists, etc. They are reaping the results from obeying the natural law. But they are not in communion with the Catholic church, and therefore although we see them as “righteous”, God does not see them that way. Righteousness comes only from communion with God, and that can be found only in the Catholic church. Unless and until a person accepts the Catholic belief, there is no salvation. That does not mean we can judge anyone. We know that Christ calls out to everyone at all times in their lives. The problem is, we tend to block him out. But he says if we are truly seeking, we will find him.

We need to try to look at things as God looks at them. None of us deserve salvation. It is a gift freely given to us through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Although it is a free gift, there are certain terms by which we must abide. And those terms include accepting the beliefs of his one true church. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. As I have stated before, Christ told us we must eat his body and drink his blood or we have no life in us. There is no other way.

I am disturbed by many of the posts I see from Catholics in this forum. I think this thread is an example. There have been posts clearly showing what the Church defines as invincible ignorance and yet, far too many here have chosen to say, nah, this is what I think, and I’m sticking to it no matter what. That, my friend, is the definition of protestantism, each choosing to be their own magesterium. I am not really wishing to argue with anyone. Our own personal opinions, including and especially my own, mean nothing. It is only the truth that matters. In my estimation, this forum consists too much of people’s opinions which leads only to arguments and not truth. So with this post, I’m moving on. God bless you in your search for the truth.

 

[TrueLight]

. God bless you in your search for the truth.

And may he bless you in your search as well.

 

[TrueLight]

We need to try to look at things as God looks at them. None of us deserve salvation. It is a gift freely given to us through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Although it is a free gift, there are certain terms by which we must abide. And those terms include accepting the beliefs of his one true church. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. As I have stated before, Christ told us we must eat his body and drink his blood or we have no life in us. There is no other way.

I am disturbed by many of the posts I see from Catholics in this forum. I think this thread is an example. There have been posts clearly showing what the Church defines as invincible ignorance and yet, far too many here have chosen to say, nah, this is what I think, and I’m sticking to it no matter what. That, my friend, is the definition of protestantism, each choosing to be their own magesterium. I am not really wishing to argue with anyone. Our own personal opinions, including and especially my own, mean nothing. It is only the truth that matters. In my estimation, this forum consists too much of people’s opinions which leads only to arguments and not truth. So with this post, I’m moving on. God bless you in your search for the truth.

I am disturbed by many of the posts I see from Catholics in this forum. I think this thread is an example. There have been posts clearly showing what the Church defines as invincible ignorance and yet, far too many here have chosen to say, nah, this is what I think, and I’m sticking to it no matter what. That, my friend, is the definition of protestantism, each choosing to be their own magesterium.

Well, here is what disturbs me about this thread.

It’s easy to say the Church says this and that, but conveniently ignore certain encyclicals.

Some consider Lumen Gentium to be a heresy (sedes), but it still exists.

I admit I am probably wrong in terms of the technical definition of invincible ignorance. What I have strove to show is that by virtue of being raised Protestant, converting is not a matter of looking up the Catholic Church and getting a Eureka moment. God has to give you the grace to recognize that.

What I find disingenuous is to say the Church says this and that and totally ignore Lumen Gentium 1:15.

I personally, have issues with Lumen Gentium, especially the parts about muslims, but especially for those who are learning, I think it is important to not oversimplify what the Church teaches.

One can say after Vat II, there were some more ecumenical documents, which in your opinion, do not line up with earlier documents, but one can’t just say the Church says this and that and ignore certain things. Is that not being Protestant?

And worse engage in being patronizing to those who maybe are not as enlightened as you.

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Now that I think of it, this fits very well in the Christian/Catholic thread as well.

So since some of us think we are our own Magisterium, we would appreciate if you would comment on this, document that is called “The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”.

 

[A_Catholic]

Well, here is what disturbs me about this thread.

It’s easy to say the Church says this and that, but conveniently ignore certain encyclicals.

Some consider Lumen Gentium to be a heresy (sedes), but it still exists.

I admit I am probably wrong in terms of the technical definition of invincible ignorance. What I have strove to show is that by virtue of being raised Protestant, converting is not a matter of looking up the Catholic Church and getting a Eureka moment. God has to give you the grace to recognize that.

What I find disingenuous is to say the Church says this and that and totally ignore Lumen Gentium 1:15.

I personally, have issues with Lumen Gentium, especially the parts about muslims, but especially for those who are learning, I think it is important to not oversimplify what the Church teaches.

One can say after Vat II, there were some more ecumenical documents, which in your opinion, do not line up with earlier documents, but one can’t just say the Church says this and that and ignore certain things. Is that not being Protestant?

And worse engage in being patronizing to those who maybe are not as enlightened as you.

Now that I think of it, this fits very well in the Christian/Catholic thread as well.

So since some of us think we are our own Magisterium, we would appreciate if you would comment on this, document that is called “The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”.

I shouldn’t have looked at this thread again. This is what I meant. All we are doing here is giving opinions, and that doesn’t get us anywhere. You say you have problems with Lumen Gentium, yet you cite the part that agrees with you. Is it right to just pick and choose, taking what we like and throwing out the rest? That is what got the first Protestants in trouble and continues to this day.

First of all, Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. That means it was not correcting any heresies, as past councils had done, and therefore nothing coming from it was infalliable except insomuch as it was presenting already recognized doctrine and dogma of the church. This is what Pope John XXIII said:

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

A big problem many people have with Vatican II is that there were some there who were doing everything they could do appeal to Protestants. A major contention at the council was whether Mary should be named co-redemptrix and be given her own document. Karl Rahner, a Jesuit priest and peritus at the Council, actively campaigned against this because he felt it would push away the protestants. There was a major debate, and Rahner won by 17 votes. Many of the bishops left the council in tears. Many feel that pushing Mary out of Vatican II was a major turning point in the church. This was at a time when according to Sister Lucy, Our Lady of Fatima had asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, to be done in 1960. Pope John XXIII read this, which had been written down by Sister Lucy, the only surviving visionary from Fatima, and refused to do it. Instead, he held the Second Vatican Council.

This is from Cantate Domino, a papal bull from the Council of Florence written by Pope Eugene IV:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

I appreciate very much that you admit that your initial understanding of invincible ignorance was incorrect. But your sarcasm tells me that you are really not interested in discussing this but in only pushing what you believe. And that is what I see far too much on this forum. We are all on a difficult journey beset with many minefields. Pushing our own view point is not helpful. A priest once told me that Satan is not in the problems, he is in the solutions, meaning, Satan doesn’t care what your problem is, because whatever it is, he will do his best to lead you to the wrong solution. We must pray always to be protected from this.

 

[TrueLight]

I shouldn’t have looked at this thread again. This is what I meant. All we are doing here is giving opinions, and that doesn’t get us anywhere. You say you have problems with Lumen Gentium, yet you cite the part that agrees with you. Is it right to just pick and choose, taking what we like and throwing out the rest? That is what got the first Protestants in trouble and continues to this day.

First of all, Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. That means it was not correcting any heresies, as past councils had done, and therefore nothing coming from it was infalliable except insomuch as it was presenting already recognized doctrine and dogma of the church. This is what Pope John XXIII said:

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

A big problem many people have with Vatican II is that there were some there who were doing everything they could do appeal to Protestants. A major contention at the council was whether Mary should be named co-redemptrix and be given her own document. Karl Rahner, a Jesuit priest and peritus at the Council, actively campaigned against this because he felt it would push away the protestants. There was a major debate, and Rahner won by 17 votes. Many of the bishops left the council in tears. Many feel that pushing Mary out of Vatican II was a major turning point in the church. This was at a time when according to Sister Lucy, Our Lady of Fatima had asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, to be done in 1960. Pope John XXIII read this, which had been written down by Sister Lucy, the only surviving visionary from Fatima, and refused to do it. Instead, he held the Second Vatican Council.

This is from Cantate Domino, a papal bull from the Council of Florence written by Pope Eugene IV:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

I appreciate very much that you admit that your initial understanding of invincible ignorance was incorrect. But your sarcasm tells me that you are really not interested in discussing this but in only pushing what you believe. And that is what I see far too much on this forum. We are all on a difficult journey beset with many minefields. Pushing our own view point is not helpful. A priest once told me that Satan is not in the problems, he is in the solutions, meaning, Satan doesn’t care what your problem is, because whatever it is, he will do his best to lead you to the wrong solution. We must pray always to be protected from this.

I really wish you would apply a lot of your advice to yourself. Do you not see what you’re saying to me applies to the both of us? We both are letting the flesh get in the way.

For the sake of charity, and because my presence on CAF is not to get into quarrels with people, I’m done with this thread.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I would offer that invincible ignorance applies equally to all non-Catholics but the degree to which a Protestant was given the grace of the truth and refused it is completely within the judgement of Christ at the Particular Judgement.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I would offer that invincible ignorance applies equally to all non-Catholics but the degree to which a Protestant was given the grace of the truth and refused it is completely within the judgement of Christ at the Particular Judgement.

Completely agree, and perhaps I’ve said things that contradict as much. If I have, forget it.

 

[Sirach2]

A Catholic:

First of all, Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. That means it was not correcting any heresies, as past councils had done, and therefore nothing coming from it was infalliable except insomuch as it was presenting already recognized doctrine and dogma of the church. This is what Pope John XXIII said:

This forum has seen scores of similar allegations of non-infallibility due to incorrect interpretation of the word “pastoral.” It is a favorite loophole to justify disobedience and non-adherence to the conciliar documents. Note the keyword below from the Pope’s statement.

And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”

That is, pastoral in character/nature - not in essence. In essence, it was stated many times that it is “ecumenical.” I trust you know that all ecumenical councils, whether pastoral in character or dogmatic in its conclusions, are infallible. I have no desire to retype this, but if you really want to hear truth from those in the know rather than from armchair theologians who render their private interpretations, here’s a link that may interest you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8164883&postcount=93

Incidentally, I am not sure I have the stamina to address your oft-cited Pope Eugene IV private interpretation, for it has long been a thorn that continues to stab at the truth of its essential interpretation, AS THE CHURCH INTERPRETS IT.

 

[christosdavid]

I shouldn’t have looked at this thread again. This is what I meant. All we are doing here is giving opinions, and that doesn’t get us anywhere. You say you have problems with Lumen Gentium, yet you cite the part that agrees with you. Is it right to just pick and choose, taking what we like and throwing out the rest? That is what got the first Protestants in trouble and continues to this day.

First of all, Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. That means it was not correcting any heresies, as past councils had done, and therefore nothing coming from it was infalliable except insomuch as it was presenting already recognized doctrine and dogma of the church. This is what Pope John XXIII said:

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

A big problem many people have with Vatican II is that there were some there who were doing everything they could do appeal to Protestants. A major contention at the council was whether Mary should be named co-redemptrix and be given her own document. Karl Rahner, a Jesuit priest and peritus at the Council, actively campaigned against this because he felt it would push away the protestants. There was a major debate, and Rahner won by 17 votes. Many of the bishops left the council in tears. Many feel that pushing Mary out of Vatican II was a major turning point in the church. This was at a time when according to Sister Lucy, Our Lady of Fatima had asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, to be done in 1960. Pope John XXIII read this, which had been written down by Sister Lucy, the only surviving visionary from Fatima, and refused to do it. Instead, he held the Second Vatican Council.

This is from Cantate Domino, a papal bull from the Council of Florence written by Pope Eugene IV:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

I appreciate very much that you admit that your initial understanding of invincible ignorance was incorrect. But your sarcasm tells me that you are really not interested in discussing this but in only pushing what you believe. And that is what I see far too much on this forum. We are all on a difficult journey beset with many minefields. Pushing our own view point is not helpful. A priest once told me that Satan is not in the problems, he is in the solutions, meaning, Satan doesn’t care what your problem is, because whatever it is, he will do his best to lead you to the wrong solution. We must pray always to be protected from this.

If the council was pastoral, why isnt it applied pastorally? or perhaps we lack the necessary motivation of charity to understand our Christian brethren are Christian, just seperated.

Not all protestants have the same abilities and resources. Take Samoa and Vanuatu. They were evangelised some 400 years after the reformation, Samoa is Methodist (Wesleyan) and Vanuatu is Presbyterian (Calvinist). They are the only churches availiable on the islands (except recently SDA).

They rarely have TV let alone the internet, yet these islands are remarkably Christian. At the recent Rugby World Cup in NZ those teams along with Fiji etc joined in prayer with their teams and opposition to glorify Jesus.

Yet the chances of these pacific islanders of even hearing a Catholic presentation of the gospel is very remote, even more that they could attend and receive confession from a non-existent priest.

They live and die under the banner of Christ and are way less secular than many Catholics.

 

[A_Catholic]

This forum has seen scores of similar allegations of non-infallibility due to incorrect interpretation of the word “pastoral.” It is a favorite loophole to justify disobedience and non-adherence to the conciliar documents. Note the keyword below from the Pope’s statement.

That is, pastoral in character/nature - not in essence. In essence, it was stated many times that it is “ecumenical.” I trust you know that all ecumenical councils, whether pastoral in character or dogmatic in its conclusions, are infallible. I have no desire to retype this, but if you really want to hear truth from those in the know rather than from armchair theologians who render their private interpretations, here’s a link that may interest you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8164883&postcount=93

Incidentally, I am not sure I have the stamina to address your oft-cited Pope Eugene IV private interpretation, for it has long been a thorn that continues to stab at the truth of its essential interpretation, AS THE CHURCH INTERPRETS IT.

I did not cite any of my own opinions in my post. Vatican II was a pastoral council. It was unlike any council before it in that all other councils had been called in the past to combat some heresy that had crept into the church. There had never been a pastoral council in the history of the church prior to that time. All other councils had been dogmatic in nature. That is the reason for Pope John XXIII’s statement. “The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.” That is why we have the Pope’s famous statement about opening the windows and letting in fresh air. All other councils were, in effect, closing the windows to block out sin and heresy.

You have completely mischaracterized the Papal Bull issued by Pope Eugene IV. A papal bull does constitute infallibility. A Papal Bull is, by definition, ex cathedra. It is not private interpretation. From Wikipedia:

The clearest example (though not the only one)[3] of the use of this power ex cathedra since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.[4] This authority is considered by Catholics to be apostolic and of divine origin. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302,[5][6]* Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441**,[7][8] and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[9][10] have all spoken “ex cathedra.”[11]*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

And from the First Vatian Council:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

Again, I find it very disturbing when Catholics refuse to accept the plain teaching of the church and insist on their own interpretation. I feel this is a major reason why the Church is in crisis.

 

[Sirach2]

A Catholic:

I did not cite any of my own opinions in my post.

True, but your post wanted to implant the wrongful idea that V-II was therefore not infallible due to the use of the word “pastoral.” It was a pastoral in nature “ecumenical” council, and therefore its constitutions and decrees are infallible.

As for the sketchy definition from Wiki, I would be suspect that the Bull was “ExCathedra,” for the hierarchy has never considered other any other documents beside the Immaculate Conception and Assumption as such. But, hey, if you want to believe Wiki …

But yes, it is an official document, no doubt about that. Problem is, the Church Herself is the only one with authority to interpret it, since the Church authored it. Too many others want to use “sola documenta” to tell other Catholics how we are to interpret it. It must be interpreted in context of the culture and purpose for its issuance, rather than a literal perusal by a few traditionalists who want to isolate subsequent Church teachings * as being irrelevant or erroneous based solely on Cantate Domino.*

 

[NewsTheMan]

True, but your post wanted to implant the wrongful idea that V-II was therefore not infallible due to the use of the word “pastoral.” It was a pastoral in nature “ecumenical” council, and therefore its constitutions and decrees are infallible

As far as I understand it, the documents were only infallible in matters where they repeated previous doctrine - which just makes sense of course. In other matters, they weren’t infallible. One cannot speak of an entire document being infallible - that just makes no sense. Documents say many, many things in them and they often “build up” to something that is the infallible truth. And when they do that, it is absolutely clear that they are exercising the gift of infallibility. For me, the telling point is that here we are debating the infallibility of these documents - here we are trying to determine exactly how they fit into “tradition”. If they were so clear and infallible, they would hardly need such a thing. Has this ever happened with any previous documents in such a radical way? Consider the bull ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ on the Immaculate Conception. Here is the pertinent part:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

This is not open to interpretation. Nobody needed to interpret this “in light of tradition”. It was written in light of tradition and thus needed no interpretation. It was clear and precise and unambiguous. The documents of VII departed from tradition in many areas, and I don’t mean tradition in a wacky sense, I mean sacred tradition that has been handed down to us. This departure tells us something about the applicability of infallibility.

Here is what (then) Cardinal Ratzinger said:

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”