They have no guarantee after all..
I'm not talking about the 20K different ones, just the main ones.
Or, should I even be worrying about them?
They were founded by those gates of Hell. Remember, error and rebellion are the foundation that the Protestant sects have built upon.
Right. Protestant churches keep people away from the one true Church and likely away from eternal salvation.
Didn't Bishop Williamson say that protestants get their "Marching orders from satan"?
The gates of hell have by definition prevailed by way of schism and heresy.
Ene if their abandonment of the true faith was not evidence enough, most have abandoned any form of true morality. Didn't the Anglicans fall in the 1920's to birth control? The rest followed suit and now people even have signs in their yard that say "My church supports equal marriage." Yep, the gates have prevailed.
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on September 02, 2013, 11:09:19 AM
Ene if their abandonment of the true faith was not evidence enough, most have abandoned any form of true morality. Didn't the Anglicans fall in the 1920's to birth control? The rest followed suit and now people even have signs in their yard that say "My church supports equal marriage." Yep, the gates have prevailed.
1930, the Lambeth Conference. Don't think that didn't have an effect on Catholic women either. Michael Voris spoke on this, this past spring, I believe.
Quote from: catquilt on September 03, 2013, 10:35:52 AM
Quote from: ImperialGuardsman on September 02, 2013, 11:09:19 AM
Ene if their abandonment of the true faith was not evidence enough, most have abandoned any form of true morality. Didn't the Anglicans fall in the 1920's to birth control? The rest followed suit and now people even have signs in their yard that say "My church supports equal marriage." Yep, the gates have prevailed.
1930, the Lambeth Conference. Don't think that didn't have an effect on Catholic women either. Michael Voris spoke on this, this past spring, I believe.
I think that I remember him talking about that. I'm certain that it had an effect on Catholics even then. "Everyone else is doing it."
Quote from: tradne4163 on August 09, 2013, 09:32:41 PM
They were founded by those gates of Hell. Remember, error and rebellion are the foundation that the Protestant sects have built upon.
This is exactly what I wanted to say.
All false sects, no matter how close they are to the true doctrine of the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, are nothing but obstacles to the salvation of men. As our Lord said, a house cannot be divided against itself, so they already belong to the Gates of Hell. Staying within them is a sure way to damnation.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 03, 2013, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: tradne4163 on August 09, 2013, 09:32:41 PM
They were founded by those gates of Hell. Remember, error and rebellion are the foundation that the Protestant sects have built upon.
This is exactly what I wanted to say.
All false sects, no matter how close they are to the true doctrine of the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, are nothing but obstacles to the salvation of men. As our Lord said, a house cannot be divided against itself, so they already belong to the Gates of Hell. Staying within them is a sure way to damnation.
Which is why ecumenism, what the bishops today push, is evil.
Quote from: catquilt on September 04, 2013, 07:49:02 AM
Which is why ecumenism, what the bishops today push, is evil.
You're preaching to the choir!
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 03, 2013, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: tradne4163 on August 09, 2013, 09:32:41 PM
They were founded by those gates of Hell. Remember, error and rebellion are the foundation that the Protestant sects have built upon.
This is exactly what I wanted to say.
All false sects, no matter how close they are to the true doctrine of the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, are nothing but obstacles to the salvation of men. As our Lord said, a house cannot be divided against itself, so they already belong to the Gates of Hell. Staying within them is a sure way to damnation.
But Vatican II says that they are good, insofar as God has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.
Then let it be anathema.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 04, 2013, 02:28:57 PM
Quote from: catquilt on September 04, 2013, 07:49:02 AM
Which is why ecumenism, what the bishops today push, is evil.
You're preaching to the choir!
That's why, for better or for worse, I love it here. I hate confrontation.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 04, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Then let it be anathema.
So let it be written; so let it be done.
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 05, 2013, 06:53:40 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 04, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Then let it be anathema.
So let it be written; so let it be done.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F66%2FYul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.jpg&hash=f9c4ac7ad76ec63504d8069c21625eaa41dcb1e8)
Good points and good photos.
The original question is a variation of my general confusion regarding EENS. I want to believe it, but it troubles me.
Quote from: Armor of Light on September 06, 2013, 08:01:49 AM
Good points and good photos.
The original question is a variation of my general confusion regarding EENS. I want to believe it, but it troubles me.
We're lucky to be Catholic. That's not a guarantee that we'll be saved but we have access to everything we need to get to Heaven (graces, sacraments, etc). There's nothing stopping Protestants or anyone else from coming into the Catholic Church. They just have to desire Truth. I don't believe in invincible ignorance.
Quote from: Armor of Light on September 06, 2013, 08:01:49 AM
Good points and good photos.
The original question is a variation of my general confusion regarding EENS. I want to believe it, but it troubles me.
What is your general confusion regarding EENS?
I know this is pretty basic stuff with no questions asked, known by many trads, but here is my confusion in a nutshell:
The church has always taught "No salvation outside the church", but now...there is an asterisk at the end that allows for 'good people' to be saved without seeking the truth of the catholic faith. It troubles me either way. I'd like to believe that all the 'good people' I know can be saved, but it makes no sense to water it down to soothe the protestants (and any other good people) if it's not true.
Is the teaching on EENS consistent with Tradition? Is it just that the "asterisk" is now emphasized more than in the past?
Prior to VII, the Church never taught that good people could be saved without seeking the truth of the catholic faith.
If that is being taught now, then what is teaching that cannot be the true Church, if you believe the Church and its truth to be immutable.
Is your confusion over the teachings of the conciliar church or with the teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II?
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 06, 2013, 12:01:23 PM
Prior to VII, the Church never taught that good people could be saved without seeking the truth of the catholic faith.
If that is being taught now, then what is teaching that cannot be the true Church, if you believe the Church and its truth to be immutable.
Is your confusion over the teachings of the conciliar church or with the teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II?
Unfortunately, it wasn't that cut-and-dried before Vatican II either. Cardinal Gibbons made sure that the Baltimore Catechism included Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (which leads to thinking that good people can be saved without seeking the Truth of the Catholic faith).
Quote from: catquilt on September 06, 2013, 01:07:45 PM
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 06, 2013, 12:01:23 PM
Prior to VII, the Church never taught that good people could be saved without seeking the truth of the catholic faith.
If that is being taught now, then what is teaching that cannot be the true Church, if you believe the Church and its truth to be immutable.
Is your confusion over the teachings of the conciliar church or with the teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II?
Unfortunately, it wasn't that cut-and-dried before Vatican II either. Cardinal Gibbons made sure that the Baltimore Catechism included Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood (which leads to thinking that good people can be saved without seeking the Truth of the Catholic faith).
Not so. Baptism of desire is a specific theological concept with a definitive theological definition. The Church's approved commissioned theologians (pre-VII) never taught it in a way that would lead people to think that "good people can be saved without seeking the Truth of the Catholic faith." The theologians who taught it have explained that it requires both faith in God and in Christ as well as perfect contrition, which the Church teaches to be an unconditional desire to do all that God commands, including conversion to Catholicism, true contrition for one's sins, and union with the visible Church. Only then is a person baptized by desire, not by some nebulous desire to be a good person, be a good pagan, or contentment with ignorance of the truth while practicing natural virtue. The Church's approved sources have never taught this; rather, the early Modernists hijacked the teaching of BoD and began to misuse it in a way contrary to what the Church actually taught so as to find a way to achieve universal salvation. The teaching itself, as the Church teaches it, does not lend itself to that interpretation.
Quote from: catquilt on September 06, 2013, 08:25:32 AMThere's nothing stopping Protestants or anyone else from coming into the Catholic Church. They just have to desire Truth. I don't believe in invincible ignorance.
Anyone else? There are millions of poor, illiterate peasants who know next to nothing outside the world constructed for them by their Islamist overlords.
That's not to say I have a position on invincible ignorance. I suppose the millions (billions?) of pre-Columbian native Americans could been born, lived, breeded, died, and gone to hell because they didn't know the gospel. Sure, I guess. But a desire for truth alone wouldn't have teleported them across the Atlantic to a Catholic priest's front door.
Thanks all, for the replies to my admission of confusion.
INPEFESS..I suppose my confusion is with the post conciliar church..at least, based on your previous input. I know next to nothing about the real differences between the pre / post VII teachings on the matter, so I appreciate you taking the time to inform.
Is invincible ignorance a post VII thing as well?
Quote from: Armor of Light
INPEFESS..I suppose my confusion is with the post conciliar church..at least, based on your previous input. I know next to nothing about the real differences between the pre / post VII teachings on the matter, so I appreciate you taking the time to inform.
Is invincible ignorance a post VII thing as well?
No, it is not, but even prior to Vatican II invincible ignorance was not taught by the Church's approved sources to be a ticket into Heaven, a substitute for faith, or a replacement of the sacraments.
Some there are who are ignorant of the divinely revealed religion who are content in their ignorance. Some there are who do not wish to know. Some there are who set up obstacles to this knowledge, such as by defying and disobeying the natural law. These persons, while ignorant of the divinely revealed religion, are not invincibly so, since fault may be imputed to them for not knowing and for preferring those things by which they remain in darkness to those things by which they might enter into the light.
Invincible ignorance, on the other hand, is simply a blameless ignorance of the divinely revealed religion. But since faith is necessary for salvation, an invincibly ignorant person cannot go to heaven until such a time as God infuses them with the divine light of faith and sets them afire with the supernatural light of perfect charity. Their ignorance does not excuse or exempt them; it simply means that no blame can be imputed to them for their ignorance of the divinely revealed religion as a condition of God's infusion of faith. Such persons are not content in their ignorance of the truth, they actively seek it, and they follow God's will as it manifests itself in the natural law to the best that they can. This is simply a step to entering the Church, not an exemption from the necessity of doing so.
Thus, invincible ignorance, presupposing many conditions, is simply a blameless state that precedes knowledge of the divinely revealed religion, faith, perfect charity, and baptism of desire; it is not a condition that is a substitute for one or all of these. It simply means that, at that stage of preparation, they are yet blameless for their ignorance; and since God does not punish those who are blameless, He will reward such a person with an infusion of faith, which, if the soul makes good use of, will proffer perfect charity, perfect contrition, baptism by desire, and, if the soul persists in this unblemished state by which it is united to the Church, salvation.
Quote from: Pius XI: QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines)
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.* Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
[* This refers to the divine light of faith and the grace of perfect charity.]
Emphasis added.
The confusion with regards to this teaching once again results from the Modernists' distortion of the Church's true teaching, whereby they have turned it into a substitute for faith and for the need to be in the Catholic Church in order to be saved.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on September 06, 2013, 09:15:50 PM
Quote from: catquilt on September 06, 2013, 08:25:32 AMThere's nothing stopping Protestants or anyone else from coming into the Catholic Church. They just have to desire Truth. I don't believe in invincible ignorance.
Anyone else? There are millions of poor, illiterate peasants who know next to nothing outside the world constructed for them by their Islamist overlords.
That's not to say I have a position on invincible ignorance. I suppose the millions (billions?) of pre-Columbian native Americans could been born, lived, breeded, died, and gone to hell because they didn't know the gospel. Sure, I guess. But a desire for truth alone wouldn't have teleported them across the Atlantic to a Catholic priest's front door.
Supposedly, there's evidence that Christian missionaries were here on the North American continent in the 5th century? 10 million were converted due in part to the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe(sp).
Quote from: The Harlequin King on September 06, 2013, 09:15:50 PM
Quote from: catquilt on September 06, 2013, 08:25:32 AMThere's nothing stopping Protestants or anyone else from coming into the Catholic Church. They just have to desire Truth. I don't believe in invincible ignorance.
Anyone else? There are millions of poor, illiterate peasants who know next to nothing outside the world constructed for them by their Islamist overlords.
That's not to say I have a position on invincible ignorance. I suppose the millions (billions?) of pre-Columbian native Americans could been born, lived, breeded, died, and gone to hell because they didn't know the gospel. Sure, I guess. But a desire for truth alone wouldn't have teleported them across the Atlantic to a Catholic priest's front door.
Why does it take a hackneyed meat head like me to point out this is because of mans fallen nature.
Good stuff INPEFESS. That's how I came to understood Invincible Ignorance after a lot of research. I was so sick and tired of people telling me that Invincible Ignorance = Heaven that I spent a long time researching and found it to be exactly how you say it is. Put succinctly, I understand that it is only a state where a soul is blameless for lacking faith. That's all it covers - lack of faith.
I think where most modern Catholics get caught out (whether by honest mistake or bad will) is that they think either (a) Invincible Ignorance applies to all areas of morality or (b) Invincible Ignorance doesn't require someone to be seeking truth. Usually a combination of both; added to their misunderstanding of the word 'invincible', which they add so many caveats and sneaky exits to that it turns out that invincible can apply to pretty much every person ever born.
try talking about Superman's invincibility, except that he is suscepitible to bullets
Quote from: Basilios on September 08, 2013, 06:26:10 AM
Good stuff INPEFESS. That's how I came to understood Invincible Ignorance after a lot of research. I was so sick and tired of people telling me that Invincible Ignorance = Heaven that I spent a long time researching and found it to be exactly how you say it is. Put succinctly, I understand that it is only a state where a soul is blameless for lacking faith. That's all it covers - lack of faith.
I think where most modern Catholics get caught out (whether by honest mistake or bad will) is that they think either (a) Invincible Ignorance applies to all areas of morality or (b) Invincible Ignorance doesn't require someone to be seeking truth. Usually a combination of both; added to their misunderstanding of the word 'invincible', which they add so many caveats and sneaky exits to that it turns out that invincible can apply to pretty much every person ever born.
Exactly!
Quote from: Heinrich on September 07, 2013, 08:05:30 PM
Why does it take a hackneyed meat head like me to point out this is because of mans fallen nature.
Sure.... I guess. I'm just questioning the idea that all you need is a desire for truth to become Catholic. For billions of people who have lived and died in this world, contact with Christianity was physically impossible. The same is true to a lesser extent even today.
Quote from: catquilt on September 07, 2013, 04:46:35 PM
Supposedly, there's evidence that Christian missionaries were here on the North American continent in the 5th century?
That's very doubtful. Even if true, what about people who died in America before the 5th century? And not even considering the pre-Columbian Americans, how would a peasant in Han dynasty China, even with the most fervent desire for truth, pack up and move all the way to Asia Minor in search of Christianity? Something that's technically possible, but extremely unlikely.
In other words, without "invincible ignorance", we must accept that a great many people (perhaps the majority of those who have ever been born) have lived, died, and gone to hell with zero chance of salvation because of the circumstances in which they came into this world. I believe Dante's limbo of the virtuous pagans so this doesn't bother me that much, but there it is.
Is Dante's limbo theologically possible? I like the idea as well.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on September 08, 2013, 02:18:47 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on September 07, 2013, 08:05:30 PM
Why does it take a hackneyed meat head like me to point out this is because of mans fallen nature.
Sure.... I guess. I'm just questioning the idea that all you need is a desire for truth to become Catholic. For billions of people who have lived and died in this world, contact with Christianity was physically impossible. The same is true to a lesser extent even today.
Quote from: catquilt on September 07, 2013, 04:46:35 PM
Supposedly, there's evidence that Christian missionaries were here on the North American continent in the 5th century?
That's very doubtful. Even if true, what about people who died in America before the 5th century? And not even considering the pre-Columbian Americans, how would a peasant in Han dynasty China, even with the most fervent desire for truth, pack up and move all the way to Asia Minor in search of Christianity? Something that's technically possible, but extremely unlikely.
In other words, without "invincible ignorance", we must accept that a great many people (perhaps the majority of those who have ever been born) have lived, died, and gone to hell with zero chance of salvation because of the circumstances in which they came into this world. I believe Dante's limbo of the virtuous pagans so this doesn't bother me that much, but there it is.
They have a chance if they do what is right and good according to what they know to be true: the natural law, which is written on the kinds and hearts of all men. This is a necessary condition for preparation of the learning of the gospel. But since it is within God's power and is His prerogative to permit anyone to abuse their free will and fall into mortal sin, then it is likely that those who never heard the gospel (and never knew the truths necessary for salvation) rejected the means by which they could have known it by persistently disobeying the natural law. Thus, they were justly denied knowledge of the truth that they could have known.
It is true that this means that God gave a greater grace to those to whom the gospel was revealed, but (1) the means were still there, so salvation was still truly possible; (2) more is required of him who receives more, meaning that less is required of those who have received the gospel; (3) it makes sense that with the sacrifice of Christ (and the good news that followed) an increase of grace entered the world. But it is all within God's justice that He gives more to some and not to others, since He denies no one his due and makes salvation truly possible for all. We should give thanks to God for giving us such a grace to know and love truth, but this should also cause us to tremble with fear, for a great deal more is expected of us than the ignorant savage. What excuse will we have?
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 09, 2013, 12:44:15 PM
They have a chance if they do what is right and good according to what they know to be true: the natural law, which is written on the kinds and hearts of all men. This is a necessary condition for preparation of the learning of the gospel. But since it is within God's power and is His prerogative to permit anyone to abuse their free will and fall into mortal sin, then it is likely that those who never heard the gospel (and never knew the truths necessary for salvation) rejected the means by which they could have known it by persistently disobeying the natural law. Thus, they were justly denied knowledge of the truth that they could have known.
It is true that this means that God gave a greater grace to those to whom the gospel was revealed, but (1) the means were still there, so salvation was still truly possible; (2) more is required of him who receives more, meaning that less is required of those who have received the gospel; (3) it makes sense that with the sacrifice of Christ (and the good news that followed) an increase of grace entered the world. But it is all within God's justice that He gives more to some and not to others, since He denies no one his due and makes salvation truly possible for all. We should give thanks to God for giving us such a grace to know and love truth, but this should also cause us to tremble with fear, for a great deal more is expected of us than the ignorant savage. What excuse will we have?
So, are you arguing in favor of invincible ignorance? If so, okay. If not, then it seems we must conclude that either a.) desiring truth is so difficult that entire civilizations have risen and fallen without a single person ever earnestly seeking God, or b.) God predestined creation's lousiest denizens to be born in places where the gospel would never reach, since they'd be damned anyway. A possibility I can also entertain, but let's not mince words about it.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on September 09, 2013, 02:25:12 PM
A possibility I can also entertain, but let's not mince words about it.
It seems to make a monster out of God. Why would He create these poor souls knowing they would never have a chance?
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 09, 2013, 02:37:27 PM
It seems to make a monster out of God. Why would He create these poor souls knowing they would never have a chance?
I don't know. But we could ask the same about people who die even before birth. 30% or more of all pregnancies in the modern western world are miscarried, and many of those happen even before women know they're pregnant. One can only imagine how much higher that would have been before modern medicine and hygiene. We can see why the medieval Church took infant baptism so seriously: miscarriage and infant mortality together easily wiped out half of everyone ever created, if not more.
For God to be just, it seems that He would have to create a natural paradise for the unbaptized children and the virtuous pagans, aka limbo as seen in the Divine Comedy.
I don't reject limbo, though, and no serious theologian ever did.
Quote from: Bonaventure on September 09, 2013, 02:49:23 PM
I don't reject limbo, though, and no serious theologian ever did.
I'm just saying. But people seem to have a harder time accepting limbo for people post-reason than pre-reason. If there's no
limbus paganum, though, then we have to accept that there are a heck of a lot of people having their genitalia roasted for forsaking a God they've never even heard of as we speak.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on September 09, 2013, 02:25:12 PM
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 09, 2013, 12:44:15 PM
They have a chance if they do what is right and good according to what they know to be true: the natural law, which is written on the kinds and hearts of all men. This is a necessary condition for preparation of the learning of the gospel. But since it is within God's power and is His prerogative to permit anyone to abuse their free will and fall into mortal sin, then it is likely that those who never heard the gospel (and never knew the truths necessary for salvation) rejected the means by which they could have known it by persistently disobeying the natural law. Thus, they were justly denied knowledge of the truth that they could have known.
It is true that this means that God gave a greater grace to those to whom the gospel was revealed, but (1) the means were still there, so salvation was still truly possible; (2) more is required of him who receives more, meaning that less is required of those who have received the gospel; (3) it makes sense that with the sacrifice of Christ (and the good news that followed) an increase of grace entered the world. But it is all within God's justice that He gives more to some and not to others, since He denies no one his due and makes salvation truly possible for all. We should give thanks to God for giving us such a grace to know and love truth, but this should also cause us to tremble with fear, for a great deal more is expected of us than the ignorant savage. What excuse will we have?
So, are you arguing in favor of invincible ignorance? If so, okay. If not, then it seems we must conclude that either a.) desiring truth is so difficult that entire civilizations have risen and fallen without a single person ever earnestly seeking God, or b.) God predestined creation's lousiest denizens to be born in places where the gospel would never reach, since they'd be damned anyway. A possibility I can also entertain, but let's not mince words about it.
I must admit that I do not understand your question. "Invincible ignorance" is not something you either accept or reject; it is what you understand it to mean that generates dissension. I have never met a Catholic who rejects the concept (someone who is yet not at fault for not knowing the gospel, such as those St. Paul encountered who worshiped the God of no name, but who immediately accepted Christianity, knowing that He was the God in Whom they had always believed in their hearts); I have only met those who oppose it as a substitute for faith. I admit the concept (that God will instruct those who are blameless in His sight and who sincerely seek to know the truth); the interpretation of the concept as an exemption from the necessity of having faith, I deny.
Perhaps this post will help explain in which way I accept invincible ignorance, according to the teachings of the Church's approved theologians:
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 07, 2013, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: Armor of Light
INPEFESS..I suppose my confusion is with the post conciliar church..at least, based on your previous input. I know next to nothing about the real differences between the pre / post VII teachings on the matter, so I appreciate you taking the time to inform.
Is invincible ignorance a post VII thing as well?
No, it is not, but even prior to Vatican II invincible ignorance was not taught by the Church's approved sources to be a ticket into Heaven, a substitute for faith, or a replacement of the sacraments.
Some there are who are ignorant of the divinely revealed religion who are content in their ignorance. Some there are who do not wish to know. Some there are who set up obstacles to this knowledge, such as by defying and disobeying the natural law. These persons, while ignorant of the divinely revealed religion, are not invincibly so, since fault may be imputed to them for not knowing and for preferring those things by which they remain in darkness to those things by which they might enter into the light.
Invincible ignorance, on the other hand, is simply a blameless ignorance of the divinely revealed religion. But since faith is necessary for salvation, an invincibly ignorant person cannot go to heaven until such a time as God infuses them with the divine light of faith and sets them afire with the supernatural light of perfect charity. Their ignorance does not excuse or exempt them; it simply means that no blame can be imputed to them for their ignorance of the divinely revealed religion as a condition of God's infusion of faith. Such persons are not content in their ignorance of the truth, they actively seek it, and they follow God's will as it manifests itself in the natural law to the best that they can. This is simply a step to entering the Church, not an exemption from the necessity of doing so.
Thus, invincible ignorance, presupposing many conditions, is simply a blameless state that precedes knowledge of the divinely revealed religion, faith, perfect charity, and baptism of desire; it is not a condition that is a substitute for one or all of these. It simply means that, at that stage of preparation, they are yet blameless for their ignorance; and since God does not punish those who are blameless, He will reward such a person with an infusion of faith, which, if the soul makes good use of, will proffer perfect charity, perfect contrition, baptism by desire, and, if the soul persists in this unblemished state by which it is united to the Church, salvation.
Quote from: Pius XI: QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines)
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.* Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
[* This refers to the divine light of faith and the grace of perfect charity.]
Emphasis added.
The confusion with regards to this teaching once again results from the Modernists' distortion of the Church's true teaching, whereby they have turned it into a substitute for faith and for the need to be in the Catholic Church in order to be saved.
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 09, 2013, 04:13:53 PM
I must admit that I do not understand your question.
It's okay, I should have been more precise. Remember that I'm questioning the statement made by catquilt which says:
QuoteThere's nothing stopping Protestants or anyone else from coming into the Catholic Church. They just have to desire Truth. I don't believe in invincible ignorance.
If I read your posts correctly, you believe it
is possible for a pre-Columbian Incan, for example, to be saved without having to be smart enough to build a ship that can cross the Atlantic into Christendom. If said Incan followed the natural law, God would give him the gift of faith and enter him into the Church by means unknown to us on earth. It doesn't excuse Christians from sending missions to the far corners of the earth, but God isn't sending entire civilizations to hell with no chance of redemption whatsoever. That is, at least, what I gathered to be the logical conclusion from your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on September 09, 2013, 04:41:09 PM
Quote from: INPEFESS on September 09, 2013, 04:13:53 PM
I must admit that I do not understand your question.
It's okay, I should have been more precise. Remember that I'm questioning the statement made by catquilt which says:
QuoteThere's nothing stopping Protestants or anyone else from coming into the Catholic Church. They just have to desire Truth. I don't believe in invincible ignorance.
If I read your posts correctly, you believe it is possible for a pre-Columbian Incan, for example, to be saved without having to be smart enough to build a ship that can cross the Atlantic into Christendom. If said Incan followed the natural law, God would give him the gift of faith and enter him into the Church by means unknown to us on earth. It doesn't excuse Christians from sending missions to the far corners of the earth, but God isn't sending entire civilizations to hell with no chance of redemption whatsoever. That is, at least, what I gathered to be the logical conclusion from your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I will not correct you, since that is exactly what I was saying.
When catquilt said he did not believe in it, I took him to mean that he did not believe in the Modernistic popularization of it. That is, unfortunately, the way most understand it. They don't realize that it is really just a tangential condition of the necessity of faith for one who has not yet received the gospel. It does not except the necessity of faith.
I guess there's a good reason for not indicating the sex of a commenter, ::) but I'm a girl (woman).
Most men aren't into cats *and* quilts.
Quote from: catquilt on September 10, 2013, 06:48:44 AM
I guess there's a good reason for not indicating the sex of a commenter, ::) but I'm a girl (woman).
Most men aren't into cats *and* quilts.
I apologize for the mistake.