Author Topic: How can you defend the salvation dogma with... (Read 7303 times)

Pelele · « **on:** October 17, 2013, 07:09:56 PM »

...the statements Pope Pius IX made about invincible ignorance?

Of the 3 times he spoke about II, 1 i would say is orthodox, another could be orthodox and the other one seems flat out heretical.

This is the "orthodox" one:

“....those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.”

This is the one that could be orthodox but i think it is very ambiguous:

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary 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.”

You could argue he's just saying what other saints have said but in very ambiguous terms, and it's just ambiguous.

The last one i think is "indefensible" is:

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.

So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2013, 07:45:33 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

...the statements Pope Pius IX made about invincible ignorance?

Of the 3 times he spoke about II, 1 i would say is orthodox, another could be orthodox and the other one seems flat out heretical.

This is the "orthodox" one:

“....those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.”

This is the one that could be orthodox but i think it is very ambiguous:

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary 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.”

You could argue he's just saying what other saints have said but in very ambiguous terms, and it's just ambiguous.

The last one i think is "indefensible" is:

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.

So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?

Blessed Pius IX was teaching with the mind of Christ. He reflects Catholic teaching perfectly. The salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed are not compromised by these teachings. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God reveals to those in invincible ignorance what they need to know about Christ and His Church before they leave this world.

TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas

Question Fourteen: Faith

...Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:19-21).

Jehanne · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2013, 07:50:59 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

The last one i think is "indefensible" is:

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.

So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?

Pope Pius XI does not say that such individuals can be saved, only that they may hope that they will be saved. Ignorance does not save anyone. To be saved, one must end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This is de fide, even if one lacks sacramental Baptism and/or explicit faith in the Four Articles, one must still die at least in "the soul of the Catholic Church."

Pelele · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2013, 08:51:02 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Blessed Pius IX was teaching with the mind of Christ. He reflects Catholic teaching perfectly. The salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed are not compromised by these teachings. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God reveals to those in invincible ignorance what they need to know about Christ and His Church before they leave this world.

TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas

Question Fourteen: Faith

...Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:19-21).

I know that is what St. Thomas and many other Saints have taught, but that's now what the Pope said.

In QCM he doesn't make it clear whether these people who are saved put off their ignorance and believe in the essential mysteries, or whether they are saved in their ignorance "by the operating power of divine light and grace".

Like i said, it's just ambiguous and could be understood either way.

And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

Pelele · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2013, 09:01:14 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Pelele
The last one i think is "indefensible" is:

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

The Dimonds didn't even bother to address this in their book about the salvation dogma.

So what do we have here? Is Pius IX contradicting the salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed and that you need to KNOW about Jesus etc.?

Pope Pius XI does not say that such individuals can be saved, only that they may hope that they will be saved.

What does this "hope for life or salvation" thing mean anyways? Does it mean that person in the state of uncontrollable ignorance, dies in his total ignorance of Catholicism, and can then still "hope" he can be saved? Well then where is the dogma that FAITH is absolutely necessary? And not just any "faith" of course.

But what you say doesn't work anyways because ANYONE can hope to be saved.

It would be redundant if that's what he was saying.

Or will you say that the most hardened sinner/atheist/murderer has 0% hope of converting before he dies?

Quote from: Jehanne

Ignorance does not save anyone. To be saved, one must end his/her life "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." This is de fide, even if one lacks sacramental Baptism and/or explicit faith in the Four Articles, one must still die at least in "the soul of the Catholic Church."

Well that's not what the encyclical says.

It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.

Jehanne · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2013, 04:44:40 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Well that's not what the encyclical says.

It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.

Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2013, 04:50:17 PM »

Quote

And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2013, 01:24:00 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.

SJB's answer is the answer I would give, so I'm stumped as to why SJB would answer as I would. Did I miss something during my absence from CI?

First off, Singulari Quidem is a fallible docuмent, it is not an infallible decree.
Secondly, Pius IX does not explain how the person can be saved, what he needs to do and learn. For someone to disregard all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and in their place use this fallible, ambiguous, incomplete docuмent, most certainly would indicate that they are choosing the texts and interpreting them to suit their pre-conceived ideas.

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)

Pelele · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2013, 01:26:13 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Pelele
Well that's not what the encyclical says.

It plainly makes an exception for those in invncible ignorance.

Infants are "invincibly ignorant," and yet, they can still be saved, of course, by being Baptized.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Pelele · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2013, 01:40:44 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.

And what purposes would those be? I happen to believe in the salvation dogma but i am asking how would you respond to someone saying "Oh there are exceptions! Pius IX said there are exceptions with the invincibly ignorant! So there!"

This whole invincible ignorance stuff is destructive and dangerous.

The second you admit there "might" be exceptions, it all goes out the window. Then people can tell you "you don't know who's in invincible ignorance! you just dont know who can be saved! So don't say you absolutely need to have the Catholic Faith to be saved!"

How much evil and scandal have these statements from Pius IX brought? Countless heretics use these as an excuse, because they do SEEM to teach heresy, otherwise they wouldn't use them.

You have to do "mental gymnastics" to try and "reconcile" them.

1 is ok, the one in QCM might be orthodox, but the one in Singulari Quidem i dont see how you can "reconcile" it.

You cant even demonstrate anything SJB, all you can say is "it seems to you like that but it isnt."

Right.

"It's not because it's not".

Pelele · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2013, 01:53:59 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SJB
Quote
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.

First off, Singulari Quidem is a fallible docuмent, it is not an infallible decree.

Ah the old "it's not infallible" canard.

Oh so since it's "not infallible" it can be HERETICAL? Anything goes since "it's not infallible"?

That argument is riddled with ignorance and its completely false and Protestant.

Non-sedevacantists and the Dimonds are the ones who use that.

Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent, as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe.

Or maybe you believe Pius XII was wrong there as well?

Quote from: bowler

Secondly, Pius IX does not explain how the person can be saved, what he needs to do and learn. For someone to disregard all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and in their place use this fallible, ambiguous, incomplete docuмent, most certainly would indicate that they are choosing the texts and interpreting them to suit their pre-conceived ideas.

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)

Ok so the Pope, the teacher of all Christians, writes an Encyclical and what he says about invincible ignorance is flat-out wrong and needs to be resisted.

Even if he had explained how such a person is saved, isn't that still heretical? He says there is an EXCEPTION to hope for life and salvation OUTSIDE the Church.

What does this all mean except that there is salvation OUTSIDE the Church?

bowler · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2013, 02:12:06 PM »

It is plain to see by your answer that you do not know enough to discuss the subject, don't keep embarrassing yourself.

Quote

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2013, 02:20:52 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
Blessed Pius IX was teaching with the mind of Christ. He reflects Catholic teaching perfectly. The salvation dogma and the Athanasian Creed are not compromised by these teachings. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God reveals to those in invincible ignorance what they need to know about Christ and His Church before they leave this world.

TRUTH
by
Thomas Aquinas

Question Fourteen: Faith

...Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:19-21).

I know that is what St. Thomas and many other Saints have taught, but that's now what the Pope said.

In QCM he doesn't make it clear whether these people who are saved put off their ignorance and believe in the essential mysteries, or whether they are saved in their ignorance "by the operating power of divine light and grace".

Like i said, it's just ambiguous and could be understood either way.

And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

This just states that one can "hope" if one is outside the Catholic Church. If he can "hope" then he has not yet been "judged." This does not teach salvation by default, if by that you mean that they die without ever accepting the essential truths of the Catholic faith. Neither does QCM rule out the necessity of knowledge of the essential mysteries.

bowler · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2013, 02:21:47 PM »

My answers in red.

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: SJB
Quote
And in the one in Singulari Quidem he seems to be teaching salvation by default by invincible ignorance.

It seems that way to you because it suits your purposes.

First off, Singulari Quidem is a fallible docuмent, it is not an infallible decree.

Ah the old "it's not infallible" canard.

Oh so since it's "not infallible" it can be HERETICAL? Anything goes since "it's not infallible"? ( strawman))

That argument is riddled with ignorance and its completely false and Protestant. (the answer to your own strawman)

Non-sedevacantists and the Dimonds are the ones who use that.(ad-hominem attack)

Singulari Quidem is an ENCYCLICAL, and they demand assent (it is an encyclical directed to the bishops of Italy, therefore fallible, and it does not explain how a person can be saved), as Pius XII said in Humani Generis i believe (Exactly, as YOU believe, and not as it is clearly written).

Or maybe you believe Pius XII was wrong there as well? (Strawman)

Quote from: bowler
Secondly, Pius IX does not explain how the person can be saved, what he needs to do and learn. For someone to disregard all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and in their place use this fallible, ambiguous, incomplete docuмent, most certainly would indicate that they are choosing the texts and interpreting them to suit their pre-conceived ideas.

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)

Ok so the Pope, the teacher of all Christians, writes an Encyclical and what he says about invincible ignorance is flat-out wrong and needs to be resisted.(strawman)

Even if he had explained how such a person is saved, isn't that still heretical? He says there is an EXCEPTION to hope for life and salvation OUTSIDE the Church. (strawman)

What does this all mean except that there is salvation OUTSIDE the Church?(No, it means that you do not know enough to not discuss a subject that you do not understand)

Pelele · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2013, 02:40:10 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Singulari Quidem: Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.

This just states that one can "hope" if one is outside the Catholic Church. If he can "hope" then he has not yet been "judged." This does not teach salvation by default, if by that you mean that they die without ever accepting the essential truths of the Catholic faith. Neither does QCM rule out the necessity of knowledge of the essential mysteries.

So if you are a member of the Church but you're in mortal sin, you cannot hope? They haven't been judged yet either.

When i say salvation by default, yes, it means that someone can be saved who never knew of the Church or Jesus or the Trinity etc., the essential mysteries.

People now say "poor people never knew anything, they had no fault of their own, so they should be admitted into Heaven because they just had no chance".

This all flies in the face of the fact that Heaven is a reward. What are these people being awarded for? For not knowing anything?