CathInfo.com

Quote from: ajpirc

I found this website that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:

Quote

So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.

I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?

I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.

From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.

The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.

Wouldn't this contradict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?

A Protestant can be saved only by renouncing his false religion and entering into the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church. Until he does this he remains outside of the Church and salvation.

That is by becoming Catholic, correct?

"Subsistit in" is not heretical when properly understood according to the Church's Magisterium.

In order for Lumen Gentium to be in line with Catholic Tradition, subsistit in must be taken out. Where in Catholic Tradition (prior to Vatican II) does it say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and also in heretical sects? It doesn't. You can try to bring this heresy in line with Catholic dogma, but it won't work.

In 2007 the CDF declared that, "“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church.”

And Pope Benedict XVI said unbaptized infants can be in Heaven that same year, contradicting Church teaching on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation and Original Sin. Not everything that comes out of Rome is infallible, in fact, I don't think it's even possible for the CDF to speak infallibly.

The CDF makes clear that this phrase and others were subject to misunderstanding and, with the 2007 explanations, sought to clear the air.

Again, not everything that comes out of Rome is infallible. Why would the CDF under a Pope that was at Vatican II want to disagree with Vatican II's doctrines? The Pope is only enforcing the new teachings that Vatican II created.

Thus the term "subsistit in" is congruent with previous Catholic teaching.

It is, is it? Where so? Catholic teaching doesn't say that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two separate entities with on subsisting in the other. Or that the Church of Christ subsists also in heretical sects making them equal with the Catholic Church and taking away her authority over Christians. If it does say this somewhere, please point it out.