Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Why do all major Trad organisations teach those in false religions can be saved?  (Read 31643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14738
  • Reputation: +6078/-907
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • First time commenter here so take it easy lol.

    But in regards to EENS and what we typically think in regards to BOD a couple distinctions should be made. First and foremost if we are gonna compare Catholic and V2 Ecclisiology we have to do it honestly and actually show what they say.

    Catholic teaching= only the Catholic religion/Church is salvific.
    V2= the Holy Ghost uses other religions as a means of salvation.
    First, welcome Davidmehs! Hopefully you have thick skin as that's usually a basic requirement here in the Gehtto. Keep in mind that written responses often come across as being very harsh even when that is not the intention.

    Catholic teaching is very simple, it is that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, which in and of itself means the Holy Ghost uses the Catholic Church as the means for salvation. So right out of the gate, V2 is preaching contrary to dogma, which means that V2 is preaching heresy.

    What V2 should have said, and if so, would have said so correctly, is that the Holy Ghost sometimes uses other religions as a means for conversion to the Catholic faith.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If only these leaders were this careful, but alas they are not.  Even +Lefebvre wrote off the necessity of the Church as mere instrumental cause, without explaining that these people must be within the Church.

    But here's the problem.  If we say that those who are not Catholic could be saved, as you correctly put it, we must assert that they were INSIDE the Church.  But what does that do to Catholic ecclesiology ... when within the Church you find not only Catholics but all manner of heretics?  In essence, that is Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.
    I always like to give traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt due to the mass confusion today. This is why I’m not so hard, as I once was, on the R&R adherents, the soft line “EENSers”, nor the people who hold a similar position as the good Archbishop that you site above.

    You make very fair points, but I would say that those who died inside the Church were/are in fact Catholic. Their heretical beliefs were merely material since at some point they must have been instructed in those three points of faith that must be believed. Frankly, I think that all these hypothetical cases are mostly academic since it seems that all solid examples, like Saint Emerentiana, the person was always a catechumen.

    Can God send a priest or an angel to instruct someone who is close to death and who is invincibly ignorant of the Church, but never committed a mortal sin and came to love God by looking at nature? Obviously, this is true. The priest would surly not only instruct the person, but also baptize him. The angel can only instruct. Has the ”priest case” ever happened? I’m sure it has and I believe I have read about a similar case. Has the “angel case” ever happened? It’s possible. Would God do such a thing? Our ways are not His ways. Honestly, I don’t see how that affects ecclesiology in any way. I guess we will all know for sure when we reach eternity.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hopefully Trad123 sees this still not sure how to add the quoted portions. But let me just say that you have failed to make the distinction and proved my point. 

    Take Bishop Sanborn for example, I've heard him quoted numerous time, the famous "if someone is saved in that false religion". This is then used to say he is a heretic who denies EENS. But he always or almost always makes the necessary distinctions, or its understood the person he is talking to understands Catholic teaching and principles regard BOD and I.I. Like my comment stated, the Hindu in question, if they are in Ignorance and complete the basic actions as described by Pius IX and his contemporaries, it's possible, not guaranteed, God could save them. Once enlighten to the truth by God, they would die as a sincere convert. Now that's the sense I have always heard from every trad priests I've ever heard speak about it, regardless of if they didnt adequately phrase it that way. Sometimes they may say a "suspect" sounding sentence, but it is always with the sense of the aboved mention example. Context is important. There is a big difference between saying it's possible that God could save an Invincibly ignorant person if they adhere to the strict guidelines set forth in Catholic theology and principles, and what V2 says that God uses false religions as a MEANS of salvation. 

    In regard to the Augustine quote, with all due respect it does nothing. God foresaw all the actions every demon was gonna do, but he created them anyway. Did he predestined them to hell? No. He gave them a chance at their eternal happiness just like he gives everyone a chance at eternal happiness. If water baptism is absolutely required in the most strict sense then God created people and gave them NO chance. He made people with no chance when he made the devils with a chance? It defies Catholic principles. God is not bound by another human to save someone and nowhere is Catholic teaching does it state that he is. I use to be a hardline absolute baptism guy but if one logically follows that position, then they eventually will arrive at false conclusions (think Richard Ibrayni). Whether or not people want to admit it but the denial of this doctrine, when understood properly as the Church does, leads to the logical conclusion that the Church propagated heresy for over 1000 years. There is no getting around that point.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6078/-907
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • God is not bound by another human to save someone and nowhere is Catholic teaching does it state that he is. I use to be a hardline absolute baptism guy but if one logically follows that position, then they eventually will arrive at false conclusions (think Richard Ibrayni). Whether or not people want to admit it but the denial of this doctrine, when understood properly as the Church does, leads to the logical conclusion that the Church propagated heresy for over 1000 years. There is no getting around that point.
    What?
    It is by divine design that without priests no other human would ever be saved. 

    It is by divine providence that all who have ever been and ever will be, are sacramentally baptized.

    The only way a BOD works, is when His providence is purposely taken away from the event. The recipient of a BOD saves themself, this idea is known as salvation through faith alone, which the Church condemns. There is no getting around that point. 

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In regard to the Augustine quote, with all due respect it does nothing. God foresaw all the actions every demon was gonna do, but he created them anyway. Did he predestined them to hell? No. He gave them a chance at their eternal happiness just like he gives everyone a chance at eternal happiness. I
    The writer does not know the Catholic doctrine, the dogma of predestination, the writer has instead imbibed the false Protestant teaching on predestination and is totally blinded by it. 


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now to me it seems people get so hung up on phrases like these they dont understand that fact that a BOD recipient would not be properly speaking, in the visible Church Militant, because by necessity they have died. So they are not saying some random Hindu in India is part of the Church, what they are saying is if such a person, is actually in Invincible ignorance, follows the prescribed conditions as laid out by Pius IX and his contemporaries, such a person COULD be saved by a rare miracle before they die, being converted to the Faith. Now as to how much they must explicitly know has been debated by theologians and the popular opinion is that the Trinity, Incarnation and faith in Christ is a must, so following the principles of the approved teachings on BOD and Invincible ignorance it stands to reason God would enlighten such a person. So they die as Catholics not pagans, that is not the same as V2 which says the HINDU RELIGION in and of itself can be salvific. Thanks for reading.
    What a mess of "seems to me's". The writer bakes his own cake with all kinds of different ingredients and comes up with his belief. A perfect example of the scriptural warning for our times:

    "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)

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dogmas are the final word from the Holy Ghost, being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.


    The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.



    Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, any person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy!


    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jews can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)[/font]



    Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)



    Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

    “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)



    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:

    “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)



    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

    “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)



    Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:

    “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)



    Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”



    Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”



    Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”



    Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547) Decree on Justification, Chapter IV. 


    A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.



    By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute the or does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)



    Chapter VII.



    What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.



    This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.



    Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)




    Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)




    Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism


    Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)



    Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)



    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)



    Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same

    way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and

    consequently are not members of Christ
    orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)



    (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invincible ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)





    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Again you guys fail to make the necessary distinctions. Penance and the Holy Eucharist are ordinarily required for salvation extraordinarily they are not. Same goes for baptism. 

    Pius IX taught in singulari quidem that "nobody can hope for salvation outside the Church, unless they be excused by invincible ignorance. " This excuses them from the ordinary means that those who hear the Gospel are required to take. He taught I.I. 3 separate times as did his contemporaries, not once did he say they would be baptized or that it was required without exception.

    God knows who these people are, God saves them if He wills. Not ignorance,  not of themselves but God, who gives them the grace to enter the Church by an extraordinary means.

    You can quote mine all day long but you fail to make the necessary distinctions. You sound like the Dimond brothers. If you follow the logical conclusions of your assertion then the Church propagated heresy.

    It's funny how you quote Trent but then fail to mention that EVERY catechism, theologian, Church docuмent even Popes contradict your interpretation of it. 

    Let the readers also note that the quotes mined here are in perfect conformity with BOD and I.I. You just wont make the next step to your denial by saying the Church erred. Catechism of the Council of Trent contains formal heresy by your logic. The Church, promulgated and issued a universal catechism under Pius V, written by saints of the Church, which was for the teaching of the faithful to combat heresy, teaches formal heresy. Follow the logic here people. 

    All teachers of the Church post-Trent denied numerous defined definitions of this dogma according to you. Not only that, but their works were hailed by the Church universally as being completely orthodox and in conformity with Catholic doctrine. But thank you for pointing out the glaring error in the Church, the glaring heresy that She promoted through every ecclesiastical institution and way, thank you guys. I know St. Alphonsus would be your student....


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14738
    • Reputation: +6078/-907
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You've been refuted, but apparently do not know it.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46686
    • Reputation: +27562/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I always like to give traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt due to the mass confusion today. This is why I’m not so hard, as I once was, on the R&R adherents, the soft line “EENSers”, nor the people who hold a similar position as the good Archbishop that you site above.

    You make very fair points, but I would say that those who died inside the Church were/are in fact Catholic. Their heretical beliefs were merely material since at some point they must have been instructed in those three points of faith that must be believed. Frankly, I think that all these hypothetical cases are mostly academic since it seems that all solid examples, like Saint Emerentiana, the person was always a catechumen.

    Can God send a priest or an angel to instruct someone who is close to death and who is invincibly ignorant of the Church, but never committed a mortal sin and came to love God by looking at nature? Obviously, this is true. The priest would surly not only instruct the person, but also baptize him. The angel can only instruct. Has the ”priest case” ever happened? I’m sure it has and I believe I have read about a similar case. Has the “angel case” ever happened? It’s possible. Would God do such a thing? Our ways are not His ways. Honestly, I don’t see how that affects ecclesiology in any way. I guess we will all know for sure when we reach eternity.

    Oh, sure, I'll always give a Traditional Catholic the benefit of the doubt with regard to formal heresy or even formal error, but I will call out objective material error and heresy when I see them.

    But many of the Tradtional BoDers promote the notion that infidels without any belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity can be within the Church.

    And the reason this issue is so critical for me?

    Because if I were ever persuaded that non-Catholics could be saved, and could be in the Church, then any objections I have to Vatican II evaporate, and I drop being a Traditional Catholic ... except as a preference with regard to spirituality and attitude.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12143
    • Reputation: +7669/-2344
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Saint Emerentiana died in the early 300s.  It was a common practice then, due to persecution, for people to be baptized into the Church, but still considered a catechumen, because they had not finished their education. 
    .
    So yes, she was a catechumen but not in way we understand it today.  She’s a saint because she was baptized. 


    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, sure, I'll always give a Traditional Catholic the benefit of the doubt with regard to formal heresy or even formal error, but I will call out objective material error and heresy when I see them.

    But many of the Tradtional BoDers promote the notion that infidels without any belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity can be within the Church.

    And the reason this issue is so critical for me?

    Because if I were ever persuaded that non-Catholics could be saved, and could be in the Church, then any objections I have to Vatican II evaporate, and I drop being a Traditional Catholic ... except as a preference with regard to spirituality and attitude.
    Ladislaus, I think you of all people would see the distinctions they draw. I've been a reader of this forum for quite sometime and you always strike me as being reasonable. Traditional clergy who defend BOD are in stark contrast to the V2 Ecclisiology. V2 claims the Holy Ghost uses the false religions as a means of sanctification and salvation, while the Trad clergy would say that God knows who really is without guilt in that regard. If such a person is truly invincibly ignorant, follows the precept laid out by Pius IX and his contemporaries, God could save them if He wills. It's not of ignorance or of themselves but of God knowing who really is trying just like Job in the OT. Now if you take issue with certain cases for whom that would apply to but the principles and theology are there.V2 just takes it and applies it beyond the principles it was described as. They say people can be in good faith who worship Brahma, they say the Hindu religion in and of itself has elements of grace and sanctification, that's not what Pius IX and the theologians talked about.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46686
    • Reputation: +27562/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Saint Emerentiana died in the early 300s.  It was a common practice then, due to persecution, for people to be baptized into the Church, but still considered a catechumen, because they had not finished their education.
    .
    So yes, she was a catechumen but not in way we understand it today.  She’s a saint because she was baptized.

    Agreed.  I've read about mass emergency baptisms during time of persecution, but they were otherwise still treated as catechumens.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46686
    • Reputation: +27562/-5115
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus, I think you of all people would see the distinctions they draw.

    95% of them don't make any distinctions ... and barely give the question any thought.

    There isn't a single teaching in Vatican II I could not defend as orthodox given the premise that non-Catholics can be saved, including the fact that the Holy Ghost uses them as means of sanctification and salvation.

    If I'm a Protestant who hear about Jesus and the Holy Spirit from my Prot church, and I try to sincerely live my life in accordance with my conscience as taught by these Protestants, and I am saved on that account, then I am saved by means of this Protestant religion, materially speaking.  No problem there.

    Offline Davidmehs

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 16
    • Reputation: +1/-9
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 95% of them don't make any distinctions ... and barely give the question any thought.

    There isn't a single teaching in Vatican II I could not defend as orthodox given the premise that non-Catholics can be saved, including the fact that the Holy Ghost uses them as means of sanctification and salvation.

    If I'm a Protestant who hear about Jesus and the Holy Spirit from my Prot church, and I try to sincerely live my life in accordance with my conscience as taught by these Protestants, and I am saved on that account, then I am saved by means of this Protestant religion, materially speaking.  No problem there.
    C'mon give them some credit. They do make distinction as evidenced by their explanation. Non-Catholics cannot be saved. That's the important part. A recipient of BOD or Final perseverance in the case of a baptized heretic would be a member of the Church, just through a different mode.
    Ok let's draw the distinction here. Your throwing around protestants the same as pagan. One is baptized already the other is not. Secondly, is the person truly in Invincible ignorance?  Or mere culpable ignorance? And thirdly, is simply living according to your conscious as taught by protestants the same as what is laid out by Pius IX and the theologians working under him such as Fr. Mueller?