One of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Church is that of invincible ignorance. It is most commonly (and wrongly) regarded as meaning that anyone who doesn't know about the One True Church gets a free ride to Heaven. This, of course, would make Church membership unnecessary for salvation, which is heresy. Since invincible ignorance is closely tied with Baptism of Desire, it is attacked by Feeneyites, as well as those who ask, "Why bother becoming a True Catholic with all of the 'working out salvation in fear and trembling' when it would be easier to be ignorant?" All of this comes from a basic lack of knowledge regarding the theology behind invincible ignorance and what it really means according to the Church. I will attempt to set out the teaching of the Church in this matter.
What Is Invincible Ignorance?
According to moral theologians McHugh and Callan, "Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances." (See Moral Theology, Joseph F. Wagner, Inc, NY [1929] 1:12).
Although invincible ignorance is tied to Baptism of Desire (BOD) it is NOT identical to it. Hence, ignorance (vincible or invincible) does NOT save anyone. It cannot save. Invincible ignorance was set forth authoritatively by Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of August 10, 1863. In paragraph # 7, the pontiff first restates the the necessity of the Church for salvation:
"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."
Immediately after this, Pope Pius IX also teaches about invincible ignorance:
"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."
Of course, this teaching is abused by heretics who would extend this ignorance to most or all people, thereby making the Church superfluous. On the other hand, the Feeneyites (followers of the heretical teachings of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney), will deny any possibility of salvation for men and women of good will in invincible ignorance unless they are baptized with water. Neither is the case as we will see.
Although invincible ignorance is tied to Baptism of Desire (BOD) it is NOT identical to it. Hence, ignorance (vincible or invincible) does NOT save anyone. It cannot save. Invincible ignorance was set forth authoritatively by Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of August 10, 1863. In paragraph # 7, the pontiff first restates the the necessity of the Church for salvation:
"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."
Immediately after this, Pope Pius IX also teaches about invincible ignorance:
"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."
Of course, this teaching is abused by heretics who would extend this ignorance to most or all people, thereby making the Church superfluous. On the other hand, the Feeneyites (followers of the heretical teachings of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney), will deny any possibility of salvation for men and women of good will in invincible ignorance unless they are baptized with water. Neither is the case as we will see.
Necessity of Precept and Necessity of Means
For all of this to make sense, a person must first understand some basic theological concepts.
Necessity of precept, means that something is necessary from a moral obligation as the result of a commandment. It applies only to adults who have the use of reason and ceases to apply if there is an excusing cause. It is a necessity of precept to abstain from meat on Friday. It is a commandment of the Church which does not bind those outside the Church, and those within can be excused by proper ecclesiastical authority for cause and commit no sin.
Necessity of means, signifies something without which the ends cannot be attained. For example, a validly ordained priest is necessary to consecrate the Eucharist. There is no exception.
The True Roman Catholic Church is necessary, not only by precept, but by a necessity of means--extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church, no salvation"). This entails that salvation does not come automatically assured to someone because he is invincibly ignorant and guiltless in failing to use the requisite means of salvation. In the natural order, for example, if a ship sinks and you were invincibly ignorant of needing a lifeboat and/or life-jacket on board (and therefore you were without one), your ignorance and freedom of malice will not prevent you from drowning.
Necessity of means is further divided into necessity of means by nature or by positive ordinance of God. By positive ordinance of God there results an extrinsic bond established between two things according to God's Will. Such holds for the sacrament of Baptism. Such a means can have a substitute, or the means can be applied in some other way than its actual use. The means can be employed either actually or in desire (in re or in voto). They are not two distinct means, but one and the same--either perfectly (the sacrament of baptism with water) or imperfectly (Baptism by Desire or by Blood).
So, for example, a pagan who loved God with his whole heart and was invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church and how to enter would implicitly desire baptism if he willed, "I want to use all the means God has proscribed for salvation." God could thereby save him at the moment of death by the infusion of the true faith and sanctifying Grace (Baptism of Desire).
(All of the above in this section was condensed from theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, The Neumann Press, [1961], 2: 256-258)
Summary
1. It is a very serious error to hold that people who live apart from the True Faith and Catholic Unity can attain eternal life if they die in this condition.
2. The person who is invincibly ignorant of the True Religion, and who meticulously obeys the Natural Law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God, can be saved through the workings of Divine light and grace.
3. Such a person has already chosen God as his ultimate End. He has done this in an act of charity. This person has his sins remitted within the One True Church of Christ. God can infuse faith and grace, and dying in this state, he receives the reward of Heaven by Baptism of Desire (BOD).
4. Traditionalists have a duty to fulfill the Great Commission, converting as many people as possible because you cannot depend on extraordinary means (BOD) to save them.
(The above was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, 1958).
Objection
Objection: It has been argued that Pope Pius IX was not teaching invincible ignorance saves, he meant that the ignorant, if they cooperate with His grace, will be brought to the sacrament of Baptism.
Reply: Pope Pius IX does not teach that invincible ignorance saves, nor does he teach that the invincibly ignorant can only be saved through baptism with water. The staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:
"Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite Mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable (invincible) ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite Mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the Truth of the Catholic Faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation."
Ignorance does not save. Only the True Faith saves. Does this in any way detract from our duty to convert everyone to the One True Church? Hardly. If anything, it should make us work harder for the salvation of souls. In the natural order, if you knew someone was poor and starving, would you bring them food or rely on God to miraculously feed them? In like manner, we cannot depend on rare miracles to save souls. As Shakespeare wrote, "Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to Heaven."
There are some difficulties involved in what you're saying.
ReplyDeleteYou say that Baptism is necessary by a necessity of precept so that if one intends to be baptized (desires it) and for some reason he is unable before he dies, he can still be saved without it. Ok, so how is it a necessity of means also, and not simply a necessity of precept? To say that intention supplies for the act, as Saint Thomas says, is to implicitly deny that the act is necessary by a necessity of means, and if anything should be considered necessary by a necessity of means, it seems that it should be the Desire for Baptism alone and not at all Baptism itself.
Theologians explain that (as written above) a necessity of means can arise by nature, or by precept of God. The necessity of baptism as the means to enter the Church is by precept of God, and can be substituted by a means other than its use. Baptism is necessary by necessity of means of a precept of God and is thereby conferred in actual use or the desire thereof.
DeleteBaptism of Desire is a rare miracle of God. It is an extraordinary way of applying faith and Grace. Just having desire for baptism is not enough. As I stated, such a person must be "invincibly ignorant of the True Religion, and who meticulously obeys the Natural Law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God." Further, "Such a person has already chosen God as his ultimate End. He has done this in an act of charity." This is a very high hurdle to overcome.
If you are receive the sacrament of baptism, you naturally must have desired it too. The act is necessary, but the desire alone (under those rigorous conditions) can substitute for the act. God can save who He wills. Let's pray for final perseverance, and convert as many as we can. To do otherwise would be the sin of presumption.
---Introibo
If this were true, ALL adult baptism would be conditional... or completely unnecessary. I would also be able to become a Priest, based on my baptism of desire, and yet we all know that it is impossible. It is a philosophy that cannot stand the test.
DeleteNo, adult baptisms are necessary as we don't know who God may save by a rare miracle. The Church has taught BOD/BOB. You can also receive a type of "Penance by Desire" once baptized--called an Act of Perfect Contrition. You can also receive a type of Communion by desire--Spiritual Communion. Their is no way of receiving any other sacrament by desire such as Holy Orders.
Delete---Introibo
This entire issue befuddle's me.If someone asked me about this issue,I would just say convert and don't worry about ignorance Bod-Bob.
ReplyDeleteAs you should! The question arises when people contemplate (for example), the fate of someone who has NEVER heard of Christ and His Church, and has no opportunity to meet someone (such as you) who can tell them.
Delete---Introibo
Thank you so very much for the post on Invincible Ignorance and setting forth with clarity the doctrine of the True Roman Catholic Church. Since returning home to the True Roman Catholic Church 2 years ago, I have stumbled onto this controversial subject of Invincible Ignorance interpreted by the Feenyite extremists or the Novus Ordo extremists. I knew neither of these extreme interpretations could be right and that you would be able to set forth the True Church doctrine on this subject. Thanks for the work you do!
ReplyDeleteI'm so happy for your conversion, Joann. Please pray for me as I wish to be God's unworthy instrument to spread the true Faith in this time of near universal apostasy.
Delete---Introibo
Introibo, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"So, for example, a pagan who loved God with his whole heart and was invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church and how to enter would implicitly desire baptism if he willed, "I want to use all the means God has proscribed for salvation." God could thereby save him at the moment of death by the infusion of the true faith and sanctifying Grace (Baptism of Desire)."
First of all, pagans don't believe in the true God, so they can't love Him at all. Secondly, even if the pagan could love God, he could not love Him with supernatural charity, which alone is meritorious, since, by your own admission, he will not have sanctifying grace until the moment of death. Thirdly, a pagan who is totally ignorant of the faith cannot know that there is even such a thing as salvation, let alone desire the means to it. Fourthly, it is de fide that if one is to be joined to the Church and be thereby saved, it must happen BEFORE death, not at the moment thereof, for one must abide in the unity of the Catholic Church, which necessarily entails at least a little time (Council of Florence). Fifthly, in order for an adult to receive the salvific effects of water baptism, he must already know the fundamental articles of the faith, which if he knows not, the sacrament cannot save him, even if he receive it at the point of death. This is the clear teaching of the popes. Therefore, it seems that you would assign Baptism of Desire a greater efficaciousness that the Sacrament of Baptism itself, which would seem unlikely.
I'm not trying to show that I know more than you; I'm just pointing out how difficult and slippery this issue is, which is one of the reasons that Pope Pius IX himself actually forbade people to speculate on the possibility of the salvation of heathens in the remote parts of the world.
Dear George,
DeleteLet me begin by saying I always welcome your comments as they are intelligent and respectful. Let me also say that I'm no theologian; I have never claimed to be one, as any reader of my blog knows. I'm a former science teacher and current lawyer. I can claim expertise in those two fields, but not theology. I'm an informed layman who had the benefit of learning from Fr. Gommar DePauw, and this blog is my effort to spread the truth about the Vatican II sect in this time of near universal apostasy. I do not consider myself "smarter" or superior to you (or anyone else).
This issue is indeed a controversial one, and I wish there was a real pope to make authoritative pronouncements. I would be (happily) rendered obsolete.
Note well that **I** did not write the passage you quote, rather it was taken and condensed from the writings of Monsignor Gerard Van Noort (to whom I gave credit in my post). Monsignor Van Noort is one of the most erudite pre-Vatican II theologians whose writings were used by Holy Mother Church to train Her priests in the seminary.
Here is where the crux of the matter lies. I have yet to come across anyone who denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) or of Blood (BOB) who did not also restrict what true Catholics must believe to ex cathedra pronouncements--and then THEIR private interpretations of them. This is evident when (for example) the Dimond "Brothers" have an article on their website concerning the "errors" in the writings of theologian Van Noort! Here's where erudition IS relevant, because for two men born in the 1970s with no formal ecclesiastical training and education to find "fault" with the writings of a world class scholar, would be funny if it were not so pathetic. However, it's not merely the education and training of Van Noort, but the APPROVAL OF THE MAGISTERIUM that makes his works authoritative. Those who deny BOD and BOB also deny the prerogatives of the Magisterium, which ceases (for them) to be able to teach anything outside of ex cathedra decrees.
I will address your objections:
1. All humans (including pagans) can know God by the light of natural reason by means of created things. The First Vatican Council decreed: "If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema."
2. The pagan who loves God, known by reason, can be predisposed for justification.
3. Reason can tell us that God will reward the good and punish the wicked. The pagan can seek to be good by "meticulously obey[ing] the Natural Law and being prepared to do whatever God may ask.
4. For something to happen "in articulo mortis" or "at the moment of death" means the moment PRIOR to the soul leaving the body, which is death itself. I don't know of ANY official Church teaching that there is a requisite amount of time that a person needs to belong to the Church prior to death in order to be saved.
(Continued below)
5. As a general matter you are most likely correct. Exactly what Truths need to be known is a disputed point among pre-V2 theologians. The Holy Office did decree on February 28, 1703, that missionaries are bound to explain to all adult converts who have the use of reason, those mysteries of the Faith which are necessay for salvation "necessitate medii" esp. the Trinity and the Incarnation. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 7:284). In BOD, grace and FAITH can be infused to the soul by God prior to death, so this does not render it superior to the Sacrament. Please note that the material above was taken from three approved theologians (Muller, Fenton, and Van Noort).
DeleteIf you have a citation to where, exactly, Pope Pius IX "forbade people to speculate on the possibility of the salvation of heathens in the remote parts of the world," I would love to look it up and read it in context, as well as any clarifying teachings of theologians or decrees of the Holy Office.
It is precisely because I'm not a theologian that I look to the teachings of the real theologians whose works were deemed free from all error in faith and morals by the Magisterium.
---Introibo
Introibo, you wrote:
ReplyDelete“All humans (including pagans) can know God by the light of natural reason by means of created things. The First Vatican Council decreed: ‘If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.’”
Firstly, I'd like to point out that there are two kinds of pagan: 1) Those who worship creatures and practice idolatry, and 2) those who live among the first kind and have no knowledge of the true religion. Obviously the first kind do not know and love God. Those are the ones I was referring to in my comment. You are apparently talking about the second kind, who may (theoretically) know and love the true God. OK, that’s good. But by your own words you are admitting some important points.
Firstly, none of those pagans who do worship creatures and/or practice idolatry (which, in reality, is just about every last one of them) can be considered invincibly ignorant of their offense, since, as you yourself affirm, knowledge of the true God and knowledge of the fact that He alone should be adored can be known by the natural light of reason. Therefore, right off the bat, the vast majority of pagans will be ineligible to receive the BOD that is presumed to be available to the invincible ignorant. Secondly, even among those few who are honest enough to recognize that paganism is irrational and an insult to the true God, how many will be able to love this God enough to actually reject and repudiate the idolatrous practices of his own people, and thus become a pariah and an outcast? And understand, if he doesn’t follow this hard course, he will not only sin out of culpable ignorance, like the rest, but will knowingly sin against the First Commandment, and thus be in the state of the blackest mortal sin. Would such a one as this deserve the BOD that our tender-hearted theologians would like to posit for him?
But let’s further suppose that our pagan not only knows and loves the true God, but allows himself to be cast out of the society of men in order to avoid insulting Him. Do you really suppose that the good God would allow such a one as this to sit in darkness and spend his entire life ignorant of the true faith? God forbid! Would He not sooner have him carried by angels to a minister who will instruct him in the faith and baptize him? So why is it at all necessary to believe that there are any pagans invincibly ignorant of the true faith who receive BOD at the point of death? It’s completely conjectural, superfluous, and cause unnecessary conflict with infallible dogma.
George,
DeleteI understand your point, but if you go back to what I wrote in my previous reply to you, the problem with those who do not accept BOD and BOB is the refusal to acknowledge that the Magisterium can (and does) teach us through theologians whose writings have been guaranteed to be free from all error in faith and morals. Like a neo-Protestant, they will only accept THEIR private interpretations of ex cathedra pronouncements. Everything else is more or less up for grabs. This is the position of the SSPX and the "recognize and resist" crowd (Siscoe and Salza, etc.)They will affirm that a heretic can be pope, and you get to pick and choose what to follow based on their understanding of Tradition. Otherwise, they claim "it's not really heresy," in which case why do they operate outside what they consider to be the true Church when all they really have is a preference and not a doctrinal dispute.
You are correct that the number of the elect will be few (See St. Matt. 7:13-14; see also St. Alphonsus Liguori "The Way of Salvation and Perfection" pg.311, "The greater part of men choose to be damned rather than to love Almighty God." However, God can and will save whom He chooses.
In response to your objections:
1. While people can know the One True God by the light of natural reason, they cannot know all precepts of morality without Revelation. For example, could not a pagan worship the True God in his heart and think that it's OK to go through the motions of idol worship to save his life or to prevent ostracism? In that case God might find him objectively wrong, but subjectively innocent.
2. In the case of the pagan who does worship the True God alone, you ask, "Do you really suppose that the good God would allow such a one as this to sit in darkness and spend his entire life ignorant of the true faith? God forbid! Would He not sooner have him carried by angels to a minister who will instruct him in the faith and baptize him?"
Remember, "For My thoughts are not thy thoughts: nor thy ways My ways, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8). Your assuming how God OUGHT to do things according to YOUR way of thinking. To be honest, my faith is tried too, when I see a young child suffering with cancer. Couldn't the good God accomplish what He needs to get done without making an innocent child suffer? I know God has His reasons which I don't comprehend, and everything will work out for the best--even for the poor child himself. (Continued below)
3. You end your last comment by writing, "So why is it at all necessary to believe that there are any pagans invincibly ignorant of the true faith who receive BOD at the point of death? It’s completely conjectural, superfluous, and cause unnecessary conflict with infallible dogma."
DeleteIt is necessary to believe it because the One True Church teaches it, and the Magisterium does not function by virtue of ex cathedra pronouncements alone. This is how God has chosen to do things. He chose to create THIS world, not another possible world. He chose to institute 7 sacraments, not 6, 8, or some other number.
Think about the consequences of what it is you propose. The unanimous consent of all pre-V2 theologians are wrong making conjecture and superfluous writings that conflict with infallible dogma. What kind of Magisterium can approve such author's works as free from error? You must claim that the Church can defect, which is heresy. You can never be sure what to believe unless it comes "stamped ex catherdra," so even an encyclical by Pope Pius IX and a Catechism by Pope St. Pius X may be wrong. You must either (a) believe in a fallible Church or (b)declare a state of sedevacante way prior to 1958. Richard Ibranyi has actually done so--there hasn't been a pope since 1130 AD (I wish I were kidding, but I'm not).
I believe in the Indefectibility of the Church which can teach me without error in the approved writings of Her theologians. Why God so chooses to save some by a miracle of grace in this manner (BOD)and not some other way, I don't know. However, the Church teaches it, and that settles it. I hope we will find out many of our "Why" questions in the next world.
---Introibo
I was born in the early '50's and grew up with the Latin Mass. I had never heard of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood or Invincible Ignorance until 2 yrs. ago when I finally found my way home to the True Roman Catholic Church. Ever since then I have been bombarded with Traditionalists questioning me on BOD, BOB and Invincible Ignorance and where my beliefs were on them. Why are these doctrines so controversial and seem to be of so much prominence and how did they become so?
ReplyDeleteJoann,
DeleteFor a good background please read my posts "No Dimond In The Rough" of 7/22/14, "Feeneyite Furor" of 8/7/14, and "Fenneyite Furor (Part 2)" of 8/10/14 and read them on that order. It should explain a lot. If you have any questions after you read them, please feel free to leave a comment here and I will dig deeper into the issue for you.
---Introibo
@JoAnn I am younger than you but I hadn't heard of Bod-Bob etc until 2o11 when I discovered the True Roman Catholic church!!
DeleteI had no idea I too would be bombarded constantly about these issues.Its good to know I am not the only one that is going through this predicament.
Hey wait a second...You quoted Muller who wrote
ReplyDelete"Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
I have to take exception to this teaching. Fred and Bobby Dimond KNOW exactly who is in hell at the moment of death. I know this because I've read some of their declarations on certain deceased individuals. Praise Dimond!
LOL !!
Delete---Introibo
Are they not two of the most obnoxious twits you ever encountered? How do they still have disciples? Effeminate Fred and his enforcer brother Bob posted this video a while back...
ReplyDeleteNew Video Posted
MHFM: This is a new video. It concerns the heretical priest, Fr. Martin Stepanich.
Priest Dies and Goes to Hell [video]
That's dispicable. With the exception of Judas Iscariot we can not say with certainty who is in Hell. These two purport to be representative of Traditionalist Catholicism, and are ignorant of many basic tenets of the Faith. This also shows a serious lack of charity.
Delete---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDelete"If you have a citation to where, exactly, Pope Pius IX "forbade people to speculate on the possibility of the salvation of heathens in the remote parts of the world," I would love to look it up and read it in context, as well as any clarifying teachings of theologians or decrees of the Holy Office."
What I was thinking of was this passage from Singulari Quadam:
"On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things? When delivered from the bonds of the body, we shall see God as He is, we will comprehend perfectly by what admirable and indissoluble bond the divine mercy and the divine justice are united; but as long as we are upon the earth, bent under the weight of this mortal mass which overloads the soul, let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted." [emphasis mine]
George,
DeleteThank you for the citation. If you read it in context with what the theologians teach, it is in perfect harmony. It teaches:
1. It is necessary to hold for certain that invincible ignorance of the True Religion is not held as a fault against this person by God.
2. We cannot know who is invincibly ignorant and will be saved by God via BOD.
3. If we get to Heaven, we will understand how God's mercy and justice are perfectly united in the mystery of salvation.
4. Since on earth we cannot know whom God will save in this miraculous way (and the number is not many) we must act as though none will be saved except by the Great Commission!!
Let's face it, if invincible ignorance guaranteed salvation by BOD, why would the North American Martyrs suffer needlessly? "Let's leave the Native American Indians in ignorance and they will be saved," is totally false. A few MAY be saved by this means but "to seek to penetrate further is not permitted." You are right George, that we may not speculate on whom God will save miraculously, so let's convert and baptize as many as possible!
---Introibo