Monday, September 16, 2019

Vatican II, Invincible Ignorance, And Salvation


 Most "conservatives" in the Vatican II sect are (ironically) ignorant of invincible ignorance, and what it means in relation to God's plan of salvation.  Their warped ideas come from the heretical ecclesiology contained in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. In paragraph number 8, we read: "This Church [the Church of Christ], constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Emphasis mine).

In simple terms, this "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," as it is called, teaches that there is an entity known as "the Church of Christ" which is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. (The true ecclesiology always taught that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same). The Church of Christ is found in its "fullness" in the Roman Catholic Church because She contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, which subsists (in greater or lesser degrees) in other religions too, depending on how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too and leads to salvation. This heresy denies that there is only One True Church, and it makes a farce of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ("Outside the Church No Salvation"--hereinafter "EENS").

The "conservative" defenders of the Vatican II sect will protest that Lumen Gentium upholds EENS in paragraph number 14. It states: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." (I will return to this sentence later). In paragraph number 16, it declares, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation." The text cites to the letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office Suprema Haec Sacra [1949] to the Archbishop of Boston regarding the errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney who denied Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). It is interesting that the letter does not expound the Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB as fully and comprehensively as other sources which the Robber Council simply ignored.

In response to their defense of Lumen Gentium, I can easily point out glaring departures from EENS, such as in paragraph number 16 where it teaches "... the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." God's plan of salvation includes the followers of the murderous madman Mohammed? Worshiping the false moon god "Allah" is the same as the Triune God of Catholicism? I could go on, but the purpose of my post is to bring to light the false ideas held by "EWTN" types in the Vatican II sect, who give a heretical interpretation to invincible ignorance based on the above cited sentence from Lumen Gentium: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."

Those Who Know Nothing About Ignorance

 From the sentence cited in Lumen Gentium, the V2 sect apologists reason as follows: No one can be damned for not joining the Catholic Church unless the failure to join is deliberate. The Church teaches that all who do not join Her are damned. Therefore, "Outside the Church No Salvation" only applies to those who recognize the Catholic Church as the True Church and then deliberately refuse to join Her. Now if you apply this totally false and heretical idea and label it "invincible ignorance," you have completely eviscerated EENS. There are two necessary factors for being "outside the Church:" First, you must explicitly know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, and having this knowledge, you nevertheless (out of human respect, fear, or whatever motive) refuse to join Her.

 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that large numbers of people have no knowledge of the Catholic Church, or don't realize Catholicism is the true religion, due to factors they can't overcome (like poor Chinese pagans who don't know any better and have never heard of Catholicism in many cases. I won't even discuss those who mistake the Vatican II sect for the Catholic Church). Add to the mix Lutherans living in Scandinavian countries, and since they were surrounded by non-Catholics, they had no way to understand the Catholic Church is the One True Church. Hence, nearly all the world is saved.  Feeneyites will rightfully condemn this heresy, but then they go on to reject the true teaching on invincible ignorance as taught by Pope Pius IX. The heretical implications of the V2 sect apologists are:

1. The Divine and Catholic Faith are not always necessary for salvation.

2. Those who are not deliberately outside the Church because of ignorance, and those who fail to recognize Her as the One True Church, will ipso facto be united to Her through BOD.

3. There is a "presumption of salvation" for non-Catholics. This comes directly from Vatican II which discussed Moslems as a whole (and many other false sects) as being "in the plan of salvation." 

The Teaching of the Church
I) Outside the One True Church, There is no Salvation

"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441). 

The Syllabus of Errors (1864):
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. 

The position of the Church is clear.

II) Ignorance does NOT save you
In his Allocution Singulari Quadem [1854], Pope Pius IX teaches, "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."

As theologian Fenton teaches, "He [Pope Pius IX] stated simply that God will blame no man for invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church, any more than He will blame anyone for invincible ignorance of anything else...non-appurtenance to the Catholic Church is by no means the only reason why men are deprived of the Beatific Vision. Ultimately, the only factor that will exclude a man from the eternal and supernatural enjoyment of God in Heaven is sin, either Original or mortal." (See The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, [1958], pgs. 45-46).

The same holy Pontiff, in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore [1863], teaches:
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. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. (para. #7 and 8; Emphasis mine).

Notice that Pope Pius IX affirms the absolute necessity of Church membership for salvation twice, and between these affirmations, he discusses those in invincible ignorance of the true religion who "are able to" (not "will") attain eternal life. Unless you are a Feeneyite, it is apparent that a pope cannot teach error to the whole Church, even when not speaking infallibly. Nor was he schizophrenic; contradicting himself in the same document by affirming the absolute necessity of Church membership and invincible ignorance. Therefore, invincible ignorance is not an exception to Church membership.

First, who are those that Pius IX indicates "may be saved" despite (not because of) invincible ignorance? Certainly not all who are invincibly ignorant as "conservative" V2 sect members seem to think. There are several stringent requirements. The person must:

  • be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion
  • carefully observe the natural law (the duty to "do good and avoid evil" as recognized by human reason)
  • observe all the precepts of natural law, which are those specific obligations of the natural law and are known to all people who have not extinguished the light of true conscience within them. Such obligations include, but are not limited to, adoring God, not to steal or kill, to reserve sex for marriage, etc. 
  • "lead a good and upright life" thus striving to to inform and obey his conscience in regard to every action
  • be "ready to obey God" by being disposed to do whatever He may want Him to do, and "lead an honest life" thereby having perfect contrition for sin
If a person meets these requirements, is he/she assured of salvation? In a word: No. They need "Divine light and grace." What does this mean? God can, before death, enlighten the mind by infusing the basic truths of Faith and imbue sanctifying grace in the soul. The person thereby is within the Church with grace and can be saved. St Thomas Aquinas in De Veritate, question 14, article 11, discusses whether it is necessary to have explicit Faith to be saved. The Angelic Doctor answers in the affirmative, and this comports with implicit faith being changed to explicit Faith by Divine Light. Aquinas teaches:

"For if anyone thus brought up [someone raised in the woods or among brute animals] were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, even as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10). (Emphasis mine).  Hence, theologian Lacroix teaches that "...the faithlessness of those who have heard nothing of the Faith [not even by internal inspiration]...is not a sin, but the penalty of sin; because if they had done what lay within their power, God would not have concealed the faith from them." (See Theologia Moralis, De Fide, cap. 5, dub 1). 

Conclusion
The Vatican II sect exalts ignorance as a condition that automatically saves you. Nothing could be more wrong and wicked. Ignorance, even when invincible and thereby inculpable, does not save anyone. If that were the case, the Church should not carry out the Great Commission by sending missionaries, because if you leave someone in invincible ignorance they will be saved, but if you tell them the truth and they reject it they will be damned. You thereby put non-Catholics in a potentially worse position by preaching to them. 

If someone in invincible ignorance meets many stringent requirements, it is possible that God can bring him into the Church through BOD before death. It is a rare miracle of grace. Therefore, we must pursue the Great Commission with full vigor. Just as God has miraculously allowed certain saints to survive by ingesting nothing but the Holy Eucharist, we can't take a rare miracle like that and use it to justify not feeding the poor because "God can feed them by a miracle." We must follow Church teaching on invincible ignorance and all other matters, avoiding both denial of God's saving work (Feeneyites), and professing universal salvation via ignorance (Vatican II sect). 




45 comments:

  1. I will have to re-read this a fee times.
    Thank you for explaining this
    somewhat difficult subject.
    God bless.
    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Thank you. It is complex and I tried to make it as accessible to the person who never studied the topic before.

      God Bless,

      ——Introibo

      Delete
  2. Very good Introibo. I do have one question I think I already know the answer to, which you did not include here.

    Do you admit that the implicit or hidden (not manifested) desire for baptism is included in the explicit faith one is lead to by Divine Light and grace, for what angel or preacher sent by God would leave that Divine Precept out?

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CM7,
      The person must have an implicit desire to do all God wants which includes Baptism. Once enlightened it would be an explicit desire.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Do you mean once manifested it would be an explicit desire? One can be already enlightened and still have an implicit desire.

      Delete
    3. CM7,
      You would be enlightened to everything that you must explicitly believe to be saved. Theologians have debated that question and exactly what dogmas need to be believed explicitly. No approved theologians of which I’m aware teach that Baptism must be expressly believed—but if that is the case it would be made explicit. If not it would remain implicit.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Introibo,

    As Andrew stated above, "thanks for explaining this somewhat difficult subject". Since finding Tradition 4 yrs ago, I have come across the subject of Invincible Ignorance many times. Since this was something I never heard of pre-Vatican II, I never paid it much attention and would dismiss it. However, come to find out the Vatican II Sect, being the humanists that they are,just love to spout their spin on it.
    They have done great damage to the True Catholic Faith and to individuals who believe their lie that all are saved as a result of ignorance. Also,I get really upset when I hear people equate Allah with the Trinity and try to put the false Islamic religion on par with the True Roman Catholic Faith. The Devil is a liar and the father of lies.
    Unfortunately, there is no shortage of lies in the Vatican II Sect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      What you say about the V2 sect is so true! Invincible ignorance is very misunderstood; and at times, deliberately misrepresented.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. I once had a conversation with a priest who was seminary-trained before the changes and who never offered the false Novus Ordo. He explained to me that as a boy, he was taught very clearly Baptism of Desire and Blood (as all instructed Catholics were); yet, if they heard of someone who died as a non-Catholic, the common attitude among the people (whom he grew up with) was still "Oh no, that's not good. I hope they 'made it'." And they were somewhat sad for that person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:17
      What you describe is the correct Catholic attitude! God bless that dear priest.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Thank you for this post. I don’t think it covers a related topic - what a Catholic is to believe about those to whom the claims of the Church have been proclaimed, but remain outside of it. On its face, it cannot be said they are still “ignorant” of the claims of the Church, but many conciliar apologists say if they have not been “convinced or persuaded” by arguments, they are blameless. Thus, this leads to the situation that even sect leaders who are well aware of the claims of the Church can be saved even if they spend their whole lives trying to lead the faithful away from the Church because they were never “persuaded”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:47
      Those people are not invincibly ignorant. It is the height of folly to think they can remain in good faith. However, a case CAN BE MADE that they ARE invincibly ignorant. If they mistake the V2 sect for the Catholic Church, they are not rejecting Catholicism, and may be truly ignorant of Traditionalists! What crazy times in which we live my friend!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      Regarding the above, would that include those people in the Novus Ordo such as the young who never heard of Traditionalism and are ignorant?

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      The argument could be made. I’m studying it, but I’m not convinced by it at this point. That may change.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Of interest:

      Bellermine: CH. XVI: That the Church Can Defect is Refuted

      "To that passage of Jerome I respond, there are two figures in his words, one of understanding, when he says, "The world groaned," for he calls the world a great part of the world, but not the whole world, the second of abuse, when he says, "and marveled to find itself Arian," for he calls the Arians improperly those who subscribe to heresy through ignorance. He speaks on the multitude of Bishops who throughout the world agreed with Ariminus and being deceived by the Arians decreed that the term homoousios must be abolished, even though they did not know what it meant. Certainly they were not heretics, nor did they err at least materially, just as if some Catholic might advance a blasphemous opinion externally with the tongue thinking it is a pious prayer, such a man would not properly be a blasphemer."

      So typing that for your review gives me pause. If an excuse is made for N.O. Catholics regarding the truths of Tradition, then why isn't the N.O. correct in saying Protestants can no longer be considered heretics?

      No need to discuss this here, I just wanted to bring this to your attention if you have not already come across it in your studies.

      God bless.

      Delete
    5. @CM7,
      Thank you! I have much to study and this helps. I currently have not reached any opinion.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. As I understand the teaching of the Church on this issue, “ignorance” merely means “not aware of” the claims of the Church, it doesn’t mean “not persuaded or convinced” because such an understanding would conflict with another teaching of the Church. This other teaching is the duty to assent to, and to profess the truths that have been proclaimed to you by the Church. This duty arises not from being persuaded or convinced, but from the authority of the Almighty to command belief. I believe the canons from V1 make this definitive, e.g., “1. If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God: let him be anathema.” If I am incorrect in my understanding of any of this by all means correct me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:44
      You are correct. The V2 sect adds “convinced” so as to add to their universalism. If someone thinks the V2 sect is the Catholic Church, they MAY be ignorant of the True Church. It’s an argument I’m studying but upon which I have not been totally convinced.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hi Introibo, I just wanted to follow up with the comments I made at 8:47 and 9:44 with a practical example to illustrate to other readers that the proper understanding of “invincible ignorance” and related matters is not an academic issue. Purported Pope of the Catholic Church Benedict XVI wrote this regarding the Jews:

      “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts — yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.

      There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him — that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about….”

      (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, trans. by Henry Taylor [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2002], p. 209)

      The modernist Ratzinger here exemplifies the error made by the VII conciliarists described above in discussing the response of the Jews to the proclamation of the Gospel by Our Lord. The fact that they were, and to this day, are not persuaded by the claims of Our Lord is besides the point. Our Lord in his time and His Church acting for Him now has and have the authority to proclaim the Truth and to command assent to the Truth. To claim that the Jews remain effectively “ignorant” of the claims of Our Lord and blameless for rejecting them because their Old Testament exegesis did not persuade them is tantamount to a denial of, for example, the canon quoted above from VI: “If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God, let him be anathema”.

      When I realize how blithely Ratzinger corrupts the clear understanding of the relevant Church teachings on these issues it really strikes me. Why aren’t those who are presumably of good will shocked as well?

      Delete
    3. Didn't the magnitude of all this pro-Jewish, and don't prostelize the Jews begin with the changes to the Good Friday Liturgy in 1962 by Roncalli who altered the words "perfidious Jews"? It seems soon after the changes were implemented to the Good Friday Mass "Invincible Ignorance" started to be quoted and misunderstood as a universal way to salvation for all. I could be wrong, but I think the misunderstanding of Invincible Ignorance began or was emphasized with the Good Friday changes to the Mass??

      JoAnn

      Delete
    4. @anon8:18
      Good information to consider! Thank you!

      @Joann,
      The idea that Jews are still “God’s chosen people” began with Roncalli and his changes. I don’t think it was a Strict cause and effect however. There were other factors. You rightly mentioned one of the major ones.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo,
      If you don't mind, could you list what some of the "other factors" are. Thanks.
      JoAnn

      Delete
    6. Joann,
      The creeping Modernism and laxness in Properly teaching Catechism lessons, lead “Sr Mary Sunshine” tonproclaim almost everyone gets BOD. In countries that were not Catholic, the bishops became infected with the proclivity to think, “This person is nice. God wouldn’t damn him; he’ll get BOD.”

      Both played a major factor as well.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. I do not believe there are many, except for the very young, who are not aware of Traditionalism in the Novus Ordo. Every time I have been engaged with a Novus Ordoite and tell them I attend a Latin Mass, I have been responded to with contempt and at times verbally attacked. This adverse reaction to the Latin Mass has not happened with Protestants, Jews, or even atheists I have told. Perhaps the NO will be judged harder for their rejection of Traditionalism?

      Delete
    8. Joann,
      The V2 members, especially those who were raised before the Great Apostasy will, in my opinion, be judged most harshly.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  7. Introibo,
    This question is off topic. What does the Church say regarding "asexuality"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:10,
      Please define what you mean by “asexual”
      Do you mean someone who looks and dresses androgynously, or someone with no sexual attraction to anything?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      Someone with no sexual attraction to anyone.

      Delete
    3. @6:10
      The Church’s teaching regarding sex is that it must only be used within marriage and be open to procreation. The condition is not sinful. The asexual can become priests, brothers, monks, nuns, or simply live the single vocation. It is not meritorious for them to forsake marriage anymore than giving up something you never liked or used is a meritorious sacrifice for Lent.

      To the best of my knowledge and belief?’, no approved theologians wrote anything specific about the asexuals; sometimes loosely referred to as eunuchs.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,

      What if the asexual is married and won't fulfill their marriage obligation?

      Delete
    5. @anon12:16
      I can’t imagine why an asexual would get married. Most likely they would be impotent which is legitimate grounds for annulment if the marital act can’t be consummated.

      Supposing such a person did get married and could perform the marital act, but withholds the marriage debt, such would be mortally sinful, but would not affect validity of the marriage. If the asexual didn’t make this proclivity known prior to marriage, it COULD be grounds for annulment, but without Ordinary jurisdiction such decisions cannot be made.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,
      "without Ordinary jurisdiction such decisions cannot be made". Do you mean an annulment?

      Delete
    7. Introibo,
      I think I read that the SSPX grants annulments. Is this true?

      Delete
    8. @anon1:11
      Sad but true. They have no Ordinary jurisdiction to do so. No by Traditionalist standards in a time of Sedevacantism nor by Bergoglio and his “bishops” whom they recognize!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. Introibo,
      If the SSPX doesn't have Ordinary Jurisdiction how are they giving annulments?

      Delete
    10. @anon2:40
      Good question. They are invalid by V2 sect and Traditional Catholic theology. Only THEY consider them valid.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. Wasn't St. Paul a Eunnch? Why did he say that it was better for people to be as he was? If that was the case there would be no procreation. Seems to be very conflicted messages.

      Delete
    12. @anon1:38
      St Paul is not advocating for everyone to become a eunuch. See my post
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/06/eunuchs-for-kingdom-of-heaven.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. It is highly doubtful that in our age there can be any one who is unable, literally unable to get some information about the Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Unknown,
      I'm inclined to agree with you. There may be some sparsely inhabited places where there are tribes who have not heard of the Catholic Faith, but that would be maybe 0.01% of the world's population.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Which Catholic Faith in this day would people hear or be exposed to, more than likely only Vatican II as opposed to pre-Vatican II and the True Catholic Faith.

      Delete
    3. @anon6:47
      Point well taken.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. You talk to average joe’s about Jesus and they think the whole story is a fairy tale. Much of their ignorance is self imposed.

      Delete