Syllabus Of Errors

[Dave]

Here are 2 errors condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

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. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

These 2 errors are often cited by Feeneyite types. So how do we reconcile them with the fact that Protestants are also Christians and are in most cases invincibly ignorant? I sort of have an idea on how to proceed, but nothing more. Can anyone here explain it better?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Dave' post='1208646' date='Mar 5 2007, 04:27 PM']Here are 2 errors condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

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. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

These 2 errors are often cited by Feeneyite types. So how do we reconcile them with the fact that Protestants are also Christians and are in most cases invincibly ignorant? I sort of have an idea on how to proceed, but nothing more. Can anyone here explain it better?[/quote]

The first one, I think, is made clear in light of "not at all," which implies that there are imperfect connections to the Church and then "no connections at all." If I could find the Latin text, I think I could clear it up right now.

The second is easy. Protestantism is not another form of Christianity equal to Catholicism. It is, rather, an imperfect form of Christianity having some Catholic tenets and practices. That's exactly what the pope says. He never says that Protestantism isn't Christian at all.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Dave' post='1208646' date='Mar 5 2007, 02:27 PM']Here are 2 errors condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

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. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

These 2 errors are often cited by Feeneyite types. So how do we reconcile them with the fact that Protestants are also Christians and are in most cases invincibly ignorant? I sort of have an idea on how to proceed, but nothing more. Can anyone here explain it better?[/quote]

To answer the first question:

[quote]From the Catechism of St. Pius X:
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.[/quote]

and it is not a fact that most Protestants are invincibly ignorant. It is an incorrect theological opinion.

[Dave]

StThomasMore:

As for your latter point about Protestants not being invincibly ignorant, Cmom has already addressed that in another thread and corrected you. Please heed it!

[N/A Gone]

so did I..



Mr. More, how often shall we have this conversation?

[Mr.Cat]

I am a little bit confused since invisible ignorance requires that the person through no fault of their own does not know of their need to be baptized and to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. Because most Protestants are somehow made aware of the Church it seems to me that it is not reasonable to make any kind of speculation of how many exist in such a state or not. Although, that we should hope that they do enter the Church and hope that by some means they attain eternal salvation (within the theology of the church).

Am I missing something?

Edited March 6, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Socrates]

[quote name='Dave' post='1208646' date='Mar 5 2007, 04:27 PM']Here are 2 errors condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

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. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

These 2 errors are often cited by Feeneyite types. So how do we reconcile them with the fact that Protestants are also Christians and are in most cases invincibly ignorant? I sort of have an idea on how to proceed, but nothing more. Can anyone here explain it better?[/quote]
#17 - This condemns the idea that one does not need to be in the Church at all to be saved. Baptized non-Catholic Christians are members of the Church through Baptism, though their communion with the Church is imperfect. Note the phrase "at all". This does not exclude either such concepts of Baptism by Blood and Baptism of Desire.

#18 - This condemns indifferentism, the idea that one church is as good as another. This does not mean that protestants are not Christians, but that their religion is not equal to that of the One True Church, as protestant sects contain heresy, and are thus imperfect.

These condemnations are valid, but Feeneyites and other "rad-trads" may distort their meaning.

As for who is and is not truly "invincibly ignorant," this is a judgment best left to God, not us.
And I don't think simply hearing a Catholic say, "The Catholic Church is the One True Church" necessarily in itself means one is not invincibly ignorant, particularly if he comes from an anti-Catholic tradition. This by itself will have about the same effect as a Catholic hearing a protestant say he must reject the Catholic Church and accept Jesus in order to be saved. However, if one truly knows that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, yet rejects it anyway, he is guilty of heresy.
However, only God can know the inner disposition of one's soul, and it is foolish to make blanket statements about the salvation or damnation of non-Catholic Christians.

[Akalyte]

The Catholic church is the only true Church. The only vehicle of salvation. It's sad too many so called "orthodox" catholics have even abandoned the idea. Protestantism is heresy. Sorry seems like all i do on phatmass is rant. I just can't take the church in the modern world anymore. I'm not going to lie when I say the modern church has done more harm to my own faith than good.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Akalyte

[Aloysius]

"good hope at least" is the pivotal point condemned by the first one. the error would be to say we should have at least good hope... when in fact there is little to no good known hope for anyone's salvation outside of the Catholic Church. we do not know that anyone outside the Catholic Church has any chance of salvation whatsoever. it is just as likely, maybe even more likely, that they are damned. we should never ever presume, we should never have "at least good hope"... we can have some degree of uncertain hope, but that's it.

protestantism is not another form of Christianity, and not at all pleasing to God as protestantism. anything pleasing to God in it is what it took from the Catholic Church; nothing which is distinctly protestant is necessarily pleasing to God (neutral cultural aspects I would not call distinctly protestant, but distinct to the ethnic group practicing protestantism be they english or german et cetera)