Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance Neither Saves nor Damns a Person

Editor's Note: Because Catholic Family News often publishes articles that emphasize the infallible Catholic doctrine of "outside the Church there is no salvation," we have sometimes been accused of implicitly denying Venerable Pope Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance.1 In answer, we do not deny Pope Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance. Yet, because there seems to be widespread confusion on this point, we are presenting the writings on the subject by the erudite Redemptorist Father Michael Müller, who lived in the late 19th Century. Father Müller, in perfect continuity with the most orthodox Catholic writers of the period (especially, the great Bishop George Hay2) clarifies this teaching by explaining that invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns.

The Background: Father Michael Müller is well known for his magnificent books The Blessed Sacrament, Prayer: the Key to Salvation, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and The Sinner's Return to God. He also authored many works that are now out of print. In 1875, he wrote a small booklet entitled A Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine3 in which he emphasized the doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation." His book was attacked by liberal-leaning American clergymen at the time. The main attack came from a "prominent Catholic priest" whom Father Müller only referred to as "Sir Oracle" (S.O.). Father Müller responded to these assaults with his superb 292 page book, The Catholic Dogma, which bears the Permisu Superiorum from his Redemptorist Order. What follows is taken verbatum from pages 211 to 218 of that book. The reader will immediately notice that in clarifying the teaching on invincible ignorance, Father Müller is also combatting the same errors so prominent in our own day.

"But, suppose", some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to Heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give Heaven to anybody, but, as He is just, He certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."

Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth, in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth4. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.

Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin," as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) "And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins", says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)

Moreover, a person who wants to go east, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going west, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes east. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to Heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to Heaven. God, in His infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to Heaven, if he corresponds to His grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:

"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 to know better?"

"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 ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas) Liberal Objections

S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance. From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam permissæ". To give an example. Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The True Religion and its Dogmas: "This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of Heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, Heaven will be his home for eternity."

We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely:

"This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX. In his allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: 'It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.' "

Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX teach quite the contrary in the following words:5

"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church -- which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord -- will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which He chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separate from Catholic unity ...

"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that He will throw down the wall of separation, that He will scatter the darkness of error, and that He will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."

Now does not Pius IX say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the "members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that, by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found."

And in his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX says: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command ... We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THlS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH and SALVATION.'' Now does not Pius IX teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, does not Pius IX most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? That the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? That she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands to shine in the kingdom of God? That the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX" To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."

If, in these words, Pius IX says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX thereby teach that such invincible ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation -- all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained?

Pius IX has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times", says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."

Mark well, Pius IX uttered these solemn words against "certain men'', whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith, -- he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to th

e Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see?" The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX, from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions.6

Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.

The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.

Neither Saves nor Condemns Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance", says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin". (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.

But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation, is another. To maintain the latter would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.

Hence Pius IX said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."7

1. Encyclicals of Pope Pius IX's: Singulari Quidem, Singulari Quadam, and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore

2. Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) from Scotland was one of the greatest Catholic teachers and apologists of the early 19th Century. His three famous works are The Sincere Christian, The Devout Christian and The Pious Christian (all out of print). His works have received high praise from many Catholic bishops of the 19th Century. Paul Cardinal Cullen said, "the learned Bishop's writings display a great power of reasoning, and great critical acumen, while they supply an inexhaustible mine of erudition and Scriptural knowledge".

3. The book received the approval of a number of learned priests and theologians at the time, and was printed with the Imprimatur of the Most Rev. J. Roosevelt Baily, Archbishop of Baltimore and the Very Reverend Joseph Helmpraecht, the Provincial of the Redemptorist in the U.S.

6. The author refers the reader to the preface of The Catholic Dogma in which Pope Pius IX is quoted at length on the teaching that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

7. The next chapter in Fr. Müller's book is entitled "How Almighty God Leads to Salvation Those Who Are Inculpably Ignorant of the Truths of Salvation." Fr. Müller explains that "Almighty God, who is just and condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, by either natural or supernatural means." (p. 218) He then gives instances in Church history where God has employed both natural and supernatural means to lead the invincibly ignorant into the Church. Photocopies of these pages (pp. 118-249) are available from Catholic Family News

If police ignore enforcing the law you have anarchy. While the law may be on the books, without enforcement you essentially have no law. That is the state the Catholic Church finds itself in today.

It may appear so but remember, appearances are just that. The fact of the matter is this, all the disobedience in the world will not change the true nature of His Church and as much as I wish that the pope and bishops would enforce orthodoxy instantly and at all times, they don't but since my faith is in Him and His Church, which goes beyond the here and now, I am comforted by the knowledge that the gates of hell will not prevail. I look at it as a cross I must bear, an infinitely small aspect of my cooperation with His grace.

AS far as the rest of your post, I'll just say this: we are called to be one flock with one Shepherd. The plurality of denominations/churches denies this truth. It is a symptom of our continuing disobedience to Him.

Again, bad popes - there have been many. That does not mean they have issued authoritative statements declaring that simony is not a sin. Many of them have been directly guilty of simony themselves, certainly surrounding the scandal of selling indulgences, but Church doctrine has not changed one iota. When a bad pope comes along, which God permits on occasion to test the faithful, "stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thes. ii.14)

How it is that you qualify the Council of Trent as "knee-jerk" when it merely reiterated the doctrines taught by the Church up until that point, as seen in other Councils such as those held in Constance and Florence a century prior? Would you claim that the Council of Trent taught novelties and that Luther and Calvin more accurately represented the Deposit of Faith of the Apostles?

I'm not necessarily opposed to bashing popes if they deserve it - I'm just militantly opposed to insults hurled at the office.

***Something is a truth simply because you, as a "believer," feels it is such?***

No, Jesus words are true because he is the Truth. I, as a believer, recognize their truth because he has brought me into the New Covenant and thereby has blessed me in the following way...

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD .

"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD .
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

***On what did the Catholic Church base it's authority during the intervening three centuries?
On the Divine Commission:***

So I was correct when I stated that you believe the Catholic Church receives it's authority from Scripture as read by secular historians? If no then please help me out here. Can you state in one or two sentences what the authority of the Catholic Church is based on?

***St. Paul was commanded by God ***

Actually it was St John and he was commanded by Jesus. This is in response to your statement "he did not ask them to write anything"

***Do you find similar commands from God to the other writers of the New Testament? ***

Yes... St. Paul testifies...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

and St. Peter testifies that Christ moved the prophets to write...

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."

***So are the Koran and the Four Vedas by your rationale. But are they inspired? No, because a Divine Authority has not declared them as such.***

The Bible is not inspired because some authority "declares" them to be so. Nor could the Koran or Vedas become inspired were some such "Divine Authority" to declare them to be so.

Did John have the divine authority to decide Jesus was to be the Christ?

No, Jesus words are true because he is the Truth. I, as a believer, recognize their truth..."

Okay, so then you believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (St. Matthew xxvi.26-28, St. Mark xiv.22-24, St. Luke xxii.19-20) and that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in you (St. John vi.54). Or are these obvious truths from the mouth of Our Lord that you are not blessed to believe?

Can you state in one or two sentences what the authority of the Catholic Church is based on?

Christ built his Church upon St. Peter (St. Matthew xvi.18) and then gave His Apostles the Divine Commission to baptize and teach all nations (St. Matthew xxviii.19) with the power that His Father had given Him (St. John xx.21). If you do not believe that Christ actually built a Church, then you betray Scripture and will probably not be swayed by me quoting them ad nauseum.

Actually it was St John and he was commanded by Jesus.

I misspoke. I would hope you have no problems with me calling Jesus "God," however.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

See Post #89.

The Bible is not inspired because some authority "declares" them to be so.

It most certainly is. What authority do you refer to when you say Scripture is inspired? Itself? See Posts #65 and 89. You seem to have a problem separating Christ and the Bible - this is a common Protestant malady known as "bibliolatry." Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, made Incarnate by the Virgin Mary for the Redemption of the world. The Bible, or more specifically the New Testament, is an assemblage of the early writings of the Apostles that the Church compiled and declared the Inspired Word of God (Post #78, last paragraph). If it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't have Scripture, nor would you have a logical reason to view it as Inspired.

***Okay, so then you believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist***

I believe the words of Scripture, I do not believe the RCC interpretation of these scriptures.

***and that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life in you***

I do believe it. And I do also believe that Jesus Christ is the spiritual Bread of Heaven that continues to feed every soul that hungers for righteousness.

***Christ built his Church upon St. Peter (St. Matthew xvi.18) and then gave His Apostles the Divine Commission to baptize and teach all nations (St. Matthew xxviii.19) with the power that His Father had given Him (St. John xx.21).***

Everything you have pointed to is Scripture.

So is it Scripture that is the basis for the authority of the Catholic Church?

Or if it is not Scripture and perhaps instead the actual events themselves to which Scripture bears witness, how do you know with accuracy the important points of these events?

*** I would hope you have no problems with me calling Jesus "God," however.***

We both AGREE! that he is.

***The Bible is not inspired because some authority "declares" them to be so....

...It most certainly is.***

Did John have the divine authority to decide Jesus was to be the Christ?

You have failed to prove that the RCC = "his body". - PetroniusMaximus

I don't need to prove what is self-evident and accepted by all. - Hermann

Hey Hermann, Guess what? NO ONE OUTSIDE THE ROMAN CHURCH BELIEVES THIS!

If the Catholic Church is not the original Church Christ founded, then from what did it spring, and where did the Church Christ found go? We don't need such childish nonesense. - Hermann

If you can't defend your position, there's no reason to demean everyone else's belief. Namely, that the Church Christ founded is not directly equivalent to a humanly denominated corporation with "Roman" in its name, nor some organization defined by the succession of people holding a particular office. Everyone else's belief isn't "childish nonsense" just because you refuse to see the true boundaries of Christ's Universal Church, "the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine" (Calvin, quoted in full below).

The Reformers openly admitted that their revolt was not over a disbelief in the lineage of the Church of Rome, but over doctrinal disputes where they felt Rome had strayed from the Apostles. You are more than free to believe as they do, but please don't try to push the cockamamie line that the Catholic Church is not the direct descendant of the Apostolic and Patristic Church. - Hermann

HOW DARE YOU so mislead concerning the Reformers' position? NONE of the Reformers EVER equated the Roman Catholic Church with the Body of Christ, and they certainly didn't do it thinking that the RCC was a "direct descendant of the Apostolic and Patristic Church." Every one of them expressed that it was fidelity to Christ, the sacraments, and true doctrine that defined the "true and lawful" Church.

Unlike you, I actually will quote a Reformer to back my Position: Calvin.

However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine. Daniel [Dan. 9:27] and Paul [II Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his reign was not to be such as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the church. From this it therefore is evident that we by no means deny that the churches under his tyranny remain churches. But these he has profaned by his sacrilegious impiety, afflicted by his inhuman domination, corrupted and well-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrines, which are like poisoned drinks. In them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel overthrown, piety scattered, the worship of God nearly wiped out. In them, briefly, everything is so confused that there we see the face of Babylon rather than that of the Holy City of God. To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the church remain--especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devil’s wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church.
- Calvin’s Institutes, IV:2.12; Emphasis Mine

”How it is that you qualify the Council of Trent as "knee-jerk" when it merely reiterated the doctrines taught by the Church up until that point, as seen in other Councils such as those held in Constance and Florence a century prior? Would you claim that the Council of Trent taught novelties and that Luther and Calvin more accurately represented the Deposit of Faith of the Apostles?”

During the first session, from December 1545 until March 1547, the Council of Trent discussed such matters as the relationship of scripture and tradition, the canon of scriptural books and the doctrines of original sin and justification. Among other things it radically altered the theological position of justification of the Council of Orange (circa 529 AD). It included the controversial Apocrypha books into the Catholic Bible which were considered suspect by the early church fathers and only included as an Appendix in early writings. And the Council of Trent forbid the reading of the scriptures by lay people saying this was to be left to the priests.

But to me the most radical, and shameful act of the Council of Trent was to essentially scraped Augustine’s position of original sin and justification and replace it with the more humanistic “free will” belief that became prevalent during the Renaissances. It takes careful and objective study to view these various positions. As I found in my research, Calvins favors Augustine and the Council of Orange interpretation which is why we would say we base our beliefs on the early church fathers-not on the Council of Trent which appeared on the scene 1000 years later. (Much like some Catholics don't recognize Vatican II.) Below is just one small sample of the theological change that took place from the Council of Orange to the Council of Trent.

BTW-If you go out to New Advent and look up original sin you will get quite a tap dance on this matter since it was radically altered.

Council of Orange

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Council of Trent

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

Are you saying the authority of the Catholic Church is based on the fact that it has been around a long time?

I thought it was pretty clear I was saying that. The authority of the Catholic Church rests upon its direct descent from the Apostles, and its retention of the promises of Christ to them to "be with you always" (St. Matthew 28.20), that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]" (St. Matthew 16.17), and that the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles to "dwell with you forver" (St. John 14.16) and "teach you all things" (St. John 14.26) and "teach you all truth" (St. John 16.13). Christ promised these things solemnly, not indiscriminately to all His followers, but only to the 12 Apostles, who were to lead His Church and be succeeded by the Bishops (Acts 20.28).

I believe the words of Christ are literally true, and that therefore, the Catholic Church has not and cannot err or lead the faithful astray with false teachings. Therefore, the heirarchy is invested with the fullness of the authority granted to the Apostles to "rule the Church of God" (Acts 20.28).

This is the ground of authority in the Church - the promises of Christ communicated only to the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

There is a very simple response to the denial that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and has remained in existence since.

If it was not, it must have been founded by someone else at another time. And if by someone else, then its "erroneous" doctrines must have a certain author and date of authorship that can be demonstrated simply and historically by pointing to the time and place and author of their invention much subsequent to the time of the Apostles and of Christ.

Therefore, since you make the assertion that the Catholic Church was not founded by Christ, you are invited to tell us:

1) who founded it and when

2) who invented its peculiar doctrines disagreed with by Protestants, such as veneration of Mary, prayers for the dead, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the heirarchical and sacramental priesthood.

It is utterly simple to name the time and place each Protestant sect was founded, starting with Luther in 1517 and moving right through Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, and the rest to the present and the recent founding of the Pentecostalists, Christian Scientists, and Mormons. Before 1517, no one had ever heard of the major Protestant doctrines, and no one had the conception of denying all authority beyond the individual Christian. Its simply a fact of life. On the other hand, Catholic doctrine can be traced back to the time of Christ Himself, and even before in the case of practices carried over from Judaism.

Since you wish to state the contrary proposition to mine, I invite you to support it with facts regarding what you undeniably assert about the Catholic Church.

Starting with: who founded it and when?

So is it Scripture that is the basis for the authority of the Catholic Church?

*Sigh* You know, what is recorded in Scripture actually happened. It was historical: Christ was made Incarnate of the Blessed Virgin, submitted Himself to her for thirty years, began His ministry, chose the Apostles, taught doctrines, built a Church to guard those doctrines and teach them to others, was crucified, died, buried, and rose again in His glorious Resurrection. These things are all recorded in Scripture and constitute historical fact (unless you believe as the Modernists do, but that's another story). The Church derives its authority from Christ, who built it and gave it His Divine Commission, as I've mentioned. This is explicitly contained in Scripture, which shows that the Church is an object of history. See post #65 for the development of this line of reason. Given that the Church has Divine Authority, as an institution to teach, govern, and sanctify the faithful, when she compiles a specific number of books and declares them inspired, we should assent. Any other argument for the inspiration of Scripture lacks sound reasoning.

Did John have the divine authority to decide Jesus was to be the Christ?

St. John obviously decided that Jesus was the True Messiah, as he became His beloved apostle who in turn wrote an eyewitness account of His ministry. He was most likely given Divine Grace to aid in this decision, not "authority". That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is an immutable truth, the basis for Christianity, which God revealed to us for our salvation. The Scriptures in and of themselves are not "revealed truths" - they were not brought down from Heaven by an angel as the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been - they are man-made books that contain revealed truths as declared by the Catholic Church. For instance, certain apocrypha may contain actual history of the time directly after Christ walked the earth - but they do not necessarily contain true doctrine and therefore they were rejected by the Church, the keepers of the doctrine of Christ, when they settled the Canon of Scripture. Without a Divine Authority continuing Christ's ministry here on earth, how would you ever discern what books to reject and what to accept?

Homosexuals… Utica (RC) Priest Discloses He is Gay

A priest saying "I'm gay" (there's only 450,000 priests running around) is hardly the Church changing its teaching.

Birth Control… Catholic charities and birth control

Has the Catholic Church ever taught that Birth Control is okay? No. Does some group providing birth control to employees in disobedience to Church teaching count? No.

You are going to have to come up with better examples than this. Do you think we've dropped these teachings because a priest said he is a faggot, or because some quasi-Church organization is slyly providing birth control on the side?

This is like saying we approve of the sale of indulgences, since Friar Tetzel indulged in that practice, when we had condemned the very thing for over 1300 years prior to Tetzel's wanderings in Germany.

A Catholic disobeying the teachings of the Church does not change the teachings of the Church. That is pretty basic. Can you grasp it?

As an analogy, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, and the sedevacantist groups may call themselves Catholic, but they have, at a minimum, abandoned the doctrine of Papal supremacy.

There is no doctrine of "Papal supremacy". We believe the Pope holds the primacy, and is infallible in certain circumstances. The Sedevacantist groups accept all of this, and the Polish Nationals have come much closer to reintegrating themselves with us after their fling with nationalism and their getting burnt by the Old Catholics and Anglicans ordaining women.

But really, I think the analogy fails. I agree the ELCA and ECUSA and PCUSA and UMC and the like are not really Christian. But the faithful conservative bodies broke away from them, not vice-versa. Whereas with the Catholic Church, it is the dissenters who break away, not the faithful. Its really quite a contrast. Liberals aren't fleeing the conservative Protestant Churches because they were never part of them, rather, the conservatives fled from the liberals.

It included the controversial Apocrypha books into the Catholic Bible which were considered suspect by the early church fathers and only included as an Appendix in early writings.

There you go being scurrilous, or at least misinformed, again. The Canon of Sacred Scripture as found in Catholic Bibles today was set down by the Council of Rome in 382 and more definitively by the Council of Carthage in 397. Both Councils were confirmed by the Roman Pontiff at the time. From the Council of Carthage:

"Can. 36. [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated."

Anyone who tells you that the Council of Trent "added the Apocrypha to the Canon" is a liar. The Council of Florence even reiterated the Church's Canon on Sacred Scripture a hundred years prior to Trent and before the Reformers began their hack job.

As regarding the Canons you quoted, I see no contradiction. The first from the Council of Orange II states that God's mercy is given to us without grace but is guided to its proper end with grace and that we are humble and obedient by a gift of grace. The second from the Council of Trent states that justifying grace is not merely confidence in God's mercy and that confidence in His mercy is not sufficient for justification. What change are you asserting?

Also, in response to your claim that Trent "forbid the reading of the scriptures by lay people," here is a selection from the New Catholic Dictionary:

"This multiplication of versions by men who lacked qualifications essential for the work, and who acknowledged no proper supervision, made for the corruption of the Sacred Text, so that the Council of Trent (1546-1563) was compelled to take action. The Council strictly prohibited the reading of all heretical Latin versions, unless grave reasons necessitated their use. The Council itself did not forbid the reading of the new Catholic translations, although even these later fell under the ban of the Index Commission which Trent set up for the supervision of future legislation regarding the Bible. In 1559 the Commission forbade the use of certain Latin editions, as well as German, French, Spanish, Italian, and English vernacular vereions. Two centuries later, however, it modified the severity of this legislation by granting permission for the use of all versions translated by learned Catholic men, provided they contained annotations derived from the Fathers, and had the approval of the Holy See."

***The Church derives its authority from Christ, who built it and gave it His Divine Commission as I've mentioned. This is explicitly contained in Scripture, which shows that the Church is an object of history.***

So the RCC bases it's authority on the Scripture? Is that correct?

(I'm sorry to press this but I can't get a clear answer from any Catholic I've asked.)

***St. John obviously decided that Jesus was the True Messiah, as he became His beloved apostle ***

Sorry, I meant John the Baptist - from the illustration with John recognizing Jesus as Messiah by the decent of the Holy Spirit.

***He was most likely given Divine Grace to aid in this decision, not "authority".***

This is exactly what I am saying about the Scriptures. The Catholic (Universal) Church was given grace to recognize the scriptures as divine (as in: "of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity") not authority over them. The Bible is the Word of God. The Church does not have authority over the words of Christ, but is subject to them.

***The Scriptures ... are man-made books that contain revealed truths as declared by the Catholic Church.***

You seem to have a low view of the Scripture. According to Paul the scriptures are "God-breathed". Can you think of any other things God is said to have breathed on? (Adam, the early Church) Whatever God breathes on becomes living. The author of Hebrews backs this up with his statement, "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword".

***Without a Divine Authority continuing Christ's ministry here on earth, how would you ever discern what books to reject and what to accept?***

How can we discern truth without some authority to tell us what it true? Paul explained it this way...

"But we know these things because God has revealed them to us by his Spirit, ... And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the world's spirit) so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

When we tell you this, we do not use words of human wisdom. We speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means. We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can't understand us at all." I Cor.2

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.