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

So I have no doubt you will see me in heaven one day. The question is, dear lady, will you also be there to enjoy the blessed union of souls in the love of God with me, or will you be like the Rich Man,- apart in torment,- because you refused through pride to live in charity with your fellow men?

I do not believe that you can accuse the lady, ... whose last response to you was ...
I will see you in Heaven someday. Look me up , okay?
... of uncharitableness.

From her response, I am sure that she lives quite, in charity, with her fellow man.

If anyone is being uncharitable, ... it is you.

You will have to find some other reason to condemn her.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
That same Jesus ... the author of my faith ... said the following to His disciples who wished to make a difference between themselves and another follower of His ...
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

You are making the simple mistake of confusing liberality and kindness and the like with charity, which is love. I don't doubt that ladyinred is a good, polite, well-meaning, kind, and benevolent person.

If your sister refused to live under the same roof with you, would you suspect she had no love of charity for you?

That is precisely the situation of people who belong to sects (denominations if you prefer), formed out of the Catholic Church. They refuse to be in union with her, necessitating the dreaming up of all sorts of arguments about various pretended "errors".

Its difficult to imagine St. John approving of this sort of behavior as falling under "love for one another".

I'm sorry that this is painful to you to hear. Its certainly painful to me to live with the thought of so many people living without true charity towards their fellow Christians by refusing to be part of the one Church.

Again, one can hardly expect a union up above when one refuses a union down below.

And as for those "creedy thingy" you may wish to check into the Creed of the Council of Orange. The Catholic Church has all but discarded this creed since it doesn't fit with their doctrine.

I noticed many Catholics did not comment on this thread. It must be uncomfortable.

Nothing uncomfortable there. It is given several prominent citations in the recent "Catechism of the Catholic Church". I believe everything the Council of Orange confesses - so does every Catholic, since the Catholic Church in France wrote it. OP can well attest to that, and he is certainly a very respectable Protestant around here. I don't go looking at every thread around here, only those I'm pinged to usually, so I never saw your thread. Nor do I suspect, did most Catholics.

I would also note your translation of this council has a number of errors and leaves much to be desired in the way of precision of terms. You are encouraged to check the original Latin, or a correct translation, such as provided in the Defarri English edition of Denzinger's "Enchiridion Symbolum".

But really, I've finished mostly with doctrinal arguements around here, having made all the points desired to make about what we Catholic believe. Too many Protestants are caught up in such a morass of confusion over what they believe amongst themselves and their mistaken confusion of what they think Catholics believe that I do not think it worth worrying about. If you want to know what I believe, you can wade through my archived postings.

For now, I'm going to stick to working on realization that seperation of Protestant Christians from the Catholic Church is a complete disaster, since Christ founded "a" Church, not Church"es" or worse, "denominations". In other words, reminding you that you are living outside of the charity which binds together the members of the Catholic Church and makes it the Mystical Body of Christ.

Sorry! Its just the way it is. And only you can change it by joining us.

If your sister refused to live under the same roof with you, would you suspect she had no love of charity for you?

Your analogy is unworkable, ... for, you, also, refuse to live under the same roof as your sister, ... and it is Catholics who, currently, insist upon this division from their sister churches.

Protestants are only too happy to acknowledge that Catholics are their brethren in the Christ's universal church.

That is precisely the situation of people who belong to sects (denominations if you prefer), formed out of the Catholic Church. They refuse to be in union with her, necessitating the dreaming up of all sorts of arguments about various pretended "errors".

Its difficult to imagine St. John approving of this sort of behavior as falling under "love for one another".

It is impossible to imagine that one who speaks with as much condescision as you, ... knows anything of the love of which John, the beloved apostle, speaks.

I'm sorry that this is painful to you to hear. Its certainly painful to me to live with the thought of so many people living without true charity towards their fellow Christians by refusing to be part of the one Church.

Don't worry ... if Jesus could subject Himself to the sacnctimoniousness of the Pharisees, ... then surely I can suffer you ...

Fortunately, God has mercy upon the pompous.

Again, one can hardly expect a union up above when one refuses a union down below.

You must have missed this statement of Jesus' ...
Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Your analogy is unworkable, ... for, you, also, refuse to live under the same roof as your sister, ... and it is Catholics who, currently, insist upon this division from their sister churches.

No, its quite apt, and you've made it more so. The brother and sister in the illustration do not need to deny their relation, only refuse to get along under one roof.

Protestants are only too happy to acknowledge that Catholics are their brethren in the Christ's universal church.

Well that isn't the problem. The Catholic Church and Catholics can't join themselves to Protestants because there are as many Protestantisms as there are Protestants. You can't even set aside pride to figure out a unity amongst yourselves. You have the contrast of a unity, and a scattering.

The greatest essential of unity among Catholics is not the profession of the same faith, since some dissent, knowingly, or unknowingly, but a willingness to remain within and in communion with the Church, and to solve doctrinal problems and questions internally through the proper channels without schisms. One bread, one cup, one body. The hallmark of a Catholic is to be in communion with and obedient to the Pope by way of the Bishop of the local diocese and the Priests at his parish, and to keep personal squabbles with the same firmly seperated from the reality of intercommunion with the above and with his fellow parishoners.

***"He is the saviour of his body." (Ephesians 5.23) ***

You have failed to prove that the RCC = "his body". (As opposed to, say, the Orthodox Church.)

Now here is one you can argue with St. Paul over...

"(this)is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord,"
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

(I am, at least, glad to find a catholic who is up front about these (eronious) doctrines and who doesn't try to cover them up.)

***You may not want to believe in the possibility of rejecting eternal life now, but you will in the future if you continue spreading these doctrins leading men astray to believe that sin does not matter.***

Paul also knew that people would misunderstand the Gospel of the free gift of eternal life (received apart from the requirement any works of righteousness on our part) as potentially an excuse for a sinful life. He answered his critics like this:

"Why not say (as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say) "Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved."

And...

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? "

***If you don't abide in this love, its clear that you do not have eternal life.***

Or it may be said that rather than loose it, you never really had it to begin with!

"Now these (the Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the Scriptures, whether these things were so." (Acts xvii.11)

St. Paul preached to the Bereans about Christ and more than likely quoted text from the Old Testament to show that he was the True Messiah foretold by the prophets. The Bereans were searching the Scriptures to confirm what Paul said was true, not to concoct errant interpretations to support their own ideas of Christianity, as you would put forth.

"The Bereans were searching the Scriptures to confirm what Paul said was true, not to concoct errant interpretations to support their own ideas of Christianity”

I would say since Paul et alt, wrote about the Old Testament one could safely reason that the same verse applies to the New Testament as well. However, I understand very much that YOU would not accept the Word of God except for what you are told by the Vatican which picks and chooses verses and then twist them to suit them for their own objectives while ignoring other verses.

In this discussion I have rarely heard any Biblical arguments from some of you extreme Catholics only criticizing Biblical verses used and ducking behind Vatican covers and the "tradition of men". Certainly your response is indicative of others on this thread. Your devotion to this religion system boarders on cultism-pure and simple.

Christ revealed, the Apostles learned, and what they taught was passed along by "word or epistle"; hence, Tradition in the proper sense, not to be confused with the "traditions of men" spoken against by Our Lord. The Catholic Church assembled the writings of the Apostles into the New Testament and declared them inspired; other than the Church's declaration, made with the power given her by God, you have no reason to believe they are indeed the Word of God. Appeal to your emotion, it does not suffice. Appeal to general belief or commonality, it does not suffice. Appeal to Scripture saying it is inspired, it does not suffice - this is the fallacy of circular reasoning and by the same argument, the Koran and the Talmud should be viewed as inspired. You have no basis for believing that the writers of Sacred Scripture were inspired by the Holy Ghost without a Divine Authority, the Church, telling you so. Or, in your contemptable words, without "Vatican cover."

The cult becomes apparent when you consider the ultimate source of truth for your interpretation of Scripture: yourself. The "inspired by the Holy Spirit" drivel concerning interpretation won't cut it - thousands of Protestant sects all claiming to be "inspired" over the doctrines of Baptism, justification, "being saved," et al through their particular read of the Bible can't all be right. The Holy Ghost does not inspire contradiction. This leaves you to be the judge for the meaning of the Word of God, which is the very definition of rationalism, the basis for Protestantism. If you discard the Catholic Church, the true interpreter of Scripture established by Christ to guard His Revelation, you make your reason paramount to God as you have no higher authority than yourself by which to point to the truth. I accept Revelation as given to me pure and unspoiled by His Bride; you create doctrines as you see fit, pure and simple.

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

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

(As opposed to, say, the Orthodox Church.)

The Roman Catholic Church believes the Eastern Orthodox are dissident Catholics who are still essentially part of the same Church. This is why we recognize the validity of their jurisdictional rulings, and do not dispute their characterization of themselves as Catholics in their confessions and creeds. Our dispute is best characterized as a family squabble.

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.

This is also my sense of it ... as opposed to ...
" ... the dreaming up of all sorts of arguments about various pretended "errors".
Two quite different things, don't you think ?

The Roman Catholic Church believes the Eastern Orthodox are dissident Catholics who are still essentially part of the same Church. This is why we recognize the validity of their jurisdictional rulings, and do not dispute their characterization of themselves as Catholics in their confessions and creeds. Our dispute is best characterized as a family squabble.

But, ... are you content to dwell in the same house ?

But, ... are you content to dwell in the same house ?

Yes. Priests of both "Catholic" and "Orthodox" persuasion will hear confessions and give communion to those who request it from the other persuasion. The circumstances will vary, but that is only to be expected given the vast amount of confusion over the topic.

What's more, we Catholics encourage the faithful to attend Orthodox Liturgy when in a land where a Catholic Mass cannot be had (say, Greece, or Russia, etc.). We would never encourage our faithful to go to Protestant services where no Mass can be had.

***This leaves you to be the judge for the meaning of the Word of God, which is the very definition of rationalism, the basis for Protestantism.***

Not rationalism, but the inner response of the seeking heart to the voice of it's Maker. Jesus himself taught this clearly when he said...

"If anyone will do what God wants, he will know if My teaching is from God, or if I am speaking of Myself."

He is saying that if any man is truly willing to do God's will he will instinctivley know whether Jesus' teaching has come from God or whether it is the product of man.

He said nearly the same thing when he taught us...

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--"

and...

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish..."

There is no appeal to some outside authority here. No outside agency to instruct the sheep as to whether Jesus words are true or not. The sheep hear, recognize and are drawn to the voice of the shepherd without having to be told to.

If you don't instinctivle recognize in your heart that Jesus' words are true and that they come from God or you only believe his words because someone else told you you should believe them then this is what Jesus says to you...

"but you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

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.