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

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

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

It is self-evident that it is NOT accepted by all.

Do you remember Israel? They were God's chosen instrument in the world to reveal His glory to the nation. But they failed. The fell away into sin and, for the time being, are cut off.

The Gentiles were then grafted in, like a wild branch, and were able to receive nourishment from the original root.

Paul states it much more clearly...

"But some of these branches from Abraham's tree, some of the Jews, have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, were grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in God's rich nourishment of his special olive tree. But you must be careful not to brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. Remember, you are just a branch, not the root.

"Well," you may say, "those branches were broken off to make room for me." Yes, but remember--those branches, the Jews, were broken off because they didn't believe God, and you are there because you do believe. Don't think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen. For if God did not spare the branches he put there in the first place, he won't spare you either."

I might point out that Paul wrote this to the church at Rome.

So the Jews were broken off because of unbelief. What! Did they stop believing in God? No, they still believe in God and read the Torah and have continued on with their rituals for almost 2,000 years. But they are unaware that they have been cut off!

***don't try to push the cockamamie line that the Catholic Church is not the direct descendant of the Apostolic and Patristic Church.***

You think you are the root, but you are only an alien branch grafted in. And if your tradition has strayed too far from the simple faith and obedience that Jesus taught then Paul warned you that you would be cut off. Would you cease to believe in God? No. Would you continue on with your teaching and ritual for generations? Yes. Would you know you had been cut off? Probably not.

Karl Keating has a good selection on this from his book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism":

"The Catholic method of finding the Bible to be inspired begins this way. The Bible is approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

…Not only are the biblical manuscripts we have older than those for classical authors, we have in absolute numbers far more manuscripts to work from. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. What this means is that we can be sure we have an accurate text, and we can work from it in confidence.

Next, we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, particularly the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels. We examine the account of Jesus’ life and death and his reported Resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves, what we find in extrabiblical writings from the early centuries, and what we known of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural theology, know of divine nature), we conclude that Jesus either was just what he claimed to be, God, or was a madman. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, because no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate his being a madman not just from what he said – no madman ever spoke as he did; for that matter, no sane man ever did either – but from what his followers did after his death. A hoax (the supposedly empty tomb) is one thing, but one does not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they have no prospect of advantage. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead and that he was therefore God and, being God, meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

One thing he said he would do was found a Church, and from both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not at this point in the argument as an inspired one) and other ancient works, we see that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of all we see in the Catholic Church today – papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the note of infallibility.

We thus have taken purely historical material and concluded that there exists a Church, which is the Catholic Church, divinely protected against teaching error. Now we are at the last part of the argument. That Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book."

"Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church." -St. Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D.

***This is precisely the sentimental Protestant garbage I'm talking about***

I am suprised that you could think to call the words of Jesus garbage.

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

Part of the promise of the New Covenant is that each believer will personally know God.

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

If you have "group religion" of you think you will be accepted by God because you identify with some religious group then you are in grave danger.

(I.E. God accepts all Catholics, I am a Catholic, therefore I will be accepted by God.)

The Jews of Jesus day had group religion and thought they would be accepted by God because they were from the line of Abraham. But John the Baptist warned them...

"Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

Their claim: "We are of Abraham" and your claim "We are of Peter" sound strikingly similar.

Jesus told the Jews of his day...

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did."

It's not simply a matter of physical lineage (or apostolic succession) but a matter of moral likeness. The people Jesus spoke to were desendants of Abraham and they were counting on that to get them in the Kingdom. Jesus told them their heart was not like Abraham and their lineage would do them no good - unless they repented.

I'm not calling the words of Christ garbage, but I appreciate your desire to call me a blasphemer.

Not rationalism, but the inner response of the seeking heart to the voice of it's Maker.

This is the "garbage" I was referring to. This is a permissive, do-anything attitude towards the doctrines of Christianity, as long as you excuse it with a claim of an "inner response," i.e. rationalism. You create your own religion out of wholecloth. The authority for the Church is found in Scripture, viewed as a historical document alone, and is verified by history and the writings of the earliest Christian writers. The onus is on you to find some semblance of a historical basis for the religion you propose. Did you not see the quote from St. Igatius of Antioch from the first century? "Even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church." This Church was a visible institution created by Christ to teach, govern, and sanctify the faithful and to ensure the tranmission of the teaching of the Apostles. It was not composed of confused individuals frantically searching Scripture (which was not compiled until the 4th century by the Church) for truths which they found by merit of their own authority. This would have been properly termed chaos and would have resulted in the utter destruction of Christianity as enacted by the sorry heresy of Protestantism over the past half millenium. You don't seem to see the contradiction that you want to follow Christ and yet you hold doctrines on the whim of your personal interpretation - you must follow the doctrines given to the Apostles by Christ or you in no way can call yourself a Christian. And what are these doctrines? Are they to be culled from Scripture by what you "feel" is right or from the movement of your "heart"? No, this is subjective sentimentalism, rationalistic nonsense that quickly leads to liberalism and cannot be what Our Lord intended. He commanded his Apostles to go and preach to all nations - he did not ask them to write anything. The Church preceded the Bible. You must seek what the Church teaches or you are left with you, your Bible, and your best guess.

I'm awaiting your reasoning behind the inspiration of the Scriptures without the aid of a Divine Church, since you decided to chime in on the conversation.

***I appreciate your desire to call me a blasphemer.***

I have no such desire. I presented you with a truth and backed it up with the words of Christ and you called it garbage.

***This is a permissive, do-anything attitude towards the doctrines of Christianity***

You are confusing permissivness with personal responsibility. Have you forgotten that Christianity is not something God shoves down the throat of the unwilling but something He offers to the willing? We are not required to be saved - we are freely invited.

"Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life."

***The authority for the Church is found in Scripture, viewed as a historical document alone, and is verified by history and the writings of the earliest Christian writers.***

So the Catholic Church receives it's authority from Scripture as read by secular historians?

But these Scriptures "[were] not compiled until the 4th century"? On what did the Catholic Church base it's authority during the intervening three centuries?

***Did you not see the quote from St. Igatius of Antioch from the first century? "Even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."***

Yes, and Jesus said...

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

***He commanded his Apostles to go and preach to all nations - he did not ask them to write anything.***

That's not correct.

Rev 1:

"I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, "Write what you see in a book...

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, ... one like a son of man, ... When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades."

***I'm awaiting your reasoning behind the inspiration of the Scriptures without the aid of a Divine Church***

The Scriptures and inherently authoritative. The Church, subject to the scriptures, acknowledged what had become universally accepted by the Christian world as the work of the Holy Spirit in writing of certain books. It did not confer authority on them. It recognized the authority they plainly had.

As an illustration, do you think that John the Baptist had the authority to decide who was the Christ? Was he able to choose who would be Christ and confer authority on him?

Surely not!

John pointed out the Christ because he saw the Holy Spirit resting on him. He recognized Jesus as the Christ, and proclaimed him as such.

In the same way the early fathers recognized the powerful and life-giving work of the Holy Spirit in certain writings. In essence, they say the dove resting on certain books. They made sure that this was the universally held opinion of the body of Christ in all lands. Then they publicly acknowleged them as the work of the Holy Spirit - just like John public recognized Jesus.

Are you saying that you believe all will go to Heaven but there are different areas? I might be misunderstanding you, but that is what is implied by the Rich Man and Lazarus distinction.

Well, kind of. Heaven and hell are not so much physically seperate places, as different states of existence following the judgement. Heaven is the overwhelming and eternal experience of the love of God by those who have conformed their life to Christ. Hell is overwhelming and eternal experience of the love of God by the wicked and rebellious as an eternally punishing fire and worm and outer darkness. Like the rich man, they see, but they do not participate. Everyone in heaven and hell will see everyone else in both places. The blessed will have their joy increased at the site of God's justice, the condemned will be even more tormented at seeing what they have missed out on forever.

The following is an explanation of this from an Orthodox Priest, but it is identical to what any good Catholic explanation would be, as for example, in Peter Kreeft's book: "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven".

Everyone will see the glory of God in Christ and reach that degree of perfection one has both chosen and worked for. Following Saint Paul and the gospel of John the Fathers support that those who do not see the resurrected Christ in glory in this life, either in a mirror dimly by unceasing prayers and psalms in the heart, or face to face in glorification, will see his glory as eternal and consuming fire and outer darkness in the next life. The uncreated glory that Christ has by nature from the Father is heaven for those whose selfish love has been cured and transformed into selfless love and hell for those who choose to remain uncured in their selfishness.
Not only are the Bible and the Fathers clear on this, but so are the Orthodox Icons of the last judgment. The same golden light of glory within which Christ and his friends are enveloped becomes red as it flows down to envelope the damned. This is the glory and love of Christ which purifies the sins of all but does not glorify all. All humans will be led by the Holy Spirit into all the Truth which is to see Christ in glory, but not all will be glorified. "Those whom he justified those he also glorified," according to St. Paul (Rom. 8:30). The parable of Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and of the rich man in the place of torment is clear. The rich man sees but he does not participate (Luke 16:19-31).
The Church does not send anyone to heaven or hell, but prepares the faithful for the vision of Christ in glory which everyone will have. God loves the damned as much as he loves his saints. He wants the cure of all but not all accept his cure. This means that the forgiveness of sins is not enough preparation for seeing Christ in glory.
It goes without saying that the Anselmian tradition whereby the saved are those to whom Christ supposedly reconciled God is not an option within the Orthodox Tradition. Commenting on 2 Cor. 5:19, for example, St. John Chrysostom says that one must "be reconciled to God. Paul did not say, "Reconcile God to yourselves, for it is not He who hates, but we. For God never hates." (Fr. John Romanides)

I believe that there is a hell of course, and I don't think I am going there, nor are you. I think all who believe that Jesus is Savior and Lord will be in Heaven enjoying all of the treasures and fruits that it will offer.

Well, that is not what I said! The message of the Catholic Church is that Salvation is found inside the Church. We do not judge those without, but at the same time, we cannot encourage them to remain seperated, and act as though it is a matter of free choice to be one with the Church in the one Faith or not. Nobody here is going to tell you "you are going to hell", least of all me. But we will earnestly entreat you that the way to heaven is within the unity of charity in the Catholic Church, in the participation in a common communion of Christ's Body and Blood, which grafts us into Him, that we might ascend "through Him, with Him, and in Him" at the end of our mortal life. And we also warn that those who willfully remain apart, knowing full well they should be united, will be lost if they persist in obstinance to the end.

Hell was prepared "for the devil and his angels" according to the Lord (St. Matthew 25.41), not us.

I don't think you don't have salvation, and I really don't understand why you think anyone who isn't Catholic, yet believes that Christ is Lord, confesses their sins, lives the life He teaches us in His word to the best of our ability with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit doesn't have salvation!

Well, we don't believe anyone "has salvation" unless they have certain knowledge of their perseverance to the end, or unless they have in fact reached the end of mortal life. And while God is merciful and can do anything and accept anyone, we believe He has set up His Church for us to believe within, and to hear and forgive our sins in His name. Its not a matter of "trying hard", but of accepting what has been revealed. Certainly God can forgive your sins, and I am sure He is pleased you confess His Son. But, He has given us the Sacrament of Confession to assure us of his forgiveness, and He has created a visible community for us to profess the Lord Jesus within. To spurn these things, is to spurn the gift of God, and to say "I can do it on my own apart from the Church" is to atomize yourself and miss the message of unity.

I suppose that is what you have been taught all of your life

No, its what I have come to believe from God leading me to the knowledge of Truth Himself.

I have no such desire. I presented you with a truth and backed it up with the words of Christ and you called it garbage.

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

Have you forgotten that Christianity is not something God shoves down the throat of the unwilling but something He offers to the willing? We are not required to be saved - we are freely invited.

God gives us the grace to know the truth freely, if you are so inclined to accept it. He does not offer anything to the hard-hearted, those puffed up with pride who view the ultimate authority as residing within themselves. Christ purchased us with His blood and we are all called to believe the truth and to follow the doctrines He taught. He is our Supreme Legistlator as well as our Savior.

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

On the Divine Commission: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew xxviii.19-20) He established a Church to teach His Way so that the faithful wouldn't be lead astray by the erroneous doctrines of false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing - which most Protestants fall headlong into, as the "truth" is merely a matter of their personal opinion.

"Write therefore the things which thou hast seen, and which are, and which must be done hereafter." (Apoc. i.19)

St. Paul was commanded by God to write to the seven bishops of Asia in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea - see Apoc. i.11. "...Write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia...." His intent was not to write a tome used to discern the doctrines of Christianity, but to pass along the Revelation given to him by God to the bishops of the early Catholic Church. Do you find similar commands from God to the other writers of the New Testament? Or does your argument rest on this one example, which originally served as correspondence to the churches established in Asia whose existance you would like to deny?

The Scriptures and inherently authoritative.

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 Church, subject to the scriptures, acknowledged what had become universally accepted by the Christian world as the work of the Holy Spirit in writing of certain books.

So the Church was immediately subject to the New Testament Scriptures after Christ's Ascension even as they didn't exist? Or was the Church vested with authority to teach and later compiled the writings of the Apostles to serve as a witness to her Divine Institution?

In the same way the early fathers recognized the powerful and life-giving work of the Holy Spirit in certain writings.

At least now we arrive at convergent opinions. The Church held the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. to settle the Canon, or unchanging collection, of New Testament Scriptures, which was confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. Up until this time, there had been no authoritative list of which works were genuine and which were spurious. Christian writings were classified prior to the Council in one of three categories: 1) "acknowledged" as canonical; 2) books "disputed" or "controverted"; and 3) books declared "spurious" or false. Much to your surprise, I'm sure, the second category included such writings as the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and St. John's Apocalypse. These books, which you now take for granted as the Inspired Word of God, were disputed amongst Christians and in some place rejected on account of suspect authenticity. Also in the second category were writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Epistle of St. Clement, and others which in some places were put on equal footing with the four Gospels presently found in the Bible. The third category included something like 50 Gospels and 22 Acts which were eventually rejected by the Church as "apocrypha." Without the Church, the Christian world would not have known which writings to accept as "inspired" and which to reject. Thus, Rome spoke, and the Council of Carthage confirmed the unchageable Canon of Scriptures, forever dividing books into the two categories of inspired and not inspired. Without the Church, you would not have the Bible.

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.