Eternal Fate of Faithful Catholics...Doug Wilson

So, while maintaining absolute rigidity on the truths handed down from Christ to the Apostles, the Catholic Church is simultaneously untroubled by letting the streams of grace run where they will. There is no one who, in Pastor Wilson’s language, “could not be saved” on the basis of doctrinal opinion. And thanks be to God for that.

"Certainly, invincible ignorance is a precondition for one who holds to heretical doctrines to be saved, but that ignorance is not contingent on the beliefs one holds."

"There is no one who, in Pastor Wilson’s language, “could not be saved” on the basis of doctrinal opinion."

First, give me a quotation from the Magisterium that supports your view that "one who holds to heretical doctrines" can be saved - if I am accurate in reading the first quote as indicating you hold that view.

Second, it's one thing to say "invincible ignorance" wipes out the fault or sin (moral culpability) of lacking something necessary (such as the Catholic faith), but it's another thing to say that it relieves one of the necessity of having that necessary thing. But let us assume that it does. It would seem to me, however - even if you assume that it does - that it's an entirely different matter to posit such ignorance as providing cover for a denial (the assertion of the contrary) of the necessary thing. It's one thing to say, "he would have followed the law had he know about it," and another to say, "he is not responsible for his denial of the law."

This is a problem I have with the concept of "invincible ignorance" being used as a remedy for the lack of what is necessary. It's a viable excuse for the fault of lacking it, but it doesn't provide for what is lacked, and that is highlighted when you use ignorance to cover not only the lack of something (because the need for it is not known) but also the denial of the very thing needed.

Let's take the example of a Muslim who denies the divinity of Christ. He's not ignorant of the dogma, he is aware of it and says "no" to it. Now the "invincibly ignorant" person is one who does all that God has revealed to Him, and acts in accordance with God's revelation - it's just that God hasn't revealed certain truths to him, and it is assumed he would have embraced those truths on the basis of his acceptance of what God has revealed. With the Muslim who says "no" to the divinity of Christ, it's different. He is emphatically denying a truth of God's revelation which he is aware of. How can you then assume this man would believe everything necessary had it been revealed to him when he explicitly denies a truth of revelation that is known to him? The basis for application of implied assent is gone; the truth is before him, and he denies it. Now you can argue x and y as to the culpability of the denial, but you can't argue that the denial is in fact an assent, since the basis for doing so as to the genuinely invincibly ignorant person is that he has assented to the minima of truths that have been revealed, and therefore his assent to the rest of those truths can be implied and assumed. You can't make that assumption with the Muslim who denies: you have a living example (a denial of revealed truth) that destroys the assumption - the bridge to salvation, if you will, has been blown up.

Sorry for the long windedness.

Brother Andre,

Since the subject of the post has to do with Protestant views of the eternal fate of Catholics, I’m unclear as to what relevance there is in a web page that seems to have to do with certain folks’ views of the eternal fate of non-Catholics.

For the sake of clarification, do you affirm what Vatican II said?—namely, that “…it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” [Unitatis Redintegratio 3]

Thanks in advance for helping to clear up the uncertainty.

Fred,

While your response was addressed to Brother Andre, I was, as it were, an unindicted co-conspirator (one of the "certain folks" whose comments made you feel "unclear"), and as such I'll offer my comment.

The last section of the article made various statements about the Catholic Church's view of salvation, and my comments, and Brother Andre's, addressed some of the statements made therein or the issues raised. I hardly think our comments were gratuitous and not on point.

The quote from Vat II is ambiguous and unclear to the extent you want to read it as having any doctrinal content whatever. Martin Luther was "justified by faith in Baptism," as was Friedrich Nietzsche and Joseph Stalin (I could be even more trenchantly illustrative had I time), and to that extent they as well come within the parameters of the Vat II quote as being among "all" who have been baptized - and, therefore, since they meet the "definition," may be called "Christian" and regarded and "correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." Indeed, most who come within the abundant anathemas proclaimed by the Church over time (I'm thinking primarily of Trent at the moment) would meet the definition.

Might I ask, now that we have seen the range of the group brought within the scope of the Vatican II quote, what help or relevance the quote brings to bear on the question of the salvation of anyone?

tornpage wrote:My comments and those of Brother Andre were added. To which a "Fred" commented thus:

Brother Andre,

Since the subject of the post has to do with Protestant views of the eternal fate of Catholics, I’m unclear as to what relevance there is in a web page that seems to have to do with certain folks’ views of the eternal fate of non-Catholics.

For the sake of clarification, do you affirm what Vatican II said?—namely, that “…it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” [Unitatis Redintegratio 3]

Thanks in advance for helping to clear up the uncertainty.

To which I have submitted the following comment:

Fred,

While your response was addressed to Brother Andre, I was, as it were, an unindicted co-conspirator (one of the "certain folks" whose comments made you feel "unclear"), and as such I'll offer my comment.

The last section of the article made various statements about the Catholic Church's view of salvation, and my comments, and Brother Andre's, addressed some of the statements made therein or the issues raised. I hardly think our comments were gratuitous and not on point.

The quote from Vat II is ambiguous and unclear to the extent you want to read it as having any doctrinal content whatever. Martin Luther was "justified by faith in Baptism," as was Friedrich Nietzsche and Joseph Stalin (I could be even more trenchantly illustrative had I time), and to that extent they as well come within the parameters of the Vat II quote as being among "all" who have been baptized - and, therefore, since they meet the "definition," may be called "Christian" and regarded and "correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." Indeed, most who come within the abundant anathemas proclaimed by the Church over time (I'm thinking primarily of Trent at the moment) would meet the definition.

Might I ask, now that we have seen the range of the group brought within the scope of the Vatican II quote, what help or relevance the quote brings to bear on the question of the salvation of anyone?

Mark (#31),

Might I ask, now that we have seen the range of the group brought within the scope of the Vatican II quote, what help or relevance the quote brings to bear on the question of the salvation of anyone?

The reductio ad absurdum that you propose (suggesting that Luther and Stalin would be included in the scope of those referred to by UR) does not apply: Luther was a formal heretic born in the Catholic Church, and Stalin was an apostate.

But UR explicitly says:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation…

[emphasis added]

If this is true (and it is), then they cannot be assumed to be guilty of the sins of schism or apostasy nor even formal heresy. So the comparison of them to Luther or Stalin suggested by your reductio is inapt.

My point is that those who are born into Protestant churches today cannot ipso facto be presumed to be guilty of the same mortal sin that the Reformers of the 16th century were, and that the presumption must be granted that they are our brothers in Christ notwithstanding the fact that they are separated, just as UR says. So: to answer your question, the relevance of the quote is that we may not rightly presume that those who have been baptized but aren’t Catholic are not going to be saved just because they are not Catholic. I was uncertain whether Brother Andre agreed, which is why I asked the question.

Fred,

If my proposition was a reductio ad absurdum its absurdity was bred in the fog of your Vatican II quote. It’s the same thing as if you had quoted a Vat II quote asserting that “cardinals are red things” and then accused me of a reduction ad absurdum for saying this means fire engines are cardinals. The fault, dear Fred, is not in my reasoning, and the absurdity is not in my deduction.

Of course, cardinals are red things, but they are more than that, and redness doesn’t define their essence. All the saved may indeed be brothers in Christ, but not all brothers in Christ are saved if you (as Vat II did) define brothers in Christ as the baptized. As you rightly point out, some of the baptized apostasize or become heretics. The fact that someone who reaches maturity has been baptized tells me nothing about their eternal fate – and of course that was my point.

The Vat II quote that those born into Protestant churches “cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation” also does not tell us much about the salvation of the same. Those who are saved “cannot be accused of the sin of separation,” but not all who cannot be accused of the sin of separation are saved. Again we have a sweet nothing being whispered under the moonlight that cannot withstand the scrutiny of morning.

In no way do I agree with you that one who “cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation” cannot be accused of the sin of heresy. Actually, you say one cannot “assume” such – which I don’t, and I don’t understand your talk here of assumption. Anyway, of course they could not separate from what they were never joined to; however, that does not indicate that they cannot be responsible for denying a Catholic dogma that they may be aware of (i.e, be guilty of formal heresy). This simply doesn’t follow.

You say that the relevance of the quote for you was to indicate “that we may not rightly presume that those who have been baptized but aren’t Catholic are not going to be saved just because they are not Catholic.” My criticism of the first and the second Vat II quote is precisely to challenge the flip side that lies in the shadow of your presumption: saying that someone is “a brother in Christ” by baptism and that they are not guilty of the sin of separation is not saying that they are saved merely by baptism and the lack of the sin of schism, and therefore (of necessity) cannot support the assertion that one does not have to be Catholic to be saved.

There have been too many centuries of infallible pronouncements about there being no salvation outside the Catholic Church, etc., for me to accept statements that do not say (or necessitate by inference) the contrary as indicating the contrary. And the logical absurdity of joining those to the Catholic Church who hold opinions that deny one or more of the dogmas of the Catholic Church (in the face of too many centuries of abundant anathemas and statements of the necessity of holding the Catholic faith and not departing from it on a single point) prevents me from adopting unnecessary extrapolations to that effect from ambiguous Vat II and post-Vat II statements.

This discussion highlights for me the problems with the ambiguities in Vatican II, and the presumptions that spring from it. You are turning nice, sweet nothings ecumenically whispered into Protestant ears into marriage vows with the Bride of Salvation.

pascendi wrote:I was browsing this against my better judgement, and my first thought was to blurt out "my goodness, you people need to get a life!". Then I thought, nah (non-infallible "nah"), "...for the sake of prudence I should hold that thought". So I did.

...oh shoot. I actually DID say it.

Just out of curiosity: do any of you wonder if this is really doing anyone any good? Myself, over time, I've come to the opinion that theological jousting, while it certainly has its place, resides in the lower realms of the spiritual existence, not as an elevated and advanced state which so many jousters deem it to be. I call it "competition theology".

Since everyone wants spice, I'd thought I'd throw this into the mix and spice it up a bit. It has been so refreshing to have taken a break from all the people who think they know everything.

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV

"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

pascendi wrote:I've risen, Jim, further than the numbered Masions of St. John of Cross, and have discovered an entirely unknown wing of the Mansion, mansions within mansions, containing spiritual rooms yet unheard of. No spiritual man has walked the hallways I have walked. Great freedom lies beyond the dark underworld of theological gaming wherein one in darkness seeks only to have pwn'd another!

I love sarcasm. I so wish it wasn't a sin. Good to talk to you again!