Catholic Exchange

Monotheism 102

Last week, we discussed the common complaint that CCC 841 is wrong when it teaches that "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

As we saw last week, much of the protest seems to center on a notion of salvation by intellectual works, as though our salvation is dependent on possessing a correct theology.  But in addition to this exploded idea, there is also the curious notion that we can somehow create other gods by our thinking. I can find no other explanation for the weird insistence that Muslims, for instance, "worship another god".

Yes, Scripture speaks of "other gods", but this is, if you will, metaphorical language, not fact. The fact is that there is one (1) God and there are no others. Scripture hammers home this point again and again in blunt and clear language: "I am God; there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).  All other "gods" are creatures we treat as gods by making them first in our lives. We cannot "create" gods by believing real hard in them.  We can only treat things that are not God as gods or treat God as though He is something less then the fullness of Who He is.

To this, of course, the reply will be made that while there may not be "gods" behind the gods of the nations, there are devils.  For St. Paul tells us that the sacrificial worship given to idols was in fact sacrifice given "to demons, not to God" (1 Corinthians 10:20).  The problem is that Islam is just as scornful of pagan worship as Judaism and Christianity, and there is a reason for that: namely, Islam is, at bottom, a concoction made from exposure to Jewish and Christian monotheism, as well as Mohammed's own ideas and "private revelations" which, while not from God, are also not about directing our worship to creatures.  Instead (mark this) they are about treating God as though He is something less then the fullness of Who He is.

 Pagans worship the creature.  They really do worship what is not God and, to that extent, have "other gods".  Such gods are really no gods at all because they are really just cats, scarab beetles, figments of the imagination or what have you.  Pagans have mistaken the good gifts of God for God himself.  Therefore, St. Paul again and again urges the pagans to "turn from these vain things to the living God" (Acts 14:15).

But Muslims are not pagans.  They are not treating things that are not God as gods.  Rather, they treat God as though He is something less then the fullness of Who He is.  In a garbled way, their prophet has received real bits of revelation from his exposure to 7th Century Arabian Judaism and Christianity.  He knows there is but One God, the God of Abraham.  He knows He is compassionate and merciful.  He knows he is Master.  But he does not know that He is Father.

This means that, insofar as Muslims affirm what is true of God in common with us, they have received revelation about the only God there is: the God of Abraham. But they have not received the fullness of revelation, and they have received false ideas about that God from a mere man named Mohammed who does not understand what Christians mean by the words "the Son of God."  In short, they do not worship "another god".  Rather, they worship the One God–the only one there is–in ignorance of the fullness of revelation. That's because there is only the one God.

Bottom line: What contradicts Christ is false. But what does not contradict him is true, even if it is spoken by Muslims. "He who is not with me is against me" says the Lord, "But he who is not against us is for us" as well. The effort to make Allah somebody besides "The-True-God-poorly-perceived-by-Muslims" is dumb because it winds up throwing the baby out with the bath. You have to deny the true things Muslims say about God to call Allah a false god. It's more sensible to do as the Church does and simply acknowledge that where Islam is on the same page with the Church, it's right and where it isn't, it's wrong.

The teaching of the Church is pretty simple with respect to Islam.  It boils down to saying "Muslims have a real but very imperfect knowledge of the one true God. Insofar as they acknowledge what the Church acknowledges about God and his relationship with man, they are right. Insofar as they are ignorant or deny what the Church says about God and his relationship with man, they are mistaken or in sin."

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I think the key idea that needs to be addressed is not whether Muslims believe in a God-Creator, who is all powerful, as Catholics do — first we must emphasize what is necessary for salvation.

    When  ideas are couched in terms of discussing our commonality, the underlying or unstated (albeit unintended) premise is: commonalities between Catholic and Muslim faiths exist, consequently there is no need for conversion.

    The uncritical reader may reach the wrong conclusions from reading this article — even as this was clearly not the intent of the author.

    The ordinary means of salvation is through the Sacraments instituted by Christ and made available to all who seek them, through our Holy Mother Church.  This idea has to be repeated ad naseum until it is universally accepted.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I understand all this and believe all this.  But, the way Mr. Shea puts it is genius.  My Muslim brothers, just need a little more knowledge and they will become Christians.  Come on brothers find the true God, true man born of a virgin.  He needs you as much as you need him.

    GK – God is good!

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    GK — God does not need us.  He is Self-Existent Being and there is nothing and no one that He needs. That is why His love for us is completely gratutious — pure grace.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Kelle wrote: In the Koran it explicitly states that those who belief (sic) in the Trinity are like "excrement and urine."   

    Can you reference that? As quick search of the Koran on line got me a few verses, but none saying anything like that.  Here's one from the Koran's fourth chapter "The Women":

    [4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

    It seems to me that, while this verse shows error, it does not close all dialogue. The verse you quote leaves little room for a discussion.

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    As you requested, below are the quotations from the Koran.

    Article 1. “Eleven things are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, a dog, a pig and the non-Moslem man and woman, plus the Trinity [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost].”

    Article 2. “He who believes in the Trinity is impure just like excrement and urine.”

    What is an “article” in the context of the Koran? The referant to these “articles” (that I was able to find) is from Bible Believer’s Newsletter #167 The Two Babylons. Neither Sura 1 nor Sura 2 of the Koran contain these quotes.

    Where in the Koran do these quotes come from, Kelle?

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Kelle

     Therefore, let's correct that sentence to say "Muslims, because they deny what the Church says about God and his is relationship with man, are in sin."

    Even if is true, it does not mean that this is  idolatry.  There are other sins against the first commandment (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church no 2088 ,2089 and  the 1989  Baltimore catechism question 321).

     The relevant ones are voluntary or delibrately cultivated doubt leading to spiritual blindness and incredulity (the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it).

     

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Kelle,

        What made you think that your posts would be deleted?  You have posted some very controversial (that's putting it mildly) statements in the past which have not been deleted.

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Kelle:

    Curious, I was unaware that the Sultan Ahmet Mosque was the tomb of Mahomet.

    A quote from USA today:

    “‘Let us pray for brotherhood and for all humanity,’ the pope said in Italian.

    Lombardi said the pope “paused in meditation” inside the mosque and ‘certainly his thoughts turned to God.’”

    Reply to Objection 2. It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy.

    Where in Turkey did the pope confess or further demonstrate that he was worshiping the Allah of the Muslim? When the King of Jordan visited a US Cathedral, do you also assume that, when he prayed, he was praying to Jesus? Did Paul not go to the Areopagus?

    As for the Buddah on the altar at Assisi…are you sure that the pope authorized this…was even aware of it? What happened next? How was it addressed?

    As for the specious argument that Muslims “know” that Christians know God to be Trinity, I refer you to Romans 10:14-17. You seem sure that the muslim has a complete understanding of the Nature of God, based on hearing that we know Him as Trinity alone.

    Now…where is your quote to be found in the Koran, again? Or shall we believe that you accept as authoritative the work of the Bible Believer’s Newsletter?

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It is possible that a person my stand on his backyard's treestump and declare "revelation from God..here is God's will for the human race." Peoples may follow. But what makes him credible? Why follow?  

    Joseph Smith. Mohammed. They are proclaiming what they have already heard from the repositories of genuine revelation, remaking and re-situating it in order to satisfy and construct a local geo/politcal/ ethnic vision. Moham. knew beyond a trivail amount the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. He was a syncretist and mimicker ( mimea polyglottus).

     Moham. was eager,zealous, and jealous that his contemprary hugely polytheistic, fragmented, bellecose tribal peninsula -peoples be united as a "people of the Book" as are the Jews and Chrsitians. Tremendous benefits would accrue to the people if united! He borrowed without permission, innovated, and signed it with his own name as if between God and himself.

    Do the teachings of Islam overlap with Judaism and Christianity? Yes. Small wonder they do!!!

    Moham. had superseded Israel and Christ. He is the greatest and last prophet, and his words are the latest and greatest. This is the claim. How bogus can you get! So he simply made it happen ( during states of mystical ecstatic trance, of course!), proclaiming it all to be from God to him directly. Fake and forgery. When will we face the truth. How the world suffers from this monolithic -monotheistic poor facsimile.

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Claire:

    I made Kelle think it, by deleting her posts.  Catholic Exchange does not owe a forum to preachers of schism.

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark,

        I agree. Especially since her posts on your previous articles contained links to some very hateful sites which called Pope John Paul II the anti-Christ and questioned the canonization of Mother Teresa.  However, her posts did remain up for many hours today (and last time), so I was unaware that they got deleted.

          My husband and I were discussing this just now, and it's a very sad situation.  The abuses that have occurred since Vatican II give people the impression that Vatican II itself is the work of the devil, when in fact Vatican II  itself was not the problem, it's the way some liberal theologians have manipulated its teachings.  The devil certainly does like to divide. 

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    [C]ommonalities between Catholic and Muslim faiths exist, consequently there is no need for conversion.

    Aye, but the same mistake is also made in the following three assertions:

    1. Commonalities between Catholic and non-Catholic Christian faiths exist, consequently there is no need for conversion.
    2. Commonalities between the Catholic faith and pagan beliefs exist, consequently there is no need for conversion.
    3. Commonalities between the full Catholic faith and the less-than-full Catholic faith exist, consequently there is no need for conversion.

    The Church's historical approach to all of this has been: "Commonalities between Catholicism and XYZ exist; let us leverage those commonalities as a starting point for teaching the full faith." The problem is not now (and never has been) the doctrine asserted by the Church as true. The problem is now (and always has been, to a greater or lesser extent) the extent to which the sons and daughters of the Church have chosen to teach the complete doctrine or not teach it.

    There can be no doubt that we are in the middle of a period in the Church's history where the fullness of truth is not taught and is, in fact, derided in many corners. This is not a problem with the Church as the spotless spouse of Christ that she is. It is is not a problem with what the Church asserts to be true. It is rather a problem with the individual sinners in today's pilgrim Church who have so many of us chosen to ignore Church teaching for ourselves. Consequently, many of us (at one time or another) could care less whether any conversion is going on or not, whether of Muslims, separated Christians, pagans, atheists, or even themselves. This lack of care is sin.

    The fact is that such conversion is required for all, and it is extremely difficult to be a model for Catholic faith or even to teach the Catholic faith adequately if we do not live the faith to the extent that we know it even as (in obedience to the First Commandment) we continue to seek more understanding (beyond the simple intellectual) of both known and unknown aspects of the faith. 

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mary K says: "God does not need us.  He is Self-Existent Being and there is nothing and no one that He needs. That is why His love for us is completely gratuitous — pure grace." 

    I fully agree with your statement "[t]hat is why His love for us is completely gratuitous — pure grace."

    I am not so sure that I can agree with your first two statements; specifically that "God does not need us." and "He is Self-Existent Being and there is nothing and no one that He needs." Perhaps you can explain why Christ implores Peter to "feed my sheep" if it is in fact true that God does not need us. The inference seems to indicate otherwise. This kind of "need" is what I understood GK intended.

    If God doesn't need us then what's the point?

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Z and Mary K,

    I agree I should not have implied God "needs" us when I wrote: "He needs you as much as you need him."  I should have written, God wants you as much as you need him.

    God is the hound of heaven.  He stays on our trail faithfully. 

    I love how the father in the parable of the prodigal son hugs his son and parties hard when he comes back.  I love how the one law Jesus gives us is to love like He loves.  That is it.  God wants us way more than we know we need him.

    He is the hunter.  We are the hunted.  God is love.  And a need is much lower than a want because a need is almost instinctual.  A want goes beyond that.  And as Mary made clear God does not need us.  And I agree with that and add along with Z that God WANTS us! He wants each of us.  We are all made in his image!  And the shepherd leaves all his sheep to go get that stupid lost sheep.  Then He carries him back on His very own shoulders in celebration.

    GK – God is good!

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    On Vatican II

    I have never lived in a non post Vatican II world.

    I can not personally speak as to how American Catholics lived their faith fifty years ago.

    From my perspective today– Vatican II greatly weakened Church defenses designed to protect the faithful from heresy. 

    Result:  Instead of the world being pulled toward the Chruch, the chruch is losing the tug of war and is slowly being pulled towards the world.

    If heresy is a danger to the soul (and it is) think of how much greater the danger is for those who are not even Christian!

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hi! I am disappointed to see that Mark Shea has decided to delete those posts from Kelle. I didn't ever find that Kelle was being rude just honest. I too am a Catholic struggling to find the truth. In my recent studies of VATICAN II and the church prior to VATICAN II I see some major differences. So much so that they seem like two different religions. Kelle was the only person able to offer some insight on this page that began to actually make some sense to me. I made exhausting searches to find someone that could refute the ideas of Kelle and those on the web page mostholyfamilymonastery.com but all I ever find are generic responses about the "spirit of Vatican II" and that "errors in Vatican II come from misinterpretation". I would be very happy if someone out there could explain to me how the pre-Vatican II Church taught infallibly that there is absolutley no salvation outside the Catholic church and now the Church teaches that Muslims and those living their faith as best as they can will be saved. Look at this: Here are some quotes form the early Church fathers and Popes: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it.  And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”(10) Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society.  Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”(11) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …”(12)

     

    Now here are some quotes taken from Vatican II:

    Unitatis redintegratio (# 3):“It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.  For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”(9) When I asked a well known theologion about this inconsistency he said that the Vatican Council was referring t o invincible ignorance. If this true why didn't they mention the term invincible ignorance once so thatot would be clear for all? Can someone out there, Mark perhaps answer this for me. Thanks!

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Aaron:

     

    Here my basic take:

     

    http://www.mark-shea.com/VII.html

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hi Aaron:

    Kelle was being intellectually dishonest in the posts here and in Monotheism 101 specifically by accepting, without critical thought, the spewings of anti-Catholic or The-Pope-is-the-anti-Christ/anti-pope/heretic, “ultra-Traditionalist,” Freemason-conspiracy tripe.

    Without the courage to admit error in the post re:urine and excrement (which would be clear demonstration of the unskeptical acceptance of whatever fits the argument, regardless of veracity) or of providing a reference (which would put him on par with one who reads “Satanist” books rather than seeking the truth(see Monotheism 101) and who was berated as such by him, though that post was deleted), Kelle is simply reduced to throwing whatever can be found at the wall in hopes that something sticks.

    The problem is that the objections pitched at Vatican II have been treated before, as Mr. Shea demonstrated. It doesn’t even take a lot of work to find some of it. If you can’t find a treatment of the objection (unlikely), your work is a little harder, but you will be rewarded with not only an answer, but the benefit of knowing how to engage in critical thought, and even greater confidence that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church.

    One last thought…one wonders if any pope could survive the “ultra-Traditionalist” mentality given the media scrutiny that the popes have had to undergo over the last 40 years. Every action and word is parsed to the n-th degree seeking a heretical phrase. Once the popes were no longer “prisoners of the Vatican” they opened themselves up to this scrutiny.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    hi mark,

    i read the website that you referred aaron to, to try to show him that there is no difference between the pre vatican and post vatican church.

    i too have been struggling with this. however, i don't think your article did a good job in clearing this up.

    Pope Gregory XVI quotes the same bible verse you do in your article, but it is obvious that you are not thinking along the same lines.

     

    Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

     

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal…and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

         “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man… This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

     

    this is not just saying that only catholics must believe this, but that everyone must believe this in order to be saved. 

    also mark, i have never taken the bible passage where Jesus turns and separates the goats from the sheep as meaning that some of those chosen sheep were from a different faith, and i don't know anyone else who has either.  i always thought it to mean that they were catholics who kept all of the teachings of the church, they were just wondering when they were physically clothing Jesus and feeding Him.  They weren't fully realizing what He meant and how He is present in each one of us who keeps His commandments and believes in Him.

     

    so why is it that since vatican II, we praise islam for being a good religion. i am confused.

     

    Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.” there is no way that we can read the above statement and misinterpret it in any way. 

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    “Do the research yourself.”
    “Heaven forbid should the true Catholics state the obvious–that the emperor has no clothes!”

    Those statements are rather ironic comming from Kelle.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    …and impure thoughts on a steamboat landing!

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    michael, i noticed you keep attacking kelle.

    why are you so angry?

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Papal Bull:

    I’ve never attacked, nor am I angry with Kelle. Kelle simply fails to do present a cogent case. Up go a bunch of objections into the air. When one is shot down, another rises. One mistake by Kelle is a point, two define a line, three give a plane or platform upon which error is built. All of Kelle’s arguments have been assailable because they begin with a bad premise.

    I’ve already travelled this road and done the work to understand what is being said. I encourage Kelle and anyone else to do the same. Don’t just take for granted that what someone told you or what you read on the Internet is true just because it agrees with your world-view. Investigate on your own.

    And Kelle, I’ll send you that $20 by PayPal if you show us where in the Koran you found the quote you posted re: urine and excrement.

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    See Kelle, you once again commit the Fallacy of Accent:

    Here’s the full quote:

    “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However, the fact that the Son of God entered history, made himself part of history, and is present as a reality in history, affects everyone.” [emphasis mine]

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    who keeps deleting kelle's posts?

    i am trying to read them and they keep disappearing..

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    dear mark shea,

      how come you never responded to my email?

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    michael,

     how do you explain this:

     

    Errors condemned under Pope Innocent XI, March 4, 1679, #64: “A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Denz. 1214)

     

    Pope Innocent XI is condemning the errors that people can be saved even through ignorance or negligence.  and how do you explain this:Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    hi mark,

     i was wondering  if you could please explain this quote to me:

     

     

    St. Augustine (+426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverancenone of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Kelle, this is Mary Kochan, Senior Editor for CE.  Since you think this site is a joke (even though you misspelled it "sight"), we would like to invite you to go play the persecuted martyr somewhere else.

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Papal bull, every word of Augustine is not magisterial teaching.

    The topic you have raised has been very thoroughly discussed on CE and you will find a reference to it within one of Mark's answers on this site.

    We welcome your questions if they are sincere and if you demonstrate that you can be taught by magisterial authority.

    But if you are fascinated by Kelle's schismatic position, please feel free to join her and her friends on any one of the number of internet sites they maintain.

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Mary Kochan,

      i was really surprised that you just made fun of kelle for misspelling the word "site".  i don't think that was very christian of you, and definitely unprofessional.

     

       dear mr. shea, could you please respond to my above quotes by St. Augustine, and Pope Benedict XIV.

    they are obviously stating that you can not be saved by invincible ignorance.

     

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mary, i am being sincere in trying to learn.

    i am a confused catholic who is trying to learn the truth.

    please tell me in mark's answers where i can find this.

    i have read mark's articles and they don't clear anything up.

    and also mary, this has not just been the teaching of st Augustine, both many of our early church fathers including Pope Benedict XVI.

    can  you please respond.

     

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    papal bull,

    Although your screen name may imply you have an agenda, if you are in fact sincere, then please see the issue is bigger than contrasting a few quotes which seem to contradict each other. Maybe this logical and organized approach from New Advent will help. This explanation helps me understand this concept; I hope it helps you.

    "The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted.

    • Ignorance of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
    • Ignorance of the fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown.
    • Ignorance of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.

    We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent.

    • Antecedent ignorance is in no sense voluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes any voluntary failure to inquire.
    • Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant.
    • Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same.

    Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements of doctrine.

    Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary.

    It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had.

    Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

    It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man's moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant.

    For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority.

    Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures.

    It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required.

    Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful.

    Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present.

    For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does."

    Sorry for the extended quote, but I don't think it is too difficult to follow.

    PTR!

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    PTR

     thank you for your response.

    however, it still does not clear anything up. 

    i know people who  hear the truth and are just ignorant of it.  and people who never want to talk about religion at all.

    these people will be held accountable according to our early church fathers and saints.

    i encounter protestants everyday, and i when i try to tell them what the catholic church teaches, they already are aware of what the catholic church teaches. they think it is ridiculous and strange.

    most people know what are catholic church teaches. but they reject it.

    are you trying to say they make it to heaven?

    that doesn't make sense.

    when our early church fathers wrote these quotes, they were simple and easy to understand. and they weren't following these quotes up by saying "except for people who are ignorant and aren't aware of what the church teaches." in fact they are saying even those who are ignorant.

    ignorant is not a difficult word to understand.

    i believe that everything written in the above article that you have provided is kind of mushy and doesn't make any sense.

     

    why would Jesus say to the apostles, go into the the towns and preach the gospel, and any house that does not accept your words, leave from there and shake the dust off your sandals, it would be more tolerable for sodom and gomorrah then for that town on judgement day.

    the apostles weren't going in and "respecting the other peoples false religions", they were condemning them.

    Matthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.  How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!

     

     

     

    so i am struggling to find the truth, but i wish someone could do a better job of making sense of post vatican II and why now they have broadened the spectrum of who can be saved.

     

    can anyone else offer any insight?

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Papal bull what odd Masses do you attend where there is no prayer for the "salvation of all the world," and "for those whose faith is known only to [God]"? 

    Or do you hear those prayers but do not say "Amen"?

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    dear Mary

        what??  you have me confused..  what specific prayers are you talking about.  i attend the trindentine mass. and of course i pray for those outside of the catholic church..  i pray for them to come into the catholic church.. i pray for this everyday. i hope you do as well.

    i quess what your trying to say is that you agree and that we should pray that everyone who is not catholic comes into the catholic church so that they may have eternal salvation. i agree with you on this mary.

    however, i just don't see how since vatican II that this is seen as such a great necessity as it was by our early church fathers..

     

    for example look how different these views are:

     

    John Paul II, March 21, 2000:

    “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

     

    Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 244: “There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco…”   and then we have pre vatican II and their teaching on islam:  Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.” these are obviously two different views.. what do you think Mary?or mark if you could offer some insight i would appreciate it..thanks

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Papal Bull,

    Permit me to respond to your posts.  First, let me say that I find it humorous how “Protect The Rock” accuses your screen name of having “an agenda” when both “Protect The Rock” and “Papal Bull” clearly make reference to the office of the Roman Pontiff.  How PTR can cast a suspicious light on your screen name and while thinking his screen name to be innocuous is puzzling.  Nonetheless, I have commented below.

    Regarding your remark about PTR’s post being “kind of mushy” and saying it “doesn’t any make sense,” let me say you are wrong.  While I cannot fault what I think is your intuition in realizing that PTR’s post does not directly answer your question, which seeks to understand the relationship between invincible ignorance and salvation, I must disagree with you.  PTR’s post is not “mushy” but actually very technical.  Too technical, I might add.  PTR’s post rightly defines ignorance, but what it does not do is explain the relationship between ignorance and salvation, if any exists at all.

    The problem today is that most catholics wrongly believe that salvation is something owed to them and to others, as if God could owe any of us sinful creatures (Catholic or otherwise) anything.  Very simply, God owes us nothing, and He is perfectly justified in refusing salvation to everybody.

    With that said, God is also all merciful.  So while still owing us nothing, God sent His only Begotten Son into the world to be painfully beaten and crucified so as to make salvation possible.  Everyone can be saved, but salvation is not a right that we have.  It is a gift.  And to accept this gift one must first do two things:  (1) get baptized with water; and (2) believe in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, which are the Trinity and the Incarnation.  The God-Man willingly subjecting Himself to the brutal sacrifice on Calvary is not just a nice thing to believe in.  It is an essential and necessary belief for salvation.  Anyone who, through invincible ignorance or otherwise, fails to do at least (1) and (2) above will not be saved.  The Church is very clear on this.  Your quotations point this out very well and that is why nobody has been able to properly respond to your questions.

    Where ignorance comes into play is determining the guilt sin.  PTR is correct.  Where there is invincible ignorance, there is no sin.  There can’t be.  The sinner must have subjective, and not just objective, guilt to be punished and held accountable.  But, while ignorance is applicable with regard to the guilt of sin, it is not applicable with regard to accepting God’s free gift of salvation.  As a result of invincible ignorance or otherwise, one who does not accept God’s free gift of salvation by at least performing acts (1) and (2) above will not enter Heaven.  This is the Faith, and this must be believed.

    What people also fail to realize is that the pains of hell are not the same for everybody.  Those, like the Jews and Muslims who do not get baptize and who do not believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, will go to hell and remain there for all eternity.  This is why conversion is so essential.  But if a Jew of Muslim lived a life with few sins, then their punishment in hell will be less severe than someone who sinned greatly.  This is justice, and mercy was available to them while they walked this Earth.  But for whatever reason, invincible ignorance or otherwise, they sadly did not tap into its source.  (As a side note, invincible ignorance as it pertains to salvation does not really exist but is a theoretical idea created by some to promote the idea of universal salvation.  But this is just a side note.)

    This same principle is applicable to unbaptized infants.  Without a doubt, unbaptized infants will not make it to Heaven.  They will go to hell but will not suffer any of the torments of hell, except for eternal separation from God and denial of the Beatific Vision.

    So PTR’s post on ignorance is not “mushy.”  It is just not directly applicable to your question.  As PTR wrote, ignorance is applicable in determining the guilt of sin, but as PTR didn’t write, it does not provide for the imposition of God’s free gift of salvation through some indirect or unconscious means.  Water baptism and belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are the absolutely necessary first steps to salvation.

    There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church, as the Church has taught for 2000 years and still teaches today.  Everyone who is not Catholic will go to hell.  So let us be expeditious in converting the all mankind to the truth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  May Christendom reign!

    I hope this helps.  These are confusing times.  However, you are on the road to the Truth.

    P.S.  I expressly waive all my copyright protections in hope that the greatest number of souls will hear the truths contained herein and be converted from all false religions to the one, true Catholic religion of God.

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Papal Bull:

    Thanks for the question:

    You’ll find answers in how the two thoughts are complimentary in the following. This list is not exhaustive but a good start.

    Peter Lombard’s The Four Sentances
    St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s comments on Trent
    St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
    St. Augustine’s City of God and On Baptism

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    aaron,

    Your posting makes sense and goes more to the point than mine did.  Thank you.

    Regarding screen names — I was referring to a possible second meaning of the word "bull" and hoping, in charity, that papal bull was not using the more vulgar meaning of the word.

    I am sorry if my intent was not apparent.

Leave a Reply