Posted on 12/09/2013 7:13:05 PM PST by ebb tide
Perhaps good old Pio Nono said it the best when he originally said it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (On Promotion of False Doctrines) (August 10, 1863):
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
I don't tend to think that Pio Nono was a post-Vatican II modernist. But yet I don't see much daylight (if there is any daylight at all) between what he said above and what that "post-Vatican II modernist" Francis stated.
Perhaps you could help me out here a bit with showing me the difference between Pio Nono's position and Francis' position on this matter.
Francis’ comments regarding Communion for Catholics divorced and remarried outside the Church are ambiguous. Impossible to know what he really means, but his allusion to Orthodox practices in regard to this subject seems to imply that he may be in favor of change. It’s only natural to wonder what he means, and whether he intends to ignore what the Church has long taught is objectively adultery in favor of “pastoral care”. Only time will tell.
Speculating? Have you not read the survey put out by the Vatican?
Thank you for the smaller bite to digest, not to overwhelm.
It appears the first excerpt speaks to Catholics alone, and the second to non-believers. If that is the case, one could say that the carrot-and- the-stick approach has been employed, in order to treat the respective conditions of the hearers.
I do recall St. Paul saying, “I am all things to all people”, and he followed that up by offering examples.
Much is expected of Catholics because much has been received. On the other hand, Paul himself entered scriptural history as the sort to be full of passion against the fledgling Church. God alone, in Paul’s case, saw fit to bring him down to earth.
God shall bring into the great Ark whom He will.
What matters to me is this. I want to try to be among the blessed Remnant, brought to Heaven, and found living a quiet life fitting of my station and vocation, as Scripture and the saints recommend and encourage.
If the Church in great numbers falls to apostasy tomorrow, including among all, any pope, bishop or priest, that blessed remnant is but known only to God.
“invincibly ignorant” is the answer. What was Pio Nono’ definition of it? I doubt it’s the same as Pope Francis’, if he even has one. He sure doesn’t seem interested in converting Jews or Muslims or atheists. Is everybody invincibly ignorant expect for those rosary-counting, Pelagin, sourpusses?
Consider, specifically, Romans 2:11ff:
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12] For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. [13] For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
You beat me to it! :-)
I was just going to send a post re: the 2nd chapter of Romans.
Thanks. :-)
To whom much is given, much is required.
?
Maybe?
Both are quite true. Paul is not divided. Paul in Romans applies to the letter. Saint Paul to the letter absolutely applies and supplies his example for evangelization, the harvesting— bringing in the lost toward their salvation and toward the exact understanding of Romans that you cite.
I think we talk past one another here. The point I am trying for is that evangelizing persons is a process, unending and daily actually.
For example, I can not expect that the atheist will have our stricter understanding of the Romans citation instantly, but he may be attracted by the patience, charity and hope he sees in the kind efforts of the evangelizer. Where that may lead, for the atheist, is known only by God.
Mark, I meant to ping you also.
And from the same encyclical, Pope Pius IX also states that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. Does Francis EVER say this? Compare that statement to anything Francis has been saying regarding consciences, proselytism, atheists, the Old Covenant and the Jews. It’s a totally different message.
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.