Do Roman Catholics Agree With This Papal Statement?

RayneBeau

Well-known member
In an interview with Avvenire, March 6, 2016 - Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed:
"The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the Second Vatican Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned . . . . Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved without it?"
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
In an interview with Avvenire, March 6, 2016 - Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed:
"The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the Second Vatican Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned . . . . Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved without it?"
The question is asked as one that poses a problem once you accept that people who were unbaptised or unevangelised could be saved. See https://aleteia.org/2016/03/17/benedicts-interview-speaks-to-our-times-full-text/4/:

"If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost — and this explains their missionary commitment — in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned. From this came a deep double crisis.

On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment. Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it? But also for Christians an issue emerged: the obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life began to seem uncertain and problematic.

If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals. If faith and salvation are no longer interdependent, faith itself become unmotivated. Lately several attempts have been formulated in order to reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without it."

* also note that Benedict doesn't say "The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced" but "If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were convinced..."

Benedict himself does not present a particular position in the interview but says we need to reflect on this question, that if some people can be saved without being evangelised or baptised, in what respect do they and how does this affect Church missionary efforts.
 

mica

Well-known member
The question is asked as one that poses a problem once you accept that people who were unbaptised or unevangelised could be saved. See https://aleteia.org/2016/03/17/benedicts-interview-speaks-to-our-times-full-text/4/:

"If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost — and this explains their missionary commitment — in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned. From this came a deep double crisis.
were these catholic missionaries? where did they get that 'idea' / belief? everyone is lost - until they are born again.

On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment. Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it? But also for Christians an issue emerged: the obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life began to seem uncertain and problematic.
you must mean 'catholic faith' which is very different than Christian faith. One is saved when they put their total faith (from the heart) in Christ as Lord and Savior - not faith in the RCC or its beliefs. In Christ Himself. God knows when it is from the heart and not just lip service. When that happens the person's heart will be changed forever. They are placed into His body, His church. They become a new creature in Christ. That's when one becomes a Christian. It has nothing to do with being water baptized, being catholic or a priest saying words over someone, or doing any kind of works, signing a form / document at or for any earthly church group or church official.

If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals. If faith and salvation are no longer interdependent, faith itself become unmotivated. Lately several attempts have been formulated in order to reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without it."

* also note that Benedict doesn't say "The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced" but "If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were convinced..."

Benedict himself does not present a particular position in the interview but says we need to reflect on this question, that if some people can be saved without being evangelised or baptised, in what respect do they and how does this affect Church missionary efforts.
people can't save themselves in any way. There is only 1 way to be saved.

again you must be speaking of catholic faith and requirements.
 
The question is asked as one that poses a problem once you accept that people who were unbaptised or unevangelised could be saved. See https://aleteia.org/2016/03/17/benedicts-interview-speaks-to-our-times-full-text/4/:

"If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost — and this explains their missionary commitment — in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned. From this came a deep double crisis.

On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment. Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it? But also for Christians an issue emerged: the obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life began to seem uncertain and problematic.

If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals. If faith and salvation are no longer interdependent, faith itself become unmotivated. Lately several attempts have been formulated in order to reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without it."

* also note that Benedict doesn't say "The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced" but "If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were convinced..."

Benedict himself does not present a particular position in the interview but says we need to reflect on this question, that if some people can be saved without being evangelised or baptised, in what respect do they and how does this affect Church missionary efforts.
Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation.

The Council of Trent declared that after the promulgation of the Gospel there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. This is a De fide dogma of the Catholic Church, and not Ratzinger, nor anybody else, can change it. To deny this dogma is heresy.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
were these catholic missionaries? where did they get that 'idea' / belief? everyone is lost - until they are born again.
They got it from constant Church teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church and Christ. However, it's not clear they all believed this - hence the "if".
you must mean 'catholic faith' which is very different than Christian faith. One is saved when they put their total faith (from the heart) in Christ as Lord and Savior - not faith in the RCC or its beliefs. In Christ Himself. God knows when it is from the heart and not just lip service. When that happens the person's heart will be changed forever. They are placed into His body, His church. They become a new creature in Christ. That's when one becomes a Christian. It has nothing to do with being water baptized, being catholic or a priest saying words over someone, or doing any kind of works, signing a form / document at or for any earthly church group or church official.
Pope Emeritus Benedict said that, not me. So, you'll need to take it up with him.
people can't save themselves in any way. There is only 1 way to be saved.

again you must be speaking of catholic faith and requirements.
Evidently.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation.

The Council of Trent declared that after the promulgation of the Gospel there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. This is a De fide dogma of the Catholic Church, and not Ratzinger, nor anybody else, can change it. To deny this dogma is heresy.
What about those who don't know about Christ or the gospel?
 
What about those who don't know about Christ or the gospel?
We are not Protestants. We don't get to make up doctrines based upon what WE want to believe. That there can be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same is a De fide dogma of the Catholic Church and to deny it is to profess heresy.

However, there is the question of those living in invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a "get out of jail free card." Invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.

We have to remember than no one is innocent. We are all born with original sin. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, and in the state of sanctifying grace. The means of obtaining sanctifying grace can never be supplied by invincible ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas says that invincible ignorance is "a punishment for sin."

However, we cannot say that invincible ignorance, in itself, condemns anyone. Invincible 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 a involuntary privation, is no sin.

Therefore 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.”
 

mica

Well-known member
Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation.

The Council of Trent declared
that after the promulgation of the Gospel there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. This is a De fide dogma of the Catholic Church, and not Ratzinger, nor anybody else, can change it. To deny this dogma is heresy.
What is the gospel? Do you know? no, water baptism is not necessary for salvation. Believers know it isn't, they've experienced it. I wasn't born again by a water baptism but by the Holy Spirit, the Living Water. I was in my house, no priest, no water involved. Paul was saved on the road to Damascus. He wasn't water baptized until after that happened.

Matt 3.11 - JTB tells us that it will change -

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The council of Trent is made up by the RCC, not by God.

again - what gospel? what does the RCC teach is the gospel ?
 

mica

Well-known member
We are not Protestants. We don't get to make up doctrines based upon what WE want to believe. That there can be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same is a De fide dogma of the Catholic Church and to deny it is to profess heresy.
no, but your man made 'Church' does that for you. All you have to do is believe in it and what it tells you to believe (what it has made up itself).

We are justified / saved by the Living Water - the Holy Spirit. no one gets wet. There's a change that comes with the sacrifice at the cross. It doesn't seem that catholics know this.

However, there is the question of those living in invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a "get out of jail free card." Invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.

We have to remember than no one is innocent. We are all born with original sin. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, and in the state of sanctifying grace. The means of obtaining sanctifying grace can never be supplied by invincible ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas says that invincible ignorance is "a punishment for sin."

However, we cannot say that invincible ignorance, in itself, condemns anyone. Invincible 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 a involuntary privation, is no sin.

Therefore 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.”
by this do you mean the beliefs and teachings of the RCC? or of scripture?

can you post scripture to support this invincible ignorance?
 

mica

Well-known member
They got it from constant Church teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Church and Christ. However, it's not clear they all believed this - hence the "if".
yes, another RCC false belief / teaching.

Do you mean catholics who do (did) not belief this (a belief and teaching of the RCC)?

Pope Emeritus Benedict said that, not me. So, you'll need to take it up with him.

Evidently.
It wasn't in quotes in your post or identified as from your pope.

that's a good line. I hope you don't mind if I use it in the future, as in 'you'll need to take it up with Him'.
 
Says MF. Doesn't the Holy Spirit (God) guide the rc bishops in the selection of the next 'vicar of Christ'? Was the Holy Spirit wrong? (be careful on how you answer this)
The pope's job is to defend, protect, promulgate, and sometimes to more clearly define Catholic teaching, and also to protect and defend the rights of Holy Mother Church.

The Catholic Church cannot contradict Herself and maintain the chrism of indefectibility. The pope has no right, and actually cannot, because of the protection of the Holy Ghost, which you alluded to, contradict or change previously defined De fide dogma of the Church.
 

Mik

Member
The pope's job is to defend, protect, promulgate, and sometimes to more clearly define Catholic teaching, and also to protect and defend the rights of Holy Mother Church.

The Catholic Church cannot contradict Herself and maintain the chrism of indefectibility. The pope has no right, and actually cannot, because of the protection of the Holy Ghost, which you alluded to, contradict or change previously defined De fide dogma of the Church.

Nice rabbit hole. You were so careful answering the questions that you didn't answer the questions. Maybe this time you can answer my questions?
Here, I'll repost the actual questions again? Hint: The answer is either 'Yes' or 'No'
Just reminding you what you said: 'Ratzinger is a heretic.'


"Says MF. Doesn't the Holy Spirit (God) guide the rc bishops in the selection of the next 'vicar of Christ'? Was the Holy Spirit wrong? (be careful on how you answer this)"
 
Nice rabbit hole. You were so careful answering the questions that you didn't answer the questions. Maybe this time you can answer my questions?
Here, I'll repost the actual questions again? Hint: The answer is either 'Yes' or 'No'

"Says MF. Doesn't the Holy Spirit (God) guide the rc bishops in the selection of the next 'vicar of Christ'? Was the Holy Spirit wrong? (be careful on how you answer this)"
Your question is a non sequitur. The primary object is the infallibility of the pope when speaking to the universal Church in matters concerning Faith and morals as dogmatically defined by the Vatican (I) Council.

The question is: Can a true pope substantially change or contradict previously defined De fide dogma of the Church?

Be careful how you answer.

Hint: The answer is either "Yes" or "No"
 
Last edited:

Mik

Member
Your question is a non sequitur. The primary object is the infallibility of the pope when speaking to the universal Church in matters concerning Faith and morals as dogmatically defined by the Vatican (I) Council.

The question is: Can a true pope substantially change or contradict previously defined De fide dogma of the Church.?

Be careful how you answer.

Hint: The answer is either "Yes" or "No"

LOL. You are trying your best to not answer the questions I asked (and not the questions you want to answer). I don't blame you. Let's try this again. Maybe read the slower. Remember you wrote this: ''Ratzinger is a heretic.'

Doesn't the Holy Spirit (God) guide the rc bishops in the selection of the next 'vicar of Christ'? Yes or No?
(see. nothing about infallibility)

Was the Holy Spirit wrong? (be careful on how you answer this)? Yes or No? (You wrote: 'Ratzinger is a heretic.')
 
Ratzinger is a heretic. He is not a pope, but an anti-pope. A heretic cannot be a pope.

The religion you follow is not the Catholic religion, but a novel, humanist, man centered, religiously indifferent humanitarianism.

This religion began with the election of Angelo Roncalli who almost immediately called for an ecumenical council. Vatican II decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church.

The Holy Ghost guides Catholic bishops in the selection of a true Catholic pope. However a heretic is incapable by Divine Law of attaining the papacy, also If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. This is the established teaching of the Church, not that you care anything about that, as you show by discarding the De fide teaching on the necessity of baptism as if it was yesterday's newspaper.

Now that that's been established: Can a true pope substantially change or contradict previously defined De fide dogma of the Church?

Be careful how you answer.

Hint: The answer is either "Yes" or "No"
 
LOL. You are trying your best to not answer the questions I asked (and not the questions you want to answer). I don't blame you. Let's try this again. Maybe read the slower. Remember you wrote this: ''Ratzinger is a heretic.'

Doesn't the Holy Spirit (God) guide the rc bishops in the selection of the next 'vicar of Christ'? Yes or No?
(see. nothing about infallibility)

Was the Holy Spirit wrong? (be careful on how you answer this)? Yes or No? (You wrote: 'Ratzinger is a heretic.')
Did the Holy Ghost assist, your "pope", Mr. Bergoglio, in his hosting of the worship of a pagan Amazonian fertility goddess on Vatican grounds?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
We are not Protestants. We don't get to make up doctrines based upon what WE want to believe. That there can be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same is a De fide dogma of the Catholic Church and to deny it is to profess heresy.

However, there is the question of those living in invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a "get out of jail free card." Invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation.

We have to remember than no one is innocent. We are all born with original sin. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, and in the state of sanctifying grace. The means of obtaining sanctifying grace can never be supplied by invincible ignorance. St. Thomas Aquinas says that invincible ignorance is "a punishment for sin."

However, we cannot say that invincible ignorance, in itself, condemns anyone. Invincible 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 a involuntary privation, is no sin.

Therefore 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.”
I basically agree with that. I think that's always been consistent Catholic teaching. The Church isn't saying that those who are invincibly ignorant are saved by that very ignorance but that it, as Paul writes, along with their response to the natural moral law, may excuse (or accuse) them on the Day of Judgement.

I tend to hold to a more existential view of the afterlife and I would love to see this approach developed more in Catholic theology.
 
Top