Helplessly
Ignorant
XXXXXXX
The Nonsense of
a Perfectly Intelligent
But Strangely
‘Invincibly Ignorant’
Person
Somehow ‘Unable’
to Know Catholicism Is
True
in Order to Find
Salvation, Whilst,
Instead, Getting into
Heaven
by Being ‘Sincere’
XXXXXXX
“If
I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin;
but now they have no excuse for
their sin.” (John 15:22 DRC (Douay Rheims Challoner). All emphasis
added in this and other scriptural quotations.)
“For
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice
of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: because that
which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath
manifested it unto them. For the
invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also,
and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.” (Romans 1:18-20
DRC)
“But all men are vain, in whom
there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are
seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the
works have acknowledged who was the workman… For by the greatness of the
beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be
known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they
perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among
his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which
are seen. But then again they are not
to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much as to make a
judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord
thereof? …And it was not
enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they
lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils
peace.” (Wisdom 13:1, 5-9, 14:22 DRC)
“Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to
God, is for them unto salvation. For I
bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge. For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to
establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God…
How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how
shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they
hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent,
as it is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!’ [Isaias
52:7, Nahum 1:15] But all do not obey
the gospel. For Isaias saith: ‘Lord, who hath believed our
report?’ [Isaias 53:1] Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by
the word of Christ. But I say: have
they not heard? Yes, verily, ‘their sound hath gone forth into all
the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world.’
[Psalm 18:5]” (Romans 10:1-3, 14-18 DRC)
“Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the
beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman:
‘Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree in
paradise?’ And the woman answered him, saying, ‘Of the fruit of
the trees that are in paradise we do eat: but of the fruit of the tree
which is in the midst of paradise, God
hath commanded us that we should not eat: and that we should not touch
it, lest perhaps we die.’ And the serpent said to the woman:
‘No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day
soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as
Gods, knowing good and evil.’” (Genesis 3:1-4 DRC)
“But
I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds
should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not
preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received;
or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with
him… For such false
apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the
apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself
into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-14 DRC)
“Knowing
this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking
after their own lusts, saying, ‘Where is his promise or his coming?
For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were
from the beginning of the creation.’ For
this they are willfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and
the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God,
whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished…
But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the
Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord delayeth not his promise,
as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.”
(2 Peter 3:3-6, 8-9 DRC)
“And
then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with
the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming,
him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power,
and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to
them that perish; because they
receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have
consented to iniquity.” (2 Thessalonians 2:8-11 DRC)
“But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go:
for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send
him to you. And when he is come, he
will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. Of
sin: because they believed not in me. And of justice: because I go to
the Father; and you shall see me no longer. And of judgment: because the
prince of this world is already judged.” (John 16:7-11 DRC)
“Here
is wisdom. He that hath understanding,
let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six
hundred sixty-six.” (Apocalypse 13:18 DRC)
“Jesus
said to them: ‘If you were blind, you should not have sin:
but now you say: “We see.” Your sin remaineth.’” (John 9:41 DRC)
“And
the Lord God said to the serpent: ‘Because thou hast done this thing,
thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy
breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
I will put enmities between thee and
the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and
thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.’” (Genesis 3:14-15 DRC)
“And the
COMPOSED & EDITED FEBRUARY 2016 TO NOVEMBER
2018.
XXXXXXX
Intended by the
Author of This Book
for the
Greater Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,
for the
Worship of the Sacred Heart of King Jesus Christ of
for the
Praise of the Immaculate Heart of Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-
Virgin Mother of
God,
unto the
Protection & Propagation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church &
Her Most
Precious Heavenly Dogmas,
and
under the
Euphonious Patronage of St. Cecilia, the Eloquent Patronage
of St.
Catherine of
Ven. Mariana de
Jesus Torres, Virgins &
Martyrs.
XXXXXXX
Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum, neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in
magnis, neque in mirabilibus super
me. Si non humiliter sentiebam, sed exaltavi animam
meam; sicut ablactatus est super matre sua, ita retributio in anima mea.Speret
in Domino,
ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum. (Psalmus CXXX,Vulgata)
St. Francis
Xavier, Patron of Catholic Missioners, Ss. Catherine of Alexandria &
Francis of Sales, Patrons of Catholic Philosophers & Apologists,
respectively, and St. Peter of Verona, the Glorious Martyr, may you be pleased
to guide this arrow to its target, either unto eternal life or eternal death! Now
thanks be to God, who always maketh us
to triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifesteth the odour of his knowledge by us
in every place. For we are the good odour of
Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the
one indeed the odour of death unto death: but
to the others the odour of
life unto life. (2 Corinthians 2:14-16b DRC)
St. Francis of
Assisi, Humble Seraph of the Incarnate God, and St. Dominic the Preacher,
Dogged Cherub of the Triune Deity, pray for your children that they may not
fail the test but suffer the malice of the wicked gladly and so gain the Crown
of Life!
XXXXXXX
+++ 1. What Is This Book About? +++
This book is about the idea that human beings don’t
need to know about --- and don’t need to believe in --- the Roman
Catholic Religion in order to save their souls.
Enthusiasts for this idea wax eloquent about the
power of ignorance.
At the very least, say they, in a world filled
with countless different religions and philosophies, how can we know which of them is true?
Whilst others, who claim to believe in a
particular religion or philosophy, nevertheless go a step further and ask, how can a sincerely ignorant person
be guilty of believing in the wrong choice when such a person cannot know
for sure which of them is correct?
Hence, they insist, no
hell or punishment or any unpleasant fate awaits a human being who is
‘sincerely’ committed to the wrong religion or philosophy.
After all… how can a loving God be so cruel?
+++ 2. And Why Is It Important? +++
This notion contradicts
the ancient Catholic teaching of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’.
People who call themselves ‘catholic’ but think non-Catholics can
get into Heaven --- despite these non-Catholics having intelligent minds while
never bothering to use this intelligence to seek earnestly for Catholicism or
become Catholic --- either don’t know about, don’t care about, or
don’t interpret the Salvation Dogma to mean what Roman Catholics have
always understood it to mean since earliest times.
We will look at some of the proof for the ancient
and unchanging meaning of the Salvation Dogma later on. Curious or skeptical
readers can also examine
For Those Who Consider
Themselves Catholic
and
The Catholic
Church Is the Only Way to Save Your Soul, No Exceptions Admitted --- and Here’s the
Infallible Proof!
The former article can be found in
the First Things First section of The Epistemologic Works website, the latter
in the Letters & Admonishments section.
Meanwhile, please note how this book is not about ‘baptism of
desire’ (BOD).
The fight over BOD is only indirectly
related to ‘no Salvation outside the Church’, an indirect link that,
notwithstanding, has become critical during the last three centuries. More
information about BOD can be found in the lengthy tome,
Baptismal Confusion: What the
Fight Over ‘Baptism of Desire’ vs. ‘Water Only’ Is All About
and Where Both Sides Get It Very Wrong, Falling into Heresy or Schism as a Result
. It is in the Books & Articles section of The Epistemologic
Works.
+++ 3. Why Tout the Power of Ignorance? +++
(The Ostensible Reason Restated)
As pointed out in the first chapter, people today
justify believing in whatever religion or philosophy they choose for the
following ostensible reason:
How can anyone tell which
religion or philosophy is actually true?
Of course, the most modern of people don’t necessarily
think any of them are true. They may not believe that a Creator exists; and, if
they do, they probably prefer to think that this Creator doesn’t care
what tiny little creatures believe or practice.
In short, they assume all religions or philosophies of a traditional or formal nature are
manmade --- mere fantasies concocted by human beings to allay their
fears or give them solace in the face of suffering or inevitable death. All the
same, they won’t hesitate to use the reason above as a justification
for not acting like one particular religion or one particular philosophy
should command their allegiance.
Yet are such people, then, not
religious, and, therefore, a kind of religiously ‘neutral’ person?
This is where most of us are curiously blind.
We’re taught to think that --- somehow ---
modern people are free of the ‘prejudices’ of earlier generations.
Somehow we, of all human beings, have become so very, very
‘enlightened’ and don’t think it matters what religion a
person is.
Religiously speaking, we claim everyone can do as
he or she likes.
Except… isn’t this a religious teaching?
In other words, as long as the idea of
religion exists amongst human beings in the first place, isn’t saying it doesn’t matter what religion you
are a teaching that is
just as religious as saying you’ve
got to be one particular religion and not another?
And so we see the prejudice that dominates modern
times. Because even agnosticism and atheism are religiously dogmatic. The first
(agnosticism) religiously teaches us as a dogma that I can’t know for sure a supernatural deity exists or that
one of the many religions in the world today is completely true; while the
latter (atheism) religiously teaches us as a dogma that I can be certain a supernatural deity doesn’t exist and,
additionally, that no religion could possibly be wholly true.
It’s simply that what they preach
isn’t considered ‘traditional’ since most people have never
before believed in their peculiar dogmas. Moreover, until recent centuries,
most of our thinkers and leaders have never made public schooling a requirement
and then used that means of compulsory education, along with laws and policies
against ‘religious discrimination’, to make us think and act like
it doesn’t matter what religion you are.
To top it off, neither agnosticism nor atheism have widespread rituals or worship.
Notwithstanding, they both teach what we are
supposed to believe is the truth about the idea we call
‘God’ --- citing evidence and logic thought to be powerful and
persuasive that there is no real need for a Creator in order to have a first
cause, or any kind of life, or sentient creatures, or a structured cosmos ---
and are thus, indeed, the both of them, inescapably teaching something that is religious.
+++ 4. Why Tout the Power of Ignorance? +++
(What It Really Boils Down to, Part 1)
But is the reason stated above truly why they
tout the power of ignorance?
Think about it.
Have any of them bothered to carefully and adequately
study and investigate the religions or philosophies they say it’s
impossible to know which --- if any --- is true?
Would that answer be…
no?
Hmmm.
And why would that be?
For atheists, it’s because they don’t
think it’s worth searching. Why look when the thing sought is imaginary?
(Although, as already noted, atheists will happily mock adherents of
traditional religion by invoking the
‘how-can-you-know-which-one-is-true-when-there-are-so-many-different-beliefs?’
argument, in spite of them assuming that all of these religions are imaginary.)
For agnostics --- and other persons a little more sincerely touting the
remarkable power of ignorance during the modern era --- it’s hopeless.
Why look when the thing sought, however real (maybe), is never, ever, going to
be found?
Which leads us to point out
the next obvious thing:
How do they know this?
We say again:
Left to ourselves and our own limited
knowledge to begin with… if somebody doesn’t bother to examine the subject of religion or
philosophy carefully, with patience and intelligence --- not to mention a lack
of pre-determining bias in the matter prior
to starting a thorough examination --- then how can anyone be sure it’s ‘impossible’
to know which, if any religion or philosophy, is fully true?
I mean, we are
talking about people with sound
minds.
Yet none
of them are omniscient (all-knowing) to start with, right?
So how can they be so cocksure that they can’t know the
answer --- or that there’s no answer worth finding --- when they
haven’t bothered asking the relevant questions and then use their
intelligent minds to investigate the facts?
Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse?
Whereby we see another
peculiarity about modern times. Namely, that, while so many people today profess a kind of
‘invincible ignorance’ as the reason why, purportedly, it’s
so very ‘impossible’ to know which religion or philosophy could be
true, the ignorance under which they claim to labor is neither
‘invincible’ nor, in the end, justified.
It’s like a child flung upon his bed,
pouting and crying.
“Why don’t you clean up your room and
put away your toys?” asks his mother. “You’re sure to find
what you lost.”
“I can’t,” he moans.
“It’s too much stuff.”
“I’ll help,” she replies.
“We’ll take it one thing at a time. Okay?”
“I don’ wanna!”
+++ 5. Why Tout the Power of Ignorance? +++
(What It Really Boils Down to, Part 2)
Except the toy that modern humanity has lost, and
thrown a tantrum over, is no mere plaything. It’s something a whole lot
bigger.
Leading us to point out another obvious thing:
There is a vested
interest in not believing
that in which you don’t want to
believe.
I mean, if you’re an atheist or an
agnostic, do you really want to be convinced
of the complete truth of any particular religion? Probably
not. Will it not entail admitting you were wrong and changing your life
dramatically?
Or, if you’re the staunch adherent of one
particular religion, do you really wish
to be convinced that another religion is the correct religion, the one
you’re supposed to be? Unlikely. Will it not
entail admitting you were wrong and changing --- with, perhaps, even more pain
involved than for the atheist or agnostic who has never before committed to a formal
religion --- your life dramatically?
This is just the ‘psychological’
argument that so-called ‘non-religious’ people like to wield
against a ‘religious’ person (you
only believe because you need to feel like someone cares, that a supernatural god
looks after you and protects you, or gives you a pleasant fate after death)
turned back upon themselves, revealing the
other side of this double-edged sword and how it can be used in an
argument by both sides
intellectually:
Because doesn’t a ‘non-religious’ person hate
the thought of a supernatural god being real, of having to please
this powerful deity by being properly religious and so avoid an unpleasant
fate either now in this life or later on after death?
Naturally.
And does not this hatred make the
‘non-religious’ view of religion a tad bit suspect?
To be sure.
On the other hand, does this then mean God must
exist just because the ‘non-religious’ person hates the
thought of Him existing?
Of course not.
One does not
follow logically from the other. A person’s bias often can predispose that
person’s beliefs illogically, nevertheless, a human being is also capable of using his mind in
a perfectly logical fashion, and so conclude intelligently that something is
true regardless of his
previous wishes about that thing being true or false.
Ergo, we must recognize that this kind of
‘psychological’ argument can never conclusively win the debate for
either position. Both ‘religious’ people and
‘non-religious’ people can invoke an opponent’s ‘psychology’
to belittle his stance.
+++ 6. Why Tout the Power of Ignorance? +++
(What It Really Boils Down to, Part 3)
But does this have anything to do with the ultimate truth?
Not at all.
Just as there being, supposedly, ‘too
many’ religions or philosophies to know which is true, has, in the end, nothing
to do with the ultimate truth in the matter of religion. The Triune God of the
Roman Catholic Church either exists or He doesn’t exist. At the same
time, a person either wants to believe in this God or doesn’t want to
believe.
Notwithstanding, the person’s preference
has no real bearing on God’s actual
existence. You don’t create God; He creates you. Hypothetically
speaking, a person could want this
God to exist, and yet, perhaps, He doesn’t. While, to the contrary, a
person might prefer that this God does not
exist, and yet, perhaps, He does. In the final analysis, one’s preference
is irrelevant for this aspect of things.
God exists --- or doesn’t exist ---
independently of a person’s preference.
Unfortunately, the preference of most
‘non-religious’ people is blatantly clear. The reasonable and
honest mind cannot help seeing that, no matter how intelligent the
‘non-religious’ person may (or may not) be, he wields arguments
that are frequently fallacious, often ignores simple and easily established
facts that are not helpful to his stance, refuses to seriously consider every
point able to be made from all sides of the argument, and then repeatedly fails
to recognize or admit his own assumptions, thereby also failing to take into
account his extremely strong personal prejudice and deal with it fairly.
He very much has an anti-religious axe to grind.
Not that ‘religious’ people
don’t sometimes have an axe to grind, too.
It’s just that ‘non-religious’
people tend to put themselves forth as religiously ‘neutral’,
being, they like to think, non-partisan and exceptionally clear-minded about
these things. All the while such a person cannot see that he is pretty much
acting solely on his personal preference, and that this preference of his has
no real bearing on God’s existence, or on whether this religion or that
religion is fully true… if, indeed, any of them are.
Which doesn’t then mean that an individual’s theistic
preference is utterly irrelevant. After all, a religious adherent may only waste his time and
strength and opportunities of life here on earth (although that’s pretty
sad in and of itself when you think about it) if he or she winds up being wrong
in the end, there being no Creator in existence and no life after death…
or, no Creator Who, despite actually existing, cares what we do when it comes
to religion.
Yet if a person is wrong about the Catholic God not
existing?
Way different!
Because then a human being faces an eternity of suffering
beyond his or her ability to experience here on earth, let alone fully fathom, prior
to physical death.
And it doesn’t go away just because you
don’t want to believe it exists.
+++ 7. The Trillion Dollar Question for
Intelligent +++
People: Are
You Willing To Look and Think?
Do you begin to understand, dear reader, why the
Catholic Church has always sought the conversion of unconverted people to Her
Religion?
It ought to be obvious, but maybe you’ve
never thought about it clearly:
It’s an act of supreme love.
Whatever the shortcomings --- real or imagined
--- of various Catholics throughout history (including me, for I am a horrible
sinner!), proselytizing for the Roman Catholic Faith is done out of concern for immortal souls.
Even if a true Catholic is obstinate and proud (like myself), acting more out
of a motive to exalt one’s self as the single person who is completely
right, there is no real reason to
defend Catholic Rome as utterly correct if Her Church is not the sole
way to save a person’s soul.
Period.
In other words, even the obstinate and proud Catholic would not
be obstinate and proud about the Catholic Church in the first place, if, in actuality, he or she did not
really believe that the Roman Catholic Church is completely correct when
it comes to religion, and, hence, that this same Church really is the one
and only way for any human being to save his or her infinitely precious
immortal soul.
Again… period.
Think about it.
From a true Catholic’s perspective, if this Catholic was
acting out of some kind of deep-seated hatred or dislike or disdain for
others when he or she proselytizes --- positively drooling over the
thought of such people burning in hell --- then what, do you
think, would be the surest way to hurt all of these proselytized people
the most?
Right:
To not proselytize them!
Then people are much more likely to go to
hell and suffer hideously forever.
Is it starting to sink in?
You may find it annoying to face a real Catholic.
You may think a true Catholic is a stuck up prig for insisting that
there’s ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ --- and for
reminding you that this universally despised phrase means exactly what it says,
no ifs, ands or buts.
Yet you haven’t got a clue.
Because in judging the Catholic for being ‘judgmental’
and ‘hateful’, you yourself are being judgmental and hateful
toward this Catholic by presuming out of thin air that his or her motive
is merely ‘hateful’ and ‘proud’ --- or at least ‘stupid’ and
‘asinine’ --- for daring to tell you that there’s no other
way to save your soul.
Or are you, my very dear reader, any less
‘hateful’ and ‘proud’ --- or ‘stupid’ and
‘asinine’ --- for daring to believe, without first examining
the matter carefully, patiently and intelligently, that it isn’t?
Once more, the sword cuts both ways.
Perhaps we ought to stop pretending to know the
other person’s motive with absolute certainty. Perhaps we should give
each other the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps we should really listen to each
other, really discuss it, and think about religion intelligently.
Perhaps.
But will you?
If so, then read on…
with care and patience and intelligence. While not claiming to have written a comprehensive treatment of
the subject, we will nevertheless examine, one by one, many devastating
problems in touting the amazing power of ignorance when it comes to the
question of which religion or philosophy, if any, is totally true.
+++ 8. The First Big Problem With Ignorance: +++
Can It Ever Really Be ‘Invincible’?
People with sound and intelligent minds can be
ignorant. This is a simple fact and no intelligent person doubts it. Anybody
who lives long enough runs into plenty of situations where a lack of knowledge
causes you to assume wrongly or act foolishly, sometimes with quite
embarrassing and even harmful repercussions.
Mere ignorance, then, is not at question here.
The real puzzle is this:
Can an intelligent person with a sound
mind ever experience an ignorance that --- despite his best intentions and most strenuous efforts --- is
absolutely impossible to overcome?
To wit, an ignorance that is invincible?
Mind you, we’re not talking about a mere
‘stumper’ here. We’re not talking about a situation where
something confounds you for a good long time, but, in the end, you can
eventually figure it out and get it right.
No, we’re talking about an ignorance that
is so mighty, so unconquerable, that you can never, never, never, never figure
it out… no matter how hard you try, no matter how good your intentions
are… and even if you strive until the very end of your life.
That’s what invincible ignorance is.
We’re also applying this concept to
religion.
And since most traditional religions insist that
there are sentient beings that are normally invisible and that have a vital
interest in intelligent earthlings --- and who are fully able to interact with
us, not to mention generally more capable than we are in many ways --- then the
puzzle becomes the following:
Can an intelligent person with a sound mind ever
experience an ignorance about religion that --- despite both his best intentions and most strenuous efforts, as well as
the very best of intentions and most strenuous of efforts on the part of these
normally invisible beings who are fully able to interact with us and consider
us important to them in some way --- is absolutely impossible to
overcome?
This is the real puzzle.
A puzzle that doesn’t
take too long to figure out, either. Because the answer is staring us right in the face, ensconced
within the very set up of the factors in the question above, thereby giving us
the rational starting point for solving this conundrum:
Why, no. No, indeed.
If both an intelligent person with a sound mind and
normally invisible beings with a vital interest in intelligent earthlings ---
who are fully able to interact with us, not to mention generally more capable
than we are in many things and who consider us important to them in some way
--- strive, with the very best of
intentions and most strenuous efforts, to banish an intelligent
earthling’s ignorance about a particular religion that just also
happens to be totally true, then how
could it ever be impossible for him or her to discover and understand the
truth he needs to know about this religion in order to cooperate with it
properly?
End of lengthy, conditional, interrogatory
sentence.
And, what do you know?
Suddenly… religious ignorance doesn’t
look so very invincible.
+++ 9. Do We Want to Blow Up Everything? +++
Not only that, but we have a more fundamental
problem.
Consider.
Let’s say you call yourself a
‘catholic’ --- and of, seemingly, the most
‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ kind. You acknowledge
the ancient dogma that there is ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’ and claim to uphold it. But let’s
also say you insist that someone who is not actually Catholic can,
nevertheless, with a sound and intelligent mind, wind up
being saved in the state of his non-Catholicity.
This is because you say such a person cannot help
being non-Catholic. He really does think his non-Catholic beliefs are the
correct way to believe when it comes to religion. He really can’t know
any better --- that Catholicism is the true religion --- and really is
‘sincere’ about his non-Catholic convictions.
Hence, if he could know better (but he
can’t!), then he’d become Catholic.
He is, therefore, the quintessentially invincibly ignorant person about
religion and not to blame for his lack of Catholicity. Which, by the way, makes
him ‘invisibly connected’ to the Church and thus
‘inside’ Her without anybody knowing
it… not even himself.
The problem?
If somebody with a sound and intelligent mind, who is not
Catholic, can be ‘invincibly’ ignorant about religion, then
what’s to stop it from working the other way, too?
We say again:
If somebody with a sound and intelligent mind, who is not
Catholic, can be ‘invincibly’ ignorant about things concerning
religion, then why in the world
can’t someone with a sound and intelligent mind, who is Catholic,
be ‘invincibly’ ignorant as well? Why can’t someone who
is Catholic be helplessly ignorant, too, that his Catholic religion is not
actually the one true religion, all the
while he so very innocently (and helplessly!) thinks the Catholic
religion is the true religion?
Do you see?
Yet again the sword is double-edged.
A double-edged sword that
‘proves’ way too much… since it ‘proves’ two very
different and contrary things at the same time, like an overly powerful bomb
indiscriminately destroying the entire earth.
For how can the self-styled
‘catholic’, who says a non-Catholic person of sound mind is
potentially ‘invincible’ in his ignorance about the Catholic
Religion, then turn around and pretend that he alone, of all people with sound
minds, is oddly exempt in his Catholicity from a potentially
‘invincible’ ignorance when it comes to any of the other religions?
How can he, the so-called ‘catholic’ with a sound and
intelligent mind, be absolutely certain that Roman Catholicism is totally
true?
What if he’s the one who’s ‘invincibly
ignorant’ that a non-Catholic religion is actually the true
religion?
The bottom line is the bottom line.
If ‘invincible ignorance’ can afflict
people with sound and intelligent minds, then anybody with a sound and intelligent mind can be unavoidably
and helplessly wrong for his
or her entire life about religion --- including
the person who is Roman Catholic, thinking Catholicism to be the True Religion.
+++ 10. Who Wants to Be a Solipsist? +++
(Getting Even More
Fundamental…)
Yet the problem can get even more fundamental.
Because while most modern people believe in the religious dogma that no one single
religion is totally true --- or else
why don’t they seek this One True Religion and practice it? --- they nevertheless gladly resort to the
‘how-can-you-know-which-religion-is-true-when-there-are-so-many-different-religions-to-choose-from?’
argument in order to appear ‘justified’ in their peculiarly modern
religious stance.
Which, as I have implied, is
simply another variation on ‘invincible ignorance’.
That is to say, the self-styled modern
‘catholic’ says it’s just too hard for some
intelligent people with sound minds to figure out that Roman Catholicism is totally
true… so how can they be guilty of the sin of not being Catholic?
How can God condemn them, as if they are intentionally
rebellious?
I mean, God is merciful. He doesn’t want
anyone to die forever, right?
Consequently, the self-styled
‘catholic’ reasons:
They are invincibly ignorant; their sincerity will
save them.
Meanwhile, a typical non-Catholic person of
modern times says it’s impossible to know which religion, out of
all the religions out there, is totally true… so, why even try?
But he smirks as he makes this point (if only inside himself,
within his own private thoughts), knowing very well that he certainly doesn’t
think that any of them are actually and totally true.
All the same, it’s a common refrain ---
routine ‘justification’ that all kinds of people with perfectly
sound and intelligent minds use nowadays to refuse allegiance to any particular
religion of a more traditional and formal nature.
Per the typical non-Catholic person:
We are helplessly ignorant; how could we possibly be
in the wrong?
Which, when you think about it,
is really just a type of reasoning that serves as a temporary transition to the
eventual logical conclusion of, “You know, God didn’t start any of
these religions.
They are manmade and God doesn’t care which of them --- if any of them
--- you choose to be. When it comes to
religion, do what you want.”
Thus, is it any surprise that more and more
people today refuse to practice any kind of formal and traditional religion?
After all, if they’re each of them fantasies made up by mere human
beings, then what in the world does it matter to be
one of those religions? Just the thought of believing in a religious fantasy
--- to be suckered and taken in --- is highly offensive to the overweening, peacockish pride of modern sensibilities.
Why even bother to practice such a thing?
Notwithstanding, their Achilles’ heel is
stark to the ruthlessly honest thinker.
As we pointed out in Chapter 4:
Have any of them bothered to carefully and adequately study and
investigate the religions or philosophies they say it’s impossible to
know which --- if any --- is true?
No?
Which is why we then asked a
very simple question:
So how
do they know this?
Left to ourselves and our own limited
knowledge to begin with… if somebody doesn’t bother to examine the subject of religion or
philosophy carefully, with patience and intelligence --- not to mention a lack
of pre-determining bias in the matter prior
to starting a thorough examination --- then how can anyone be sure it’s ‘impossible’
to know which, if any religion or philosophy, is fully true?
+++ 11. Who Wants to Be a Solipsist? +++
(…and the Bottom Line, Morally Speaking)
Hence, even if it’s really just a way of
thinking (that is to say, it’s impossible to know which religion
is totally true) which is, in the end, only a temporary transition to
another logical conclusion altogether that more and more modern people are
arriving at (i.e., all traditional religions are merely manmade fantasies),
the bottom line is once again the bottom line.
To wit:
To assume, out of thin air, that you can know
something is unknowable without
even trying to examine the matter carefully, with patience and intelligence, is the same thing as saying that you
can’t know anything for certain at all.
We reiterate:
To pretend, out of nowhere, that you can ‘know’
that something is unknowable without even trying --- in any truly
serious, down-to-earth way --- to investigate the matter carefully, with
patience and intelligence, is tantamount
to saying that you can never know anything for certain at all, period.
End of sentence.
For while modern people are slowly but surely
transitioning into the assumption that every traditional religion of a formal
nature is merely a manmade fantasy, the end result still amounts to the same
thing, morally speaking, in the final analysis.
Which leads us to tweak the
previous paragraph to fit the modified stance:
To pretend, out of nowhere, that you can ‘know’
something is a fantasy without even trying --- in any truly serious,
down-to-earth way --- to investigate the matter carefully, with patience
and intelligence, is tantamount to saying
that reality is whatever I want it to be, period. I am all-powerful God;
I can do what I want.
Nonetheless, don’t be fooled.
Because a clever
modern-thinking person will try to justify his or her
‘traditional-religion-is-a-human-concocted-fantasy’ accusation by
resorting to the ‘anything-that-is-supernatural-is-unknowable’
argument. Which, when you get right down to it, is just another way of
saying:
“If I can’t see it, then I
don’t have to believe it.”
But this is disingenuous.
After all, don’t modern people believe in all kinds of invisible
things?
To be sure. Think about it.
Aren’t far away, distant stars, or x-ray
emitting black holes --- no matter how intrinsically bright in their own wavelengths
--- invisible to the naked eye here on earth?
And yet any educated person accepts, as a matter
of indisputable fact, that the vast majority of celestial objects are real…
and despite being invisible to the
naked eye in the average human being’s everyday life.
Or, for instance, aren’t
Absolutely.
And yet any educated person accepts, as a matter
of indisputable fact, that the southern-most continent and quantum objects are real…
and despite most of us (and, for the
latter, all of us) having never perceived, directly with our own eyes,
their actual existence.
The point?
Modern people pretend that ‘supernatural-and-invisible’
means ‘it-never-materially-interacts-with-or-effects-us’ in the natural,
material and visible world.
Which, as a result, makes
them believe that they’re ‘justified’ in thinking that
‘supernatural-and-invisible’ is always the same thing as saying
‘a-human-concocted-religious-fantasy-which-has-no-real-relevance-in-my-everyday-modern-life’.
Hard to swallow?
You bet.
Because since when does an intelligent and honest person
ever assume out of thin air without careful examination that calling something
‘invisible’ is the same thing as saying that it is
‘unreal’?
+++ 12. Who Wants to Be a Solipsist? +++
(Raise Your Hand… Or, Er,
At Least Your Virtual Hand)
Now we’re getting down to the nitty gritty.
Both approaches --- you-can-never-know-anything-for-certain and reality-is-whatever-I-want-it-to-be --- are really just two sides
of the same epistemological coin.
During modern times, as people more and more
reject traditional religion of a formal nature, they have used (even if
they’re not smart enough or thoughtful enough to know it) the first
approach to justify their rejection. Meanwhile, as people more and more arrive
at the logical conclusion of this transitional reasoning in their rejection of
traditional religion, they have used (again, even if they’re not smart or
thoughtful enough to recognize it), the second and last approach to justify
themselves in their rejection.
The first approach is blatant
‘solipsism’ and papers over one’s modernist pride in a veneer
of ‘humility’, as if you ‘humbly’ acknowledge your
limitations in being able to ‘know’ that any one particular
religion of a more traditional and formal nature is true.
‘Solipism’,
by the way, is from Latin for ‘self alone’.
Meaning, it is not possible for me to know
for certain that anyone or anything --- other than myself
--- actually exists.
It’s a popular theme in science fiction or
cyberpunk fiction of the last half century or so, the most well-known version
of it being The Matrix film trilogy
about a ‘virtual reality’ generated by fantastically complex
computer code which enslaves physically ‘jacked in’ human beings as
a kind of biological power source for intelligent machines that earlier humans
tried to destroy by ‘searing the sky’ and blocking solar radiation.
In the films, a few human beings figure this out and manage to escape from
virtual reality into actual reality, albeit with the very shrewd connivance of
a professorial ‘architect’ of these machine intelligences.
Pure solipsism, incidentally, is not escapable. That is to say,
if a total and pure solipsism is true, then no one can know for sure that anything other than
one’s own self exists.
Ever, period.
But, of course, pure solipsism is untenable. For,
if true, who can know anything different than the virtual yet imaginary
‘reality’ that someone perceives as the ‘truth’? And,
if impossible to know
otherwise, then it is rational
to act as if everything is real.
I mean, what sane, non-suicidal person would step out in front of a
speeding train or pour boiling hot water on his head and say it’s alright
since it’s not real?
Natch.
Nonetheless, more and more modern people are
taking it one step further and daring to think --- and as much as say --- that
their own minds and own perceptions ‘create’ reality. That is to
say, reality is not just, so to speak, ‘indeterminate’
because it is ‘unknowable’. Rather --- and in what appears to be,
superficially speaking, a kind of logical paradox --- reality is ‘indeterminate’ because it can be
whatever I want to ‘determine’ it to be.
We see this tendency expressed in an increasingly
popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, wherein, it is said, the
‘observer’ (i.e., the physicist conducting a quantum mechanical
experiment) somehow ‘determines’ the location or path of a
subatomic particle as he or she ‘observes’ it. Or, should we say,
in as far as it is possible to determine within the position-vs.-momentum
boundaries of Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle.
(This, by the way, is a phenomenon which seems
related to another quantum phenomenon known as ‘entanglement’, both
of which are puzzling to recent scientists since the latter appears to flout a
sacrosanct Einsteinian speed limit on light’s
velocity, and since the former implies that an ‘observer’ and the
‘observed’ are connected in some mysterious way. However, do away
with a needless speed limit and admit the possibility of superluminal
velocities --- and hence some superluminal medium connecting the
‘observer’ and the ‘observed’, not to mention a rather
‘novel’ way of interpreting such phenomena that looks
‘mysterious’ when judged by our present conventions --- and quantum puzzles like
these tend to be less enigmatic and far more easily solved.)
Put philosophically, this is a type of ‘Berkeleianism’.
In Berkeleian
philosophy, reality is a sort of inversion of Platonic reality, and what appear
to be material objects are only ‘ideas’ within the mind of the
observer, such that nothing material can exist without being perceived. Or, to put
it differently:
Perception is
reality. If it is not perceived, it does not exist.
This is the flip side of the coin of solipsism.
From ‘I-can-only-know-that-I-exist’
the increasingly modernized human mind goes to
‘existence-around-me-is-whatever-I-want-to-exist’. It is, as it
were, the ‘deification’ of mere humanity. Because, from a truly
wise Roman Catholic point of view, the only
solipsism that really exists is the Divine Solipsism. To wit:
God alone exists from all of eternity. Whatever God deigns
to create out of nothing, is what
is real and exists and can be perceived. Everything
that exists, apart from a sentient creature’s own self, is most certainly
real because God alone is eternally real and freely determines to make everything else real, and,
thus, perceivable.
The destination of modern humanity is
self-deification.
Like a child with his eyes closed, modern
humanity is determined to believe
that nothing around him is real, and,
if anything apart from himself is
real, it’s only real because
he wants it to be real.
And all because he doesn’t want what is truly real to be actually real.
The Triune God of the Catholic Church is that distasteful to him.
Who wants to be a solipsist?
Raise your virtual (and imaginary) hand.
+++ 13. The Second Big Problem With Ignorance: +++
What’s the Point of an
Thus far in my text I have been trying to include
--- along with people who consider themselves Catholic --- readers who may not think of themselves as Catholic,
or Christian, or, indeed, any particular religion or philosophy.
Yet the idea of ‘invincible’
ignorance is a peculiarly ‘catholic’ concept.
Hence, in talking about the devastating problems with
this idea, during modern times, we have to start using a lot of terminology
unique to the theology of Catholicism and start focusing like a laser on those
who purport to be
‘catholic’… and even if they’re really not what they claim to be.
And so we turn to the Dogma of Infallibility.
What is infallibility?
It means someone cannot be wrong in what he professes to believe, or in what
he teaches is true, provided that we interpret the statement of this profession
or teaching fairly, intelligently and correctly.
We say again:
Infallibility means someone cannot, period, ever be wrong in
what he or she professes to believe to be true, or in what he or she teaches
is true, provided that others interpret
the statement of this person’s profession or teaching in a way
that is fully and completely fair, intelligent and correct.
End of sentence.
Why is this important?
Because Roman Catholicism
asserts that Her Singular Church is “…the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground
[foundation] of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15b DRC,
all emphasis & annotation added. Emphases & annotations added to all
scriptural quotes unless otherwise noted.)
And, of course, a “pillar” is what
holds up something heavy and important and
tall and protectively covering everything, whilst the “ground
[foundation]” is what is under someone and must bear up everything without moving or shifting or
crumbling.
+++ 14. The Saving Truth Upheld by the Church:
+++
Dare You Ignore It?
Starting to get interesting?
This “…church of the living
God…” strongly and immovably supports “the
truth”!
Which
Did you get that, dear reader?
God’s Church is Christ’s Church, which
is His Body!
And what person ever has more than one body?
Or what person has the parts of this body lying
around disconnected or uncoordinated and
without a head, while, absurdly --- somehow --- he or she is alive and well?
Do you savvy, dear soul?
Ergo why Jesus’ Church is His Singular Body and not a plural
‘bodies’:
To wit, an Ecclesial Body of One arranged for a living
purpose…
…all of Her different parts
connected together as a whole…
…under the coordination
of an intelligent head…
…everything in a sacred harmony.
But why is this Singular Church Body
“…the pillar and ground of the truth…”?
Because Christ Jesus, Who proclaims He is “the truth” (John
14:6 DRC), must, of a
necessity --- while He is in Heaven
and not physically present here on
earth to explain and uphold this “truth” of His with us in
Person --- teach us and remind us, and
protect and guarantee for us in its original and correct meaning, this vital
truth through this Singular Church
Body of His, which is indeed very much physically present with us through Her various persons and
their united testimony to this incorruptible teaching, most especially in Her
hierarchical leadership, the many sacred
priests who devote their entire lives to God’s Holy Service, guarding, feeding and instructing His
humble, submissive and loyal flock in this powerful, precious and salvific
“truth”.
A “truth”, incidentally, that is absolutely crucial since
“And then that wicked one shall be
revealed… whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in
all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of
iniquity to them that perish;
because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation
of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not
believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
(2 Thessalonians 2:8a, 9-11 DRC)
Now, a “truth” that is not
loved by many people and which, consequently, causes these haters of
“truth” to perish and not end up being saved, because they
do not believe this “truth” --- which, instead, to the
contrary, impels them to “believe lying” and “lying
wonders” that unavoidably oppose this saving “truth” --- is a
“truth” that is, very obviously,
absolutely necessary to get right.
Think about it.
Who wants to wind up in hell damned forever?
No honest person in his right mind who has an
ounce of good will.
And yet St. Peter assures us that God is
“…not willing that any should perish…” (2 Peter
3:9c DRC) Notwithstanding, did we not just learn from
To be sure.
How, then, can God expect people to save themselves --- not wanting anyone to spiritually perish
--- if He does not give them an
ironclad means to be able to know this vital truth that saves their souls?
Do you see?
+++ 15. Can You Ascend unto Heaven Without +++
a Pillar’s Strength or
Avoid Descent into Hell
Without Ground Stability?
This is why
Christ Jesus declared to St. Peter in front of His disciples:
“Blessed art thou [blessed are you], Simon
Bar-Jona [Simon son of Jona,
Peter’s name from birth]: because
flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee [mere human beings have not
taught you the truth that I am God in the Flesh, which you have just proclaimed
with infallible assurance, see Matthew 16:17a], but my Father who is
in heaven. And I say to thee [you]: that thou art Peter [you are Rock, the meaning of the
nickname ‘Peter’ from Aramaic via ancient Greek, then Latin, till
finally it arrives in our English as ‘Peter’, a moniker that is no
longer thought of as a nickname since today in our part of the world it’s
an everyday name]; and upon this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.” (Matthew 16:17b-18 DRC)
Because Peter is the linchpin upon which God
hangs the Gift of Infallibility that He bestows upon His Church, keeping the
“truth” He taught while on earth --- whether via Himself in His
Sacred Flesh or via His Twelve Holy Apostles after He had ascended into Heaven
--- from being forgotten, twisted or denied within His Singular Church Body
here on earth thenceforward. Or, should we say, that Peter, being the Rock, is
the base of the pillar and the bedrock beneath the ground of this
A “truth” that hell, the abode of
Satan, very much wants dead and
destroyed.
As Jesus informs us:
“He [the devil, Satan, see John 8:44a] was a murderer
from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is
not in him. When he speaketh [speaks] a lie, he speaketh
of his own [as if it’s his native language]: for he is a
liar, and the father thereof [Satan invented lying and rules
over anyone who lies, which liars are his children and the citizens of
his infernal kingdom].” (John 8:44b-c DRC)
Hence, while any member of Christ’s
Singular Body exercises this Church’s Gift of Infallibility by believing
or teaching the Saving Truth, it
is Peter, the Rock --- and his successors
down through the centuries, those who legitimately rule as real and true
head bishops of the Diocese of Rome, the place where Peter
established his rule and ended his days on earth as a martyr --- who is the crux of this infallibility,
by God’s Mighty Power making sure the Saving Truth is kept whole,
pure and undefiled, as well as our comprehension of this Saving
Truth sometimes expanded and deepened… yet always without --- we repeat, WITHOUT --- ever, ever, ever contradicting
the correct, true, and perpetually
unchanging meaning of this Singular Saving Truth as constantly
understood by all real Roman Catholics from the very beginning in
the first century with Jesus & His Twelve Apostles.
Now put on your thinking cap and ponder carefully
again.
Why does Satan and his domain, hell, try to “prevail”
(Matthew 16:18c DRC) against the truth that saves and behave like a “murderer”
(John 8:44b DRC) toward it, and why does Our Sovereign Creator expect us to
believingly “love” this saving “truth” (2
Thessalonians 2:10b & 11 DRC) as well as guarantee its survival and
comprehension in our world by erecting a Church that is His “body”
(Colossians 1:24b DRC), a Church Body that is, too, a “pillar and ground
[foundation]” of this “truth” (1 Timothy 3:15b DRC) and built
upon a most solid and unyielding “rock” (Matthew 16:18b DRC)
--- which “rock” is also the most unusual and distinctive nickname
He gave to only one of His many disciples, “Peter”
(Matthew 16:18a DRC) --- if, in fact, it is not actually necessary --- and always possible --- for every
human being of sound and intelligent mind to very literally know
this saving truth upheld infallibly by the pillar and ground of a One, Holy, Roman, Catholic &
Apostolic Church that is founded firmly on a Constant, Unchanging & Unyielding Rock? (See the
scriptural passage of Matthew 7:24-27 for Jesus’ clear, logical inference
of His Church Body being very necessarily founded on the Apostle He uniquely
called Peter --- Rock --- and thus upon any of his true and legitimate
successors where they exercise this rock-like responsibility.)
Are you following me?
Dear reader, the conclusion is pretty obvious:
There is no real reason to guarantee truth on earth with unconquerable
rock-like certitude in opposition to a murderous hell if, in fact, anyone of sound mind on this earth
can save his or her immortal soul without actually having to know ---
not to mention resolve to properly understand, accurately believe and humbly
obey --- this unyieldingly-supported, infallibly-guaranteed and thus, without
any doubt, most-certainly-knowable-in-its-original-and-unchanging-meaning
saving truth.
End of sentence.
+++ 16. The Third Big Problem With Ignorance: +++
Why Warn Against
Being ‘Outside’ the Church When, in
Fact, Nobody
Can Ever Be Sure Who’s on the
‘Inside’?
Real Catholics have always believed in ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’.
That is to say, it’s one of the
‘common’ dogmas of Roman Catholicism --- something taught plainly to everyone since the first century
with Jesus & His Apostles, something anyone of sound mind and
intelligence must know and understand rightly in order to be Catholic
to begin with.
It can be stated in various ways (for instance, ‘you can’t be saved without
Jesus’, the Church being Jesus’ Body and thus necessary
for a human being to belong to and hence be alive with Him in
this resurrected Body of His, someone He can take along to Heaven as part of
Himself and therefore save), yet
the correct meaning is always the same. From at
least the third century some form of the unique way stated above at the start
of this chapter, to wit, ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’, can be found in the writings of St.
Cyprian of Carthage, a north African bishop and one of the fathers of the
Church.
But what is the correct meaning?
An intelligent (and patient or curious) person
can study the copious writings of ancient Christians --- including the Bible ---
and find this simple, indisputable truth:
True Christians (read: Roman Catholics) have always known, always
taught, and always believed, that ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’ means ‘there is no Salvation possible for anyone not visibly
connected to the Roman Catholic Church’, this visible
connection being the materially discernible signs of a right
baptism into, and --- for those with adequate minds --- right profession
of the Most Singular Religion of the Roman
Catholic Church, which is Jesus Christ’s One & Only
Ecclesial Body.
Period.
Why belabor this point?
Because clever proponents of the amazing power of
ignorance dare to assert not only
that a supposedly ‘invincibly ignorant’ person can die and escape
guilt at final judgment for not being Catholic
(and therefore punished in hell for other sins, however, not for
the sin of being non-Catholic), but can also, in this state of so-called
‘invincible ignorance’ be
propelled, by the equally amazing power of ‘sincerity’, into the Reward of Heaven!
And even though such a
person is not visibly
Catholic at his death.
The problem?
Anybody who studies the early Christian writings
and Sacred Scripture, carefully and thoroughly, knows that ancient Roman
Catholics never understood
‘no Salvation outside the Church’ to make an exception for
supposedly ‘ignorant’ persons. That, instead, for a person of
adequate intelligence to die in ignorance
about Catholicism was, for them, as they plainly knew and plainly taught,
equivalent to being certainly in hell
forever.
So what do these clever enthusiasts for the power
of ignorance do in the face of this indisputably documented historical fact, so
as to save their pretense of calling themselves ‘catholic’ from
falling into ruins and make their claim on behalf of the incredible power of
ignorance and salvation through sincerity sound ‘believable’?
+++ 17. Doesn’t It Look Like the
‘Power of Ignorance’ +++
People Are the Ones Truly Ignorant… and Deliberately So?
Easy.
They say our understanding of doctrine has
‘deepened’, that the rule of ‘no Salvation outside the
Church’ is now known to include
those people who --- through no fault of their own, say they --- died
‘invincibly ignorant’ of Roman Catholicism while in ‘sincere
adherence’ to their various and false religious beliefs. Ergo, say they,
such people have an ‘implicit desire’ for water baptism (if not
validly baptized in water already) and are ‘invisibly connected’ to
the Very Visible Ecclesial Body of Jesus’ Catholic Church.
Problem solved.
Or… so they would like
to think.
Because for an understanding of doctrine to truly ‘deepen’, it must not deny what all earlier Catholics of a sound
mind and staunch orthodoxy knew for a fact to be the correct understanding of this teaching.
Whereas the idea of
‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-and-sincerity’ most certainly does
deny what earlier (indeed, as ancient as you can get) Roman Catholics have always
understood the dogma of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ to
mean!
And, prior to modern times, almost no one
purporting to be Catholic had ever taught
‘salvation-visibly-outside-the-church-via-ignorance-and-sincerity’
along with the innovative notion of a totally ‘invisible’
connection to the same.
We repeat:
Prior to the modern era roughly beginning around the AD 1500s ---
certainly since the start of the 2nd millennium! --- there was
almost no one going by the name of Catholic who dared to teach, or
openly believe in, the newly-minted notions that a human being of sound mind and
intelligence could save his soul, whilst dying visibly outside the Roman
Catholic Church and visibly upholding false religious beliefs, by the
power of an ‘invincible ignorance’ and ‘deeply held
sincerity’, thereby making him or
her somehow ‘connected’ to this Catholic Church in a totally
‘invisible’ way, (so ‘invisible’ that no one
on earth --- not even themselves! --- can know that they’re an invisible
‘part’ of this
End of really long sentence.
+++ 18. Could
There is no way to get around this for an honest
and intelligent person.
If you know recent history and are truly
Catholic, believing in ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’ in its most ancient, narrow and correct
sense, then, thinking about it carefully, the most significant (and
shocking) thing about our increasingly and tyrannically modernized world is not divorce, immodesty, abortion,
homosexuality, or --- when speaking solely about those who call themselves
‘catholic’ nowadays --- interreligious dialogue, public religious
prayers and unity with Talmudic Judaism, a Novus Ordo
Mass (literally, a ‘New Order’ Mass), the liturgy and ritual
of the Church’s Sacraments re-written and toyed with, the silencing of
Our Lady of Fatima’s seer, and etc., etc.
No.
The really significant (and shocking) thing to
occur, during the past century or so of relentless modernization of this
earthly world, especially when it comes to the Church and those people who are
supposed to be Catholic, is Vatican II during the 1960s.
At this council, the composers of its sixteen
documents made it look like they had ‘enshrined’ the novelty of
‘salvation through ignorance’ as a ‘doctrine’ of the
Catholic Church; for instance, see paragraph sixteen of their major statement
regarding the Roman Catholic Church, Lumen
gentium. And as the most influential and leading
theologian of Vatican II, a German named Karl Rahner
(famous amongst the learned for his theory of the ‘anonymous
Christian’ --- which is just another name for the idea of
‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-via-sincerity’), openly
admitted in one of many voluminous writings, the most astonishing thing about
Vatican II was that this council publicly taught this notion of
‘salvation through ignorance’ in a solemn setting, and in the most
official-looking way possible (a worldwide council held at the Vatican itself
in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Italy!) for the very first time ever, in
all of history, and…
…(drum roll, please, as we come to the dramatic
conclusion)…
…no one publicly batted an eyelash.
We say again:
To my knowledge and to the best of my ability to historically study
this council in a scholarly and systematic way, not a single one of the
many hundreds & hundreds of bishops participating at Vatican II from 1962
to 1965 raised a single peep of public protest about the novelty of
‘salvation-through-ignorance-whilst-visibly-outside-the-Catholic-Church’
being explicitly enshrined within its documents in at least three
different places (see Lumen gentium, Paragraphs 14 & 16, and Ad gentes,
Paragraph 7, which can be found in various languages, including English, at the
official Vatican website itself in the Resource Library section), the pope at
the end of this council, Paul VI, then promulgating these notorious &
pertinacious lies like Peter in a modern day version of his threefold
denial of Christ during His Passion.
Like the Twelve Apostles of old, when Christ was
arrested, they all fled.
Peter denied Jesus and none of the others stood
with Him or resisted the lies being asserted against Him & His Teachings.
Likewise, almost every one of those bishops (a bishop being a successor
to the Twelve Apostles) at St. Peter’s
Basilica voted for each of
these Vatican II documents.
And, to the best of my ability to know, not a one
of them voted against any of
these sixteen conciliar documents because
of the salvation-in-ignorance-via-sincerity heresy ‘enshrined’
pertinaciously & notoriously at three separate points within their texts.
Not a one.
The tragic irony?
Purported ‘traditionalists’ --- who
can really look like they’re
‘catholic’ due to their sometimes very strict adherence to the
‘tradition’ of the Church, clinging to the great majority of
Catholic teachings and Catholic practices, apart from the one critical
exception of most of them not
adhering to the Salvation Dogma in its ancient, narrow and correct sense ---
will often carp at Vatican II for introducing, or allowing, all kinds of
novelties and innovations, even, occasionally (if they’re so-called
‘sedevacantists’), accuse the council of
teaching outright heresy and permitting all kinds of travesties.
All the while they are, most of them,
strangely blind to the one innovation and one heresy
Weird?
Absolutely.
Oh, and by the way, the answer to this
chapter’s query is simple:
No.
No pope or council --- regardless of how general,
universal and ecumenical it is --- has the authority to change the meaning of a
single infallible dogma.
Period.
+++ 19. How Is This Related to the ‘Great
Apostasy’? +++
Religiously speaking, if you can see straight
(i.e., if you’re truly Catholic and realize something hideous is going on
in our world today), then this is flabbergasting.
It’s as if the human structure of the
Ecclesial Body of Christ rotted out from the inside like a mighty oak in
the forest --- to which other trees around it pale in comparison --- decades
and centuries before Vatican II ever transpired. And then, when the
‘winds of change’ came that John XXIII and Paul VI’s
council unleashed during the 1960s, turning into a storm gale of global
apostasy, this mighty oak… which has stood visibly untrammeled in the
face of all kinds of visible opposition for nearly 2000 years… suddenly
appears to topple under the onslaught of the Religion of Modernism.
In a trice, overnight.
It’s like the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ all over again.
Only this time, it’s His Ecclesial Body, the Roman Catholic Church, that’s
laid in the Tomb, the wicked and powerful of this world rejoicing that they,
the Moderns, have at last --- seemingly --- decisively won a long and difficult
war against their enemy, the Catholics. A war that has involved both blatant
foes against the Church and, too, secretive and hidden traitors within Her own ranks, like latter day Judas Iscariots.
Whither the Religion of Catholicism?
“But yet the Son of man, when he cometh
[comes], shall he find, think you [do you think], faith on earth?” (Luke
18:8b DRC)
In other words, when Jesus Christ returns in His Visible Human
Body to our world here below the
Highest Heavens, do you think He’ll find hardly anyone left who is still
visibly professing the Catholic Faith whole & entire, and hence
a real & visible member of His Singular Roman Catholic
Ecclesial Body?
It will be the same then at His Return as it was
in the days of “Noe [Noah],” Jesus tells
us a mere one chapter earlier in Luke 17:26 DRC.
That is to say, it is the Great Apostasy today that
we live through, just as the Holy Ghost via
For just as the vast majority of people on the
earth, way back then during the time of Noe, didn’t
want to believe in the Triune God of the Catholic Church Who would punish
them for their terrible sins with an equally terrible Global Flood, refusing to enter the One & Only
Saving Ark of St. Noe, so, too, the world
today does not want to believe
that they are threatened by an Inescapable Flood of God’s Wrath for their
terrible sins --- worst of which is their disobedience to God’s First
Commandment by denial of His One & Only True Religion! --- in the equally terrible
fires of an everlasting hell, and, consequently, they most adamantly and
indignantly refuse to enter the One & Only Saving Ark of
Roman Catholicism, instead insisting --- perhaps with a smirk or
Sphinx-like face, if they are not yet moved, with the powerful passion of a
deep-seated hatred, to outright anger --- that they are perfectly fine just as
they are, in whatever religion or
particular religious ideas they choose to believe.
How dare you tell them otherwise!
It’s the 21st century, you
know… so how could any intelligent
person not realize that the inevitable passage of time somehow,
‘magically’, always means something called
‘progress’ and ‘enlightenment’ as we
‘modernize’ and move into the future?
In other words, how could you be so archaic as to believe a
religious teaching that we modern people have long since jettisoned as obviously
wrong?
+++ 20. We Drive It Home… What’s the Point of +++
Saying ‘No
Salvation Outside the Church’?
The catch?
The Triune God of the Catholic Church had His
Ecclesial Body teach the dogma of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ ---
as if it’s a vital Ark of
Salvation --- plainly to everyone everywhere since the AD 30s for a most excellent & urgent reason.
What is the reason?
To be a solemn warning.
For those already
visibly inside the Church, it’s a warning not to leave Her
Sanctuary lest you die visibly outside
the only hope of salvation and go to hell forevermore.
For those not
yet visibly inside the Church, it’s a warning to enter Her
Sanctuary as soon as you can lest you die
visibly outside the only hope of salvation and go to hell forevermore.
In either situation, it’s the same
principle:
Don’t you dare be caught visibly outside the Church
lest you die and go to hell!
We reiterate:
Don’t you dare be caught visibly outside the Roman
Catholic Church lest you die on this earth without being Catholic and, at your
judgment before God Almighty, are condemned
to the flames of an everlasting hell, there to suffer horribly in
separation from your Creator forever, in Whose Image you are made, and, without
Whom, you will never experience happiness and peace in the eternity
to come.
Period.
Think about it, dear reader.
There’s no good reason for God to tell us ‘no Salvation outside the
Church’ when, in fact, nobody can be certain who’s
actually inside the Church and who’s actually outside.
The statement would then serve no
practical purpose.
It’s like St. Noe
warning his fellow human beings to get inside the
What if someone argued it’s okay that they don’t
physically & visibly get inside the Ark because they’re
‘invincibly ignorant’ and ‘very sincere’ in their
disbelief about the impending Deluge, thereby already ‘invisibly
connected’ to the Ark and, therefore, somehow ‘sure’ to
survive the awful catastrophe to come?
And even though, in reality, they are physically and visibly
outside the safety of a physical & visible Ark, built at God’s
command to serve as an exclusive & physical means of salvation for
those who actually get inside its sanctuary --- they being eight in all
as Sacred Scripture tells us (Genesis 6:9-10, 7:7, 1 Peter 3:19-20) --- everyone else in the whole world
dying a most literal, physical & visible death in the painful
horrors of a most destructive, literal, physical, visible & worldwide
Flood.
And so we ask one more time:
What’s the point of saying ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’ when nobody can tell
who’s actually inside this
Case almost closed with this devastating problem
made clear.
Except for
the fact that we’ve got four more huge and ugly problems to deal with
before we truly close all of the most pertinent arguments against the
‘amazing power’ of ignorance, and ‘saving efficacy’ of
sincerity, with a truly damning finality.
+
+ +
Part Two of Helplessly Ignorant (Chapters 21-48)
Part Three of Helpless Ignorant (Chapters 49-69)
Part Four of Helpless Ignorant (Chapters 70-99)
Part Five of Helpless Ignorant (Chapters 100-134)
Part Six of Helpless Ignorant (Chapters 135-180)
Coda of Helplessly Ignorant
(the Dénouement)
+
++
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you’ve come
to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2016 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.