C
COLOS
Guest
Sorry if this sounds harsh or accusatory. I have some real questions about the valid defense found in invincible ignorance. I certainly am not trying to get anyone’s ire up, but seriously, how else could the question be phrased? If read in a conversational tone, it doesn’t sound nearly as harsh.
At what point during debate with non-Catholic apologists does invincible ignorance become vincible? Is it the moment that they hear the Church’s teaching and immediately reject it? Is it hearing the claims of the Church and yet failing or outright refusing to examine the claims with intellectual honesty? When is a person morally responsible for examining the Church?
I tend to want to be extremely generous with crediting people with possibly being covered under ignorance (as I’m pretty sure that I was covered for quite awhile), but after reading some of these debates on the non-Catholic forum I’m having serious questions on the matter of invincible versus vincible ignorance. Granted, it isn’t my place to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, but I would like some studied opinions on the matter of ignorance, how much protection is truly granted by it, and at what general point the protection of ignorance evaporates. I used to think that it was a strong protection against guilt, but now I’m wondering if perhaps the defense that ignorance provides is indeed very, very fragile.
One of the striking differences I find on this forum between Catholics and non-Catholics (aside from the general unity that has been demonstrated by Catholics) is the ability and desire to study the process of Salvation and not be satisfied with shallow answers. I find that there are many people such as I who, by the Grace of God, have objectively searched the protestant beliefs and found them lacking. Once one begins to actually study, one man-made tradition after another falls away, from sola scriptura to sola fida. On the other hand, there seem to be few, if any, protestant apologists who have seriously looked into the claims of the Catholic Church, even after having been told and shown repeatedly that what they think is going on in the Church is not actually what is happening. This, to me, speaks of an objective moral obligation to examine the claims of the Church.
At what general point after a protestant apologist comes into contact with the claims of the Church is culpability imputed for failing to search and study? At what point is the self-assurance possessed by apologists no longer sufficient protection under invincible ignorance?
At what point during debate with non-Catholic apologists does invincible ignorance become vincible? Is it the moment that they hear the Church’s teaching and immediately reject it? Is it hearing the claims of the Church and yet failing or outright refusing to examine the claims with intellectual honesty? When is a person morally responsible for examining the Church?
I tend to want to be extremely generous with crediting people with possibly being covered under ignorance (as I’m pretty sure that I was covered for quite awhile), but after reading some of these debates on the non-Catholic forum I’m having serious questions on the matter of invincible versus vincible ignorance. Granted, it isn’t my place to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, but I would like some studied opinions on the matter of ignorance, how much protection is truly granted by it, and at what general point the protection of ignorance evaporates. I used to think that it was a strong protection against guilt, but now I’m wondering if perhaps the defense that ignorance provides is indeed very, very fragile.
One of the striking differences I find on this forum between Catholics and non-Catholics (aside from the general unity that has been demonstrated by Catholics) is the ability and desire to study the process of Salvation and not be satisfied with shallow answers. I find that there are many people such as I who, by the Grace of God, have objectively searched the protestant beliefs and found them lacking. Once one begins to actually study, one man-made tradition after another falls away, from sola scriptura to sola fida. On the other hand, there seem to be few, if any, protestant apologists who have seriously looked into the claims of the Catholic Church, even after having been told and shown repeatedly that what they think is going on in the Church is not actually what is happening. This, to me, speaks of an objective moral obligation to examine the claims of the Church.
At what general point after a protestant apologist comes into contact with the claims of the Church is culpability imputed for failing to search and study? At what point is the self-assurance possessed by apologists no longer sufficient protection under invincible ignorance?
