Feigned Ignorance vs. Unintentional Ignorance

[underacloud]

So what is the deal with all those graces we receive through the sacraments? Are they helpful or not? If they make it harder to get to heaven, harder to live in Christ, that seems contrary to the express nature of the Church as a sign and instrument of the communion of God and men.

Or, somehow is it making it more likely, but somehow harder at the same time, you know, that gold tested in fire sort of thing, so merit increases?

I struggle with this and freely admit my understanding is meagre.

As Eufrosnia points out, the sacraments of the Church offer real grace, and more abundant grace to those who partake of them. They are the means through which all are saved, even those who don’t know (since all are saved through the Church). We should keep in mind that the Eucharist - the most blessed sacrament - is offered not only for those in attendance at any given mass, but for all. The graces and merits received by the faithful through the sacraments of the Church are not merely for our own salvation, but work towards the salvation of all…our receiving grace increases the opportunity for other people’s salvation.

But there also seems to be a bit of a catch 22, where knowledge increases our responsibility to respond. We receive more, so more is expected. And we are culpable for sins we previously would not have been guilty of, as indicated by Jesus here:

John 15:22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”

This is a little confronting and seems contradictory to the purpose of evangelisation. But the Church is charged with the task of evangelisation and so we do it.

I like your suggestion about the increase in merit. It may well be that some people are tested so that their merit may contribute to the salvation of others…such as when St Paul said his sufferings were “filling up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ”.

 

[Eufrosnia]

They are descriptive statistics. They describe the likelihood of a WWII soldier making it through. You seem not to understand descriptive statistics, which describe probabilities observed in populations. They are not rough estimates, they describe things.

They describe ratios. They are not probabilities of a future event. To estimate the probability of a future event, you need more data.

So a population can be said to be 50% Catholics, 40% non-Catholics, 10% Atheists by measuring a valid sample size. But you cannot speak of a probability of the next born person being a Catholic unless you have other data regarding birth rates etc.

This is where you divert from what you are trying to argue. Of course descriptive statistic do not define the odds of a given individual, but they do describe the likelihood based on limited known variables and sets that an individual belongs to.

Your point was about the set of non-Catholics, not any individual non-Catholics. As a set, we can certainly describe the likelihhod based on observed data. And of course, we have no obeserved/observable data to work with.

You have the data of Grace. Catholics have the best access to Graces.

Of course…10 times in not a sufficient number to draw any conclusions. Billions is, and that’s the sort of numbers we’re dealing with. Based on large data sets, we can certainly make sensible conclusions about relative odds of sets.

Take the population example I said above. Just because you increased your sample size, you cannot make statements regarding that which you cannot.

Nonetheless, it is clear that I will not convince based on this line of reasoning, so let’s drop it.

But why?

But we also know that everyone has access to sufficient graces for salvation. We also know that “to whom much is given much is expected”, so access to increased grace may actually increase the demands on such a person. Which brings us back to the question of ignorance and such (which this thread was originally about). Those who receive more knowledge and grace may face a harder standard in judgement than those who had less access. The story of the talents draws this out too.

This cannot be true. Then Grace is a burden. It is better to have not received ANY grace in the first place because then you will be judged by the minimal standard (probably means no standard)…

Anyway, we’re really going round in cirlces now, so remind me what it is you want me to agree with…

That chances (perhaps opportunity is a better word) of salvation are better in the Catholic Church. I’ve already said, many times, that this is almost certainly the case. So can we drop this?

If, however, it’s you argument that I must accept that chances are “slim” for non-Catholics, I’m sorry but I cannot agree to that and again ask for some sort of doctrinal substantiation of this position.

So I was about to say we agree then I read your last line. Would you at least agree that compared to a Catholic, the chances for a non-Catholic is slim?

What exactly is needed for salvation in your opinion outside the church? As far as I know, one needs to seek the truth with all their heart and give assent to what they hold to the law written in the heart (i.e. morality).

Given that people rarely even care about the regarding transcendent matters or even the existence of morality, what makes you think that people will do this? OR, if we are talking about the past, given how prone people were to just idolizing everything, how likely is it that they will seek the truth and give assent to it?

I think if you hold some standard to be the reasons for being saved, you will see that the chances are slim. Right now, you seem to be arguing from the point of view that God just automatically picks who are saved. In this sense, I would somewhat agree with you that the chances are probably same. BUT, that is not the case. Even if you are outside the church, the Church has made it clear what you need to do to be saved. I see the chances of someone actually doing to be pretty slim. Would you agree?

 

[underacloud]

Would you at least agree that compared to a Catholic, the chances for a non-Catholic is slim?

Well, no, because it semantically doesn’t make sense. I assume you mean slimmer?

Anyway, as I’ve said, it would seem to be the case that chances for non-Catholics are slimmer (but not necessarily “slim”).

I’ve said all I want to say in this discussion now. Let’s draw it to a close.

 

[Eufrosnia]

That chances (perhaps opportunity is a better word) of salvation are better in the Catholic Church. ** I’ve already said, many times, that this is almost certainly the case. ** So can we drop this?

If, however, it’s you argument that I must accept that chances are “slim” for non-Catholics, I’m sorry but I cannot agree to that and again ask for some sort of doctrinal substantiation of this position.

Actually, after some thought on the bolded part above, I think we might be in agreement. Your follow up line perhaps threw me off.

The fact that you say the best chances of salvation are within the Church must also mean that the chances outside are, relatively speaking, less. Otherwise, the phrase “best chances” wouldn’t make sense.

If this is your position, then I think we are in agreement.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well, no, because it semantically doesn’t make sense. I assume you mean slimmer?

Anyway, as I’ve said, it would seem to be the case that chances for non-Catholics are slimmer (but not necessarily “slim”).

I’ve said all I want to say in this discussion now. Let’s draw it to a close.

Ok, I think I can live with that. Though, I do really feel the chances must be slim because of what I described before in the previous post regarding satisfying criterion for salvation.

So you think the chances of someone seeking the truth with an honest and open desire and then following their moral intuitions is not slim but slimmer?

 

[shocktrooper]

But that’s not the point at all. I simply point out that if all are saved (which you accept is possible, even if highly unlikely), then chances of salvation are equal for all, and thus it is illogical to say that chances are *definitely *greater in the Church, even if they probably, almost certainly, are greater.

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (LG # 16)

blog.adw.org/2012/11/on-how-ignoring-two-little-words-has-devasted-evangelization/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=on-how-ignoring-two-little-words-has-devasted-evangelization

 

[underacloud]

I’ve never denied the need for evangelisation.

I’ve never denied that universal salvation is extremely unlikely based on the bible, the opinion of the saints through the ages, and certain private revelations.

I’ve only been discusing these matters in an abstract sense, which is what one often does in the moral theology forum.

I have no argument at all with the post you linked to. I haven’t read the Ralph Martin book referenced in it, but I definitely recommend another book of his: The Fulfillment of All Desire. It’s a wonderful book that presents Catholic mysticism as written about by the great doctors of the Church and has helped change my understanding of faith, God, and the relationship with God that we are all called to. I’d suggest it is as life changing as any book other than the Bible can be.