"Full Knowledge" Element for Mortal Sin?

[LethalMouse]

Maybe you are over thinking this so your “example” comes across as a little contrived.
A typical and very common case is that of using contraceptives or being in an irregular marriage.
Do they automatically incurr excommunication?
Are they still Catholics.

Black and white all or nothing approaches to such issues goes nowhere useful or helpful.
Accompanyment and discernment are helpful strategies, just as Pope Francis was at pains to tell us.

Well examples are meant to illustrate a point. If we use muddled examples, the point is lost on technical approach…unless people cite and example as too obvious and lacking merit

But there are a few protestant denoms that are basically all but Catholic with the same or less differences than what the quasi catholics hold.

For a extreme example like if I believed most of what Islam teaches but still think myself a Catholic? meh where is that line indeed?

And you miss the point about belief, if you are on the internet asking how you can basically get away with something I would not call you a new religion.

I am saying if the belief is literally 1000000% rock solid. If you believe in contraception as steadfast as a Islamic Imam believes that Muhammad was a prophet than you have a new set of beliefs.

If you don’t “get it” why the church is talking this old stuff, if you say “Well I can see why it WAS important but is it really now?”

That is a belief in the form of a question, and more likely a Catholic lacking in knowledge to a degree.

I would argue that few with varying beliefs believe them with the veracity of the Imam’s belief in Muhammad so I do not suggest these people are “not catholic” but that their very lack of solid belief is what should tell them they are in error.

To go to the OP on fornication assuming he was asking for himself, by nature of his making the thread I would not say he is not catholic. It actually proves he knows the truth but does not want to hear it.

 

[Bookcat]

And yet the Magisterium, who alone validly interprets the full meaning of Holy Scripture, accepts non culpable ignorance is entirely possible for Catholics.
The rogorism you propose was eventually overturned in the Early Church.

Where did thistle propose rigorism?

Where did thistle say there it was not possible that there could be non -culpable ignorance on a moral issue for a particular Catholic?

What thistle did was give the words of Jesus.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If by non-culpable ignorance you mean invincible ignorance it is almost impossible for a Catholic to be invincibly ignorant.

This is a ridiculous and insupportable view.
This is not Catholic Teaching nor in any Pastoral guidelines I am aware of Thistle, why do you present your somewhat extreme personal opinions as if they are?
If you disagree please provide explicit Magisterial quotes.

 

[e_c]

Here’s a thought (which is what I was taught by a doctor of moral theology) - there is no such thing as “full knowledge,” or “full freedom” in this life, only “sufficient knowledge” and “sufficient freedom,” which are “full enough” for the destruction of charity.

There are all kinds of gray areas here for all kinds of reasons - NAMELY because most of these basic things (LIKE FORNICATION) are written on our hearts, according to Scripture and the Church, though perhaps this could be so marred by experiences (particularly in early childhood… OR FROM THE PULPIT/IN THE CONFESSIONAL) that one becomes truly “sick” or “confused.” But in any event, we ought to pay close attention to that famous passage from Romans 1…

**21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. **22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What thistle did was give the words of Jesus.

You know as well as I do we are not Protestants, literal interpretations by laymen who think they are directly inspired by the Holy Spirit is as fallible and erroneous as anything else.
Unless of course that person is the Pope … who alone can Pontificate without pontificating .

 

[thistle]

This is a ridiculous and insupportable view.
This is not Catholic Teaching nor in any Pastoral guidelines I am aware of Thistle, why do you present your somewhat extreme personal opinions as if they are?
If you disagree please provide explicit Magisterial quotes.

Actually YOU were the one who made the claim so I would be interested in you providing the Church teaching on this. Where does it say Catholics can easily be invincibly ignorant? Its not in the CCC.

I simply said it would be almost impossible for a Catholic to be invincibly ignorant. Vincibly ignorant yes, although the onus is on Catholics to learn what the Church teaches and if they are too lazy to do that or just refuse to do that then they will be held accountable by God.

 

[Bookcat]

You know as well as I do we are not Protestants
.

Yes we are not Protestants.

Nothing that I or Thistle noted was a Protestant take or approach.

But rather a Catholic one.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually YOU were the one who made the claim so I would be interested in you providing the Church teaching on this.

OK, you cannot provide a reference for your extreme personal assertions which you attempt to present as Church Teaching. You never can when challenged .
Trying to parade on my parade cannot hide this paucity of Magisterial support.

I simply said it would be almost impossible for a Catholic to be invincibly ignorant.

We all know you really mean impossible in practice.
Regardless where do you get this stuff from and why do you pretend it is Church Teaching .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes we are not Protestants.

Nothing that I or Thistle noted was a Protestant take or approach.

But rather a Catholic one.

When one believes a somewhat extreme first pass, literal interpretation of Scripture, by that fact alone trumps a far more balanced teaching of the Magisterium…that is Protestantism.

They are “the words of Jesus”.

That’s just silly - as if the writing/editing/translating/interpretting mediation of the Church is entirely absent and we read clear and obvious objective truth without Magisterial help.

 

[Bookcat]

When one believes a somewhat extreme first pass, literal interpretation of Scripture, by that fact alone trumps a far more balanced teaching of the Magisterium…that is Protestantism.

That’s just silly - as if the writing/editing/translating/interpretting mediation of the Church is entirely absent and we read clear and obvious objective truth without Magisterial help.

Your mistaken.

And not that is not just silly.

Of course one reads such within the understanding of the Church (that is a given).

 

[Bookcat]

When one believes a somewhat extreme first pass, literal interpretation of Scripture, by that fact alone trumps a far more balanced teaching of the Magisterium…that is Protestantism.

Thankfully nothing I noted was of such a nature.

I always think with the Church.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thankfully nothing I noted was of such a nature.

I always think with the Church.

To assert that “they are the words of Jesus” closes an argument for an extreme theological position never made by the Magisterium is material Protestantism.

I don’t expect you to get it, if you did you would not have made such a weak assertion in the first place .
There’s nothing more to say other than be pedantic.

 

[Rau]

That is not correct. Please show me a Church document to support your claim.

If Ron Conte’s view were correct then nobody in the world could commit a mortal sin!

Ron Conte is correct. Your last statement would deny the capacity to suppress the voice of one’s conscience.

 

[thistle]

Ron Conte is correct. Your last statement would deny the capacity to suppress the voice of one’s conscience.

I asked him to show me a Church document to support his view. He has not responded so I ask the same of you.

 

[Rau]

I asked him to show me a Church document to support his view. He has not responded so I ask the same of you.

Why do you hold your position thistle? Why do you deny the capacity to suppress the voice of conscience?

 

[Bookcat]

To assert that “they are the words of Jesus” closes an argument for an extreme theological position never made by the Magisterium is material Protestantism.

I don’t expect you to get it, if you did you would not have made such a weak assertion in the first place .
There’s nothing more to say other than be pedantic.

What extreme theological position have I taken? None. Nor do I embrace material Protestantism? I really do not get what you think I have said or done that is of such a nature - I have not. Nor have I said that any argument was “closed”. I simply stated a fact - that the person has quoted the words of Jesus.

And I posted several things in this thread…such as from the Catechism etc - giving a fuller discussion. Go back and read my posts - you may have missed some.

Yes the words of Jesus are the words of Jesus. They are what the Church listens to and hands on and lives. And yes of course one is to hear or read his words “within the Church” not in some other way. It not protestantism to say “those are the words of Jesus”.
*
I always think with the Church. One is always to “read scripture within the Church”. *

Have a blessed day.

 

[thistle]

Why do you hold your position thistle? Why do you deny the capacity to suppress the voice of conscience?

Diversion so you don’t answer. Do you have Church documents that support your claim or not?

 

[Bookcat]

I simply said it would be almost impossible for a Catholic to be invincibly ignorant. Vincibly ignorant yes, although the onus is on Catholics to learn what the Church teaches and if they are too lazy to do that or just refuse to do that then they will be held accountable by God.

I would not quite put it that way.

Yes Catholics are to seek to be formed.

Yes to whom much is given -much is required.

But not all Catholics are in the same boat. There can be many who have received a bad formation - not really been formed in the Faith or been formed by persons not well formed or not thinking with the Church etc etc etc.

And they can simply not know they need to know…

So I would not say that.

 

[Rau]

Diversion so you don’t answer. Do you have Church documents that support your claim or not?

LOL. Not much of a diversion! I don’t have such a library, nor do I know where to look on that point. Your turn now.

 

[Xuan]

If by non-culpable ignorance you mean invincible ignorance it is almost impossible for a Catholic to be invincibly ignorant.
I could think of the possibility that it might apply if you had a rogue priest bring up a child and totally taught him things completely contrary to Church doctrine.
As for every day Catholics it will not apply. This is the typical ploy to have a get of of jail free card. Catholics who claim they do not know what the Church teaches are not invincibly ignorant. They are vincibly ignorant.

In the following quote, Aquinas is writing specifically about Catholics who are unable to overcome their ignorance of the correctness of a Church teaching, no matter how much they study it. It is not about not knowing the teaching, but about not knowing that the teaching is correct.

1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas - “[It] is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called ‘invincible,’ because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.” (Summa Theologica I-II Question 76 Article 2)

Xuan