Infallability vs. moral certitude

[Tom_in_WNY]

I have a question about moral certitude and want the precise definition is in the case of salvation.

In my example, a Catholic dies in a state of grace. They have been properly attending the sacraments, has recently been to confession, and have not commited any mortal sins since that confession. In other words, they have done things “by the book” with the proper disposition and love for God.

My understanding is that we have “moral certitude” that this Catholic will be saved, either going directly Heaven, or by way of purgatory. However, we can’t make an “infalliable” statement about this, unless that person is canonized.

I quess another example of this would be a baptized child who dies before the age of reason.

Can anyone explain the difference between these two terms as they apply to my example?

 

[Corki]

We don’t make infallible statements about anything. Infallibility is a characteristic of some teachings of the magesterium (ordinary infallibility) or the Pope.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why would you assume that God will save those who live “by the book”? From your description, this person could have been an axe murderer who was absolved. Personally, I think expressing love for God and His people is much more important than diligently remaining in a state of grace.

 

[Katholish]

I have a question about moral certitude and want the precise definition is in the case of salvation.

In my example, a Catholic dies in a state of grace. They have been properly attending the sacraments, has recently been to confession, and have not commited any mortal sins since that confession. In other words, they have done things “by the book” with the proper disposition and love for God.

My understanding is that we have “moral certitude” that this Catholic will be saved, either going directly Heaven, or by way of purgatory. However, we can’t make an “infalliable” statement about this, unless that person is canonized.

I quess another example of this would be a baptized child who dies before the age of reason.

Can anyone explain the difference between these two terms as they apply to my example?

Moral certitude is not scientific certitute, it is rather being sufficiently convinced of something in order to act as though you were certain.

If a person in the State of Grace dies, we know with absolute certitude (not just moral certitude) that he will ultimately end up in Heaven (whether he spends time in Purgatory or not). However, you need to understand that in this life, we are never certain that another person or even ourselves are in the State of Grace–we can only be morally certain that we are. Because Grace is not empirically verifiable, there is no test that we can perform to make sure of its presence and there are always potential obstacles to a sacrament being valid of which we could not know. Hence, we can only be sufficiently certain that we are in a State of Grace.

Thus, without some sort of Divine Revelation, we could never know if another person died in the State of Grace, and hence whether they will ultimately go to Heaven. The Church only canonizes people when there has be a revelation of the person’s Heavenly dwelling through the performance of miracles attributed to their intercession after they have died.

 

[Tom_in_WNY]

Katholish,

Thanks for your reply, this is very much getting to the root of my question.

Do you have any books or other resources that can get into this subject?

 

[Katholish]

Katholish,

Thanks for your reply, this is very much getting to the root of my question.

Do you have any books or other resources that can get into this subject?

Sadly, I don’t have any sources to recommend. I am sure that they are out there, but my knowledge of this topic is largely from lecture notes and discussion.

 

[yablabo]

I have a question about moral certitude and want the precise definition is in the case of salvation.

In my example, a Catholic dies in a state of grace. They have been properly attending the sacraments, has recently been to confession, and have not commited any mortal sins since that confession. In other words, they have done things “by the book” with the proper disposition and love for God.

My understanding is that we have “moral certitude” that this Catholic will be saved, either going directly Heaven, or by way of purgatory. However, we can’t make an “infalliable” statement about this, unless that person is canonized.

I quess another example of this would be a baptized child who dies before the age of reason.

Can anyone explain the difference between these two terms as they apply to my example?

It can be acknowledged that you are wise to pursue the subjects of moral certitude and infallibility. However, the question you posed is not valid and therefore cannot be dignified with any answer.

– Nicole

 

[mardukm]

I have a question about moral certitude and want the precise definition is in the case of salvation.

In my example, a Catholic dies in a state of grace. They have been properly attending the sacraments, has recently been to confession, and have not commited any mortal sins since that confession. In other words, they have done things “by the book” with the proper disposition and love for God.

My understanding is that we have “moral certitude” that this Catholic will be saved, either going directly Heaven, or by way of purgatory. However, we can’t make an “infalliable” statement about this, unless that person is canonized.

I quess another example of this would be a baptized child who dies before the age of reason.

Can anyone explain the difference between these two terms as they apply to my example?

In your theoretical scenario, we can know infallibly that the person will go to heaven, because the Church has defined it that way.

But in real life, we can not know if a person actually fulfilled those conditions, so we can only be morally certain based on our observation of the person (even then, we cannot really know what his thoughts were when he died, and he could have been cursing God for all we know).

Basically, moral certainty is based on our subjective belief - it is probable and perceptual. But we can never really know the objective truth (i.e., infallibly) of the matter because we don’t have the omnisience of God (short of a special revelation, as already noted by someone else).

Blessings

 

[Tom_in_WNY]

It can be acknowledged that you are wise to pursue the subjects of moral certitude and infallibility. However, the question you posed is not valid and therefore cannot be dignified with any answer.

– Nicole

I come to the Forums to ask honest questions of other participants in the hopes of getting charitable answers. Can you please why, in your mind, this is not a valid question. It is theoretical, but a valid question. I greatly appreciate all the other answers that while recognizing it was a question that could not be directly applied to “real life”, it was worthy of an honest and thoughtful response.

 

[yablabo]

I come to the Forums to ask honest questions of other participants in the hopes of getting charitable answers. Can you please why, in your mind, this is not a valid question. It is theoretical, but a valid question.

To be a valid question (which means to fulfill the ultimate requirement of speech) a question must not contain any references that are contrary either to themselves or to reality. An attempted answer to a question formed on either contrary or unrealistic premises will either answer in such a way that error will be confirmed as true, or give the appearance of certitude to speculations. This outcome will render void the answer, even if the answer is attempted to convey truth with certitude, and will only serve to confuse or deceive any person that hears both the answer and question. Since the primary purpose of speech is to convey the truth with certitude, an answer to an invalid question will void the primary purpose of speech, leaving the person who gives the answer guilty of vain or deceptive speech, a violation of the seventh commandment.

The question you ask: “Can anyone explain the difference between these two terms as they apply to my example?” is not valid for several reasons:

1. You imply that the meaning of the two terms (moral certitude and infallibility) may have different uses depending on the type of discussion. This is a false understanding. These terms are philosophical terms that must have precise and constant definitions regardless of the type of discussion because philosophy is the science of reality, and reality does not depend on the subjective value of discussions.
2. The two examples that you give are not similar in scope. This makes it impossible to give a singular answer to your question that will apply correctly to both examples.
3. Your conclusion to the examples that you reveal in this statement: “My understanding is that we have “moral certitude” that this Catholic will be saved, either going directly Heaven, or by way of purgatory.” is both doctrinally incorrect and presupposes a definition of the term “moral certitude,” while asking what the definition of moral certitude is as used. This makes any contrary usage of the term “moral certitude” incorrect even if you use the term incorrectly. No correct answer can be given because your example implies an incorrect definition of moral certitude in the very formation of the example.
4. Your examples may be understood to be mixing absolute truth with truth based upon a specific case in a manner that is not logically correct. This renders the ability to obtain one true sense from the examples you give impossible. If I can not obtain one true sense from the examples and related question, then I can not give an answer that is absolutely true, meaning true in all possible interpretations of the example upon which you pose the question. If I give you either a general answer, meaning it can be wrong in specific cases, or if I give you an answer to a specific case that is not absolutely true in all cases, then I fail to give a philosophical definition of these terms, because such a definition must hold true and/or rational in all cases.
5. It does not appear that you have rationally defined the term “moral certitude” or “infallibility” yet the example that you give is clear only if these terms are defined rationally. I do state in objection number 3 that the example you give presupposes the definition of these terms, which is a different objection, as this objection is that your usage of these terms does not appear to be rational, and therefore I can not obtain a rational understanding of the examples you base your question upon.

There may be yet more reasons that yield your question invalid but these are the ones I see upon quick inspection. This does not invalidate your honest effort to try to master this subject, which is a correct understanding of the use of “moral certitude” and “infallibility;” this is to be highly applauded and encouraged. I believe that this reflects your attempt to try to obtain criteria to determine what is true and false, which is required by the first moral principles. Therefore, I am not finding fault with you, but just the method you are attempting to use. I do not want to discourage you, but to encourage you, but the method you are attempting to use is poor.

Before one can either think rationally or communicate rationally, one must first define the key words used. It is not possible to think or speak rationally unless the key words used are rationally defined. Before you can understand the definitions of either moral certitude or infallibility, one must hold other rationally defined key words and think in a correct logical method. I would doubt by your usage of the term “moral certitude” whether you hold correct the definition of “certitude,” which is necessary before one can understand the concept of “moral certitude.” Also the first example that you pose would seem to hold error in the correct manipulation of premises, or error in determine whether a premise must be factual or not, in regard to the correct usage of the conclusion inferred… This would have to be overcome before you will be able to infer correctly and use the conclusion practically, even if you have factual data available.

All of this makes it meaningless to try to answer your question, even though I most highly encourage you to persevere in your attempt to master this subject since it is practically necessary in the mature mind for salvation, as given by binding Catholic doctrine. However, while the subject matter of this particular branch of philosophy is not difficult, and is in fact practiced correctly by normal three-year-olds, finding a teacher who can teach you this without error is virtually impossible, firstly because such individuals are extremely rare, and secondly because it is difficult to discern quickly the error in a false teacher of this subject unless one has already mastered this subject. Yet, this matter can be mastered philosophically by simply listening intently to one who proposes to teach, and verifying if the teaching conforms to observable reality. If it does, then camp yourself at his feet and render his demanded fee until what he teaches no longer verifies to reality and he refuses to see the observable error. Then seek another teacher, until you grasp full comprehension of the fundamentals of this subject, which then will render you fit to teach.

If I may be of any additional service to you, I would be pleased to respond. But, I will insist that our correspondence be private, for a variety of reasons. I do hope you ultimately find what you’re looking for!

– Nicole

 

[nkbeth]

Personally, I think expressing love for God and His people is much more important than diligently remaining in a state of grace.

This is not right. In fact, Every mortal sin (and every sin) is a sin against “expressing love for God and His people”. Every sin breaks the two great commandments that Christ gave us:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.
And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.

The 10 commandments and all the laws of the Church are contained in these 2 commandments of Christ.

Being in the state of grace isn’t a matter of just following certain defined rules “by the book”. The grace is Sanctifying Grace, which is our spiritual life, a participation in Divine Life. Mortal sin is called mortal precisely because it drives spiritual life (God’s life) from our souls. It is a grave sin against God’s love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is not right. In fact, Every mortal sin (and every sin) is a sin against “expressing love for God and His people”. Every sin breaks the two great commandments that Christ gave us…

I agree. Sin is terrible, and should always be avoided. When did you think I endorsed sin?

I just don’t believe that our fundamental goal in life should be to not sin. Our goal in life should be to glorify God, to bring others to Him, to serve those in need, to forget ourselves in acts of love, etc. Too much naval-gazing (making sure that we are from moment to moment in a state of grace), in my experience, gets in the way of this.

People who sin should get to confession right away. They should stop sinning. They should avail themselves of grace.

But there is such a thing as being overscrupulous. Many Catholics are so worried about their sin that they do not feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the naked, etc. (I myself am guilty of neglecting my duty to do so.) But the teachings of Christ are clear that remaining free from sin is not the primary mission of the Christian life.

 

[Joe_Brown]

I agree. Sin is terrible, and should always be avoided. When did you think I endorsed sin?

I just don’t believe that our fundamental goal in life should be to not sin. Our goal in life should be to glorify God, to bring others to Him, to serve those in need, to forget ourselves in acts of love, etc. Too much naval-gazing (making sure that we are from moment to moment in a state of grace), in my experience, gets in the way of this.

People who sin should get to confession right away. They should stop sinning. They should avail themselves of grace.

But there is such a thing as being overscrupulous. Many Catholics are so worried about their sin that they do not feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the naked, etc. (I myself am guilty of neglecting my duty to do so.) But the teachings of Christ are clear that remaining free from sin is not the primary mission of the Christian life.

In Glorifying God and Loving God you are not sinning. That comes with it.

God Bless

 

[nkbeth]

I agree. Sin is terrible, and should always be avoided. When did you think I endorsed sin?

I wasn’t trying to imply that at all. Sorry if it came over that way. Sorry if I put something awkwardly in this post too!

Our goal in life should be to glorify God, to bring others to Him, to serve those in need, to forget ourselves in acts of love, etc.

Yes!

But we should know some underlying truths here - even if we don’t always think about them! Being in the “state of grace” IS being in the state of giving glory to God! Mortal sin is saying “no” to that. Sanctifying Grace is what makes us pleasing to God - isn’t that our greatest goal? Sanctifying Grace is INCREASED in those “glorifying God, bringing others to Him, serving those in need, forgetting themselves in acts of love”.

Too much naval-gazing (making sure that we are from moment to moment in a state of grace), in my experience, gets in the way of this.

People who sin should get to confession right away. They should stop sinning. They should avail themselves of grace.

But there is such a thing as being overscrupulous. Many Catholics are so worried about their sin that they do not feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the naked, etc. (I myself am guilty of neglecting my duty to do so.) But the teachings of Christ are clear that remaining free from sin is not the primary mission of the Christian life.

You are right, we aren’t supposed to think “sin, sin, sin” all the time, but to act in love.

Still we should always remember what great realities sin and Sanctifying Grace really are - they are ABOUT acting against God or in greater and greater love of Him and our neighbors. They aren’t check-marks for Catholics, or something to “take care of” and then go off and pursue the real goal.

 

[Tom_in_WNY]

In my original question, I think I gave the misimpression that a Catholic can punch his or her “salvation card” and be assured of Heaven. My understanding is that while the Sacraments aren’t in of themselves works that can guarantee Heaven, they are ways that Grace can flow in our lives in a real way. Of course just “avoiding sin” and following the rules aren’t adequate, but Christ did give us through His Church, the sacraments that guide and nourish us to fidelity with Him. If this is not true, I have a deep misunderstanding of the Catholic faith.