Invincible ignorance, Protestants, and you

[steve_b]

I’ve been reading all I can on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church).

To what degree does invincible ignorance befall Protestants? I’m the only Catholic at my job and the rest are all evangelical/pentecostal types. They all seem to “know” about the Catholic Church, but would rather attend their various Protestant services.

Does invincble ignorance lie within them to a degree that they are included/excluded wtih the nulla salus belief?

Invincible ignorance presumes much effort has been made to know and understand a subject, but after much effort expended, they still can’t know or understand the subject
· Invincible ignorance is not something that is voluntary. It is involuntary. For example, Rejection of knowledge, is a voluntary act, and If one knows a teaching and the importance of a teaching, and rejects it, then one cannot claim Invincible Ignorance, for rejection of knowledge has become at that point willfull and voluntary. It is not imputed as a sin if one fails to know what is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: OTOH, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it is about things one is bound to know and can know.
As to your question, Re: Protestants,

Invincible ignorance can’t automatically be presumed. The Protestant, or any other non-Catholic, will be judged on their knowledge and actions consumate with the opportunities that are presented to him/her. It is not a light matter however, but a most undesirable position to be in - especially for those in more affluent countries where information has never been so ready and easy to access about the Catholic faith. IOW 1791

Vincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence to learn a subject. One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance.

culpable ignorance 1791

So the question really is, invincible ignorance, and who qualifies

Said another way, who would find the Catholic Faith sooooo difficult to understand, that after much effort and study they still can’t understand it or dispell faulty notions of said faith?

Did Jesus create a faith sooooo hard to understand, people just can’t get their heads around it? I don’t think so. Especially considering He stacked the deck in His favor from the beginning.

 

[multitude]

Invincible ignorance presumes much effort has been made to know and understand a subject, but after much effort expended, they still can’t know or understand the subject
· Invincible ignorance is not something that is voluntary. It is involuntary. For example, Rejection of knowledge, is a voluntary act, and If one knows a teaching and the importance of a teaching, and rejects it, then one cannot claim Invincible Ignorance, for rejection of knowledge has become at that point willfull and voluntary. It is not imputed as a sin if one fails to know what is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: OTOH, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it is about things one is bound to know and can know.
As to your question, Re: Protestants,

Invincible ignorance can’t automatically be presumed. The Protestant, or any other non-Catholic, will be judged on their knowledge and actions consumate with the opportunities that are presented to him/her. It is not a light matter however, but a most undesirable position to be in - especially for those in more affluent countries where information has never been so ready and easy to access about the Catholic faith. IOW 1791

Vincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence to learn a subject. One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance.

culpable ignorance 1791

So the question really is, invincible ignorance, and who qualifies

Said another way, who would find the Catholic Faith sooooo difficult to understand, that after much effort and study they still can’t understand it or dispell faulty notions of said faith?

Did Jesus create a faith sooooo hard to understand, people just can’t get their heads around it? I don’t think so. Especially considering He stacked the deck in His favor from the beginning.

This is why I personally am a little apprehensive about invincible ignorance. The Catholic faith is not at all difficult to know or understand. Men like St. Joseph of Cupertino from the 17th century, for example, were not particularly bright, in fact they were mocked and bullied for it, actually. And yet, he made it. Intellectuals like St. Thomas Aquinas say they get more from Eucharistic adoration than from all the books in the world.

 

[steve_b]

This is why I personally am a little apprehensive about invincible ignorance. The Catholic faith is not at all difficult to know or understand.

True
m:

Men like St. Joseph of Cupertino from the 17th century, for example, were not particularly bright, in fact they were mocked and bullied for it, actually. And yet, he made it. Intellectuals like St. Thomas Aquinas say they get more from Eucharistic adoration than from all the books in the world.

True

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

This is why I personally am a little apprehensive about invincible ignorance. The Catholic faith is not at all difficult to know or understand. Men like St. Joseph of Cupertino from the 17th century, for example, were not particularly bright, in fact they were mocked and bullied for it, actually. And yet, he made it. Intellectuals like St. Thomas Aquinas say they get more from Eucharistic adoration than from all the books in the world.

Add to that how easy it is today to get information nowadays through the Internet.

 

[Gorgias]

Invincible ignorance presumes much effort has been made to know and understand a subject, but after much effort expended, they still can’t know or understand the subject

Not necessarily. It doesn’t mean “I really, really tried to understand calculus, but it’s just too hard for me.” Rather, it could simply mean that a person doesn’t know that a teaching is true.

Invincible ignorance is not something that is voluntary. It is involuntary.

Source, please?

For example, Rejection of knowledge, is a voluntary act, and If one knows a teaching and the importance of a teaching, and rejects it, then one cannot claim Invincible Ignorance

Not true. Moreover, it is not so much concerned with the knowledge of a particular teaching as it is with the knowledge of the truth of that teaching.

It is not a light matter however, but a most undesirable position to be in - especially for those in more affluent countries where information has never been so ready and easy to access about the Catholic faith.

Again, it’s not about an objective presence or absence of knowledge.

Vincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence to learn a subject.

And, here’s where you’re making an unwarranted judgment call, IMHO. You’re asserting that anyone – having heard a Catholic preach the on his faith – must be held responsible for not converting. That just doesn’t hold.

One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known

What if one’s background and experiences have led them to already ‘know’ something (other than the Catholic faith)? Are you calling it ‘vincible ignorance’ if they do not ‘know’ Catholicism to be true, having heard even one preacher preach on it?

Said another way, who would find the Catholic Faith sooooo difficult to understand, that after much effort and study they still can’t understand it or dispell faulty notions of said faith?

Did Jesus create a faith sooooo hard to understand, people just can’t get their heads around it? I don’t think so.

Again, it’s not about intellectual capacity.

 

[Memaw]

Not necessarily. It doesn’t mean “I really, really tried to understand calculus, but it’s just too hard for me.” Rather, it could simply mean that a person doesn’t know that a teaching is true.

Source, please?

Not true. Moreover, it is not so much concerned with the knowledge of a particular teaching as it is with the knowledge of the truth of that teaching.

Again, it’s not about an objective presence or absence of knowledge.

And, here’s where you’re making an unwarranted judgment call, IMHO. You’re asserting that anyone – having heard a Catholic preach the on his faith – must be held responsible for not converting. That just doesn’t hold.

What if one’s background and experiences have led them to already ‘know’ something (other than the Catholic faith)? Are you calling it ‘vincible ignorance’ if they do not ‘know’ Catholicism to be true, having heard even one preacher preach on it?

Again, it’s not about intellectual capacity.

It is interesting how so many non-Catholics think they “know” so much about how us Catholics believe, yet they won’t listen to the TRUTH about what we really DO believe. I have a protestant friend that has been trying to convince me for years that I worship Mary and my Church teaches me to. She won’t listen to a thing I say. Yet she has gone from one denomination to another because she was unhappy about something in it. God Bless, Memaw

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steve b:

Invincible ignorance is not something that is voluntary. It is involuntary.

Gorgias:

Source, please?

Source??? It should be self-evident.

Voluntary “invincible ignorance” is just willful ignorance.

IOW, a person who just doesn’t care.

 

[steve_b]

Not necessarily. It doesn’t mean “I really, really tried to understand calculus, but it’s just too hard for me.” Rather, it could simply mean that a person doesn’t know that a teaching is true.

No. What you described is just plain old garden variety ignorance.
G:

Source, please?

Re: what I said “Invincible ignorance is not something that is voluntary. It is involuntary”.

Read the following
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ignorance - New Advent

You will see invincible and *vincible, voluntary and involuntary, etc etc

I might use effort & culpable, and innocent, for example and the article uses diligence & imputable, not imputable.

But you get the idea
*
G:

Not true. Moreover, it is not so much concerned with the knowledge of a particular teaching as it is with the knowledge of the truth of that teaching.

When I said
“For example, Rejection of knowledge, is a voluntary act, and If one knows a teaching and the importance of a teaching, and rejects it, then one cannot claim Invincible Ignorance”

That is true. And you’ll see that described in the link I quoted above
G:

Again, it’s not about an objective presence or absence of knowledge.

What I said was (concerning this ignorance)

"It is not a light matter however, but a most undesirable position to be in - especially for those in more affluent countries where information has never been so ready and easy to access about the Catholic faith. "

That is an accurate statement
G:

And, here’s where you’re making an unwarranted judgment call, IMHO. You’re asserting that anyone – having heard a Catholic preach the on his faith – must be held responsible for not converting. That just doesn’t hold.

Again, here is what I wrote

"Vincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence to learn a subject. "

Look at the link I provided. Read the description of vincible ignorance
G:

What if one’s background and experiences have led them to already ‘know’ something (other than the Catholic faith)? Are you calling it ‘vincible ignorance’ if they do not ‘know’ Catholicism to be true, having heard even one preacher preach on it?

You are describing a form of ignorance. A person doesn’t know the Catholic faith. Once one is shown the evidence for the Catholic faith however, then they are no longer ignorant of that evidence. Then a person has to do something with that knowledge they have received.

Again, look at the link I provided
G:

Again, it’s not about intellectual capacity.

Define what YOU mean by mental capacity