Invincible Ignorance

[Miles_Mariae]

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside of the ark of Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.” (Catechismi Latini et Germanici)

Was this saint mistaken? If there is no salvation for “pagans who never received the faith of the Church” then invincible ignorance would be of no help.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside of the ark of Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.” (Catechismi Latini et Germanici)

Was this saint mistaken? If there is no salvation for “pagans who never received the faith of the Church” then invincible ignorance would be of no help.

Let me give you a teaching of St. Thomas that will send shivers up the spine of most who read it.

St. Thomas, in his *Summa Theologica *, which was placed on the altar next to the Bible during the Council of Trent, taught that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin; and that those who die invicibly ignorant of the Catholic faith will go to hell; not because of their ignorance - which, being invincible was not a sin - but because ot some other sin they have committed which cannot be forgiven without faith.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Let me give you a teaching of St. Thomas that will send shivers up the spine of most who read it.

St. Thomas, in his *Summa Theologica *, which was placed on the altar next to the Bible during the Council of Trent, taught that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin; and that those who die invicibly ignorant of the Catholic faith will go to hell; not because of their ignorance - which, being invincible was not a sin - but because ot some other sin they have committed which cannot be forgiven without faith.

I thought the Fathers and the Doctors were unanimous on Invincible ignorance. The fact that it could save people outside the Church.
Or is this teaching qualified like so many believe it to be.

 

[The_Stig]

What was true then is true now. We can ADD to our understanding of a dogma but may never contradict it. The Council of Florence lays it all out, and any further statements of the Church must be interpreted in accordance with it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I thought the Fathers and the Doctors were unanimous on Invincible ignorance. The fact that it could save people outside the Church.
Or is this teaching qualified like so many believe it to be.

“It” (invincible ignorance) can’t save anyone. One may be non-culopable and thus saved BECAUSE of it, but not BY it. Anyone who is saved is saved by Christ through the Grace mediated by His Church.

 

[palmas85]

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside of the ark of Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.” (Catechismi Latini et Germanici)

Was this saint mistaken? If there is no salvation for “pagans who never received the faith of the Church” then invincible ignorance would be of no help.

Saints, although very good people and sitting in Heaven now, were on earth for the most part plain Jane just human beings, who struggled with life. They were subject to committing the same errors and mistakes in judgement that that we all make daily. Just because a saint said something doesn’t make it necessarily true or binding on others.

 

[thistle]

I agree with Palmas85.

As an example St Thomas Aquinas wrote that Mary was conceived in original sin. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. It wasn’t dogma in his time but nevertheless he did not believe in it.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I agree with Palmas85.

As an example St Thomas Aquinas wrote that Mary was conceived in original sin. He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. It wasn’t dogma in his time but nevertheless he did not believe in it.

Sort of. He was just mistaken on the mechanics of it. He thought she was conceived in sin and then immediately cleansed. He was wrong by a split second.

His argument was then refuted by someone (I forget his name). There is another quote from St. Thomas where he seems to teach the Immaculate Conception as it was later defined. Since the quotes are not dated, you can’t tell which came first. I have always wondered if he changed his mind after reading the other person’s argument, and if the change in position is reflected in the “second” quote.

Regarding the quote I mentioned earlier about invincible ignorance, in the quote St Thomas quotes St. Augustine as his authority for what he said, which means St Augustine believed the same.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Thomas also taught that an invincibly ignorant person who sought the truth with an upright conscience, would receive what was necessary–at the very least by an interior illumination on their deathbed or by the instruction of an angel.

St. Thomas believed the bear minimum truths that needed to be known was the Trinitarian nature of God. A much small number of theologians taught that every dogma of the faith must be known. However, more common and what seems to have been adopted by the magisterium is knowledge of one God (which would be least possible knowledge, since you have to believe in God to have divine faith and God can be discovered through natural means).

But no matter where one’s opinion lies in this regard, there is practically unanimous agreement that an invicincbly ignorant person is not automatically damned, but that God in some way would make those necessary truths available to them at somepoint before their death.

The current CCC says the same:

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

St. Peter Canisius said those who did not receive the faith are damned–which is true–yet we also know that God can lead those persons seeking truth with an upright conscience to the faith in ways known only to Him–such persons would not be damned.

 

[Yours_Truly]

St. Thomas also taught that an invincibly ignorant person who sought the truth with an upright conscience, would receive what was necessary–at the very least by an interior illumination on their deathbed or by the instruction of an angel.

St. Thomas believed the bear minimum truths that needed to be known was the Trinitarian nature of God. A much small number of theologians taught that every dogma of the faith must be known.

I don’t know of any theologian who taught that every dogma would need to be known. That is obviously false. According to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus (and probably most of the others), what must be known explicitly is that 1.) there is one God, who 2.) rewards the good and punishes evil, is 2.) a Trinity of Persons, and that 4.) the second person was Incarnate.

The other dogmas only need to be believed implicitly, which means they are not rejected and would be believed if the person was aware of them.

However, more common and what seems to have been adopted by the magisterium is knowledge of one God (which would be least possible knowledge, since you have to believe in God to have divine faith and God can be discovered through natural means).

But no matter where one’s opinion lies in this regard, there is practically unanimous agreement that an invicincbly ignorant person is not automatically damned,** but that God in some way would make those necessary truths **available to them at somepoint before their death.

But if God made the “necessary truths” known to them prior to death, they would no longer be ignorant of them.

If you read what you said, it appears that you are saying a person would not be saved if they died invincibly ignorant. They can only be saved if the “necessary truths” are somehow made known to them… which is exactly what St Thomas said.

As you said above, St. Thomas taught that a person who was properly disposed would receive the “necessary truths”, either by a missionary, or possible an angle, or if nothing else via an internal inspiration. That makes the most sense to me because “withouth faith it is impossible to please God”.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t know of any theologian who taught that every dogma would need to be known. That is obviously false.

That’s why there is less of them and they are little known or cited

The other dogmas only need to be believed implicitly, which means they are not rejected and would be believed if the person was aware of them.

That’s my position too.

I personaly am not sure whether certain dogmas, such as the Trinity of persons or the Incarnation, can be implicitly believed, or must be explicitly believed like St. Thomas said. For example, can someone who desires to place their faith in the Word of God–believe the truth, follow the way, and obtain the life of God–be said to have faith in Christ, who is the Word, and the way, the truth, and the life. I’ve seen it argued either way.

But if God made the “necessary truths” known to them prior to death, they would no longer be ignorant of them.

Exactly.

If you read what you said, it appears that you are saying a person would not be saved if they died invincibly ignorant. They can only be saved if the “necessary truths” are somehow made known to them… which is exactly what St Thomas said.

Again, exactly.

As you said above, St. Thomas taught that a person who was properly disposed would receive the “necessary truths”, either by a missionary, or possible an angle, or if nothing else via an internal inspiration. That makes the most sense to me because “withouth faith it is impossible to please God”.

Me too! I think we are on the same page.

Let me see if I can sum it up:

If one dies ignorant of non-essential truths, there is no culpability before God; however if one dies ignorant of truths necessary for faith, then that person will be damned. However, no one will be permitted to be damned due to ignorance without culpability on their part–God will ensure everyone is offered in a concrete way, at some point in their lives, what is absolutely necessary for salvation.

How’s that?

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Is one free to believe in invincible ignorance or not believe in it?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Is one free to believe in invincible ignorance or not believe in it?

You can believe in such a thing as invincible ignorance; but whether or not one can beleive that it is possible to be saved if a person does not possess supernatural faith is another question.

This belief would seem to contradict official teachings of the Church, which state that to be saved explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary. I believe it was the Council of Florence that taught that.

Since there is some concusion on this point, it is probably best to say you believe whatever the Church teaches on this point, and leave it at that.

 

[thistle]

**Sort of. He was just mistaken on the mechanics of it. He thought she was conceived in sin and then immediately cleansed. He was wrong by a split second. **

His argument was then refuted by someone (I forget his name). There is another quote from St. Thomas where he seems to teach the Immaculate Conception as it was later defined. Since the quotes are not dated, you can’t tell which came first. I have always wondered if he changed his mind after reading the other person’s argument, and if the change in position is reflected in the “second” quote.

Regarding the quote I mentioned earlier about invincible ignorance, in the quote St Thomas quotes St. Augustine as his authority for what he said, which means St Augustine believed the same.

Its not sort of. Saying Mary was conceived in original sin but not born in original sin IS denying the Immaculate Conception.
Also he did not change his views on this.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Its not sort of. Saying Mary was conceived in original sin but not born in original sin IS denying the Immaculate Conception.
Also he did not change his views on this.

How do you know? I’ll see if can find the quote I was referring to.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Thanks for the information. For the record, I wasn’t presenting the quote as evidence. Of course saints can sometimes err in good faith.

The explanation that certain essential truths would be revealed to the invincibly ignorant and thereby they would be saved is appealing to me. Nonetheless, I will simply say that I believe whatever the Church teaches about this issue.

 

[7rosario]

You could look at my blog: eens123.blogspot.com