Is invincible ignorance a thin line to travel for Protestants?

[guanophore]

Guan,
I think few here who know me will say that I am “ignorant” in these matters, though that’s not to say I have no room to learn. How does this apply to me?

Jon

I do not think that is the case, JonNC. I think you daily study to show yourself approved unto God,a nd so far as I can tell, strive to live your life daily in conformity to HIs will.

It is not ignorance that keeps you from becoming visibly Catholic, but matters of conscience. From reading your posts, it seems clear that you will be the first in line to join yourself to whatever is revealed from Christ that applies to you, including becoming outwardly Roman Catholic should the Spirit convict you of such a necessity.

At the same time, it seems clear that you have not done so because your studies and prayers have not yet led you to such a conviction. Each man must follow his conscience above all, since it is by that you will be judged.

Though I do not think the concept of invincible ignorance applies to you, I do think that judgement by individual conscience does. In that manner James 4 tells us:

“If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”

To date you are doing the good that you believe you ought to do, and to do otherwise would be a sin for you.

That being said, you are still on my daily prayer list to cross the Tiber.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Remember, just because you’re invincibly ignorant doesn’t mean you haven’t comitted a mortal sin.

 

[JonNC]

I do not think that is the case, JonNC. I think you daily study to show yourself approved unto God,a nd so far as I can tell, strive to live your life daily in conformity to HIs will.

It is not ignorance that keeps you from becoming visibly Catholic, but matters of conscience. From reading your posts, it seems clear that you will be the first in line to join yourself to whatever is revealed from Christ that applies to you, including becoming outwardly Roman Catholic should the Spirit convict you of such a necessity.

At the same time, it seems clear that you have not done so because your studies and prayers have not yet led you to such a conviction. Each man must follow his conscience above all, since it is by that you will be judged.

Though I do not think the concept of invincible ignorance applies to you, I do think that judgement by individual conscience does. In that manner James 4 tells us:

“If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”

To date you are doing the good that you believe you ought to do, and to do otherwise would be a sin for you.

That being said, you are still on my daily prayer list to cross the Tiber.

Thanks, Guan, not only for the decription of this Catholic teaching and how it effects me, in the Catholic POV, but also your kindness, and prayers for me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Remember, just because you’re invincibly ignorant doesn’t mean you haven’t comitted a mortal sin.

Hi Marc,
Considering the location of your post immediately following Guan’s and mine, I assume you may be speaking to me. So, a question: while Lutherans don’t make the same distinction regarding moral and venial sins (we consider the possibility that all sin can be mortal), I avail myself of Holy Absolution (performed by my Pastor in persona christi), either corporately during Divine Service (Mass) or privately. Understanding our different views of the validity of orders and therefore sacraments, what is your view regarding my confessions and repentence?

Jon

 

[inocente]

Like I always bring about, Pope Boniface XIII ( I believe) infallibly stated that one cannot enter heaven without acknowledging the primacy of the Roman Papacy. I talked a Catholic deacon who happens to be a professor, his only response was that its through invincible ignorance, again.

As a Baptist I accept the primacy of Christ. I can’t imagine any pope setting himself above Christ, so I think you must have misunderstood what the pope said.

*Everyone who is not a Catholic are to some extent ignorant of the Truth of Jesus. *

It seems unlikely that all Catholics know more, whether or not they go to church or are born again or have even read the bible. Especially when some don’t appear to know Christ’s basic teaching that the kingdom isn’t about outward appearances and belonging to country clubs.

 

[guanophore]

As a Baptist I accept the primacy of Christ. I can't imagine any pope setting himself above Christ,

I am glad you are able to conceptualize that the Pope would not, and should not, do such a thing. There are many non-Catholics that do imagine it to the point of being convinced of it. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and He appointed Peter as the Rock upon which He would build His Church, and gave him the keys to the Kingdom. As such Peter was the chief steward of the House of David. He is the visible head of the Church on earth, but functions under the authority and headship if the King.

 so I think you must have misunderstood what the pope said.

The Apostles taught that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone. Jesus grafted Peter to Himself, along with the rest of the foundation. Anyone who belongs to Christ as Head, therefore, also belongs to His One Body, the Church. As such, they also belong to Peter as he was given the duty of feeding and caring for the sheep. The successors of Peter have taken upon this task to feed and care for the flock. That is why all who belong to Christ, also belong to the successor of Peter.

It seems unlikely that all Catholics know more, whether or not they go to church or are born again or have even read the bible. Especially when some don’t appear to know Christ’s basic teaching that the kingdom isn’t about outward appearances and belonging to country clubs.

Without question the majority of those claiming to be “Catholic” are poorly catechized and do not live out the faith into which they were baptized.

 

[JonNC]

I am glad you are able to conceptualize that the Pope would not, and should not, do such a thing. There are many non-Catholics that do imagine it to the point of being convinced of it. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and He appointed Peter as the Rock upon which He would build His Church, and gave him the keys to the Kingdom. As such Peter was the chief steward of the House of David. He is the visible head of the Church on earth, but functions under the authority and headship if the King.

The Apostles taught that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone. Jesus grafted Peter to Himself, along with the rest of the foundation. Anyone who belongs to Christ as Head, therefore, also belongs to His One Body, the Church. As such, they also belong to Peter as he was given the duty of feeding and caring for the sheep. The successors of Peter have taken upon this task to feed and care for the flock. That is why all who belong to Christ, also belong to the successor of Peter.

Without question the majority of those claiming to be “Catholic” are poorly catechized and do not live out the faith into which they were baptized.

The Catholic Church has no corner on that.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Does anyone have the Church explaining invincible ignorance in greater detail?

Try this one and see if it quells your thirst for knowlege.

For JonNC the part I was referring to in your case is 1790.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

It is incumbent upon us to study, pray, and form our conscience, so that we can make informed decisions. Those who fail to do this are not excused under the concept of invicible ignorance.

 

[steve_b]

Try this one and see if it quells your thirst for knowlege.

I’m familiar with this section of the CCC already. Invincible ignorance appears once in that section. And as you can see, it is mentioned but not defined.

The question remains, after all efforts are made by someone to understand, what is it in the faith that is truly invincible for that person to understand and therefore, they are not responsible?

I’m wondering if this is meant to address those with mental illness or mental retardation

From the link

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience

 

[guanophore]

 I'm familiar with this section of the CCC already. Invincible ignorance appears once in that section. And as you can see, it is mentioned but not defined.

The question remains, after all efforts are made by someone to understand, what is it in the faith that is truly invincible for that person to understand and therefore, they are not responsible?

I’m wondering if this is meant to address those with mental illness or mental retardation

Oh I see what you mean. Well, I guess I cannot help you then. That page answers all these questions for me because it again summarizes the concepts of how it is used at the bottom. Perhaps someone else can lead you to a better resource.

From the link

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience

I think the key point in applying this concept is the Teaching of the Church that says “through no fault of their own”.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hi Marc,
Considering the location of your post immediately following Guan’s and mine, I assume you may be speaking to me. So, a question: while Lutherans don’t make the same distinction regarding moral and venial sins (we consider the possibility that all sin can be mortal), I avail myself of Holy Absolution (performed by my Pastor in persona christi), either corporately during Divine Service (Mass) or privately. Understanding our different views of the validity of orders and therefore sacraments, what is your view regarding my confessions and repentence?

Jon

Hey Jon, it actually was just supposed to be relevant to the general discussion, but I’ll do my best to answer anyway, keeping in mind that everything I say is pure speculation and my opinion will be changed immediately if I learn the Church dictates otherwise.

I think that Protestant sacraments are interesting cases. I recall a Church document (possibly written by Cardinal Ratzinger? I’m not sure.) saying something to the effect that Protestant eucharists may at least be efficacious to some extent, perhaps in a limited way or perhaps not, due to the complicated relationship between modern Protestant churches and the Apostolic Churches. Given that, I would wonder if the same thing would apply to Protestant confessions in some way-how, I can’t say.

In any event, if a true prayer of sorrow is said (one that is prayed not only out of a desire not to be sent to Hell but also out of sorrow for having offended God, who has boundless love for you) then your sins are absolved anyway, so there is always a way to be forgiven of mortal sins even without the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I hope that helps as an answer.

 

[epan]

Like I always bring about, Pope Boniface XIII ( I believe) infallibly stated that one cannot enter heaven without acknowledging the primacy of the Roman Papacy.

Now, why would a pope happen to say that? hmmmm…

 

[guanophore]

Now, why would a pope happen to say that? hmmmm…

I sure would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

From the Catholic point of view, it is imcumbent upon the successor of Peter to shepherd the flock, so that if the sheep are in danger of losing their eternal souls, he should speak up and warn them.

 

[epan]

I sure would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

From the Catholic point of view, it is imcumbent upon the successor of Peter to shepherd the flock, so that if the sheep are in danger of losing their eternal souls, he should speak up and warn them.

I’m no theologian, nor a religious historian. But it seems to me that the strength of the Catholic Church is its long tradition of papal guidance, while unfortunately that has also been one of its great weaknesses. The power of the papacy has corrupted many, which is what lead to the reformation.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, it actually was just supposed to be relevant to the general discussion, but I’ll do my best to answer anyway, keeping in mind that everything I say is pure speculation and my opinion will be changed immediately if I learn the Church dictates otherwise.

I think that Protestant sacraments are interesting cases. I recall a Church document (possibly written by Cardinal Ratzinger? I’m not sure.) saying something to the effect that Protestant eucharists may at least be efficacious to some extent, perhaps in a limited way or perhaps not, due to the complicated relationship between modern Protestant churches and the Apostolic Churches. Given that, I would wonder if the same thing would apply to Protestant confessions in some way-how, I can’t say.

In any event, if a true prayer of sorrow is said (one that is prayed not only out of a desire not to be sent to Hell but also out of sorrow for having offended God, who has boundless love for you) then your sins are absolved anyway, so there is always a way to be forgiven of mortal sins even without the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I hope that helps as an answer.

Thanks, Marc.
The Cardinal’s comment you reference was in a letter to a Lutheran Bishop, and was a specific comment about a Lutheran Lord’s Supper. I assume it could, by extention, be applied to other protestant groups who discern the real presence.

That said, thanks for you comments and views.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I think the key point in applying this concept is the Teaching of the Church that says “through no fault of their own”.

The question IMV is about, not what we’re ignorant of that can be dispeled with learning, it’s about what kind of ignorance can’t we dispeled no matter what we do to learn the subject…right?

For example

Is there any teaching in the faith, in your opinion, that once taught, is so hard to believe or accept, that one could qualify as invincibly ignorant of the matter? Please give an example

dissecting the following passages (my comments and emphasis are in purple & red)

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.all this can be reversed with a desire for education and change of behavior…true? iow it’s ignorance that is not invincible ]
**1793 **If on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, (this needs explanation. Invincible is a catagory of its own, and implies that nothing can correct this ignorance. What in your opinion, in our faith is so hard for an average person to understand that the person just can’t understand or accept it? ) the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. what evil is so obtuse and difficult to understand that one can’t be convinced of it’s evil? ) It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience (Re: the word “disorder” This is the word I’m keying in on, thinking that a person who is invincibly ignorant about an evil, is someone who suffers with mental disorder. They can’t process information properly, even when clearly taught. Therefore they aren’t responsible )

That’s opposed to the person who just flat out won’t learn or obey, because a teaching doesn’t fit into their wants and desires.

Your thoughts?

 

[guanophore]

I’m no theologian, nor a religious historian. But it seems to me that the strength of the Catholic Church is its long tradition of papal guidance, while unfortunately that has also been one of its great weaknesses. The power of the papacy has corrupted many, which is what lead to the reformation.

I think the strength of the CC is in the infallible protection by the Holy Spirit that prevents the Church from falling into error, despite some of the wicked characters who have been in office.

There is nothing in the power of the papacy that corrupts anyone or anything, since that power comes from God, and it is incorruptible. However, I do agree that corruption and abuse of power was a major factor in the reformation.

You did not answer my question, though. Why do you think the Pope would make the statement he did? Do you think he is trying to “corrupt many” by getting power over them?

 

[epan]

I think the strength of the CC is in the infallible protection by the Holy Spirit that prevents the Church from falling into error, despite some of the wicked characters who have been in office.

There is nothing in the power of the papacy that corrupts anyone or anything, since that power comes from God, and it is incorruptible. However, I do agree that corruption and abuse of power was a major factor in the reformation.

You did not answer my question, though. Why do you think the Pope would make the statement he did? Do you think he is trying to “corrupt many” by getting power over them?

There are two possibilities that come to mind, that he believed what he was saying, or that he was aggrandizing his office. It is impossible for me to say which.

I believe that there have been “corrupted” popes, and also some popes who were truly great men.

This is a big sticking point for non-catholics, as we all know, the stated infallibility of the pope. Some take it on faith, others don’t. It’s not something that can be proved.

 

[guanophore]

There are two possibilities that come to mind, that he believed what he was saying, or that he was aggrandizing his office. It is impossible for me to say which.

I believe that there have been “corrupted” popes, and also some popes who were truly great men.

Well, can we explore those possiblities? If he believed what he was saying, why might he believe it were true?

Also, what if it is true?

If he said it to aggrandize his office, how does saying this accomplish this goal?

This is a big sticking point for non-catholics, as we all know, the stated infallibility of the pope. Some take it on faith, others don’t. It’s not something that can be proved.

The survival of the Church is proof in itself. But most people object to what does not exist. No one has ever claimed that the Popes are impeccable. The gift of infalliblity is needed BECAUSE they are not impeccable.

 

[po18guy]

The Catholic Church has no corner on that.

Jon

ELCA, by definition? OK,OK, you can have your money back on that one…