Is invincible ignorance a thin line to travel for Protestants?

[po18guy]

I must say that I do question this issue in regard to certain bible Christians who stake their claim to the “sufficiency” of scriptures, thus self-negating their need to become Catholic, or commune with any other apostolic Church. It can be viewed as a defiant act of human will. Better simply to pray for them, and to explain the Catholic teachings with as much charity and clarity as we can muster. Do we risk failure? Only if we try.

 

[inocente]

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.

Thanks for the explanation, and thankfully it’s a long way off from what was being said in the OP.

Apparently that was from an obscure Bull issued in 1302, the main purpose of which was to lay down that all secular powers, especially the poetically named Philip the Fair, must submit to “the authority of the Roman pontiff”. These days virtually all countries roundly ignore that of course, and imho we can safely do the same with the whole of that detour into the weird and wonderful logic of medieval politics.

 

[inocente]

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.

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

Don’t know if this will help. A principle of the Baptist faith is that since we are all created in the image of God, we are all competent to form our own relationship with Him. We must therefore follow our own conscience, not anyone else’s, if we are not to condemn ourselves. Since those with mental illness/retardation are created in the image of God, they too are competent. God meets each of us according to our capabilities.

Of course, the same logic rules out turf wars between Christians (you competently decided to be Catholic, I competently decided otherwise).

 

[inocente]

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.

We’d have to be careful here - a belief that any particular rituals are automatically most efficacious would seem to rely on sympathetic magic rather than evidence.

I’d have thought it’s simply that whatever we happen to believe has the most power for us.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We’d have to be careful here - a belief that any particular rituals are automatically most efficacious would seem to rely on sympathetic magic rather than evidence.

I’m not saying that they’re necessarily automatically efficacious-like I said, I’m no theologian and I’d change my position as soon as I heard a church teaching contradict it. But I think it does depend on some extent how closely their beliefs adhere to orthodox Church teaching and, yes, how sincere their belief is. For example, I don’t think belief in symbolic bread and wine would be efficacious (probably).

I’d have thought it’s simply that whatever we happen to believe has the most power for us.

Well as a Catholic I would reject that theory. One truth.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for the explanation, and thankfully it's a long way off from what was being said in the OP.

The way Catholics understand it, it is the same thing. We are required to submit ourselves to those that God has placed over us.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing — for that would be harmful to you.

Scripture tells us that Peter was given the specific care of the flock - to feed and care for them. This duty was passed on to his successor, and so on until the present day. The Pope, as the person divinely appointed by God to keep watch over the whole flock, excercises his duty to protect and defend the flock, and the faith that holds us together.

The reason it is said that everyone who is saved must submit to him is that there is only one flock, one Body, ,one Church. All who are in Christ, then, are under the shepherding of the successor of Peter.

Apparently that was from an obscure Bull issued in 1302, the main purpose of which was to lay down that all secular powers, especially the poetically named Philip the Fair, must submit to “the authority of the Roman pontiff”. These days virtually all countries roundly ignore that of course, and imho we can safely do the same with the whole of that detour into the weird and wonderful logic of medieval politics.

Yes, it was written during the time of the Holy Roman Empire, when all the rulers were also Catholic, and were crowned by the Church, either the Pope or a Bishop, and pledged to protect and defend the Catholic faith. Fortunately, since that time, secular authority and power has been separated from the spiritual authority and power that God has divinely appointed in the shepherds of His church.

 

[guanophore]

We’d have to be careful here - a belief that any particular rituals are automatically most efficacious would seem to rely on sympathetic magic rather than evidence.

I’d have thought it’s simply that whatever we happen to believe has the most power for us.

It is interesting to read this, as I was just in study about some Reformation thinking that rituals needed to be abolished because they were “magic”. Such a concept about the inefficacy of ritual is truly inconsistent with the entire Revelation of God from the beginning of the OT until the close of the canon. One has to deny a great deal of scripture to make and support this claim - so much scripture it is appalling.

It is also a reflection of a lack of comprehension about the nature of man. God created mankind with a need for ritual, and has fulfilled that by giving us rituals to use in worship and in His service. Had God thought ritual was just “sympathetic magic” it does not seem that He would have promoted the use of it.

The Passover meal is one of the main rituals of the Hebrew people, also celebrated by Christ and His Aposltes, and is the foundation of the Eucharist today. It amazes me to imagine Jesus sitting in the upper room with his Apostles engaged in “sympathetic magic”.

 

[JonNC]

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

Umm…


Jon

 

[inocente]

I’m not saying that they’re necessarily automatically efficacious-like I said, I’m no theologian and I’d change my position as soon as I heard a church teaching contradict it. But I think it does depend on some extent how closely their beliefs adhere to orthodox Church teaching and, yes, how sincere their belief is. For example, I don’t think belief in symbolic bread and wine would be efficacious (probably).

Agreed, we’re more or less on the same page.

 

[inocente]

The way Catholics understand it, it is the same thing. We are required to submit ourselves to those that God has placed over us.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing — for that would be harmful to you.

Scripture tells us that Peter was given the specific care of the flock - to feed and care for them. This duty was passed on to his successor, and so on until the present day. The Pope, as the person divinely appointed by God to keep watch over the whole flock, excercises his duty to protect and defend the flock, and the faith that holds us together.

The reason it is said that everyone who is saved must submit to him is that there is only one flock, one Body, ,one Church. All who are in Christ, then, are under the shepherding of the successor of Peter.

Non-Catholics read this without the succession of course, for instance Wesley’s notes on Heb 13:17:

Obey them that have the rule over you - The word implies also, that lead or guide you; namely, in truth and holiness. And submit yourselves - Give up (not your conscience or judgment, but) your own will, in all things purely indifferent. For they watch over your souls - With all zeal and diligence, they guard and caution you against all danger. As they that must give account - To the great Shepherd, for every part of their behaviour toward you. …]

 

[inocente]

It is interesting to read this, as I was just in study about some Reformation thinking that rituals needed to be abolished because they were “magic”. Such a concept about the inefficacy of ritual is truly inconsistent with the entire Revelation of God from the beginning of the OT until the close of the canon. One has to deny a great deal of scripture to make and support this claim - so much scripture it is appalling.

We may be talking at cross purposes. Sympathetic magic is the manipulation of proxies to influence reality, such as homeopathy or stabbing a voodoo doll. The world has no choice but to act in accordance with our manipulation, in the same way that paper has no choice but to burn when lit. For a theist this would mean believing that God can be fooled, manipulated, forced to do our will (an example is the Philistines in 1 Sam 6). I’d submit that belief in sympathetic magic is incompatible with belief in Christ.

On those who said ritual is “magic” - a ritual may be highly important to those who observe it, but those who don’t may have a tendency to dismiss it as sinful, harmful or just a pointless waste of time. For example, consider what a Christian and a Muslim may think of each others’ rituals. I think we must respect others’ rituals and traditions, and for that reason find it hard to believe that God would have us war over who has the “godliest” rituals.

 

[steve_b]

Don’t know if this will help. A principle of the Baptist faith is that since we are all created in the image of God, we are all competent to form our own relationship with Him.

I would say if we want the kind of relationship talked about in scripture, it is not on our terms we build that relationship, but His terms…true?
i:

We must therefore follow our own conscience, not anyone else’s, if we are not to condemn ourselves.

Yes we are to follow our own conscience. However, if our own conscience is poorly formed, or malformed, it’s not reliable to follow. That’s why we need to put effort into making sure our own conscience is properly formed.
i:

Since those with mental illness/retardation are created in the image of God, they too are competent. God meets each of us according to our capabilities.

Keeping within the topic

Yes everyone is made to the image and likeness of God. That doesn’t translate into everyone is competent for what they do. For example the mentally retarded. And that is in degrees also. It would depend on one’s degree of retardation, which effects one’s degree of competence…agreed?
i:

Of course, the same logic rules out turf wars between Christians (you competently decided to be Catholic, I competently decided otherwise).

I would suggest, because faith is a gift from God, not from us, decisions on faith is always on His terms not ours. Would you agree?

Therefore, since there is one faith, there can be no valid turf wars. That’s because there is no seperate but equal faiths clause in scripture. It’s one faith, not many conflicting faiths. Turf wars therefore, are a witness that there is NOT one faith, and there are christians deciding on their own, not to take the faith on His terms, but their own terms. It’s hard to argue against that based on events… As you also know from scripture, which helps form our conscience properly, says that division/sedition/factions, whichever term(s) your transaltion of the bible uses, is condemned…true? That’s not an arguable point. The action is condemned as are those who do it. [Gal 5:19-21]

So, re: ignorance,

what is

• vincible ignorance
• invincible ignorance

 

[po18guy]

Umm…


Jon

In sote of my various and sundry failings, I do have one potentially redeeming aspect: I am not above the occasional cheap shot.

There is always Catholics for Choice, too…

 

[JonNC]

In sote of my various and sundry failings, I do have one potentially redeeming aspect: I am not above the occasional cheap shot.

There is always Catholics for Choice, too…

We both have our wayward siblings whom we love and pray for.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

We both have our wayward siblings whom we love and pray for.

Jon

I just hope that there is overtime pay for the extra prayer that is necessary!

 

[JonNC]

I just hope that there is overtime pay for the extra prayer that is necessary!

The one who deserves overtime pay is the Holy Spirit. Gosh, we make it tough for Him, don’t we.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

The one who deserves overtime pay is the Holy Spirit. Gosh, we make it tough for Him, don’t we.

Jon

The forgotten member of the Trinity.

 

[inocente]

[Gal 5:19-21]

 

[steve_b]

Hi back

allow me to explain.

As I said previously, depending on the scripture translation one uses, will depend on the term(s) used in the following scripture passage. Whether it’s division/sedition/factions that is used, one can see, these acts according to Paul, i.e. the Holy spirit, i.e. Jesus, are condemned in scripture. The following passage is from one of the popular Protestant transaltions ( NIV),

all emphasis mine

Gal 5: 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God

Looking at the consequence for dissensions and factions for example, If one is in them at death, will keep their soul out of heaven…true? That’s another way of saying the consequence for THAT sin, identifies a sin as mortal. Mortal sins are sins that can send a soul to hell, as Paul states. It also shows, that one who is in these sins while alive, is a ticking time bomb. i.e. living in mortal sin, they are just one heartbeat away from an eternity of disaster for their soul. That’s because none of us knows the second this life will end and the next begins…true? Paul had to restate his warning over and over for his hearers, because obviously some weren’t taking him seriously.

It looks like Either

• dissensions and factions were still occuring, because he’s warning them again and again don’t do it
• or some were arguing with Paul that hell couldn’t possibly be the punishment for these sins mentioned
• or those who were dissenting or divided, weren’t taking the warning seriously, and weren’t ending their dissent and division immediately, ergo they weren’t returning to unity with the Church Jesus established and the apostles were building

either way, the sins mentioned in that passage will land a soul in hell if one dies in them…true? And note, Paul is not talking to pagans. These are people who know the faith but aren’t living it.

So what’s all this mean? Division/dissension/factions from what Church?

The Church of scripture and the ECF’s who wrote in defense of the Church, is the Catholic Church. How is that, one will ask?

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά *kata *ὅλος *holos * Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" iow the Church is the ***Kataholos Church = Catholic Church ***The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. ancientfaith.com/podcasts/statutes/introduction_to_the_catholic_epistles
• St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church [letter to the Church of Smyrna Epistle to the Smyrnæans
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teachesall must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]
• etc etc

Pauls warning and the consequence here, given in the 1st century, is the same as it is in all centuries to follow. It doesn’t change.

If one is not in the Catholic Church, then somewhere along the way, that person left the Church, or their belief system they inherited, was from either one seperated from the Catholic Church directly, or from a system that ultimately traces it’s geneology circumstantially, to seperation from the Catholic Church… Either way, in the spirit of sharing knowledge, and discussing the meaning of dissent and factions in Gal 5:19-21, if one doesn’t know it already, once someone does see the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established, and the apostles were building, and they recognize their status is divided from the Catholic Church, they need to act ASAP to do everything they can to come back in unity with the Catholic Church, as Paul warned, for the sake of one’s immortal soul.

Sorry for the length, I hope that helps not hurts.

 

[steve_b]

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά kata ὅλος holos Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" iow the Church is the ***Kataholos Church = Catholic Church ***The English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. -]ancientfaith.com/podcasts/statutes/introduction_to_the_catholic_epistles/-]

For clarification, While that link is an Orthodox link, and it properly defines what is being said there, I didn’t mean to use that site. I meant to use catholic.com/quickquestions/what-were-christians-called-before-st-ignatius-of-antioch-referred-to-them-as-catholi

& catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

my mistake.