May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

[Vico]

…

In your hypothetical, that person never was told from authority and never had in conscience all of those to be loved as oneself. It would be called invincible ignorance or vincible ignorance depending upon what effort was made to know the truth.

Responsibility is relevant to this thread: it must be considered by the person that acts, because it is important for achieving salvation.

 

[OneSheep]

In your hypothetical, that person never was told from authority and never had in conscience all of those to be loved as oneself. It would be called invincible ignorance or vincible ignorance depending upon what effort was made to know the truth.

So, the man did not know what he was doing, correct, just as Jesus saw the crowd did not know what they were doing, just as the apostles saw the same in the leaders who condemned Him?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Scripture appropriation alert.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

In your hypothetical, that person never was told from authority and never had in conscience all of those to be loved as oneself. It would be called invincible ignorance or vincible ignorance depending upon what effort was made to know the truth.

So, the man did not know what he was doing, correct, just as Jesus saw the crowd did not know what they were doing, just as the apostles saw the same in the leaders who condemned Him?

It is possible that there was ignorance and there may have been fault in that ignorance in which case the person knew he did not want to know the truth, otherwise not. There are many consequences of actual sin: eternal, attachments, damage to others, civil or criminal penalties (from law). Any of these can be forgiven when conditions are met. Material sin (without any culpability) may also have consequences.

 

[TheAdvocate197]

It doesn’t necessarily mean anything goes. One could still do good deeds and avoid evil out of love for God, rather than fear of hell, which is a way better motive anyway.

 

[christofirst]

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[OneSheep]

It is possible that there was ignorance

The man believed people in his out-group were less than human, and you are saying that he was only possibly ignorant.

I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It is possible that there was ignorance

The man believed people in his out-group were less than human, and you are saying that he was only possibly ignorant.

I’ll leave it at that.

Possible vincible ignorance. As posted: “there may have been fault in that ignorance” which means culpability. Without considering culpability there is no bearing on salvation.

 

[Rubee]

“there may have been fault in that ignorance” which means culpability.

Culpability for the ignorance, yes. That implies a “duty to know” of which the person is aware and which he has violated. But what about the sin whose gravity one is ignorant of?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

“there may have been fault in that ignorance” which means culpability.

Culpability for the ignorance, yes. That implies a “duty to know” of which the person is aware and which he has violated. But what about the sin whose gravity one is ignorant of?

The culpability due to crass ignorance depends on the gravity of the matter at stake. For example, a person can reflect before sin “I guess that fornication is not a grave sin” yet can easily find out.