No. We’re talking about a definition, not a particular judgment of a particular person.
No, I’m not asking how you reason – I’m asking how you reached that particular conclusion (which, BTW, would require you to judge particular people)!
Why not?
But in your previous post, you said you are judging! Oh, you called it an ‘assumption’, but it’s an assumption of a judgment!
I’m not following you. You’re saying that Luke understood Jesus to have been saying what…?
It said The person in question was Catholic and left the faith. It doesn’t say they were never taught the faith. It says they no longer believe in the teachings. So the issue is, they once believed but don’t believe anymore. So Is he still culpable for the wrong he does not being a practicing Catholic any longer?
That would be more like they believed that the United States did not create traffic laws in the first place. In that case they would still be attempting to obey the law.
OK, analogies aside, bottom line, one can’t make up their own laws conflicting with God’s laws, and think God honors that.steve-b:
That would be more like they believed that the United States did not create traffic laws in the first place. In that case they would still be attempting to obey the law.
Well, I already tried to explain what I thought about it. I think there are some qualifications to the word judging in Lk, and I base that on it’s context. You seem to be taking a broader meaning of the word.
But in this case, they came to an honest but mistaken conclusion on God’s will. It’s all the difference of a child ignoring their parent’s orders and the child not hearing them. They acted ignorantly without knowledge of the truth instead of having “sinned deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth.”
Close. I’m saying that we shouldn’t presume that a person isn’t capable of being culpable. Whether he actually is or not actually is a judgment, so I’m not going to get into the weeds of trying to make those kinds of determinations.
That’s how it seemed to me, since you spoke of an assessment of large numbers of people.
Right… 'cause all I’m talking about is capability for culpability. That’s not a judgment on a group of people, or even a particular judgment of a particular person.
Ahhh…so you’re saying we shouldn’t presume that people are in a state of invincible ignorance when they leave the Church? Or does “capable of being culpable” mean something else…like being in a lucid state when the decision is made?
Perhaps we are.
I think that’s part of it.
No, not exactly. Some around here have made the claim that, just due to human nature or the arbitrary characteristics of our life (where we were born, what the conditions of our childhood were, etc etc) we are de facto incapable of mortal sin (and therefore, all of us fall into the “invincible ignorance” category). It’s a bizarre little argument, since at its heart, the claim is that the effects of sin committed in the past preclude us from sinning now!
Actual sin is voluntary. Responsibility for sin results from what is voluntary. It is possible to commit sin through ignorance, through passion, and through malice. For ignorance, see the Catechism:
Look again at the point I was making.steve-b:
But in this case, they came to an honest but mistaken conclusion on God’s will. It’s all the difference of a child ignoring their parent’s orders and the child not hearing them. They acted ignorantly without knowledge of the truth instead of having “sinned deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth.”
This is invincible ignorance that I am talking about. The person is in no way guilty for their ignorance.