“Invincible in ignorance” of the Apostolic Catholic Church hardly means not to accept the Catholic Church as the true religion. It would essentially require having no knowledge of its existence. For instance, it was taught that the many generations preceeding the historical Jesus on the earth would have been “invincible in ignorance of the Church”. So would certain remote populations. But the teaching was aimed squarely at Protesants. Perhaps this had been in response to the Reformation. I don’t know. But the doctrine was change durning Vatican II, likely for ecumentical considerations.Yes, the allocution is quite accurate, and note that in it the pope stated that we must recognize with certainty that those in invincible ignorance of the true religion are not guilty. No one is consigned to hell. Even at an early age I recognized that a lot of people did not accept the Catholic Church as the true religion. No one can judge another’s invincible ignorance.
My father was also non-Catholic. I figured if he was not invincibly ignorant of the requirement to join the Church, he would be Catholic. It did not bother me. Sounds like our understanding of the doctrine became clearer over time. Understanding the meaning advanced; the doctrine didn’t change.“Invincible in ignorance” of the Apostolic Catholic Church hardly means not to accept the Catholic Church as the true religion. It would essentially require having no knowledge of its existence. For instance, it was taught that the many generations preceeding the historical Jesus on the earth would have been “invincible in ignorance of the Church”. So would certain remote populations. But the teaching was aimed squarely at Protesants. Perhaps this had been in response to the Reformation. I don’t know. But the doctrine was change durning Vatican II, likely for ecumentical considerations.
At a young age, I questioned the doctrine. My father was not Catholic, and the teaching I learned at school was very upsetting. And it was upsetting as well for my father. He nearly withdrew me from the Catholic school. But as a result, there were discussions between parents and teachers, who were members of a religious society, with the end result that there would be no further need to raise the issue when I was present in class. It is in this way that I vividly recall the matter. But perhaps your experience differed from mine.
Yes, and I guess it is senseless of me to waste time arguing about this reality. Really, resistance to this truth is a manifestation of viewing Church teaching as static and fully revealed at a particular point in time. The discussion is interesting though it what it reveals.It does look like this teaching has been changed. For example, we read the following:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
I understand. Seriously, the whole scenario was very upsetting to both me and my older sister. But as for the OP concerning widespread dissent from Church moral teaching, it is very evident that many so-called conservative Catholics are in disagreement with the morals teachings of Laudato Si. It is also evident that many self-described conservatives do not believe they are in disagreement with the encyclical and have a tendency to focus on AGW rather than the ethical and moral teaching provided by Pope Francis is his description and explanation of the cultural and epistomological paradigm. Is it perhaps that these individuals just don’t understand Laudato Si? It is complex.My father was also non-Catholic. I figured if he was not invincibly ignorant of the requirement to join the Church, he would be Catholic. It did not bother me. Sounds like our understanding of the doctrine became clearer over time. Understanding the meaning advanced; the doctrine didn’t change.
(Later, my father did become Catholic, simply because my youngest brother invited him to. Sometimes it only takes an invitation.)
Yes, but the big concern in the 60’s became one of overpopulation. That’s why “the pill” (discovered and produced by John Rock, a Catholic) became the way to control it without committing the immoral deed of abortion. Pius XII had earlier approved the same pill for menstrual regulation. I’m not trying to rationalize things here but merely showing the sequence of events that led to massive resistance against Humanae Vitae.Christian teaching, and the Natural Law, had already been proclaimed many times by previous popes. They were reaffirmed by his predecessor, and at Vatican II, after
the oral contraceptive had been developed. It is reasonable that Pope Paul VI expected those reaffirmations (the ink was still damp) to have been read.
Maybe so. I’m not sure that anyone even understands Laudato Si, so I guess it would be hard to disagree with it.I understand. Seriously, the whole scenario was very upsetting to both me and my older sister. But as for the OP concerning widespread dissent from Church moral teaching, it is very evident that many so-called conservative Catholics are in disagreement with the morals teachings of Laudato Si. It is also evident that many self-described conservatives do not believe they are in disagreement with the encyclical and have a tendency to focus on AGW rather than the ethical and moral teaching provided by Pope Francis is his description and explanation of the cultural and epistomological paradigm. Is it perhaps that these individuals just don’t understand Laudato Si? It is complex.
Well, how’s the average guy supposed to read this? (Actually there was no internet then so much of this information was relayed by bishops and priests.)There is nothing I can see in Populorum Progressio that said the method of limiting family size was a matter of personal conscience.
Populorum Progressio
Population Growth
- There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.
There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.
Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him.
Unintended result of invincible ignorance maybe? I don’t think it is really so difficult to understand, but it is complex. It seems to me paragraph 106-108 of Laudato Si and those that immediately follow are very important. The objectivity of science and the scientific method have become the mindset of a cultural paradigm where both humans and nature are viewed not as subjects but as objects. In consequence, both have been exploited.Maybe so. I’m not sure that anyone even understands Laudato Si, so I guess it would be hard to disagree with it.
Thanks for the analysis. Maybe the encyclical isn’t so difficult after all, but I haven’t read it yet, and my usual practice is to allow at least several years of soak time before tackling any new encyclical. I suppose I’ll have to give it a read.Unintended result of invincible ignorance maybe? I don’t think it is really so difficult to understand, but it is complex. It seems to me paragraph 106-108 of Laudato Si and those that immediately follow are very important. The objectivity of science and the scientific method have become the mindset of a cultural paradigm where both humans and nature are viewed not as subjects but as objects. In consequence, both have been exploited.
Consider a scientific experiment where the subject is a live creature. When the live creature is viewed solely as a mere object, abuse has often occurred. But the moment the live creature is viewed as a subject, ethical issues arise (or at least they ought to). That much is not so difficult to grasp. But the absence of the recognition that humans and nature are subjects and not mere objects, as they are perceived in the cultural paradigm, is the absence of ethics and spirituality. This has its philosophical roots in the era following the Scholastic period and the early beginnings of the modern era, where ethics became more and more subjective. Very briefly and hardly fully stated, this perspective resulted in both modernity and the the moral relativism of secularism. God was no longer Immanent in the sense that he could not be known by reason, and there was no knowable ultimate truth either, and so on. These categories disappeared from Objectivity and became subject beliefs and matters of faith. The Providence of Reason is the mantra of secularism. (Reason is also the tool of science, though in science objectivity is in itself benign.) As I understand it, Laudato Si rejects every last bit of this and teaches that a return to spirituality, in a new epistomological paradigm, is the only way out of a world crisis.
Or so I see it anyway.
The way I understood * Laudato Si* was that it was for Catholics a call to return to the spirituality of long ago. I think the media has focused on a few issues it understood, such as AGW, and this has resulted in a misperception that this is what the encyclical is about. It isn’t, and it isn’t a scientific debate either.I think this should be a call to action. Instead of focusing solely on Social Justice, perhaps the Church should finally shine light on the astounding collapse of faith in the Western Church since Vatican II.
Name such a disagreement.it is very evident that many so-called conservative Catholics are in disagreement with the morals teachings of Laudato Si.
They don’t believe they are in disagreement, but you have concluded that they are. There is a bit of irony here given your comments in another thread where you defended a priest who responded to those raising questions about others that “those people should worry about their own standing before God.”It is also evident that many self-described conservatives do not believe they are in disagreement with the encyclical …
Amen!!When in comes to disagreeing with the Church’s teaching, the only answer I can come up with is the same answer given by the apostles when asked if they would also leave because of his hard teaching on the Eucharist: “Lord, to whom should we go?”
There is no other place to go. One baptism, one Lord, one Church.
Whatever problems there are with dissent, and they are surely manifold and serious, the problem with inadequate teaching is worse.I see this poll pointing out an educational problem rather than “dissent” from Catholic teaching.
Ender–Name such a disagreement.
They don’t believe they are in disagreement, but you have concluded that they are. There is a bit of irony here given your comments in another thread where you defended a priest who responded to those raising questions about others that “those people should worry about their own standing before God.”
I seriously doubt that there are many who disagree with the moral teachings of Laudato Si, although I will grant that there are probably many disagreements over what those teachings actually are.
Ender
I’m only looking for one example. Surely that should be simple enough to provide, especially since you said it was “very evident”.The comment was a reply to another forum member, and I believe it was understood in the context of a discussion. What it was not was a legal brief intended for submission to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The media can create an “uproar” any time they want. Then they report their uproar as a news item.It was not until 1968 when Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae Vitae. It created an uproar within the Church
That would not explain why previous popes, and subsequent popes, and for that matter classic Protestant, Jewish and Muslim sources all regarded breaking the Natural Law as wrong.The several sources I’ve read all say the same thing: Pope Paul VI was reluctant to change the doctrine about ABC, fearing that doing so would set a precedent and weaken papal authority for future popes.
A better explanation is the rise of Secularism, using the government, media and higher education to hit against Catholicism. Protestantism and Judaism have also declined.It has also been argued that it was Humanae Vitae, and not Vatican II itself, that resulted in the major crisis in the Church following Vatican II.
Yeah, “uproar” again. What does that prove?During Vatican I, Pope Pius IX essentially declared that he (and future popes) were infallible with respect to the teaching of faith and morals. At that time, there was also an uproar.
Newman did not disagree with papal infallibility. But what if he did, what does “prominence” have to do with this? Is “prominence” a sign of Truth, like “uproar”?Cardinal Newman was one of many prominent Catholics who strongly opposed this doctrine, and he did so until he was silenced.
This is neither a Church teaching, nor a Catholic doctrine. Suppose the Media persuaded the majority that the Earth was flat, and that the Trinity is no longer true. Would that public opinion poll change the shape of the planet, or the Trinity?There is an ancient Church teaching known as the Doctrine of Reception. It provides that for a doctrine to be legitimate, it must be accepted by the faithful. This obviously could have been an issue with respect to Humae Vitae, but this Catholic doctrine had died a slow death over the centuries.
This is totally inaccurate. Both papal infallibility, and Dei Verbum, are consistent with each other, and both are consistent with the stream of Catholic teaching, both before and after both Vatican councils.The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum was in part a response to what was by Vatican II perceived by many as a difficulty in that it gave sole and infallible authority, in perpetuity, in these matters to one person. With the promulgation of Dei Verbum, doctrine and papal authority were no longer invincible. However, for whatever reasons, this dogma is scarcely mentioned.
I don’t want to continue this game, so I have a suggestion. Why don’t you attempt to make an informative comment of your own? I don’t have an interest in taking the time and making the effort to respond to unsubstantiated proclamations like those made in the last two paragraphs of the comment quoted above. I don’t see this as a productive use of the forum. There is also too frequently an uncivil edge to your comments. Concerning the Doctrine of Reception, I have provided a link:The media can create an “uproar” any time they want. Then they report their uproar as a news item.
That would not explain why previous popes, and subsequent popes, and for that matter classic Protestant, Jewish and Muslim sources all regarded breaking the Natural Law as wrong.
A better explanation is the rise of Secularism, using the government, media and higher education to hit against Catholicism. Protestantism and Judaism have also declined.
Yeah, “uproar” again. What does that prove?
Newman did not disagree with papal infallibility. But what if he did, what does “prominence” have to do with this? Is “prominence” a sign of Truth, like “uproar”?
This is neither a Church teaching, nor a Catholic doctrine. Suppose the Media persuaded the majority that the Earth was flat, and that the Trinity is no longer true. Would that public opinion poll change the shape of the planet, or the Trinity?
This is totally inaccurate. Both papal infallibility, and Dei Verbum, are consistent with each other, and both are consistent with the stream of Catholic teaching, both before and after both Vatican councils.