Please explain invincible ignorance

[Memaw]

I suggest that “Cafeteria Catholics” refers to those who are still part of the Catholic Church, maybe go to mass every now and then, but only choose to follow what they find convenient. If someone left the Catholic Church, I don’t think Cafeteria Catholic would apply to them, since they’ve pretty much rejected the entire lot of her teaching.

Having taught 7th and 8th grade CCD, I can tell you it’s possible to “sleep” through several years of classes and not come out with a thing. In my experience, either the parents were good examples for their kids or not. Every week we’d ask how many kids went to mass the previous weekend and it was constantly about 1/3…the same 1/3 every week.

I think it’d be safe to say that at least half of the kids had no clue about the teachings of the Catholic Church by the time they were getting confirmed. Our DRE, Priest and Deacon have confirmed that notion through their confirmation interviews. At least half the kids didn’t know the very basics of Christianity, let alone Catholic Christianity.

So are these kids invincibly ignorant? Good question. I’d say “maybe”.

Are they going to fulfill their obligation to learn about the faith on their own after confirmation? Even the most optimistic cannot say with a straight faith that they think such kids will do so. Why? Their parents don’t care about it so why should they?

Maybe someday the seeds that were planted will grow. Maybe it will take a traumatic event, maybe hitting rock bottom, maybe in 30 or 40 years time they’ll start to ask life’s big questions.

I’d also say for the sake of discussion that the kids of the Westboro Baptist Church wackos are likely to be “invincibly ignorant”.

Newbie, To “leave” the Catholic Faith doesn’t necessarily mean walking out the Catholic door into a protestant door. Maybe leave the ‘practice’ of the Catholic Faith would be a better way to say it. God’s Grace us ALWAYS there to help us overcome any obstacle in life, IF we turn to HIM. The choice is really ours no matter what our circumstances were. God is always trying to call us back to HIS fold. Are we listening?? Watch “The Journey Home” on EWTN Catholic Cable network, on Monday nights, 7 PM. CST, and you will see God’s Grace in action under the most unusual and difficult situations. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Ben_F]

Good posts. I’m still a little confused. I can only pray that my children will return to the Lord’s Supper. They both love God. I know this. One is more faithful to The Lord than most Catholics I know. It’s just her situation. Her spouse will never marry in the Church. She’s stuck. They have a beautiful union, are great nondenominational christians, with two children raised in a christian environment. God Bless them.

 

[Ben_F]

They aren’t okay. They are teaching error, and either they do not realize it, which is bad, or they do realize it, which is worse; but in the latter case, if they teach error without realizing it, they are not blameworthy. It is the same with one who leaves the Church: if they do not realize that they are in error, they are still in error, but they are not blameworthy, and will not go to hell for their ignorance. Thank you dmar198. This fits my daughter perfectly. She has invincible ignorance. I pray that she will soon return to the Lord’s Banquet. God bless. Ben F.

 

[Memaw]

Good posts. I’m still a little confused. I can only pray that my children will return to the Lord’s Supper. They both love God. I know this. One is more faithful to The Lord than most Catholics I know. It’s just her situation. Her spouse will never marry in the Church. She’s stuck. They have a beautiful union, are great nondenominational christians, with two children raised in a christian environment. God Bless them.

Many, Many years ago, my Mother, (who would be 105 now), was deeply in love with a fine young non-Catholic man and they planned on getting married in a few months but when they talked of making Church arrangements with Fr., he announced that he would get married in the Catholic Church and he would never interfere with my mom practicing her faith but he would NEVER consent to raising their children Catholic. It broke my Mom’s heart but she refused to marry him under those conditions. She later married and raised 10 fine children in the Catholic Faith. I never knew this till several years after my Mother died. My aunt, her older sister, told me of it. She never told us kids of her first love. But I would say that God was her FIRST LOVE. I thank God my Mom had the courage to stand firm on her beliefs and to put her future family ahead of her own feelings. I thank God I am a Catholic today because of my Mom. My Grandmother and Grandfather were converts, (their oldest son’s 6th Grade teacher brought my Grandmother into the faith and later my grandfather) and had a son who became a priest and now a great grandson a priest. God rewards the faithful. God Bless, Memaw

 

[steve_b]

Many, Many years ago, my Mother, (who would be 105 now), was deeply in love with a fine young non-Catholic man and they planned on getting married in a few months but when they talked of making Church arrangements with Fr., he announced that he would get married in the Catholic Church and he would never interfere with my mom practicing her faith but he would NEVER consent to raising their children Catholic. It broke my Mom’s heart but she refused to marry him under those conditions. She later married and raised 10 fine children in the Catholic Faith. I never knew this till several years after my Mother died. My aunt, her older sister, told me of it. She never told us kids of her first love. But I would say that God was her FIRST LOVE. I thank God my Mom had the courage to stand firm on her beliefs and to put her future family ahead of her own feelings. I thank God I am a Catholic today because of my Mom. My Grandmother and Grandfather were converts, (their oldest son’s 6th Grade teacher brought my Grandmother into the faith and later my grandfather) and had a son who became a priest and now a great grandson a priest. God rewards the faithful. God Bless, Memaw

Thank you. That’s a beautiful story. And a witness of heroic faith on the part of your mother.

 

[Ben_F]

What an interesting story Memaw:thumbsup:

 

[Nita]

Thank you for the citation, however, like so many people, you do not know how to properly read and interpret the Summa Theologica. You quoted the “on the contrary” portion which does not actually represent what St. Thomas Aquinas is thinking, but the conventional wisdom of the day, which is also often in error. Rather, if you want to assert the St. Thomas Aquinas actually said something, the only legitimate areas to quote are the “I answer that” and the “Reply to Objection x” sections.

The “on the contrary” portion of Aquinas’ method does reflect his thinking. It contains the thesis he intends to prove.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aquinas/aquinas_method.html (specifically, “Step 3” on the chart).

In dmar’s post #7, the only Aquinas quote that came from an “on the contrary” part was the first one she gave. The statement was a summary of what Aquinas said in the “I answer that” part of I:79:13 - so he was citing himself. Here is a link to 1:79:13 if you would like to check it out. newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm#article13

Your reasoning and conclusions in this post is profoundly wrong, fundamentally and irredeemably flawed and wholly opposed to authentic and constant Catholic teaching. You make it even worse because you actually miscontrue what the teachings actually are to support your erroneous view.

This is not true. Did you check her links to Aquinas’ text? I thought she did well.
She could perhaps have been clearer in her statement “Therefore, to will to follow Christ or His Church, if your reason says not to, is a sin, even if your reason is in error.”,----making it clear that the phrase “if reason says not to” assumes the person’s reason says it is because it believes that is what God commands.
Also, it would have been better if she had included more on erring reason/conscience – when following it does not excuse. Aquinas has more of that in the subsequent Article 6. newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article6

 

[rpp]

The “on the contrary” portion of Aquinas’ method does reflect his thinking. It contains the thesis he intends to prove.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aquinas/aquinas_method.html (specifically, “Step 3” on the chart).

I would never rely on secular or anti-Christian sources to help me understand any theological text as you do with this link. I mean, come on, Oregon State? The same school that apologetically publishes pornographic images if Christ?

Not to mention, what you state is actually incorrect.

In dmar’s post #7, the only Aquinas quote that came from an “on the contrary” part was the first one she gave. The statement was a summary of what Aquinas said in the “I answer that” part of I:79:13 - so he was citing himself. Here is a link to 1:79:13 if you would like to check it out. newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm#article13

Conclusion drawn from an incorrect premise.

This is not true. Did you check her links to Aquinas’ text? I thought she did well.
She could perhaps have been clearer in her statement “Therefore, to will to follow Christ or His Church, if your reason says not to, is a sin, even if your reason is in error.”,----making it clear that the phrase “if reason says not to” assumes the person’s reason says it is because it believes that is what God commands.
Also, it would have been better if she had included more on erring reason/conscience – when following it does not excuse. Aquinas has more of that in the subsequent Article 6. newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article6

Of course I was correct, conscience never trumps what the Church teaches. In fact, dmar realized her (his?) mistake and, quite admirably, admitted it and made the proper correction and amplification. But again, your error was the same as dmar’s initial, and later corrected, dual errors. First, you have improperly interpreted the St. Thomas Aquinas. Second (drawn from the first) you presume that all of his words are infallible and all his writings carry magisterial authority. While I am personally unaware of any problematic writings of Aquinas, and I have read him extensively, I would never assert that he is infallible.

 

[Nita]

I would never rely on secular or anti-Christian sources to help me understand any theological text as you do with this link. I mean, come on, Oregon State? The same school that apologetically publishes pornographic images if Christ?

Did you even check the site? It’s a simple chart that outlines the format used by Aquinas. It has nothing to do with understanding his theological text – just the format he uses to present it. Where does it err?
If you’ve read Aquinas’ Summa at all, you know there is a simple format that he follows throughout the volumes. If you have a link to a site you approve, that gives Aquinas’ method/format, please post it. If not,would you provide a brief chart of what you consider his format?

Not to mention, what you state is actually incorrect.

What’s incorrect? And please provide some support for your position.

In dmar’s post #7, the only Aquinas quote that came from an “on the contrary” part was the first one she gave. The statement was a summary of what Aquinas said in the “I answer that” part of I:79:13 - so he was citing himself. Here is a link to 1:79:13 if you would like to check it out. newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm#article13

Conclusion drawn from an incorrect premise.

What are you referring to with this statement? What incorrect premise; what incorrect conclusion? How are they incorrect? In order to help, I’ve copied and pasted the two parts from the Summa that are referred to in my statement
(bolding of pertinent parts done by me)

First Part of the Second Part, Q.19, Article 5, the “On the contrary” portion reads:
(This is the one dmar cited in Post #7)
On the contrary, As stated in the I, 79, 13, conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some action. Now knowledge is in the reason. Therefore when the will is at variance with erring reason, it is against conscience. But every such will is evil; for it is written (Romans 14:23): “All that is not of faith”–i.e. all that is against conscience–“is sin.” Therefore the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason.
And the First Part, Q. 79, Article 13 “I answer that” portion reads:
I answer that, Properly speaking, conscience is not a power, but an act. This is evident both from the very name and from those things which in the common way of speaking are attributed to conscience. For conscience, according to the very nature of the word, implies the relation of knowledge to something: for conscience may be resolved into “cum alio scientia,” i.e. knowledge applied to an individual case. But the application of knowledge to something is done by some act. Wherefore from this explanation of the name it is clear that conscience is an act.

Of course I was correct, conscience never trumps what the Church teaches.

And the Church teaches:
CCC#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. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

In fact, dmar realized her (his?) mistake and, quite admirably, admitted it and made the proper correction and amplification. But again, your error was the same as dmar’s initial, and later corrected, dual errors. First, you have improperly interpreted the St. Thomas Aquinas.

You pronounce my “interpretation” to be wrong without providing any backup – just your statement/word. What particular interpretation? Then provide a quote from him, or some authority, to show how I’ve misinterpreted Aquinas.
*Mostly we just cited Aquinas – not interpreted him. *

Second (drawn from the first) you presume that all of his words are infallible and all his writings carry magisterial authority. While I am personally unaware of any problematic writings of Aquinas, and I have read him extensively, I would never assert that he is infallible.

No one ever said he was infallible. The issue is what he said and what it means – not whether it was infallible.

 

[rpp]

Did you even check the site? It’s a simple chart that outlines the format used by Aquinas. It has nothing to do with understanding his theological text – just the format he uses to present it. Where does it err?
If you’ve read Aquinas’ Summa at all, you know there is a simple format that he follows throughout the volumes. If you have a link to a site you approve, that gives Aquinas’ method/format, please post it. If not,would you provide a brief chart of what you consider his format?
What’s incorrect? And please provide some support for your position.

What are you referring to with this statement? What incorrect premise; what incorrect conclusion? How are they incorrect? In order to help, I’ve copied and pasted the two parts from the Summa that are referred to in my statement
(bolding of pertinent parts done by me)

First Part of the Second Part, Q.19, Article 5, the “On the contrary” portion reads: (This is the one dmar cited in Post #7)
On the contrary, As stated in the I, 79, 13, conscience is nothing else than the application of knowledge to some action. Now knowledge is in the reason. Therefore when the will is at variance with erring reason, it is against conscience. But every such will is evil; for it is written (Romans 14:23): “All that is not of faith”–i.e. all that is against conscience–“is sin.” Therefore the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason. And the First Part, Q. 79, Article 13 “I answer that” portion reads:I answer that, Properly speaking, conscience is not a power, but an act. This is evident both from the very name and from those things which in the common way of speaking are attributed to conscience. For conscience, according to the very nature of the word, implies the relation of knowledge to something: for conscience may be resolved into “cum alio scientia,” i.e. knowledge applied to an individual case. But the application of knowledge to something is done by some act. Wherefore from this explanation of the name it is clear that conscience is an act.

And the Church teaches:
CCC#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. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

You pronounce my “interpretation” to be wrong without providing any backup – just your statement/word. What particular interpretation? Then provide a quote from him, or some authority, to show how I’ve misinterpreted Aquinas.
*Mostly we just cited Aquinas – not interpreted him. *

No one ever said he was infallible. The issue is what he said and what it means – not whether it was infallible.

I will not further your attempts to hijack this thread.

 

[excubitor]

Invincible ignorance is an extraordinary means of salvation which merely admits that God is able to save those who through no fault of their own have no way of learning about the church or of coming to the truth. It would be a horrible distortion of this doctrine to suggest that people who have known about the church and have deliberately rejected the truth can possibly categorised as unwillingly ignorant.

We can be entirely certain that those individuals who have rejected the ordinary means of salvation which is the one holy apostolic catholic church can not have any hope of being saved through the extraordinary means of salvation such as invincible ignorance, or as others have suggested “disordered conscience”.

We don’t need Thomas Aquinas to instruct us on this. Even our Catholic sensibilities tell us that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.

 

[dmar198]

Invincible ignorance is an extraordinary means of salvation which merely admits that God is able to save those who through no fault of their own have no way of learning about the church or of coming to the truth. It would be a horrible distortion of this doctrine to suggest that people who have known about the church and have deliberately rejected the truth can possibly categorised as unwillingly ignorant.

Good so far. People who have seen the light must not close their eyes; only people who are blind to the light have an excuse for not seeing it.

We can be entirely certain that those individuals who have rejected the ordinary means of salvation which is the one holy apostolic catholic church can not have any hope of being saved through the extraordinary means of salvation such as invincible ignorance, or as others have suggested “disordered conscience”.

We don’t need Thomas Aquinas to instruct us on this. Even our Catholic sensibilities tell us that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.

Aquinas didn’t say that someone who rejects the ordinary means of salvation can be saved. Nor did anyone here, that I know. What was said was, those whose conscience certainly dictates to them that the Church is false, must leave the Church. That would not be the same as rejecting the ordinary means of salvation, since that means is not rejected, but only a disordered conscience’s misperception of it is rejected.

I would love to have your commentary on Catechism 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.” Do your “Catholic sensibilities” tell us that the “Catholic Catechism” gets it wrong? Or do you admit that we must follow the certain judgment of our conscience no matter what, albeit that we must also properly form our conscience?

 

[excubitor]

Good so far. People who have seen the light must not close their eyes; only people who are blind to the light have an excuse for not seeing it. Aquinas didn’t say that someone who rejects the ordinary means of salvation can be saved. Nor did anyone here, that I know. What was said was, those whose conscience certainly dictates to them that the Church is false, must leave the Church. That would not be the same as rejecting the ordinary means of salvation, since that means is not rejected, but only a disordered conscience’s misperception of it is rejected.

I think you are confused. On the one hand you say that nobody who rejects the ordinary means of salvation cannot be saved, but then you say that they can be saved if they reject the ordinary means of salvation because of disordered conscience.
You are making a dangerous distinction. A disordered conscience might justify someone to murder. Does that mean that they must follow their disordered conscience? Of course not. Because murder is intrinsically evil. But then so is rejecting the church intrinsically evil. You are trying to construct a loophole but its not working.

There is no way that Aquinas was appealing to conscience as an excuse to leave the church he never said that. The notion is absurd in the extreme.

I would love to have your commentary on Catechism 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.” Do your “Catholic sensibilities” tell us that the “Catholic Catechism” gets it wrong? Or do you admit that we must follow the certain judgment of our conscience no matter what, albeit that we must also properly form our conscience?

You are completely misrepresenting the purpose and intent of the Catechism. It does not condone obedience to a disordered and profane conscience which has been seared as with a hot iron. 1790 is talking about the natural law which is in every human heart which works to guide men to what is good even though they do not have the benefit of the Church to guide them. 1790 is specifically talking about an ignorant unformed conscience.

Someone who has grown up in the church and then leaves the church is not acting in ignorance. Furthermore they are not following their conscience, they are breaching their conscience in leaving the church. A conscience becomes profane when what is known to be true, good and virtuous is rejected. The excuse which imputes no sin on account of an ignorant conscience is simply another way of talking about invincible ignorance. Leaving the church to pursue sects and other religions IS NOT invincible ignorance, it is sin of the most diabolical kind. It is apostasy, and I am tired of people excusing teenagers of apostasy. God is no respecter of persons. A teenagers rebellion and wilful sin is just as wicked as if he was a middle aged man. In fact the excuses people give for leaving the church are base and hypocritical lies which they say to themselves and to others. They say that they are leaving the church because they believe God is calling them out of the church. No. That is not obeying the conscience. That is believing a lie. And in their heart they know it is a lie, which makes them hypocrites, liars and apostates

This is all explained and foretold in the scripture.

I Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

So there is no “obedience to conscience” as you seem to imagine it in people who leave the church. No. There is only profaning and searing of conscience, a kind of hardening to sin, a blunting of the conscience so that they feel little guilt or shame at their apostasy.

Please stop wresting the catechism and the words of Thomas Aquinas to make ridiculous excuses for people to leave the church. Please exercise some Catholic sensibilities.

 

[Memaw]

I think you are confused. On the one hand you say that nobody who rejects the ordinary means of salvation cannot be saved, but then you say that they can be saved if they reject the ordinary means of salvation because of disordered conscience.
You are making a dangerous distinction. A disordered conscience might justify someone to murder. Does that mean that they must follow their disordered conscience? Of course not. Because murder is intrinsically evil. But then so is rejecting the church intrinsically evil. You are trying to construct a loophole but its not working.

There is no way that Aquinas was appealing to conscience as an excuse to leave the church he never said that. The notion is absurd in the extreme.

You are completely misrepresenting the purpose and intent of the Catechism. It does not condone obedience to a disordered and profane conscience which has been seared as with a hot iron. 1790 is talking about the natural law which is in every human heart which works to guide men to what is good even though they do not have the benefit of the Church to guide them. 1790 is specifically talking about an ignorant unformed conscience.

Someone who has grown up in the church and then leaves the church is not acting in ignorance. Furthermore they are not following their conscience, they are breaching their conscience in leaving the church. A conscience becomes profane when what is known to be true, good and virtuous is rejected. The excuse which imputes no sin on account of an ignorant conscience is simply another way of talking about invincible ignorance. Leaving the church to pursue sects and other religions IS NOT invincible ignorance, it is sin of the most diabolical kind. It is apostasy, and I am tired of people excusing teenagers of apostasy. God is no respecter of persons. A teenagers rebellion and wilful sin is just as wicked as if he was a middle aged man. In fact the excuses people give for leaving the church are base and hypocritical lies which they say to themselves and to others. They say that they are leaving the church because they believe God is calling them out of the church. No. That is not obeying the conscience. That is believing a lie. And in their heart they know it is a lie, which makes them hypocrites, liars and apostates

This is all explained and foretold in the scripture.

So there is no “obedience to conscience” as you seem to imagine it in people who leave the church. No. There is only profaning and searing of conscience, a kind of hardening to sin, a blunting of the conscience so that they feel little guilt or shame at their apostasy.

Please stop wresting the catechism and the words of Thomas Aquinas to make ridiculous excuses for people to leave the church. Please exercise some Catholic sensibilities.

If we were to PRAY for the return of those who have left the One, Holy, Catholic And Apostolic Church instead of making excuses for them, (most are plenty good at making excuses for themselves) we might see a return of many of them. We have an obligation to make sure we have a rightly informed conscience. God Bless, Memaw