Problems with Invincible Ignorance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow!!

I’m caught up on this thread, and I have to say that it is now over my Summa knowledge. I realize there is much that I don’t understand, and I’m like you Dave, I’m going off of not only my own reading, but also the reading of a theologian. Only, I am led to a different conclusion. In this case, Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J. who I’m sure if he could, he would have made it look like St. Thomas taught that a person could be saved, post-Pentecost, with implicit faith who had not heard the Gospel. But Sullivan didn’t take that route in his book “Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the Catholic Response” but he did show that a person who was a “good person,” but not a believer, God would somehow, even with an angel or divine revelation, present him with the truths necessary to believe. That’s the man on a deserted island scenario, found in at least 3 places…

** The exposition of what must be believed for salvation would be provided to that person by God, either by a preacher of the faith, as in the case of Cornelius, or by a revelation, so that it would be within the power of the free will to make an act of faith**
From *III Sent. d.25, q.2, a.1, sol 1, ad 1
*I guess that’s Book 3 of his commentary on the Sentences?

Secondly,
** If anyone were brought up in the wilderness or among brute animals, provided that he followed his natural reason in seeking the good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him, by an inner inspiration, what must be believed, or would send a preacher to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.**
From *De Veritatte, q. 14, a.11, ad 1
*
And also from his Commentary on Romans, C.10, Lect. 3
I don’t have an exact quote, but Sullivan says that Thomas says that God would send someone to preach the gospel to such a person brought up in the wilderness, provided that he were doing what he could with the grace he received from God.
- Sullivan, p. 53

However, one thing in particular I wanted to respond to, and I couldn’t find the Summa quote to respond to it, is when St. Thomas is quoting St. Augustine, in regards to faith and charity, and it certainly seems that they are saying that a person cannot have true charity unless they are in the true church. So, like they might implicitly believe, but since they’re not in the Chruch, they don’t have charity. But, I couldn’t find it, and so that doesn’t really help.

Maybe you know…??

Good night
 
Reformed Rob:
Wow!!

I’m caught up on this thread, and I have to say that it is now over my Summa knowledge. I realize there is much that I don’t understand, and I’m like you Dave, I’m going off of not only my own reading, but also the reading of a theologian. Only, I am led to a different conclusion. In this case, Fr. Francis Sullivan, S.J. who I’m sure if he could, he would have made it look like St. Thomas taught that a person could be saved, post-Pentecost, with implicit faith who had not heard the Gospel. But Sullivan didn’t take that route in his book “Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the Catholic Response” but he did show that a person who was a “good person,” but not a believer, God would somehow, even with an angel or divine revelation, present him with the truths necessary to believe. That’s the man on a deserted island scenario, found in at least 3 places…

** The exposition of what must be believed for salvation would be provided to that person by God, either by a preacher of the faith, as in the case of Cornelius, or by a revelation, so that it would be within the power of the free will to make an act of faith**
From *III Sent. d.25, q.2, a.1, sol 1, ad 1
*I guess that’s Book 3 of his commentary on the Sentences?

Secondly,
** If anyone were brought up in the wilderness or among brute animals, provided that he followed his natural reason in seeking the good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him, by an inner inspiration, what must be believed, or would send a preacher to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.**
From *De Veritatte, q. 14, a.11, ad 1
*
And also from his Commentary on Romans, C.10, Lect. 3
I don’t have an exact quote, but Sullivan says that Thomas says that God would send someone to preach the gospel to such a person brought up in the wilderness, provided that he were doing what he could with the grace he received from God.
- Sullivan, p. 53p
Click to expand...
That is exactly right. Admittedly, I have not read all five books of the Summa from cover to cover, but I have read a lot of them, and that is exactly what St. Thomas has said. He teaches some places that “invincible ignorance” is a punishment for sin, but also says that if someone has implicit faith God will reveal the truth to them either by sending a missionay, an angel, or possibly enlightening them interiorly.
 
Reformed Rob,

You might also consider St. Gregory of Nazianzus’ affirmation which he offered on the occasion of his father’s death in A.D. 374:
He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life" (William A. Jurgens, , vol. 2, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, p. 29).
Click to expand...
I think the last word on St. Thomas has to be given to St. Thomas…

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

On his deathbed, St. Thomas he pronounced the following act of faith:
I receive Thee [in the Eucharist], the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance***.*** Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this [Sacrament of Holy Eucharist] or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience* I now pass from this life.* (Catholic Encyclopedia - St. Thomas Aquinas)
Click to expand...
From *Suprema haec sacra, *approved by Pius XII:, which specifically addresses the issue of invincible ignorance and salvation in greater detail than seen in past expositions by the Catholic Church:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
… when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God…

… it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
Click to expand...
This text by Pius XII is referred to in a footnote 19, by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 16, which helps us to understand the true sense of this statement from Vatican II:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)

(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.
Click to expand...
We can conclude from Catholic doctrine that those suffering from ***invincible ignorance, **may *by the mercy and grace of Christ, be extra-sacramentally sanctified insofar as they have: 1) implicit desire (that is, the "good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God"), 2) which is animated by perfect charity, 3) so long as they have supernatural faith (“must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” in accord with Heb. 11:6).

Of course, the Church does not conclude that these absolutely WILL go to heaven. Catholicism rejects the Calvinist notion of “eternal security” of the saved. Catholic doctrine, according to St. Augustine, insists that predestination to grace does not necessarily equate to predestination to eternal life. As such, being “on the way of salvation” as St. Pius X put it, does not mean they will certainly attain eternal life.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
We can conclude from Catholic doctrine that those suffering from ***invincible ignorance, ***may by the mercy and grace of Christ, be extra-sacramentally sanctified insofar as they have: 1) implicit desire (that is, the "good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God"), 2) which is animated by perfect charity, 3) so long as they have supernatural faith (“must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” in accord with Heb. 11:6).
Click to expand...
But what if they are “invincibly ignorant” of those two truths? What if they truly do not know that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him?

St. Thomas says supernatural faith requires explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, whereas you are saying supernatural faith onlyrequires explicit belief in two different points: 1.) God, and 2.) that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

But, if invincible ignorance excludes the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, why not in the two articles you meantioned?

What ever argument is used in favor of those who do not have explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation can also be argued in favor of those who are invincible ignorant of the two points you say are necessary.
 
Hey great couple posts there.

Yeah, I realize that Catholics MUST believe what the Church clearly teaches not. Or they have problems and are led to extreme views regarding the Magesterium.

So, ok, I’m thinking about how to progress in discussing this. 3 or 4 ideas are in my head. Leave Thomas and move on to the Enlightenment and Jesuitical responses, or go back to Scripture, or some Papal statements.

Maybe this weekend I’ll be back to this.

-Rob
 
Ok, mull this over.

And I know, it’s not very meaty now, I’ve got to compile my citations, and that may be a few days before I get to it, but here is a concern/objection:

Sure, maybe adults with use of reason can have an “implicit desire” or make moral decisions resulting in being led to truth, at least implicit faith.

BUT, the Church has always taught (at least, that’s my understanding) that unbaptized children are not regenerated, and cannot enter into the beatific vision. In fact, ok here’s one off the top of my head, Innocent III (Denzinger #410) explains the two-fold nature of sin, that is original and actual. And the original is remitted w/o consent, like in infants when they are baptized. And one of St. Augustine’s letters to Innocent I about how infants cannot be saved w/o baptism.

Anyways, who would be more “invincibly ignorant” than infants?? Yet, they MUST be baptized in order to be saved.

Obviously, there is a distinction between the separation from God they are subjected to and that of those who die and go to eternal punishment. Infants dying w/o baptism are deprived of the Beatific vision. That is, they aren’t in Hell strictly speaking, but not in heaven either. That’s because they don’t have “actual sin” which is punished with the eternal punishment of Hell.

So there, Infants must be baptized, so even they’re not ignorant enough to be saved w/o the “sacrament of faith.”
 
40.png
USMC:
But what if they are “invincibly ignorant” of those two truths? What if they truly do not know that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him?
Click to expand...
As I already stated, invincible ignorance alone is not salvific. One must have the gift of supernatural faith that worketh in charity (cf. Pius XII, Suprema haec sacra). There’s no “back door” into heaven. Without the Divine gifts of faith and charity, there is no hope.

The Church insists that adult converts express explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before sacramental baptism. However, as far as I can tell from my review of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, the Church has never dogmatically defined that explicit faith is required for implicit desire for baptism. Implicit desire for baptism of those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church, according to Pius XII, is described as “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” This is doctrinal, no longer speculative, as the solemn magisterium of Vatican II referenced Pius XII’s view in the authentic sense of their teaching on the matter in *Lumen Gentium. *

What remains within speculative theology, is whether explicit faith is required for “unconscious desire” prior to exta-sacramental sanctification. Cornelius never expressed such a thing, so it seems Scripture suggests implicit faith is sufficient.

Regardless of what theologians opine, it remains mere speculative theology unless the Church promulgates the teaching as sententia certa. So, doctrine insists on faith for those joined to the Church by “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” Whether the faith of implicit desire for baptism needs to be explicit is not defined dogmatically.
“… you are saying supernatural faith onlyrequires explicit belief in two different points: 1.) God, and 2.) that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”
Click to expand...
No, I believe **explicit faith is necessary for those who are capable of it. **And not in just those two areas, but all dogmas of Catholicism. I understand Dr. Ott to assert that explicit faith in those two areas are necessary, whereas implicit faith in the incarnation and the Trinity is required.

In my view, I simply state that supernatural faith that worketh in charity is required for those who are joined to the Church in soul. Whether it is required to be implict or explicit faith is speculative. Doctrine doesn’t address it.

However, John Paul II wrote: “In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994). Yet, he made this statement as a theologian, not as the pope. Thus, no Catholic is bound to submit to this assertion. It remains, it seems, a matter of free opinion. I agree tend to agree with John Paul II on this, as I’ve not seen the compelling evidence from either Scritpure or Tradition which convinces me to believe otherwise.

This seems congruent with Pius IX’s encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863), which states, “We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.”
But, if invincible ignorance excludes the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, why not in the two articles you meantioned?
Click to expand...
I must not have been clear in how I expressed my views. My understanding was that it was Dr. Ott that claimed these two require explicit faith. My own view is that the need for supernatural faith that worketh in charity needs to be explicit faith for those who are capable of it, for all dogmas of Catholicism. For those who lack obstinacy, having in God’s judgment subjective impediments to the will and intellect which diminish culpability, lacking full advertence and perfect consent of will, implicit faith is sufficient.
 
Reformed Rob,

As for whether infants can be sanctified extra-sacramentally, I recommend you read through this discussion: Can infants be sanctified in the womb? Then we can discuss it further here if you like.

According to Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *
“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire–Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason (baptism of desire–H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi Sacrament (baptism of suffering–H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D 712.” [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
(Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Edited in English by James Canon Bastible, D.D., Translated from the German by Patrick Lynch, Ph.D., Tan Books, Rockford IL, Fourth Edition, 1960, first published in English in 1955, pg. 114)
Click to expand...
 
If faith is a gift of God’s grace, then where does

“ignorance” enter into it?

If a person hears the word and does not believe it,
then he/she is not in receipt of God’s grace…a gift.

We can’t have it both ways.
Which is it?

reen12
 
Anyways, who would be more “invincibly ignorant” than infants?? Yet, they MUST be baptized in order to be saved.

Obviously, there is a distinction between the separation from God they are subjected to and that of those who die and go to eternal punishment. Infants dying w/o baptism are deprived of the Beatific vision. That is, they aren’t in Hell strictly speaking, but not in heaven either. That’s because they don’t have “actual sin” which is punished with the eternal punishment of Hell.

So there, Infants must be baptized, so even they’re not ignorant enough to be saved w/o the "sacrament of faith

-I dont want to interrupt here, but may I ask a question? My question is: Does the church recognize “emergency Baptisms’?”
In other words, I have always heard if someone was about to die that had never been Baptised, we can perform an emergency Baptism and all we have to do is apply water, and say, “I Baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen” 🙂

Peace in Christ
Dianne
 
The tragedy is that some liberal and even some conservative Cathlolics have exaggerated invincible ignorance virtually to the pioint of Universalism.

The Catholic faith is the greatest gift of God…He did not give me the gift, and leave my friends as Protestants., becuase they would be better off there. If the Universalistic view was true , i would have preferred to remain a protestant…thankyou!
 
I note that the Church has recently moved away from the (long-held as a common understanding, but never formally ratified) notion that unbaptized infants must lose out on Heaven.

As with invincibly ignorant adults, the emphasis now is on the fact that God can save them nevertheless, and may well choose to do so, given our understanding of His universal salvific will.

Of course, “can save” does not mean “will save,” so we shouldn’t get complacent or fall into a lazy universalism, as the previous poster rightly cautions.

The key to the whole issue, I think, is remembering that what saves is grace, a gift from God that doesn’t in any way come from us. Even the faith to accept that grace is God’s gift (certainly something a Calvinist or former Calvinist would agree with). Thus, we cannot deny that God can grant that gift even to those who lack explicit knowledge of and faith in the truths that have been revealed to us. Likewise, given what else we know about God’s nature, we can have good hope that he will leave no one stranded without hope due to earthly limitations or circumstances.

That said, we must also affirm that the Church does not teach universalism in any form. It’s not that ignorance saves (and therefore the ignorant would be better left in their ignorance), but that God’s grace can save, and grant saving faith, even in spite of human ignorance. Catholics who allow this understanding to make them lazy in evangelistic efforts should remember that God may well (and most often does) choose to deliver people from their ignorance via the members of His earthly Body.

So, if we find out later that a person somehow lived and died on a desert island without hearing of Christ, we may have good hope that God intervened to save that person (or at least to offer His saving grace for the person to respond to) nonetheless. If we therefore refuse to go looking for such people on the grounds that God has it covered, we would be just as wrong as the fellow in the famous joke who so expects a miraculous deliverance from a natural disaster that he refuses the mundane aid God sends his way.

Usagi
 
Invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns. The quotes about people being saved without water baptism and “through invincible ignorance” are opinions, not church teaching, even the quotes from the catechism. The Church teaches that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Now, those who do have invincible ignorance, but who do follow all that God has given them and sincerely follow him, will find the truth. God will make sure of it. God will also make sure that they would not die without Baptism. Baptism of desire justifies someone, it does not save someone. One is not a member of the Church through “Baptism of Desire”. Martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside of the Church. The Fathers of the Church use “Baptism of Blood” as a synonym for martyrdom, not an actual baptism. God would have made sure that those who were to die for Him, would be baptized before there death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top