Problems with Invincible Ignorance

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

Reformed_Rob

Guest
HI!!

This is an issue I’m dealing with right now. I want to understand what is taught, and what is not taught, and I am making headway. However, by keeping Scripture at hand, some questions have surfaced.

Here’s 2 passages of Scripture:

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Maybe that one I can understand the current direction of Catholic teaching on (well, current, and “undercurrent” back to the early Middle Ages), when you consider the context about men loving darkness rather than light, not coming to the light, first moral choices and the like. However, this one is pretty strong:

Ephesians 4:17,18
  • This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.
I suppose you could say, well, no, I’ll let someone else say that. What do you guys think???
 
Reformed Rob,

I am not sure what your question is concerning the two passages and invicible ignorance.

The Church does not teach, despite some might claim, that those who are invincibaly ignorant will be saved. The CCC teaches there are three requirements, and if met, they MAY be saved by God:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
[848](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/848.htm’)😉 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

I don’t see a contradiction between this teaching and the passages you have provided. If there is, can you please elaborate?

Thanks,

MilesJesu
 
Reformed Rob,

There are three kinds of ignorance…
  1. Invincible ignorance - cannot be overcome by study due to a lack of opportunity or capability.
  2. Vincible ignorance - can be overcome by study, given adequate capability and enough time.
  3. Affected ignorance - ignorance by knowingly and deliberately neglecting one’s duty to know what they ought to know.
The Catholic Church teaches that sins are voluntary. As voluntariness of a sin dimishes, so too does one’s cupability. So, one is not culpable for sins of invincible ignorance. One is not completely inculpable for sins of vincible ignorance, but the guilt is diminished insofar as voluntary character of the act is diminished. Lastly, one is fully culpable for sins of affected ignorance, as the element of malice seems to be involved.

Hardheartedness is never visited by God upon anyone, except as a punishment for previous sin. Consequently, those who have “hardness of heart” are culpable for there consequent sins.

According to St. Augustine:
“God … hardened their hearts" (Rom 11:8; Jn 12:40; Is 6:9-10). I answer too, that this is what their will deserved… [God’s] hidden judgment cannot be unjust.” (Homilies on John 53, 6)

“When therefore a man is said to be given up [by God] to his desires, he thereby becomes guilty…he yields and consents to his desires… and ***the consequent sin become his punishment for the preceding sin.” ***(Against Julian, 5, 3, 12)
Click to expand...
The epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians is speaking of those whose hearts have been hardened, and so they are guilty, and their consequent sin become the punishment for the preceding sin.

In my opinion, St. John is speaking of the sin of disbelief, in the context of full knowledge and consent.
 
What MilesJesu said above is correct. We are not saved by invincible ignorance alone, for without the gifts of faith and charity, one cannot attain eternal life.

Pius XII spoke of those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” Yet, this desire alone was not sufficient for salvation.

Pius XII asserted, “***those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, [the Sovereign Pontiff] mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation… But 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…” ***(Letter of the Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII (August 8, 1949), against the dissent and disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the Archdiocese of Boston).
 
Hey, thanks yall!

I wanted to post this about 4 hours ago, but weather or something prevented me. So, it’s behind the times, but it’s the reply to post #2
Thanks Miles,

I’m not trying to “look for contradictions” necessarily. So I hope that I can answer your question as to what my question is.

Here goes. It seems that in Scripture, ignorance of the Gospel is not an “out.” Also, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, ignorance is a punishment, not a sin (ie. the sin of unbelief). Christ says that one is condemned by unbelief, because he does not believe. Apostle Paul says that ignorance excludes one from the life of God. So, it seems that to admit any possibility of salvation due to unbelief, however good a person may be, no matter how much grace they are moved by, however much they follow their conscience, would not jive with divine revelation given in Scripture, which Pope John XXII (in Quia Vir Reprobus) said must give witness to all articles of faith. Looong encyclical, yes, but I’ve read it.

So when “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” is “not aimed at those, who through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His church” it seems like their not knowing is evidence of their condemnation. So, St. Francis de Sales says in the Introduction to the Devout Life, in the chapter counseling against “rash judgement” he says “Therefore Holy Scripture says that those who believe not are condemned or judged already, because there is no doubt of their damnation.” (p. 203 in my edition).

I understand from some things, like the letter from the Cong. of the Doctrine of the Faith, in regards to Feeneyism, that the requirements upon the unbeliever are quite morally demanding, obviously requiring grace to be lived out.

Is my question clear. I just don’t see how any ignorance can spare anyone from the just penalty of sin, original and actual.
 
You all are nice, I think I’ll say what I think is a shot at a reply to my question in the above post:

It pretty much follows from what Itsjustdave said. Basically, in John 3, oooh, my skin is almost crawling as I type this… Christ’s words go on to show us that it’s people who love darkness rather than light that are “unbelievers;” That is, they commit the sin of unbelief in the face of being called to believe, for the light came and made manifest their sin (Eph 5:13) and they loved the darkness over the light. Or, at least, they were not walking according to the dictates of their conscience/natural law, and were deliberately being “bad.” Certainly not the kind of thing that the Church looks to as being a “possibly salvific state.”

Ok, so in Ephesians, I didn’t give all the context. Not that I was being sneaky, but there’s a further qualifier in the sentence. In my NAS there are 2 “becauses” that show why they are “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God…” The first “because” is “because of the ignorance that is in them” and the second "because is “because of the hardness of their heart.” So, it’s not that they were just good people that happened to be ignorant, no, their heart was hardened, and the Apostle describes these particular Gentiles as “given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.”

Wow, not a state that I’d want to be in!!

So, there’s my reply. I thank you all for contributing. There are probably more issues with inv. ign, so please, if you’d like, bring them up, particularly Scriptural ones, and we can all learn. I’m wanting to learn more myself.
 
Reformed Rob:
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Click to expand...
I think, “he who does not believe” means “he who has an understanding of the truth but refuses to accept it.”
Ephesians 4:17,18
  • This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.
Click to expand...
Similarly, I think, “the hardness of their hearts” means “having an understanding of the truth but refusing to accept it.”

Invincible ignorance implies not having an understanding of the truth.
 
First, I thought “itsjustdave”‘s explanation was a clear as anyone could hope for so I would advise you to accept that as your answer. What I would like to add to a personal thought. In the Gospels and the letters of the NT, but especially the Gospels, we find a real condemnation of the religious leaders of the jewish people often because it was these leaders who should have recognized who Jesus was, yet refused to believe. Christ had some things to say to the Gentiles but Jesus’ main efforts was to God’s choosen people who should have and had no excuse not to see God’s Loving Presence working in and through Jesus’ actions and Being. Thus came the words of Christ’s condemnation. Their sin as itsjustdave pointed out was clearly an “Affected Ignorance”, not a “Vincible Ignorance” and certainly not an “Invincible Ignorance” (an ignorance for which their is no personable culpability). However, here, if I may I would like to say something about “Vincible Ignorance”. I believe, and this is something I have to work on constantly that we Catholics have a grave responsibility not be be the cause of someone sincerely not being able to overcome their Vincible Ignorance because they do not experience Christ’s presence and God’s Love (one in the same really) in the everyday lives of we Christians. I think that is the more important question when it comes to our discussion on our discussion about Ignorance of the Lord.
 
Reformed Rob,

Wow! A lot of good posts. I am not sure if I can add anyting, but at least I think I know where my confusion lies. In your clarification, you said:
So, it seems that to admit any possibility of salvation due to unbelief, however good a person may be, no matter how much grace they are moved by, however much they follow their conscience, would not jive with divine revelation given in Scripture, which Pope John XXII (in Quia Vir Reprobus) said must give witness to all articles of faith.
Click to expand...
I think my confusion centered on “unbelief” which is different than invincible ignorance as Dave eloquently defined. The Church, at least not what I understand and as posted from the CCC, does not teach an unbeliever will be saved if they know God and refuse to believe or submit. For those “that earnestly seek” would not be classified an ‘unbeliever.’

If you ponder the three criteria that need to be met for the ignorant, it doesn’t look good. In fact, it highlights why we need to fulfill our mission as evangelists. Thanks for the questions!

Peace,

MilesJesu
 
40.png
TOME:
I believe, and this is something I have to work on constantly that we Catholics have a grave responsibility not be be the cause of someone sincerely not being able to overcome their Vincible Ignorance because they do not experience Christ’s presence and God’s Love (one in the same really) in the everyday lives of we Christians. I think that is the more important question when it comes to our discussion on our discussion about Ignorance of the Lord.
Click to expand...
It’s cool you should say that TOME,

Back in the day (1539), a Dominican theologian at the University of Salamanca, Francisco de Vitoria, gave several lectures against the Conquistadores cruel treatment of the Native American Indians in America. The tide of thought in America seemed to be that the Indians were pagans, and most of them refused the Gospel, so they deserved what they got. However, Francisco argued against that. He said basically, and this is pertinent:
  • Without a miracle or any other proof, then a mere call such as “Christianity is the one true faith, believe and convert” is not such as to warrant one to be guilty of the sin of explicit unbelief.
  • Furthermore, since holiness of life should clothe the Gospel, the lifestyle of the Conquistadores, generally scandalous and impious, would not give any creedance to their call to obey the Gospel. True, perhaps many religious and ecclesiastics have sufficiently labored, but not enought to justify waging cruel war against them all for unbelief.
That’s my summary from Francis Sullivan, S.J.'s book, “Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the Catholic Response.” Insightful book.

Now, how that lines up with “ex opere operato” I’m not sure. I would guess that eoo pertains exclusively to the ministration of the Sacraments, and not to the preaching of the Gospel necessarily. I don’t know. But it’s not a new issue. Theologians 400 years ago dealt with it.
 
Ok, here we go. Really, I want to reconcile this, and I want to understand this. But, in good conscience, like Dignitatis Humanae calls men to act upon, I have to search this out.

So, the objection that entered my mind today:

From Romans 9:9-22

**Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump on vessel for honourable use, and another for common use?

**You can see in the context, and likewise from Isaiah 45:9 and Jer. 18:6,7, that St. Paul is comparing God to the potter who has the right to do with his creation what he wants.

Ok, so my objection is basically… > And try to not read Calvinism into this. Maybe Jansenism, ok, but not Calvinism, please, I’m trying to think Catholic about this.

My objection…>> God has, along with His universal salvific will, necessitated the means of hearing the Gospel, either by an angel, divine illumination, or more normally, a human preacher, to be necessary to come to repentance. No one can say, “Oh, but I didn’t know… how could I have known? You Christians are all on the other side of the great waters, and here I am, I guess that means I was saved, and all my ancestors, until you came here and preached to us.”

No, well, they can say that, but they have no right to, because it is manifest, that if God did not send a missionary, an “angel” or etc. then they were, as “good” people as they may have been, simply objects made for dishonour. And, you Catholics, with your free will choosing NOT to get out and evangelize, are the ones at fault. God would have saved them by his grace, they would have believed, but they had no teacher!!

Ok, that’s basically Calvinistic, but I’m trying to frame it in a Catholic way, I’m trying. But it’s part of who I am!
 
Rob, I may be misunderstanding your point, if so it is me. It seems to me you are saying God will provide extrodinary means for each and everyone’s personal salvation (eg. visitation by an angel). From me experience, I don’t believe God acts that way. Borrowing from ST Thomas Aquinas, I think that our God has given those who through no fault of their own (Invincible Ignorance)the ability to come to know God by giving we human our Intellect and Reason. Through our intellect we know things not based on our senses - immediately. Reason allows us, through our sense experience to know truth and beauty etc. Through our use of our Intellect and Reason, as I was pointing to above, we can come to a knowledge of God and act on that knowledge - no matter how imperfect that knowledge may be, and must act on that knowledge. An example, if a person, with no knowledge of God at all knows from his personal experience that stealing is wrong - having had things stolen, then he is bond to act on that knowledge as if he was given the Ten Commandments by Moses himself and was taught the Golden Rule by St Peter. So in that sense there is no Invinciple Ignorance. And, in my opinion this is how God normally operates - using the things He created to reveal Himself, not extrordinary events. I believe St Paul makes this point in his letter to the Romans how the pagans had the responsibility to act based on their reasoning through their sense experience.
 
40.png
TOME:
It seems to me you are saying God will provide extrodinary means for each and everyone’s personal salvation (eg. visitation by an angel). From me experience, I don’t believe God acts that way. Borrowing from ST Thomas Aquinas, I think that our God has given those who through no fault of their own (Invincible Ignorance)the ability to come to know God by giving we human our Intellect and Reason. Through our intellect we know things not based on our senses - immediately. Reason allows us, through our sense experience to know truth and beauty etc. Through our use of our Intellect and Reason, as I was pointing to above, we can come to a knowledge of God and act on that knowledge - no matter how imperfect that knowledge may be, and must act on that knowledge.
Click to expand...
TOME,
I’m not outright disagreeing with you, but I recently learned that Jean Jacque Rousseau was arguing against the Catholics and the Calvinists on several points, and one of his propositions was that man can have saving faith by use of natural reason alone… a kind of natural faith, not a supernatural faith.

Francis Sullivan, S.J., certainly not on the side of the Feeneyites, says in his book I’m reading, that this proposition (that a man can be saved w/o supernatural faith) was condemned by Innocent XI. He gave the Denzinger # 2123, but the Denzinger edition I have is a different one, and I think in mine it’s # 1171 or 1173:

Denz. # 1171
21. Assent to faith is supernatural and useful to salvation with only the probable knowledge of revelation, even with the fear by which one fears lest God has not spoken - Condemned

1173​

  1. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification.
Also, a 17th century Spanish Jesuit taught that people could be saved with a simply “natural faith” which is simply not true.

That’s why it’s necessary to have some source of divine illumination. And that normally requires a preacher, ie. a minister of the Gospel. Without supernatural faith in one God, who is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (ie. Hebrews 11:6), then there is no salvation. One who does not have that faith IS “Outside the Church.” At least, that’s what I understand from Francis Sullivan to be the thrust of the current Catholic understanding.

So, to your point about “extraordinary means” I say that without a preacher (ordinary means) then extraordinary means are necessary, because a “natural reason faith” does not and cannot suffice for salvation. We are able to do “sooo much,” but “only so much” with our reason. Grace is necessary. I know you know that, but theres’ a lot of theological distinctions that have developed over the past 500 years or so that play into all that.
 
40.png
TOME:
Rob,
… I believe St Paul makes this point in his letter to the Romans how the pagans had the responsibility to act based on their reasoning through their sense experience.
Click to expand...
Hey TOME,

Now I may be misunderstanding you, if so clarify.

But I think I can word my objection/question better now in the light of afterthought:

That above passage from Romans 9 seems to show me that God does not necessarily have to provide a “chance” in some way for everyone, even those who never hear the Gospel, to come to faith in Him. So that involves the “universal salvific will of God.” I guess what I’m using to object with denies it, but anyways… that passage in Romans 9, unless you take it as a hypothetical (what if God…) which is how part of it’s worded in many English versions, seems to set forth the teaching that:

God makes people, I don’t know who, but at least some people, to not be saved, and to perish in Hell. Those people, even if they had a chance to come to faith, they won’t.

Let’s see another particular verse:

Romans 9:22,23 - **What if God, although willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.

**So, what do yall think??
 
Rob, I think here we have an example why it is important to read the whole letter first, then the chapter(s). As I see it during this part of his letter, Paul is first is disscussing the responsibility every one has in accepting God and ultimately the reality of Jesus. The Jews because they were given the Law should know God’s works and will and thus Jesus as the Christ. Pagans, even if they didnot have the Law nor ever hear the Gospel message, are, through their reason and intellect, have a responsibility to know God and God’s will - no matter if it’s imperfect. The “What if” of Paul is more of him streessing the point that God’s ways are so beyond us that if that is how God chooses to act, He can because He’s God, however, Paul is not saying that is the way acts.
 
Reformed Rob,
as St. Thomas Aquinas says, ignorance is a punishment, not a sin (ie. the sin of unbelief).
Click to expand...
I dont’ believe you are considereing what St. Thomas is saying in its proper context. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that ignorance is a sin, but in some instances, one is NOT culpable for the sin, in some cases, they are fully culpable, and in others, the guilt is merely diminished, just as I stated above. Observe…

See: SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Is ignorance a sin?
ignorance is a sin…

whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST, IIa, 76, 2)
Click to expand...
In another part fo the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas states:
Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. (ST, III, 47, 5)
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier, the degree culpability is linked to the degree of voluntariness of the act:

St. Thomas states,
If ignorance causes involuntariness, it is in so far as it deprives one of knowledge, which is a necessary condition of voluntariness… not every ignorance that deprives one of this knowledge… Ignorance is “consequent” to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary…First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” And this is called “affected ignorance.” Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know…And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called “ignorance of evil choice,” and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. (ST, IIa, 6, 8)
Click to expand...
Also from St. Thomas…
Whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin. Now such is ignorance, as is clear from 1 Tim. 1:13: “I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly.” Therefore ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin. (ST, IIa, 76, 4)
Click to expand...
And with regard to baptism of desire, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

Quote:
the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire … such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. (Summa Theologica, III 78, 2)

Thus, three types of ignorance, one without culpability (invincible), one with dimished culpability (vincible), and one with full or perhaps increased culpability (affected).

Furthermore, implicit desire for baptism + “faith that worketh by charity” sanctifies inwardly.
 
Reformed Rob,
I just don’t see how any ignorance can spare anyone from the just penalty of sin, original and actual.
Click to expand...
Certainly, some ignorance deserves punishment:

Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.”
1 Cor. 14:38: “If any man know not, he shall not be known.”

But does that necessarily mean that all sins of ignorance will be punished eternally?

God has a history of giving lesser punishments to those who sin unintentionally as compared to those who sin defiantly. The following passage seems to speak of ignorance that is not affected or deliberately sought ignorance…

Numbers 15:27-30
**

'Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. 'You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. 'But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. **

For the relatively light punishment for unintentional sins, see also these passages:
Le 4:2, Le 4:13, Le 4:22, Le 4:27, Le 5:15, Le 22:14, Consider also what St. Paul teaches: 1 Tim. 1:13: “I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly.”
And Christ’s words from the Cross…

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34).

“Not knowing” seems, at times according to Scritpure to an excuse for sin.

John 15:22 “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”

John 15:24 “If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin.”
 
Ok,

I knew we’d get back around to this soon.

Let’s continue to survey St. Thomas then, Dave.
Though I should say, you are certainly more thoroughly knowledgeable of his views than I am, so I hope to gain from this, but I’m not going down without a fight!!

Though, as you have said, St. Thomas certainly taught that God was not bound by the visible performance of the sacraments, let me set forth what I’ve seen that leads me to believe that he, correctly or incorrectly, taught that even w/o the reality (*in re) *of the sacrament of baptism (ie. only the voto of it), he still taught that a person must have explicit Christian faith.

S.T. 2-2, qst. 2, art. 5
Whether man is bound to believe anything explicitly?

I answer that, The precepts of the Law, which man is bound to fulfil, concern acts of virtue which are the means of attaining salvation.

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith.

S.T. 2. 2. Qst. 2, art. 7
Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

I answer that, As stated above (5;1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons.

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (1, 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one’s state and office

Here I expect an objection, for St. Thomas says,

Reply to Objection 1. The unfolding of the articles of faith is not equally necessary for the salvation of all, since those of higher degree, whose duty it is to teach others, are bound to believe explicitly more things than others are.
*
However, if you read on, and consider what he has said in the previous article quoted above, it is clear what types of “articles of faith” he is referring to:*

Reply to Objection 2. Simple persons should not be put to the test about subtle questions of faith, unless they be suspected of having been corrupted by heretics, who are wont to corrupt the faith of simple people in such questions.
None of that should be new to you, but I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.
 
This is out of sequence, I know, but let’s also take a quick look at what exactly St. Thomas means by “to believe,” since he uses that word so much. Basically, he means what St. Augustine means “to think with assent.”

S.T. 2. 2. Qst. 2, art. 1

But this act “to believe,” cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.
Obviously, he’s not saying that matters of faith are separate from “true or false.” It’s more like, you’ve just got to take matters of faith on God’s authority, knowing it’s true. Thinking that way, that they are true, because they’re from God. Other things, like scientific things, involve reasons for doubting, and lack of our intellect searching everything out.

To be consistent, I think you have to consider that what St. Thomas means by “to believe” is not something that can be “assented to” in the midst of an “invincible ignorance” of that which is necessary to be “explicitly believed” for salvation. If that’s unclear, then read my previous post again. It should be clear. I tried to make it clear.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Reformed Rob,

I dont’ believe you are considereing what St. Thomas is saying in its proper context. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that ignorance is a sin, but in some instances, one is NOT culpable for the sin, in some cases, they are fully culpable, and in others, the guilt is merely diminished, just as I stated above. Observe…
Click to expand...
Dave,

I realize I’m giving you more than you will probably reply to at once, which is ok. In regard to ignorance being a sin, and not a sin, I realize that there are some types of ignorance that are, and, generally speaking, the “invincible” type is not. That’s what I was referring to in the earlier post. Sorry I didn’t specify that, I should have. And even with that, I feel it is necessary to retrace and correct myself. Thomas, there in 2 b 10, 1 said that a certain type of “unbelief” that arose from invincible ignorance was not a sin. So, I should restate that, as you have pointed out, that that type of unbelief (Pure Negation) is not a sin. Not the ignorance, but the unbelief resulting from ignorance (invincible) is not a sin, to Aquinas at least.

Ok, so, let me press on with this issue.

In that same article linked above, “Whether unbelief is a sin?”
Thomas says,
I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Is. 53:1: “Who hath believed our report?” It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 15:22) “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin”; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as “referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.”

Now I see a discrepancy. In a book I have, the quote in red goes “Such unbelievers are damned on account of their other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith.” It’s probably just a difference in translations. That quote is from “Salvation Outside the Church?” by Francis Sullivan, S.J. p. 57.

So, my point, I will restate it, is that yes, St. Thomas taught that a person could receive the effects of baptism in proportion to his desire for baptism, in voto, before actually receiving the baptism. But, that person must have explicit Christian faith. An “invincibly ignorant” person would not be damned for his ignorance or his “pure nagation” unbelief, but would be damned for other sins. Or, now with that newadvent translation, IF he is damned, it is for other sins, not for ignorance. That seems clear because St. Thomas is crystal clear that a person (post- Pentecost) MUST believe the foundational articles of the Christian faith in order to be saved. Isn’t is post Pentecost, maybe post-Christ’s Ascension. Anyways, you know.

Please consider that…

-Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top