Questions on non-believers?

[fakename]

What does it mean for a non-believer to be invincibly ignorant of the Church? I mean, plenty of non-believers have heard of Jesus, or Catholicism so they aren’t completely out of the loop?

Also, why do we teach people some things even though, knowledge can sometimes increase the gravity of the sin?

That latter question is kinda answered by answering why do we want better things even though attaining them can be extremely dangerous? I’m not sure bout this one.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

What does it mean for a non-believer to be invincibly ignorant of the Church? I mean, plenty of non-believers have heard of Jesus, or Catholicism so they aren’t completely out of the loop?

Also, why do we teach people some things even though, knowledge can sometimes increase the gravity of the sin?

That latter question is kinda answered by answering why do we want better things even though attaining them can be extremely dangerous? I’m not sure bout this one.

Uuuummmmm, confusing, no?
If I know, the gravity of the sin increases? How come? Or the possibility of not sinning increases?
Non-believers heard talk about ghosts, ovnis, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Maome, and so …?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

What does it mean for a non-believer to be invincibly ignorant of the Church? I mean, plenty of non-believers have heard of Jesus, or Catholicism so they aren’t completely out of the loop?

This is a question worthy of a thread of its own. No doubt you’ll get posts such as “invincible ignorance means you’ve never heard of Jesus before”, but from what I’ve read, that’s not strictly true. What constitutes ignorance marks a key distinction between Traditional Catholicism and Liberal Catholicism. So I can’t answer that here unfortunately.

Also, why do we teach people some things even though, knowledge can sometimes increase the gravity of the sin?

I asked a variant of this question whilst I was Catholic. The answer to this is that if you know something that could benefit a soul but withhold it, it is a sin of omission on your part: “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins” (James 4:17). Jesus instructed his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), which lives on in the evangelization of Christians today. Indeed, Paul referred to spreading the good news as an “obligation” (1 Corinthians 9:16). So that is why it is important for Christians to preach the Gospels, even if it means enlightening others and thus potentially increasing their culpability of their sin.

 

[fakename]

Well I personally think that non-believers in america are mostly invincibly ignorant. But I suppose that a non-believer should be given as much knowledge of the supernatural and the natural as is possible.

That being said, if you used to know a non-believer would you try to help him spiritually if you could?

And any other opinions on invincible ignorance are free to be expressed.

 

[thistle]

Well I personally think that non-believers in america are mostly invincibly ignorant. But I suppose that a non-believer should be given as much knowledge of the supernatural and the natural as is possible.

That being said, if you used to know a non-believer would you try to help him spiritually if you could?

And any other opinions on invincible ignorance are free to be expressed.

Who are these non-believers in America and why do you think they are invincibly ignorant?

 

[fakename]

Who are these non-believers in America and why do you think they are invincibly ignorant?

Muslims, atheists,buddhists, etc.

I think they’re ignorant invincibly because one is said to be that when one cannot reach Christianity even if you were as reasonably prudent as one could be. Under this formula I think that most people could be excused for not knowing Christianity even if they wanted to know about it, since there is much disinformation about it, and since one usually adopts the ideas of one’s birth religion anyway even when one is trying to objectively assess the rightness of doing so.

So really there is no practical way for these non-believers to understand Christianity.

 

[thistle]

Muslims, atheists,buddhists, etc.

I think they’re ignorant invincibly because one is said to be that when one cannot reach Christianity even if you were as reasonably prudent as one could be. Under this formula I think that most people could be excused for not knowing Christianity even if they wanted to know about it, since there is much disinformation about it, and since one usually adopts the ideas of one’s birth religion anyway even when one is trying to objectively assess the rightness of doing so.

So really there is no practical way for these non-believers to understand Christianity.

I do not believe atheists, muslims, buddhists, protestants etc are invincibly ignorant.
All of them know something (a little or a lot) about Jesus, his Gospel and his Church. In this day and age they do have the opportunity to explore further, particularly in the West. Some will choose to do so and some will not. Those who choose not to go further and those who choose to do so and but reject Christ and his Church are damned.
Muslims consciously reject Christ as God (such people are damned).
Atheists consciously reject God and do not believe he exists (such people are damned)
Buddhists are atheists (even Pope John Paul II said this)
Its even worse for Protestants. They know a lot more than the other groups but reject the only true Church Christ established.
There is no get out of jail card that says because someone was born into a particular belief or non-belief they are invincibly ignorant.
By the way when I say damned that is if they die unrepentent.
I’m sure others may have a different view but the above is my firm opinion.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I’ve only recently become aware of the existence of people who were not raised in any type of religious environment. Religion really has never been a part of their lives. They aren’t former anythings. They may know something about various religious theologies on a purely academic basis, but they really and truly regard it all as fanciful stories and/or fear mongering. In fact, their religious non-involvement and lack of interest is so profound that they refer to themselves as apatheists rather than atheists, if they categorize themselves at all. They really could not care less.

As I understand it, the CC would say that those apatheists who have heard something – anything – about Jesus would not qualify as invincibly ignorant, but given their life-long, total ambivalence maybe they do qualify as being invincibly apathetic.

 

[fakename]

Error is deemed to be invincible when, in spite of what is called moral diligence in the premises, it still persists. This may happen either because one has never been touched with any doubt as to the validity of one’s stand, or as to the necessity of an inquiry, or it may be that one having, with full honesty of purpose, used such efforts as are demanded by the importance of the question at issue, is nevertheless unable to discover the truth. Much depends on the value to be attached to the phrase “moral diligence”. It is not easy to state it in any set formula, unless it be this, that it is the diligence which prudent persons are accustomed to bringing to bear upon the settlement of like matters. This notion may be set forth more in detail by the following considerations:

* The moral diligence required does not mean that a person is to have recourse to every conceivable expedient.
* It does imply that the endeavours made by an agent, to set himself right, should be such as are exacted by the seriousness of the business involved, as well as bear a proper ratio to his capacity and resources.

So that’s the Catholic Encyclopedia’s treatment of the subject under the heading of “error”.

And because I think one is safe in saying that, a committed Muslim or one who was merely raised muslim (committed or not), is likely to gravitate to their ancestral religion even after prudently considering the alternatives, I also think that such ignorance that they have is mainly invincible.

 

[Blossoming]

Actually Catholic theology says that you don’t have to be Catholic to go to Heaven. I won’t go into detail, but you can look up baptism by desire and it boils down loosely to if a person had been able to hear about Jesus in a way they could have understood Him properly, he would have chosen to follow Him.

However, to qualify under that, you would have to live your life with the understanding that there is some kind of God even if you aren’t sure which or who and try to be a good person following a value system, even secular humanitarianism, which focuses on loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Catholics do not believe that other Christians or even non-Christians are incapable of achieving ever-lasting life.

Also, I find your statement that the more you know about Catholicism the more you are likely to fall off, sin or disbelieve to be totally the opposite. Cathoicism, of all religions, is the one true religion that makes absolute sense and the more anyone studies it, the more they are drawn to it.

Many former non-Catholic pastors, Jews and others have educated themselves straight into Catholicism because it’s the only religion that is consistent, truly about the well-being of all individuals and society, and has all aspects of science behind it as well.

 

[thistle]

Actually Catholic theology says that you don’t have to be Catholic to go to Heaven. I won’t go into detail, but you can look up baptism by desire and it boils down loosely to if a person had been able to hear about Jesus in a way they could have understood Him properly, he would have chosen to follow Him.

However, to qualify under that, you would have to live your life with the understanding that there is some kind of God even if you aren’t sure which or who and try to be a good person following a value system, even secular humanitarianism, which focuses on loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Catholics do not believe that other Christians or even non-Christians are incapable of achieving ever-lasting life.

Also, I find your statement that the more you know about Catholicism the more you are likely to fall off, sin or disbelieve to be totally the opposite. Cathoicism, of all religions, is the one true religion that makes absolute sense and the more anyone studies it, the more they are drawn to it.

Many former non-Catholic pastors, Jews and others have educated themselves straight into Catholicism because it’s the only religion that is consistent, truly about the well-being of all individuals and society, and has all aspects of science behind it as well.

That is not what the Church teaches.

This is what the Church teaches:

• Baptism is necessary for salvation (but does not ensure it as you must die in a state of grace).
• There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So how can you be baptised and Catholic/deemed to be Catholic? There are 4 ways:

• Sacramental Baptism as a Catholic
• Baptism of Blood (non-Catholic dying for the Catholic Faith)
• Baptism of Desire - Explicit (e.g. a catechumen going through RCIA)
• Baptism of Desire - Implicit (invincible ignorance which means those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, His Gospel, or His Church but still live a life according to the teachings of Christ in that ignorance)

Outside the above 4 there is no salvation.
Not all Catholics go to Heaven but everyone in Heaven is a Catholic.

With regard to unbaptised babies the Church does not know what happens to them which is why the Church teaches we leave them to God’s mercy.

 

[thistle]

Error is deemed to be invincible when, in spite of what is called moral diligence in the premises, it still persists. This may happen either because one has never been touched with any doubt as to the validity of one’s stand, or as to the necessity of an inquiry, or it may be that one having, with full honesty of purpose, used such efforts as are demanded by the importance of the question at issue, is nevertheless unable to discover the truth. Much depends on the value to be attached to the phrase “moral diligence”. It is not easy to state it in any set formula, unless it be this, that it is the diligence which prudent persons are accustomed to bringing to bear upon the settlement of like matters. This notion may be set forth more in detail by the following considerations:

* The moral diligence required does not mean that a person is to have recourse to every conceivable expedient.
* It does imply that the endeavours made by an agent, to set himself right, should be such as are exacted by the seriousness of the business involved, as well as bear a proper ratio to his capacity and resources.

So that’s the Catholic Encyclopedia’s treatment of the subject under the heading of “error”.

And because I think one is safe in saying that, a committed Muslim or one who was merely raised muslim (committed or not), is likely to gravitate to their ancestral religion even after prudently considering the alternatives, I also think that such ignorance that they have is mainly invincible.

Muslims know about Jesus and consciously reject Jesus as God. That is not invincible ignorance. Without repentence that is a ticket to Hell.

 

[fakename]

“Muslims know about Jesus and consciously reject Jesus as God. That is not invincible ignorance. Without repentence that is a ticket to Hell.”

What’s the proof?

And also what about these counter-arguments:

1. one can only know something from something you know better. If that’s true, then you can’t fault a muslim for being ignorant from knowing an islamic background because it is (in an accidental manner) by his natural (i.e. human & unavoidable) way of learning that he is ignorant. And what is unavoidable ought not to be punished.

Not only that but if one did fault him, then one would have to fault everyone, for this is the normal way for everyone to learn any truth, much less the Primal Truth.

1. also to reject a truth is said in many ways. If a muslim rejects Christianity even though or because it is correct (that is per se), then he is truly evil. But if a muslim rejects Christianity because he thinks it is wrong then it is not wrong subjectively and so he cannot be punished.

And this happens many times, for as aristotle shows, one can know a thing in one way and not know it in another way. But knowledge is convertible with goodness, and so it is possible to be good in different ways. And similarly, one may be both sinful and sinless in different ways. But being vincibly ignorant or neglectful is a sin. So one can be neglectful in different ways, and this means that since evil is either venial or mortal, it is easily within human power to be vincibly ignorant and yet be truly good.

 

[thistle]

“Muslims know about Jesus and consciously reject Jesus as God. That is not invincible ignorance. Without repentence that is a ticket to Hell.”

What’s the proof?

And also what about these counter-arguments:

1. one can only know something from something you know better. If that’s true, then you can’t fault a muslim for being ignorant from knowing an islamic background because it is (in an accidental manner) by his natural (i.e. human & unavoidable) way of learning that he is ignorant. And what is unavoidable ought not to be punished.

Not only that but if one did fault him, then one would have to fault everyone, for this is the normal way for everyone to learn any truth, much less the Primal Truth.

1. also to reject a truth is said in many ways. If a muslim rejects Christianity even though or because it is correct (that is per se), then he is truly evil. But if a muslim rejects Christianity because he thinks it is wrong then it is not wrong subjectively and so he cannot be punished.

And this happens many times, for as aristotle shows, one can know a thing in one way and not know it in another way. But knowledge is convertible with goodness, and so it is possible to be good in different ways. And similarly, one may be both sinful and sinless in different ways. But being vincibly ignorant or neglectful is a sin. So one can be neglectful in different ways, and this means that since evil is either venial or mortal, it is easily within human power to be vincibly ignorant and yet be truly good.

Why are you looking for a get of jail card for such people. They are not invincibly ignorant.
Anyone who consciously and deliberately rejects Christ is not invincibly ignorant!

 

[Blossoming]

That is not what the Church teaches.

This is what the Church teaches:

• Baptism is necessary for salvation (but does not ensure it as you must die in a state of grace).
• There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

So how can you be baptised and Catholic/deemed to be Catholic? There are 4 ways:

• Sacramental Baptism as a Catholic
• Baptism of Blood (non-Catholic dying for the Catholic Faith)
• Baptism of Desire - Explicit (e.g. a catechumen going through RCIA)
  **- Baptism of Desire - Implicit (invincible ignorance which means those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, His Gospel, or His Church but still live a life according to the teachings of Christ in that ignorance)**Outside the above 4 there is no salvation.
  Not all Catholics go to Heaven but everyone in Heaven is a Catholic.

With regard to unbaptised babies the Church does not know what happens to them which is why the Church teaches we leave them to God’s mercy.

You just said what I said as a refutation, accidently I’m sure. Clearly you meant to agree. God bless.

 

[dingodile]

Why are you looking for a get of jail card for such people. They are not invincibly ignorant.
Anyone who consciously and deliberately rejects Christ is not invincibly ignorant!

To be able to consciously and deliberately reject Christ, one must be in a position to consciously and deliberately accept Christ. There are, however, many barriers to acceptance for which individuals are not responsible. Some of them are social and psychological, but that makes them no less real. If one learns of Christ in a manner that is filtered through layer after layer of scorn, cynicism, and distrust, one’s deliberations may well be distorted in ways that one doesn’t even realize, much less control.

It’s one thing for a person to reject Christ because he can’t face the demands that following Christ would place upon him. It’s quite another for a person to reject Christ because everyone he knows, respects, and trusts rejects Christ, and for him even to be seen to consider following Christ would be seen as an act of betrayal.

It seems to me that the baptism (implicit) of desire is a yearning in the heart for the kind of truth that Christ claimed to offer, even if the person who has it doesn’t recognize it for what it is. If that’s so, then God alone knows what’s in the hearts of people and all generalizations from mortals about who is damned are presumptuous.

 

[fakename]

Why are you looking for a get of jail card for such people. They are not invincibly ignorant.
Anyone who consciously and deliberately rejects Christ is not invincibly ignorant!

Again, people can know something and yet not know something, or else we would have to admit that it is possible for innate knowledge to exist (as seen in the Meno). But Catholicism is a subject of knowledge so it is possible for someone to know and yet not know it.

So people can for instance, reject Catholicism because their attitudes were biased by how they were raised. Or people can know Catholicism not as it is, but only as an evil thing (as we see in the case of Fundementalists who claim that it is the devil’s work). If someone doesn’t have a fair understanding of something, either as it seems to themselves or as it is per se, than they can’t be blamed for rejecting it.

And its precisely this state of mind that seems to inhere in most people and believers in other religions especially.

 

[thistle]

Again, people can know something and yet not know something, or else we would have to admit that it is possible for innate knowledge to exist (as seen in the Meno). But Catholicism is a subject of knowledge so it is possible for someone to know and yet not know it.

So people can for instance, reject Catholicism because their attitudes were biased by how they were raised. Or people can know Catholicism not as it is, but only as an evil thing (as we see in the case of Fundementalists who claim that it is the devil’s work). If someone doesn’t have a fair understanding of something, either as it seems to themselves or as it is per se, than they can’t be blamed for rejecting it.

And its precisely this state of mind that seems to inhere in most people and believers in other religions especially.

We can discuss this till pigs fly but that won’t change my opinion.
Anyone who consciously and deliberately rejects Christ and his Church is not invincibly ignorant.
Otherwise unrepentent atheists could be saved under your concept of invincible ignorance.

 

[dingodile]

We can discuss this till pigs fly but that won’t change my opinion.
Anyone who consciously and deliberately rejects Christ and his Church is not invincibly ignorant.
Otherwise unrepentent atheists could be saved under your concept of invincible ignorance.

I think the point isn’t to change your opinion but to show the error of it. There is nothing in the doctrine of implicit baptism of desire that necessarily excludes atheists, and where there is invincible ignorance there is lack of awareness of the need to repent.

I repeat, God alone knows what is in the hearts and minds of people, and that knowledge is necessary to determine whether there is invincible ignorance or the implicit baptism of desire.

 

[thistle]

I think the point isn’t to change your opinion but to show the error of it. There is nothing in the doctrine of implicit baptism of desire that necessarily excludes atheists, and where there is invincible ignorance there is lack of awareness of the need to repent.

I repeat, God alone knows what is in the hearts and minds of people, and that knowledge is necessary to determine whether there is invincible ignorance or the implicit baptism of desire.

Sorry but unrepentent atheists go to Hell.