Some things I've learned about invincible ignorance.

[Nabooru]

If you’ve been following me you’ve noticed that this is something I discuss a lot since coming from a Protestant background I was not familiar with it.

What I’ve gotten so far:

1. Its exact definition is a goldmine of debate. Some say it ensures that pretty much everyone goes to heaven, others that it only applies very, very rarely, and even then cannot definitively promise salvation.
2. It is not an automatic ticket to heaven. I think this is the biggest confusion people have about this doctrine. It does NOT work out that, if I lived a morally neutral or indifferent life, I can’t stand in front of God at the end of life and say I never heard of Jesus so I’m exempt from His law. I still have to long for God, practice humility, patience and all other Christian virtues. Even this only puts me on the path of the Gospel; it doesn’t mean that I will be saved, only that I might. It’s ultimately up to God since only he knows whether or not I was a Christian at heart, even if I wasn’t sure of His exact name. At any rate, evangelization is necessary, since explicit acceptance of Christ and His Church is the surest and only certain way to heaven (provided, of course, one remains faithful oneself - one can’t be saved if he has Jesus in his mind or culture but not in his soul. But that’s another story.)

To me the biggest controversy is what exactly counts as invincible ignorance. Say I’m not a Christian but I am aware of it, I’ve simply never bothered learning about it. In such a case it could be argued that were the Holy Spirit within me, and had I responded to it, I would have entered the church rather than ignore it. It all comes down to whether or not we are responsible for such ignorance. It makes me think of when I went on a cruise a couple years ago. Of course they send you and give you on board all sorts of information about policies and such, but many people just look at the destination and buy the tickets, never bothering to read all that tedious fine print. So many of them assumed when they got on board, since the food was free, the drinks must be too. Thus at the end of the trip there were plenty of upset people arguing with the purser about how they shouldn’t have to pay for their drinks because they didn’t know they had to. Should they be held responsible?

There also comes up the issue of people who are aware of Christianity but are living in a state or culture averse to it, such as Saudi Arabia or the Soviet Union. In such a case, it could be simply argued that such nations are not among the elect, hens their distaste for Christianity in the first place. It also raises the question of whether they, too, are responsible for learning the truth when they have been brought up to hate it. Despite hard oppression, persecution and even execution many Muslims in the Middle East and Africa, for example, have converted to Christianity in the face of death from fundamentalist Islamic overlords. Since those converts took the mantle of Christ upon themselves even though they may have been up to their conversion repulsed by it, does that mean their oppressors who remain defiant of even learning about Christianity are held responsible for not accepting it? (If not, it makes me wonder if Richard Dawkins is saved, since his argument is that he doesn’t have to learn about Christianity because it’s so stupid.)

I want to hear everyone’s opinions on this. I know we won’t come to a consensus, but I do like to explore the topic.

 

[boomerang]

Invincible ignorance reminds me of the saying: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now this refers to civil law, where we are expected to learn about the laws that govern us, this does not pertain to religion. Or does it? One could argue that we have an obligation to at least try to explore the idea of a supreme being, instead of being so pig-headedly insistent that there is no God. But we humans have to live with our limitations. Limitations of family, culture, and level of education. Some people just never have any meaningful exposure to the One True God. They were never enlightened in their lifetime. So they are innocently ignorant. Then there are the people who simply do not want to know. Period. This is what I call “willful ignorance”. Sticking their fingers in their ears, saying “la la la la, I can’t hear you!!!” I feel The Almighty will be lenient with those who are innocently ignorant, and harsher with those who are willfully ignorant. And I think both will be in purgatory until they accept the Lord and atone for their unforgiven sins. Now, if a person is willfully ignorant, and commits many grave, hurtful sins, I think that person is in serious danger of hell. I believe a preponderance of good deeds will win out even if we are ignorant, innocently or willfully, and that is what we will ultimately be judged on. My two-and-a-half cents.

 

[McCall1981]

I believe its a rare thing, and much more of a “potential possibility” than it is a “guarentee”. “We cant say God cant do it” is not a very strong theological statement.

I base that opinion on all the testimony/visions from so many Saints over the ages (and there are a LOT of them) that have said the way is narrow and have seen many souls in hell. Also, I base it on the Marian visions, like Fatima, which testify to the difficulty of salvation and the seriousness of hell etc.

I think the people that see invincible ignorance as a blanket, get out of jail free card are ignoring an awful lot of the Catholic faith in order to hold their opinion.

Edit - Also, I dont think too many people in todays world (with all of our interconnectedness and communications) could really claim to be utterly ignorant of Jesus or the Church. In the past yes, but now world wide culture reaches almost everywhere.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You’ve stumbled upon one of my “pet peeves.”

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Period. There are no exceptions - not even one.

Ah, but what does the phrase, “outside the Catholic Church” mean? Could some people be part of the Catholic Church without being aware of it, perhaps through a lifetime of honorable conduct?

Maybe. The Church allows for such a possibility. But it is not a guarantee. It is not even a “probability.” The Church has NO IDEA how this works. She has no idea if even one person has attained salvation in this extraordinary (ie, “not ordinary”) way.

The Church has thousands of Saints. How many of them achieved their salvation apart from Christian Baptism (in water, blood, or desire)? Answer: Zero.

The ordinary means of salvation is Christian Baptism. That works 100% of the time, and even if we fail (through mortal sin), we have recourse to Confession, which works 100% of the time. Anyone who claims that these Sacraments do not work 100% of the time is a heretic.

But anyone who claims that “invincible ignorance” works (in practice, not in principle) zero percent of the time could remain a Catholic in good standing.

 

[steve_b]

If you’ve been following me you’ve noticed that this is something I discuss a lot since coming from a Protestant background I was not familiar with it.

What I’ve gotten so far:

1. Its exact definition is a goldmine of debate. Some say it ensures that pretty much everyone goes to heaven, others that it only applies very, very rarely, and even then cannot definitively promise salvation.
2. It is not an automatic ticket to heaven. I think this is the biggest confusion people have about this doctrine. It does NOT work out that, if I lived a morally neutral or indifferent life, I can’t stand in front of God at the end of life and say I never heard of Jesus so I’m exempt from His law. I still have to long for God, practice humility, patience and all other Christian virtues. Even this only puts me on the path of the Gospel; it doesn’t mean that I will be saved, only that I might. It’s ultimately up to God since only he knows whether or not I was a Christian at heart, even if I wasn’t sure of His exact name. At any rate, evangelization is necessary, since explicit acceptance of Christ and His Church is the surest and only certain way to heaven (provided, of course, one remains faithful oneself - one can’t be saved if he has Jesus in his mind or culture but not in his soul. But that’s another story.)

To me the biggest controversy is what exactly counts as invincible ignorance. Say I’m not a Christian but I am aware of it, I’ve simply never bothered learning about it. In such a case it could be argued that were the Holy Spirit within me, and had I responded to it, I would have entered the church rather than ignore it. It all comes down to whether or not we are responsible for such ignorance. It makes me think of when I went on a cruise a couple years ago. Of course they send you and give you on board all sorts of information about policies and such, but many people just look at the destination and buy the tickets, never bothering to read all that tedious fine print. So many of them assumed when they got on board, since the food was free, the drinks must be too. Thus at the end of the trip there were plenty of upset people arguing with the purser about how they shouldn’t have to pay for their drinks because they didn’t know they had to. Should they be held responsible?

There also comes up the issue of people who are aware of Christianity but are living in a state or culture averse to it, such as Saudi Arabia or the Soviet Union. In such a case, it could be simply argued that such nations are not among the elect, hens their distaste for Christianity in the first place. It also raises the question of whether they, too, are responsible for learning the truth when they have been brought up to hate it. Despite hard oppression, persecution and even execution many Muslims in the Middle East and Africa, for example, have converted to Christianity in the face of death from fundamentalist Islamic overlords. Since those converts took the mantle of Christ upon themselves even though they may have been up to their conversion repulsed by it, does that mean their oppressors who remain defiant of even learning about Christianity are held responsible for not accepting it? (If not, it makes me wonder if Richard Dawkins is saved, since his argument is that he doesn’t have to learn about Christianity because it’s so stupid.)

I want to hear everyone’s opinions on this. I know we won’t come to a consensus, but I do like to explore the topic.

Invincible ignorance means ignorance that is impossible to conquor / overcome. What teaching of the Church qualifies for that…can you think of anything?

 

[Nabooru]

Invincible ignorance means ignorance that is impossible to conquor / overcome. What teaching of the Church qualifies for that…can you think of anything?

I don’t quite follow you.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t quite follow you.

What teaching in the Church (give an example) is sooooo difficult to understand, that no matter how much effort you put into trying to understand it, you just don’t understand it?

 

[Zekariya]

You’ve stumbled upon one of my “pet peeves.”

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Period. There are no exceptions - not even one.

Ah, but what does the phrase, “outside the Catholic Church” mean? Could some people be part of the Catholic Church without being aware of it, perhaps through a lifetime of honorable conduct?

Maybe. The Church allows for such a possibility. But it is not a guarantee. It is not even a “probability.” The Church has NO IDEA how this works. She has no idea if even one person has attained salvation in this extraordinary (ie, “not ordinary”) way.

The Church has thousands of Saints. How many of them achieved their salvation apart from Christian Baptism (in water, blood, or desire)? Answer: Zero.

The ordinary means of salvation is Christian Baptism. That works 100% of the time, and even if we fail (through mortal sin), we have recourse to Confession, which works 100% of the time. Anyone who claims that these Sacraments do not work 100% of the time is a heretic.

But anyone who claims that “invincible ignorance” works (in practice, not in principle) zero percent of the time could remain a Catholic in good standing.

I agree with you (and it is a pet peeve of mine as well). Here is a quote I like that the Eastern Orthodox use with regard to those outside of their Communion, “I know where the Church is, but I do not presume to define where the Church is not.”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think one key thing to stress concerning this issue is that not all ignorance is invincible. If a person closes himself off to the truth of the subject through prejudice, cowardice, or laziness he is morally responsible for that ignorance and, to some extent, for the other failures which follow as a result of that ignorance.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Invincible ignorance means ignorance that is impossible to conquor / overcome. What teaching of the Church qualifies for that…can you think of anything?

Mystery abounds in Church doctrine, but that’s not what the idea of invincible ignorance is all about. Invincible ignorance means ignorance for which a person cannot be held morally responsible and therefore cannot justly be punished for, not ignorance which cannot be dispelled by information.

Clarification: Ultimately invincible ignorance means ignorance which a person is/was unable to overcome by honest diligence. Technically this would include mysteries too great for the human mind, but the context we usually speak of vincible and invincible ignorance is morality: is a person morally culpable for this ignorance and the things which result from it or not? If the person could have accepted the truth in question through exercising proper diligence in the pursuit of truth then the ignorance is vincible and the person is morally culpable. If not then it is invincible.

 

[steve_b]

Clarification: Ultimately invincible ignorance means ignorance which a person is/was unable to overcome by honest diligence. Technically this would include mysteries too great for the human mind, but the context we usually speak of vincible and invincible ignorance is morality: is a person morally culpable for this ignorance and the things which result from it or not? If the person could have accepted the truth in question through exercising proper diligence in the pursuit of truth then the ignorance is vincible and the person is morally culpable. If not then it is invincible.

If we focus on morality, what teaching on morality (give example) is so difficult to understand, that a person is unable to understand it?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

If we focus on morality, what teaching on morality (give example) is so difficult to understand, that a person is unable to understand it?

You keep focusing on the objective difficulty of the teaching in question, but what makes ignorance vincible or invincible on the part of someone is their subjective situation.

 

[steve_b]

You keep focusing on the objective difficulty of the teaching in question, but what makes ignorance vincible or invincible on the part of someone is their subjective situation.

vincible ignorance can be overcome with effort, vs think of a mentally challenged person. For them, any success is going to be based on the degree of retardation that person suffers from…true?

 

[thistle]

The Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning of “salvation,” on Thursday, May 23, after media reports circulated indicating that Pope Francis” promised heaven for everyone engaged in good works, including atheists.

In response to the media attention, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

 

[tdgesq]

Yes, but he also said:

“[T]hose who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.”

Explanatory Note.

 

[thistle]

Yes, but he also said:

“[T]hose who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.”

Explanatory Note.

“can” and not “will”. The Church does not define who specifically will be captured by invincible ignornance because it does not know.
The Vatican spokesman was referring to people who know about the Church (read know ABOUT and not know). I would think there is hardly anyone on the planet who does not know ABOUT the Catholic Church.
Invincible ignorance is too readily thrown around like a get out of jail free card.

 

[tdgesq]

He also says this:

1. A non-Christian may reject a Christian’s presentation of the gospel of Christ. That however, does not necessarily mean that the person has truly rejected Christ and God. Rejection of Christianity may not mean the rejection of Christ. For if a given individual rejects the Christianity brought to him through the Church’s preaching, even then we are still never in any position to decide whether this rejection as it exists in the concrete signifies a grave fault or an act of faithfulness to one’s own conscience. We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity and who, in spite of a certain encounter with Christianity, does not become a Christian, is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition.

And this:

1. As Christians, we believe that God is always reaching out to humanity in love. This means that every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account.

 

[guanophore]

To me the biggest controversy is what exactly counts as invincible ignorance. Say I’m not a Christian but I am aware of it,

How can a person be “invincibly ignorant” if they are “aware”?

I've simply never bothered learning about it. In such a case it could be argued that were the Holy Spirit within me, and had I responded to it, I would have entered the church rather than ignore it. It all comes down to whether or not we are responsible for such ignorance.

But you are not talking here about ignorance. We are talking now about having “never bothered”. That is not ignorance, but laziness, indifference, or something else.

It makes me think of when I went on a cruise a couple years ago. Of course they send you and give you on board all sorts of information about policies and such, but many people just look at the destination and buy the tickets, never bothering to read all that tedious fine print. So many of them assumed when they got on board, since the food was free, the drinks must be too. Thus at the end of the trip there were plenty of upset people arguing with the purser about how they shouldn't have to pay for their drinks because they didn't know they had to. Should they be held responsible?

Rom 1:19-22
9 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.

There also comes up the issue of people who are aware of Christianity but are living in a state or culture averse to it, such as Saudi Arabia or the Soviet Union. In such a case, it could be simply argued that such nations are not among the elect, hens their distaste for Christianity in the first place.

No, this is not a valid argument. Nations are not “among the elect” or not, but only persons.

It also raises the question of whether they, too, are responsible for learning the truth when they have been brought up to hate it. Despite hard oppression, persecution and even execution many Muslims in the Middle East and Africa, for example, have converted to Christianity in the face of death from fundamentalist Islamic overlords. Since those converts took the mantle of Christ upon themselves even though they may have been up to their conversion repulsed by it, does that mean their oppressors who remain defiant of even learning about Christianity are held responsible for not accepting it? (If not, it makes me wonder if Richard Dawkins is saved, since his argument is that he doesn't have to learn about Christianity because it's so stupid.)

A person with such a degree of hubris would never be happy in the presence of God, where we hope to adore Him for eternity.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, but he also said:

“[T]hose who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.”

Explanatory Note.

through no fault of their own is always going to be there. But that also means one is innocent of any personal responsibility and fault in hindering their knowledge of a subject they need to know… otherwise they are at fault. Here’s how the CCC states it. 1791** , **

 

[Nabooru]

Yes, but he also said:

“[T]hose who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.”

Explanatory Note.

Ah, but the argument of “do your best according to your conscience” raises the issue of what a “correct” - that is, Godly - conscience is.

The terrorist who kills 100 people, including himself, in a bombing is utterly convinced of the rightness of his act. He sees it as a sacrifice which is pleasing and laudatory to God. Yet we cannot, in our own good conscience, say that there’s a good chance God will let him off the hook since he thought he was doing the right thing.