SPLIT: To Whom does Invincible Ignorance apply?

[Third_Day]

=TMC;7604703]As others have pointed out, you are misreading invincible ignorance. The concept is explained well in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church aka Lumen Gentium. Lumen Gentium teaches explicitly that, for example, Muslims **can be **saved.

There is a big difference between can be saved and will be saved.

The catechism says that a person that “seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, **can be **saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

First off what is meant by “seeks the truth” and does the will of God? If a Mulsim believes that it is his duty to kill the infidels is he truly seeking the truth or doing the will of God?

Lumen Gentium also says: Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Why did the Church send missionaires into the wilds, where many were killed, if the natives could simply be saved because of invincible ignorance?. If anyone was invincibly ignorant through no fault of their own, surely those natives were.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Third Day:

If the Judaizers were vincibly ignorant and had fallen from grace and severed from Christ, even though their Jewish heritage was thousands of years old and they had been taught that circumcision was necessary, I don’t see how one can say that Protestants and fallen away Catholics could be invincibly ignorant through no fault of their own.
Is it possible that some are? Of course, but I think that saying they are invincibly ignorant is used too frequently and minimizing the need to evangelize.

I think the difficulty you are having is with “ignorance” and “willfully wrong.”

Judaizers is a very nebulous term. We may be speaking of Jews that were not really converted, or of Christian Jews that were not fully instructed. They may be stubbornly clinging to error in disobedience to their lawful teachers, or they may be Christian in name only, with little real understanding. Lets abandon that construct as being irresolvable, irrelevant and too vague.

Instead lets continue the discussion with Protestants and Catholics. With Protestants, we have people that have been raised and instructed within their own church. They have no reason to hear the Catholic position, as they have been taught since infancy that the Catholic Church is corrupt and deceitful. In their own conscience they believe they are in the right Religion and pity Catholics. This person we say is invincibly ignorant. Now that is not to say that invincible ignorance can not be overcome, because with the grace of God it can be. You also mentioned fallen away Catholics. This is definitely a tougher call. Again, it relates to a person’s conscience and their first principles, therefore we can’t be the judge of that person. However, I can imagine Catholics, that were never properly instructed, who fell away and then became Protestant because, in their own conscience it seemed to be the right thing to do. This person might also be invincibly ignorant.

I think what is tripping you up is the fact that someone that is invincibly ignorant seems to be “allowed” to remain in his error. That is only true provided the person has REALLY looked into the matter, and can not in conscience accept the Catholic position.

My favorite example is the conversion of John Henry Newman. I have mentioned it elsewhere here on CAF too. But here was a VERY devout, HIGHLY principled, Anglican Priest, with far more understanding of religion, and Catholic doctrine than the average Roman Catholic would have possessed in his day. He believed WHAT the Roman Catholic Church taught was 95% accurate. HOWEVER, and this is crucial to understand, he didn’t believe the Catholic teaching that the Anglican Church was schismatic. He also thought the Catholic Church was corrupt even though not deceitful. For that reason he thought the Anglican Church was purer, and more in agreement with the Ancient Fathers of the Church. So at this time in his life, John Henry Newman was invincibly ignorant.

Cardinal Wiseman (then Vicar Apostolic of the London District) fully appreciated the difficulty that Newman was having with accepting the position of the Roman Catholic Church. He (Wiseman) knew Newman was sincerely unable to accept the Catholic position, so he argued with the words of St. Augustine “securus judicat orbis terrarum” to try and break through to Newman. Newman later said in his Apologia:

For a mere sentence, the words of St Augustine, struck me with a power which I never had felt from any words before … they were like the ‘Tolle, lege, — Tolle, lege,’ of the child, which converted St Augustine himself. ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum!’ By those great words of the ancient Father, interpreting and summing up the long and varied course of ecclesiastical history, the theology of the Via Media was absolutely pulverised.

At last, Newman had a serious doubt about his FIRST PRINCIPLES. This meant that everything he took for granted would have to be re-examined. In due time, he accomplished this work and converted.

But there always needs first to be that ground shaking event, words, person, whatever, that causes the person of conscience to reexamine all of his assumptions and first principles.

As you can see, an invincibly ignorant person CAN be converted, and the effort can be fruitful, but only if one understand what invincible ignorance is.

Now in the case of a Catholic who thinks the Catholic Church is wrong about Abortion and therefore joins a Protestant church that allows it, he is guilty of self deception or willfull disobedience, and it is not a case of invincible ignorance. He may not WISH to hear a full and proper explanation, or avoids digging deeper for fear of learning he is in error. Again, not invincible ignorance.

 

[JohnVIII]

“To Whom does Invincible Ignorance apply?” is the question. If I seek the truth ONLY from the Roman Catholic Church am I justified if I don’t find it? Because the problem has been that I really don’t know for certainty what the teaching of the RC Church is. I’m not going to just believe what one man say’s is the true teaching of the Church, just because I like what he says, nor am I going to believe what my RC priest says, just because he’s my priest (why do I bring my RC priest into this? Because he has told me that I think too highly of the Pope, that he is nothing more than a bishop and has no authority over anything other than the Roman Church exclusively, I feel sure he is wrong an does not teach correctly the dogma’s of the Church, so am I still be justified in excepting what he says, just because he is my priest???), I also don’t feel I can trust my own judgment of what I think from the writings is the truth, as I know my own judgment is not certain. At least if I trust my own judgment then it seems that no one else will be held in account, only myself. But if I am lead astray, say by my priest, would I be justified even if I believe incorrectly, and I assume my priest condemned (but of course I don’t want my priest to be condemned!)?

What if I just blindly accepted someone’s teaching and it just happened to be right, but I didn’t know that it was right because I just blindly accepted it, would I perhaps be condemned then simply because I was so careless in just believing what someone says, even if it happens to be the truth???

Someone here just got done stating that it is necessary to be in the Church to be saved. What if I leave the RC Church and re-join the EO Church. Well some RC individuals will tell me that I would still be in the Church, but other RC individuals would tell me that I would be leaving the Church. Does it matter whether I in fact actually leave the Church or does it only matter if I believe I left the Church, whether in fact I did or not??? Also how can I know for certain what the facts in the matter really are? How can anyone really know for sure? If no one can know for sure then it follows that no one would or could ever be condemned for anything, does it not?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

How can anyone really know for sure? If no one can know for sure then it follows that no one would or could ever be condemned for anything, does it not?

Your post sounds like you are having many difficulties about many things. In any event, you aren’t invincibly ignorant just because you are casting about for answers. Nor are you invincibly ignorant just because you aren’t certain about who is right on a given doctrine.

If you follow your conscience (not your inclination) you will be following the echo of the voice of God. You may have to learn more before you are able to discern truth from error.

It IS possible to know something for certain, even if you aren’t given demonstrable proof. Ways of reaching certitude often have to do with the Authority of the speaker, e.g. you believe your parents love you because they told you so. A preponderance of evidences, e.g. everyone everywhere says the earth is round. Antecedent probability, e.g. all that you have heard about God has been constantly re-inforced from a multitude of various sources both personal and public. You are certain God exists.

My advice is look for the highest authorities and best teachers available.

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear [user]AmbroseSJ[/user],

I really do appreciate your kind, caring words! Your advice is exactly what I intend to do.

Perhaps you’ve read some of my prior posts in which I was quite upset about “dogma” in relation to the pope. I would like to admit that I also have a problem with over-dogmatizing of theology in the Eastern Church. If there were no such thing as dogma, the issue of “Invincible Ignorance” wouldn’t be very important. I sometimes am glad that I don’t have great knowledge of some things because I think with knowledge comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes accountability. I don’t want condemnation for myself and I don’t wish anyone condemnation; that seems to me would come if anyone really knew some truth with absolute certainty but then could not live up to that perfect standard of accountability.

Thank God that Salvation is by Grace!

Peace!

 

[thistle]

First you have to understand the concept of invincible ignorance. Mardukm gave an excellent illustration earlier in this thread.

To help you better understand, let’s turn the tables. Let’s say a Mormon comes up to you and says you MUST be a Mormon to be saved. You wouldn’t even give this a moments credence would you? That’s because you are invincibly ignorant about the Mormon faith. Your own first principles are such that you wouldn’t even consider looking into the proposition.

That is how it is with the majority of the Protestants. They have been brought up in their own Faith, which they trust and believe. Their own first principles are such that they wouldn’t even look into the Catholic claim that they must be Catholic to be saved. Their first principles say that the Catholic Church is corrupt and deceitful, and that their religion reformed the Catholic corruption, so that now they are worshiping as the Gospel always intended. They are invincibly ignorant.

They won’t even consider giving the Catholic claim a hearing, because it is one of their first principles that it is corrupt and deceitful.

Just like your own first principle is that the Catholic Church is THE Church founded by Christ, with Divine protection from ANY corruption or deception.

Now at this point, you argue that the Bible says what you hold for a first principle. Then the Protestant replies that the Catholic Church holds nothing in common with the Bible and has invented all sorts of things that just aren’t in the Bible. Then you both argue Scripture with each other to no avail and part.

That is why it is called invincible ignorance.

BTW, it is essential to understand the concept of invincible ignorance, not only to fully appreciate Church Doctrine, but also to be better able to discuss religion with people of other Faiths. You must first respect their honesty, and integrity with regard to following their conscience in matters of Religion. It will help you avoid offending them, and worsening the situation in the end. It may even help you get through to them.

Under your argument there is no need for any Protestant to convert because if they follow their own Church teachings (Methodist or whatever) and live a life accordingly then they will be saved!

 

[Abu]

Thistle
Under your argument there is no need for any Protestant to convert because if they follow their own Church teachings (Methodist or whatever) and live a life accordingly then they will be saved!

There is every need for non-Catholics to convert if they come to see the truth of Catholicism, yet they may be saved if they do not come to this realization.

“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of His Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (JPII, Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10)

The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). [Msgr Cormac P Burke, OSV *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine].

Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 846 - # 848]. The Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not a person knows of its divine origin and founding, is the body through which ALL salvation comes to anyone whom God deems worthy to receive it.

 

[Third_Day]

=AmbroseSJ;7604868]I think the difficulty you are having is with “ignorance” and “willfully wrong.” Judaizers is a very nebulous term. We may be speaking of Jews that were not really converted, or of Christian Jews that were not fully instructed. They may be stubbornly clinging to error in disobedience to their lawful teachers, or they may be Christian in name only, with little real understanding. Lets abandon that construct as being irresolvable, irrelevant and too vague.

I don’t see my question about the Judaizers as being irrelevant as to the question of invincibly ignorant. Whether or not all of them were Christian or “Christian in name only” as you put it is besides the point.
Paul was clearly evangelizing them. They could not let go of their belief that circumcision was necessary for the Gentiles. They had some good points. The Word of God told them that circumcision was necessary. Their tradition held that it was necessary. Then some men who called themselves apostles say that, after a thousand years of observance, it is no longer necessary. It has been replaced by baptism. They can’t wrap their conscience around this new doctrine. It doesn’t seem possible that this sign of the Covenant given by God was to be abolished. They are so sure of their belief that Peter “feared the circumcision party” Paul becomes so frustrated with trying to penetrate their minds and their wills that he says he wishes they would castrate themselves

That sounds like invincible ignorance to me. As much as any Protestant today could claim in my opinion yet Paul says the Judaizers are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace.

Ambrose if you would address these questions. Why didn’t the Church just declare the natives to be invincibly ignorant and let them remain in their ignorance? Instead missionaires were killed preaching them the Gospel.

Why evangelize Protestants since they are all invincibly ignorant?

Why did Christ establish a visible Church, with sacraments as a means of grace? WHy the sacrament of confession where our sins are forgiven and we receive sanctfying grace? WHy did He give only His Church His body and blood in the Eucharist? Why did He establish the priesthood. WHy did He commision His Church to make disciples of all nations and baptize them if invincible ignorance can get you into heaven?

Scripture tells us that God desires all men to be saved AND to come to the knowledge of the truth. As Catholics we believe that God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved. Does God give all men sufficient grace to come to the knowlege of truth?

 

[Abu]

Third Day
WHy did He commision His Church to make disciples of all nations and baptize them if invincible ignorance can get you into heaven?

Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith
Responses To Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects Of The Doctrine On The Church
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
June 29, 2007
“Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?”

“The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

“Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors" (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.)

“In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.
“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9]
“…there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.[11]
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
Notes
[9] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
[11] Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution *Lumen gentium *8.2.
[12] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4

In CCC #848, “the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
[The reference 338 includes Heb 11:6 saying that God rewards those who believe and diligently seek Him; and 1 Cor 9:16 in which Paul says “woe to me if I do not preach the gospel.”]

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Third Day:

Why evangelize Protestants since they are all invincibly ignorant?

When we say “invincibly ignorant” we DON"T mean they are that way permanently. They can still be evangelized of course! However, if you still don’t grasp the meaning of invincible ignorance, you will have little success. Reread my post that your comment above is a reply to.

See Abu’s posts too.

Basically invincible ignorance means the person is not culpable for their error. It doesn’t mean that with proper guidance, and the grace of God, it can never be corrected.

You should be cautious about evangelizing Protestants however. If they are invincibly ignorant Protestants, they still CAN be saved even while remaining Protestants to their dying breath. That is a doctrine of our Church. Remember they are still baptized Christians, and belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Continuing with the example of John Henry Newman; Once he was converted, he still had many friends and the whole rest of his family (his mother and brothers and sisters) who remained Anglican. Of course Newman explained why HE felt the Anglican Church was schismatic etc, but he never tried to force the issue with them. I have full sympathy with Newman, as I am in the same boat. My entire family left the Catholic Church to become born again. It is a source of much sadness to me, as I am sure it was to JHN too, seeing his family and friends remain Anglican. However, I believe they are invincibly ignorant, even though they are former Catholics. I would love to try and talk them back to the Church, but they are absolutely certain I am the wrong one. BECAUSE OF THAT, they would NOT be willing to discuss religion WITH ME especially.

I remain watchful for any opportunity to help bring them back, but in the meantime I pray for them. I also believe that they may well be leading more spiritual lives now, then they might have been, had they remained mediocre, poorly instructed, cafeteria Catholics. Now religion is in the forefront of their lives, unlike many Catholics in name only.

I’m not saying this is a good situation, just one we have to deal with, given the circumstances. Newman understood this, and the Catholic Church understands this.

 

[Third_Day]

=AmbroseSJ;7606899]When we say “invincibly ignorant” we DON"T mean they are that way permanently. They can still be evangelized of course! However, if you still don’t grasp the meaning of invincible ignorance, you will have little success. Reread my post that your comment above is a reply to.

Basically invincible ignorance means the person is not culpable for their error. It doesn’t mean that with proper guidance, and the grace of God, it can never be corrected.

I completely understand the meaning of invincible ignorance. What suprised me was when you said that the Judaizers were NOT invincibly ignorant. How is that possible?

The problem I see with invincible ignorance is that it is used too broadly. One could make the case that Luther and Calvin were invincibly ignorant, all atheists are invincibly ignorant, all Jews, Muslims and Protestants. Once that is accepted as true, indifferentism is the result.

ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI
AUGUST 15, 1832

1. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate

You should be cautious about evangelizing Protestants however. If they are invincibly ignorant Protestants, they still CAN be saved even while remaining Protestants to their dying breath. That is a doctrine of our Church. Remember they are still baptized Christians, and belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.

I have a problem with this. I have been in discussion with two Calvinists, members of the Mystical Body of Christ, for over a year. They have told me that they could committ adultery, rape, murder, fornication etc and their salvation is still secure without confession or repentance. Are they invincibly ignorant of the truth or are they blinded by their sin? Why should I be cautious about evangelizing them?

Regarding John Henry Newman. Didn’t his search for the truth take 10-20 years? He continued to respond to God’s grace. What about those who hear the claims of the Catholic Church, search a couple of months, and they go back to their religion. Seems to me they are freely rejecting God’s grace to come to the knowledge of the truth. Are they invincibly ignorant or are they just more comfortable where they are? Could they still be saved? Yes, but the further one gets from the Catholic Church the less likely is their salvation otherwise there was no need for Christ to establish One Church with the full means of grace.

I also have relatives that have left the Church who were poorly taught the faith. But they are comfortable where they are. To embrace the truth would mean they would have to abandon their newly found Protestant friends and obey the teachings of the Church. Is their ignorance beyond their control? God only knows that.

Again I want to ask you. Why did missionaires risk their lives to evangelize natives that were surely invincibly ignorant of the truth?

Does God give sufficient grace to come to the knowledge of the truth to all men?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Third Day:

Again I want to ask you. Why did missionaires risk their lives to evangelize natives that were surely invincibly ignorant of the truth?

Does God give sufficient grace to come to the knowledge of the truth to all men?

Aboriginal natives are just ignorant. That is why the Gospel message is proclaimed to them.

Yes, I believe God does give sufficient grace to all men that cooperate with that grace. But again we are unable to judge how another is remaining true to his own conscience.

I think you are making way too much of invincible ignorance. It is just a CHURCH TEACHING which says people who are invincibly ignorant are NOT culpable for being in the wrong church or religion. That they CAN still be saved. Not that they are automatically saved because they are invincibly ignorant. NO.

In one sense, it is difficult even impossible to say so and so is invincibly ignorant. Only God can make that judgment. In the meantime, we may try to evangelize or correct that person. However, if you understand the meaning of Invincible ignorance, then you will respect that person for abiding by his own conscience and talk with him accordingly. That person MAY NEVER be persuaded by your logic or “proofs.” However, there may be a person, or words, or event that by the grace of God WILL get through to that person. So it is important to understand that just because YOU are unable to get through to that person, does not mean they have no hope for salvation.

 

[Third_Day]

Thanks for the discussion, Ambrose. There isn’t anything I can add. I would like to end with this part of an article on Invincible Ignorance from Jimmy Akin that sums up everything quite well.

"Unfortunately, there are a number of erroneous views regarding salvation and invincible ignorance that need to be pointed out. First, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant of the true faith is not a ticket to heaven. A person who is not culpable for sins against faith *may still be culpable for other *mortal sins-the same ones people of faith can commit-and may be damned on that account.

Second, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they should not be evangelized. The farther from the center of God’s truth a person is the more spiritual jeopardy they are in. Even if they are not culpable for sins against faith, the fact they are ignorant of the true religion and do not have access to the sacraments means that they *are more likely to commit mortal sin *and thus more likely to be damned. Christ did not leave us the option of only evangelizing some peoples (Mark 16:15) or of only teaching them some doctrines (Matt. 28:20). Consequently, it is a false understanding of evangelism or a false spirit of ecumenism that would suggest that classes of people can be left in total or partial ignorance of the true faith on the pretext that they are invincibly ignorant and should not be disturbed.

Third, those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, “not deserting if he [God] be not deserted.” As a result of this special grace, “those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it” (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). It then infallibly condemned the proposition that “the condition of the faithful and of those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is the same, so that Catholics could have a just reason for suspending their judgment and calling into question the faith that they have already received under the teaching authority of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith” (ibid., canon 3:6; ND 130, cf. D 1815, DS 3036). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who-though baptized or received into the Church-never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis."

 

[Yab_Yum]

What is the difference between a “sin against faith” and a mortal/venial sin?

 

[hazcompat]

From Wikipedia, Invincible Ignorance:

“The term “invincible ignorance” has its roots in Catholic theology, opposite of the term vincible ignorance, where it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The earliest use of the term seems to have been by Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863), although discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen. When and how the term was taken by logicians to refer to the state of persons who pigheadedly refuse to attend to evidence remains unclear”

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I have always been taught that ignorance about issues of faith does not excuse a person. I was also taught that God would not leave a sincere seeker of truth but would send him an understanding. Additionally, if someone deliberately stepped away from what he knows was right, God might not even grant him the grace of repentance for a period of time even if he is sorry and desires to repent.

I believe often individuals think they know what the absolute truth is just claim that someone who disagrees with them must be suffering from Invincible Ignorance, when what is really going on is that the one who thinks he knows the absolute truth is suffering from pride.

Humbly, Jesus Christ is the absolute truth.

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear Third Day,

I don’t see my question about the Judaizers as being irrelevant as to the question of invincibly ignorant. Whether or not all of them were Christian or “Christian in name only” as you put it is besides the point.
Paul was clearly evangelizing them. They could not let go of their belief that circumcision was necessary for the Gentiles. They had some good points. The Word of God told them that circumcision was necessary. Their tradition held that it was necessary. Then some men who called themselves apostles say that, after a thousand years of observance, it is no longer necessary. It has been replaced by baptism. They can’t wrap their conscience around this new doctrine. It doesn’t seem possible that this sign of the Covenant given by God was to be abolished. They are so sure of their belief that Peter “feared the circumcision party” Paul becomes so frustrated with trying to penetrate their minds and their wills that he says he wishes they would castrate themselves.

I don’t believe brother AmbroseSJ was saying that the issue of invincible ignorance is irrelevant to the topic of the Judaizers – simply that the principle might be difficult for you to understand in that context, so he suggested that you approach it in a different context.

Permit me to attempt to explain it to you in different words (though from my perspective, brother AmbroseSJ’s words were sufficient).

It seems to me you are confusing the Judaizers with the Jews who had not yet come to Christ. The Judaizers were CHRISTIANS. The Magisterial authority for the Christians during Apostolic times were the Apostles. St. Paul’s conflict with the Judaizers has nothing to do with the principle of invincible ignorance because the issue with the Judaizers was one of disobedience to their rightful Magisterial authorities, the Apostles. As brother AmbroseSJ had stated, in the context of the Judaizers, it was a matter of correcting an error, not in trying to convince them of something new to their ears that was hard for them to accept. St. Paul specifically informs us that the Judaizers were falling back into error, as he makes so painfully clear in his Epistle to the Galatians. So the Judaizers had obviously accepted the Gospel message previously, but were backsliding (for whatever reason) in their beliefs. Having accepted the Gospel message previously, then invincible ignorance does not apply.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

What is the difference between a “sin against faith” and a mortal/venial sin?

I suspect “sin against faith” refers either to disbelief in a doctrine or sin against your conscience. “Mortal/venial” sin are TYPES of sin, while “sin against faith” refers more to the motive behing the sin.

I am not a Latin Catholic, so I don’t definitely know if that is the correct explanation. Can someone else please explain the topic more clearly to Yab Yum, especially since he (she?) is a catechumen?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

JohnVIII, post #25
I don’t want condemnation for myself and I don’t wish anyone condemnation; that seems to me would come if anyone really knew some truth with absolute certainty but then could not live up to that perfect standard of accountability.

If we do not take the trouble to discover truth and then follow our consciences, we sin. That‘s why Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation within His Church, and She teaches the reality of purgatory for us so that “nothing defiled shall enter heaven.” When we do know and commit sin, we have all the means necessary, provided we avail ourselves of them.

From Fr Thomas Dubay, Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

Yab Yum
What is the difference between a “sin against faith” and a mortal/venial sin?

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36495
SIN AGAINST FAITH
The deliberate withholding of assent to what God has revealed. As commonly understood, there are five principal sins against faith: profession of a false religion, willful doubt, disbelief, or denial of an article of faith, and culpable ignorance of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
[Fr. John Hardon’s *Modern Catholic Dictionary]

An example:
**Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL (EWTN) on Mar-17-2009:**For Christians it is a grave sin against faith to believe in reincarnation, as it does away with the salvific work of Christ, and replaces it with self-salvation, represented by the many opportunities for me to perfect myself.