SPLIT: To Whom does Invincible Ignorance apply?

[thistle]

It is logical and fair. It means that those that are not aware of what they are doing cannot give full consent so the belief it is not a serious sin. For example, individuals raised in other churches; those that did not intentionally and knowingly defect.

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Who is a Catholic? Those who are sacramentally baptised as a Catholic. Those who went through a Baptism of Blood. Those who have a Baptism of Desire (explicit) and Baptism of Desire (implicit, i.e. those in invincible ignorance who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of Christ, his Gospel, and his Church but live a life in accordance with Christ’s teachings without realising why. Such people somehow have been touched by God).
Invincible ignorance does not apply to Catholics (vincible ignorance can but that cannot continue through laziness or deliberate refusal to learn what the Church teaches).

Invincible ignorance cannot apply to non-Catholic Christians as they already something about Christ, his Gospel, and his Church but choose to go no further to learn the whole truth or they outright reject his Church and its teachings.
Same applies to Muslims, Jews etc etc - invinvible ignorance does not apply.

 

[mardukm]

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Who is a Catholic? Those who are sacramentally baptised as a Catholic. Those who went through a Baptism of Blood. Those who have a Baptism of Desire (explicit) and Baptism of Desire (implicit, i.e. those in invincible ignorance who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of Christ, his Gospel, and his Church but live a life in accordance with Christ’s teachings without realising why. Such people somehow have been touched by God).
Invincible ignorance does not apply to Catholics (vincible ignorance can but that cannot continue through laziness or deliberate refusal to learn what the Church teaches).

Invincible ignorance cannot apply to non-Catholic Christians as they already something about Christ, his Gospel, and his Church but choose to go no further to learn the whole truth or they outright reject his Church and its teachings.
Same applies to Muslims, Jews etc etc - invinvible ignorance does not apply.

Can you give us some Magisterial texts to back up our claims? I mean your claims that invincible ignorance does not apply to “Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. etc.” Good luck with that.

Basically, you’re saying that invincible ignorance does not exist since it applies to no one.

Blessings

 

[Timothy17]

Can you give us some Magisterial texts to back up our claims? I mean your claims that invincible ignorance does not apply to “Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. etc.” Good luck with that.

Basically, you’re saying that invincible ignorance does not exist since it applies to no one.

Blessings

I would think even the term itself, invincible ignorance, lends itself to the most extreme of cases, and therefore not something common or general.

If, for example, someone were to say a man is invincibly ignorant of English, we would be talking about someone who lived in the most isolated parts of the world, or (proceeding a little further back in time) someone who existed outside of Western Europe, or (proceeding still further back) persons who lived before English was a vernacular language. Furthermore, to be invincibly ignorant of English would eliminate most persons, and not (without doing injustice to the term) a few. For even if they were even only aware of its existence, then the invincible would be subequently eliminated or, at the very least, diminished in the ignorance.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Timothy17,

I would think even the term itself, invincible ignorance, lends itself to the most extreme of cases, and therefore not something common or general.

If, for example, someone were to say a man is invincibly ignorant of English, we would be talking about someone who lived in the most isolated parts of the world, or (proceeding a little further back in time) someone who existed outside of Western Europe, or (proceeding still further back) persons who lived before English was a vernacular language. Furthermore, to be invincibly ignorant of English would eliminate most persons, and not (without doing injustice to the term) a few. For even if they were even only aware of its existence, then the invincible would be subequently eliminated or, at the very least, diminished in the ignorance.

Based on everything I’ve read about the principle of invincible ignorance, it is based not (or not merely) on lack of awareness that results in denial, but also (if not moreso) on the lack of willfulness that results in denial.

It is important to understand that invincible ignorance does not refer to the lack of awareness of the text of a doctrine. Rather, it refers to a lack of awareness of the TRUTH of a doctrine. For example, suppose I was raised in an environment where I was taught that everything that the Catholic Church teaches is false. I come upon a pamphlet from Catholic Answers, and read it from cover to cover. But if I read it on the premise that everything the Catholic Church teaches is false, then I will deny its teachings. I have become aware of the text of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but I have not had a comparable awareness of the TRUTH of those doctrines. Therefore, I would be regarded as invincibly ignorant.

Invincible ignorance would apply to me in that instance because my denial of what I had read has been conditioned on a life-time of indoctrination that claims the Catholic Church teaches falsely. My free will or volition in denying the Truth of those doctrines has been compromised by a life-time of indoctrination.

But if at anytime that I was reading the pamphlet, my conscience was inspired to have even a flicker of belief - i.e, an awareness of the TRUTH of the doctrines - then invincible ignorance would have been mitigated (though not completely). I would be obligated to pursue Truth according to my conscience.

But what if even my pursuit of the Truth after that moment of inspiration is retarded or abated due to circumstances outside my control, and so I was never able to accept the doctrines? In that circumstance, the principle of invincible ignorance would also apply.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Mardukm:

It is important to understand that invincible ignorance does not refer to the lack of awareness of the text of a doctrine. Rather, it refers to a lack of awareness of the TRUTH of a doctrine. For example, suppose I was raised in an environment where I was taught that everything that the Catholic Church teaches is false. I come upon a pamphlet from Catholic Answers, and read it from cover to cover. But if I read it on the premise that everything the Catholic Church teaches is false, then I will deny its teachings. I have become aware of the text of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but I have not had a comparable awareness of the TRUTH of those doctrines. Therefore, I would be regarded as invincibly ignorant.

This is a wonderfully clear illustration of exactly what the Church means by invincible ignorance.

It’s a very difficult concept to grasp for a large percentage of posters here in the apologetics forum of CAF. Many posters mistakenly believe that just because something seems to follow logically and naturally as in a syllogism, it must be obvious to anyone that sees it. But we know such is not the case. John Henry Newman writes at length about this difficulty in his book An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. In it, he illustrates the various ways we come to know what we know. How we have certitude about things, and how it varies from person to person. I would recommend it for anyone that wants to better understand how apologetics must work in our post-modern world, or wishes a better understanding of how we assent to various things as true.

 

[JohnVIII]

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.

 

[thistle]

Can you give us some Magisterial texts to back up our claims? I mean your claims that invincible ignorance does not apply to “Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. etc.” Good luck with that.

Basically, you’re saying that invincible ignorance does not exist since it applies to no one.

Blessings

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

CCC 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.

CCC 848 “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.”

CCC 847 is about invincible ignorance.
Assuming no lack of mental ability, by definition Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Muslims and Jews know something (in varying degrees of knowledge) about Christ, his Gospel, and his Church so it cannot apply to them.
Those who know something but refuse to learn more or learn more and reject Christ and his Church will not be saved.
Those who know something and want to learn more (say going through RCIA) and live according to Christ’s teachings are said to have a Baptism of Desire (Explicit).
Those who know something and want to learn more but are denied the opportunity to do so but live as best they can in accordance with Christ’s teachings would also fall under Baptism of Desire (Explicit).
Invincible ignorance implies no knowledge of Christ, his Gospel, and his Church but nevertheless living in accordance with Christ’s teachings (Baptism of Desire - Implicit).

 

[mardukm]

CCC 847 is about invincible ignorance.
Assuming no lack of mental ability, by definition Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Muslims and Jews know something (in varying degrees of knowledge) about Christ, his Gospel, and his Church so it cannot apply to them.

As I suspected. You can’t provide any proof from Magisterial documents. What you have proposed is actually merely your own interpretation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[thistle]

As I suspected. You can’t provide any proof from Magisterial documents. What you have proposed is actually merely your own interpretation.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have provided the teaching of the Church which says it applies to those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, his Gospel and his Church.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand, therefore, that invincible ignorance cannot apply to anyone who knows about Christ, his Gospel and his Church.
Please note also the Church teaching does not say that those to whom invincible ignorance applies will be saved. It says they may be saved.

The reality is that there are very few in the world to whom invincible ignorance will apply and even then it does not mean they will be saved.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

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”

I agree with what the Wikipedia article says for the most part, but its caricature in the last sentence is just that - a caricature. In fact, the principle of invincible ignorance according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (a much more reliable source than Wikipedia, I’m sure you’ll admit), asserts that “pigheadedness” is not invincible ignorance. “Pigheadedness” would fall under what is termed “affected ignorance” which does not excuse.

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.

Yet, the EOC simultaneously affirms that it “does not know” the ultimate end of those who die in ignorance. I think the Catholic principle of invincible ignorance fills the gap that is left by the “we don’t know” paradigm of the EO.

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.

That is a strange concept to me. From what I have learned growing up as an Oriental Orthodox, and as a Catholic, God always grants the grace of repentance to those who seek it, but will nevertheless chastise the person for the sake of holiness. I assume that this EO teaching interprets the chastisement as evidence that God has not granted him/her the grace of repentance? I don’t know. In any case, I’d be interested to know the basis (scriptural or patristic) of this teaching that “God does not grant the grace of repentance 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.

All situations are certainly possible, and it applies to everyone, Orthodox and Catholic alike (both pride and invincible ignorance). It appears you see the principle of invincible ignorance as something bad. I see it as a principle of mercy. The principle affirms that those who do not willfully reject the truth are not condemned. This is comparable to the EO “we don’t know” paradigm. Neither the EO or Catholic Church are willing to absolutely condemn people to hell. The EOC and CC have different ways of expressing this same attitude. I don’t see why the EO expression is any more or less valid than the Catholic expression.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I have provided the teaching of the Church which says it applies to those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, his Gospel and his Church.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the term “know” has different connotations. I’m surprised you don’t realize that this is especially so in the realm of theology. In theology, “know” does not merely refer to “head knowledge,” but more often than not refers to the participation of the WHOLE person (mind, body and soul) in the experience of “knowing.”

The reality is that there are very few in the world to whom invincible ignorance will apply and even then it does not mean they will be saved.

If few people are saved in this world, it will be based not on their head knowledge, but on their WILLFULNESS in rejecting that head knowledge.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[thistle]

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the term “know” has different connotations. I’m surprised you don’t realize that this is especially so in the realm of theology. In theology, “know” does not merely refer to “head knowledge,” but more often than not refers to the participation of the WHOLE person (mind, body and soul) in the experience of “knowing.”

If few people are saved in this world, it will be based not on their head knowledge, but on their WILLFULNESS in rejecting that head knowledge.

Blessings,
Marduk

Tell me how a Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, or whoever, can be invincibly ignorant.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Tell me how a Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, or whoever, can be invincibly ignorant.

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.

 

[Mijoy2]

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

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.

Invincible ignorance cannot apply to non-Catholic Christians as they already something about Christ, his Gospel, and his Church but choose to go no further to learn the whole truth or they outright reject his Church and its teachings.

Your former quote contradicts your later quote.
Non_catholic christians, certainly know Christ. Yet they (or many of them) with thier deepest conviction, effort and love for God, strive to learn more and more about Christ with all thier heart. Yet despite thier efforts they do not come to believe the catholic doctrine that the catholic faith is the one true church. This is, “through no fault of thier own”. We as believing catholics should say, this is true despite thier efforts, not through fault of thier own. Fault implies deliberate intent.

They have a biased heart (as do catholics), for various reasons or contributions that lead them to this bias.

You can no more blame a non-catholic christian for not accepting the Catholic Church as the one true Church started by Christ, then you can blame me for not believing Mohammad is a prophet sent by God.

I would site statistical evidence of this, this way; most born protestant remain protestent, most born catholic remain catholic, most born jewish remain jewish and most born muslim remain muslim. This is not my fault, this is my belief.

Otherwise what we are saying ( and I find this pompous), anyone who believes differntly then us on any matter, is at fault.

Another way if putting it, If a belief is wrong, is does not necassarily become a fault. Only if the truth is deliverated avioded would it become a fault.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

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.

I must be off for a week or even more, but I wanted to write this short note to affirm that this is an EXCELLENT presentation of the matter. The principle of invincible ignorance presupposes SINCERITY in the person who has not accepted the Faith. Many non-Catholics have a sore misunderstanding of invincible ignorance as something insulting, when it is in fact most appreciative and respectful of their own positions.

I guess one can say that invincible ignorance refers to a SINCERE lack of acceptance. Anything beyond that (e.g., lack of acceptance due to hatred, or laziness, or stubbornness, etc.) is not what invincible ignorance is about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

ALSO an EXCELLENT post. Thank you!

Blessings,
Marduk

Your former quote contradicts your later quote.
Non_catholic christians, certainly know Christ. Yet they (or many of them) with thier deepest conviction, effort and love for God, strive to learn more and more about Christ with all thier heart. Yet despite thier efforts they do not come to believe the catholic doctrine that the catholic faith is the one true church. This is, “through no fault of thier own”. We as believing catholics should say, this is true despite thier efforts, not through fault of thier own. Fault implies deliberate intent.

They have a biased heart (as do catholics), for various reasons or contributions that lead them to this bias.

You can no more blame a non-catholic christian for not accepting the Catholic Church as the one true Church started by Christ, then you can blame me for not believing Mohammad is a prophet sent by God.

I would site statistical evidence of this, this way; most born protestant remain protestent, most born catholic remain catholic, most born jewish remain jewish and most born muslim remain muslim. This is not my fault, this is my belief.

Otherwise what we are saying ( and I find this pompous), anyone who believes differntly then us on any matter, is at fault.

Another way if putting it, If a belief is wrong, is does not necassarily become a fault. Only if the truth is deliverated avioded would it become a fault.

 

[Third_Day]

DId Paul consider the Judaizers invincibly ignorant?
Because of their Jewish upbringing they could not grasp the truth that the Church was preaching yet Paul tells them, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law, you have fallen away from grace.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

DId Paul consider the Judaizers invincibly ignorant?
Because of their Jewish upbringing they could not grasp the truth that the Church was preaching yet Paul tells them, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law, you have fallen away from grace.”

No. They were vincibly ignorant. IOW, they were mistaken in how they understood the Gospel. Therefore Paul in Galatians corrects them.

The difference is one of first principles. When one accepts the premise of Christianity as True and believes in the Gospel, as the Galatians did in Paul’s time, then it is just a problem of correcting an error. However, there could indeed have been cases of invincible ignorance among the Jews in Galatia. Those would have been the Jews that never converted to Christianity. (excepting of course those Jews, who in their hearts believed the Truth of Christianity, but refused to convert for fear of the Jews, or other human inconveniences.)

BTW, when Paul says they are “severed from Christ” it is obvious that they were at one time in Union with Christ. Therefore invincible ignorance has nothing to do with their problem. I think Paul is trying to lead them according to the true message of the Gospel, and is in fact warning them of the seriousness of the error of their dependence on the Law of Moses as their source of justification before God. I would assume that Paul effectively stamped out this error with his letter to them. If so then then some of the Galatians were good faithful Christians that were temporarily detoured onto a wrong path.

 

[Third_Day]

=AmbroseSJ;7604107]No. They were vincibly ignorant. IOW, they were mistaken in how they understood the Gospel. Therefore Paul in Galatians corrects them.

Aren’t some Protestants"mistaken" in how they understand the Gospel? IF the Judaizers were vincibly ignorant then why would you say that Protestants are invincibly ignorant?

The difference is one of first principles. When one accepts the premise of **Christianity as True **and believes in the Gospel, as the Galatians did in Paul’s time, then it is just a problem of correcting an error.

But Protestant Christianity isn’t TRUE. It contains some truths but contains many errors and their teachings are in fact heretical.

BTW, when Paul says they are “severed from Christ” it is obvious that they were at one time in Union with Christ. Therefore invincible ignorance has nothing to do with their problem. I think Paul is trying to lead them according to the true message of the Gospel

,
Does Protestantism have the TRUE messageof the gospel?

and is in fact warning them of the seriousness of the error of their dependence on the Law of Moses as their source of justification before God.

Isn’t the teaching that all one needs to do to be saved is to believe an error that could possibly send someone to hell?

I would assume that Paul effectively stamped out this error with his letter to them. If so then then some of the Galatians were good faithful Christians that were temporarily detoured onto a wrong path.

That error lasted well into the second century.
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.

 

[TMC]

I have provided the teaching of the Church which says it applies to those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, his Gospel and his Church.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand, therefore, that invincible ignorance cannot apply to anyone who knows about Christ, his Gospel and his Church.
Please note also the Church teaching does not say that those to whom invincible ignorance applies will be saved. It says they may be saved.

The reality is that there are very few in the world to whom invincible ignorance will apply and even then it does not mean they will be saved.

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.

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.” That is my understanding of Baptism of Desire - that the person would have sought Baptism if “they had known its necessity.” That is a pretty broad description that clearly includes those that may have heard of Christ and His Gospel, but been blinded to its truth for any of the various reasons others have pointed out. (Of course merely qualifying for Baptism of Desire does not mean one is saved, any more than an actual baptism means one is saved.)