Unam Sanctam

[Gorgias]

Gorgias I believe you are exploiting an ambiguity in what “has not accepted the Gospel” may mean.

Perhaps; and yet, it might seem that such ambiguities are the hallmark of magisterial documents… sometimes, they seem to be placed deliberately into the documents.

Just because someone is aware of the Gospel or Catholicism and is unmoved…that does not of itself necessarily mean rejection.

OK; I can agree with that. However, even though it doesn’t require a reading of ‘rejection’, it admits of such a reading. Therefore, according to the document, such a reading is possible. That’s sufficient for the sake of the argument I’m making…!

 

[Sirach2]

There were other important statements in the General Audience made by Pope JPII that were omitted in Ron Conte’s post.
However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited "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." And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: "Many people do not have the 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" (RM 10).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7).

Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way… The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus-- “without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.
Since we have this solemn teaching from this Blessed Pope that "the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone, I believe it is pure arrogance to place ourselves in these debates proferring one’s own opinion in opposition to what the Church teaches, and in total ignorance of what the Divine Judgment determines.

To those of you who know better than Church teaching, carry on. Maybe someone will listen to you. I am unsubscribing.

 

[Ron_Conte]

How about we show what the Church teaches and not your interpretation.

CCC

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

As the quotes above show, the Magisterium teaches that an objectively grave sin does not deprive a person of the state of grace, and does not deserve eternal punishment – without full knowledge and full deliberation. You highlighted the section on deliberate choice, and the loss of the state of grace. But you ignored the section on knowledge.

A person who is not Catholic might reject the Catholic Faith, or a person who is not Christian might reject Christianity, without the knowledge that such a rejection is a grave sin. In such cases, the deliberate choice is not an actual mortal sin, and so does not cause the loss of sanctifying grace, nor does the choice deserve eternal hellfire.

This point is not an open question, as you yourself can see from the CCC quote:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
**
“It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”**

If the person rejecting the Church or Christ or Catholicism does not know that such a choice is a grave sin, then the act is not an actual mortal sin, and does not deserve eternal punishment.

As for the point someone make above that we cannot judge – of course we cannot judge any individual person’s soul or conscience, as to whether their objectively grave choice (rejecting Christ or His Church) is done with full knowledge. But invincible ignorance is possible. So when we are talking about billions of non-Christians and non-Catholics, who know about Christianity and Catholicism, we would be judging others to an extreme degree if we judged that all of those persons had full knowledge and full consent in their choice not to become Christian or Catholic.

The Magisterium simply does not teach that all who know about Christianity and Catholicism end up in Hell unless they convert.

 

[JM3]

As the quotes above show, the Magisterium teaches that an objectively grave sin does not deprive a person of the state of grace, and does not deserve eternal punishment – without full knowledge and full deliberation. You highlighted the section on deliberate choice, and the loss of the state of grace. But you ignored the section on knowledge.

I ignored the section on knowledge, because you are right. It does say full knowledge. It, however, does not say full deliberation, but “sufficiently deliberate”.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I ignored the section on knowledge, because you are right. It does say full knowledge. It, however, does not say full deliberation, but “sufficiently deliberate”.

Many texts on moral theology use the term “full deliberation” or “fully deliberate” (e.g. the Lawler and Boyle book on catholic sexual ethics). It is a common term used in Catholic ethics to describe one of the conditions for a sin to be actual mortal sin.

But the dispute in this thread revolves around the fullness of knowledge. If the individual non-Christian or non-Catholic does not know, does not fully realize that rejecting Christianity or Catholicism is a grave sin, then they have not committed an actual mortal sin, and they have not lost the state of grace. Therefore, they may be saved, despite choosing to reject the Church – just as Pope John Paul II says:

“It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.”

Some persons outwardly reject the Church, they know about the Catholic Church, they reject the Catholic Church, and yet they retain mystical membership in the Church because they retain the state of grace.

 

[JM3]

Some persons outwardly reject the Church, they know about the Catholic Church, they reject the Catholic Church, and yet they retain mystical membership in the Church because they retain the state of grace.

I think to rely on this would be to tempt God.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

1. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:45), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.

By means of this activity, the Mystical Body of Christ unceasingly gathers and directs its forces toward its own growth (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The members of the Church are impelled to carry on such missionary activity by reason of the love with which they love God and by which they desire to share with all men the spiritual goods of both its life and the life to come.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I ignored the section on knowledge, because you are right. It does say full knowledge. It, however, does not say full deliberation, but “sufficiently deliberate”.

Could you please review your post #31. CCC1857, as quoted by you, says “with full knowledge and deliberate consent” You even bolded the “deliberate consent” part. No “sufficiently” here.

CCC 1859 says “full knowledge and complete consent” – no “sufficiently” here either. The section of CCC 1859 you quote above is talking about what that statement implies.

“Full deliberation” seems, at least to me, close enough to “deliberate consent” and “complete consent” used in the CCC paragraphs you quoted.

Peace,
Mark

 

[JM3]

Could you please review your post #31. CCC1857, as quoted by you, says “with full knowledge and deliberate consent” You even bolded the “deliberate consent” part. No “sufficiently” here.

CCC 1859 says “full knowledge and complete consent” – no “sufficiently” here either. The section of CCC 1859 you quote above is talking about what that statement implies.

“Full deliberation” seems, at least to me, close enough to “deliberate consent” and “complete consent” used in the CCC paragraphs you quoted.

Peace,
Mark

Whatever.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[Sirach2]

JM3,

You need all lthree conditions to be mortal. In stating that mortal sin requires “sufficiently deliberate consent,” this is only one aspect.

1. If there is grievous matter,
   2)** sufficiently** deliberate consent, or even full consent,
2. but without full knowledge, there is no way it can become mortal.

Your argument is not valid. The persons being discussed here are not in possession of full knowledge. Please read again that only God, not humans, can determine the interior disposition. Intellectually reading or hearing about Catholicism does not automatically put one in the situation of having fullness of faith to make a conscious decision to enter it. Hence, no full knowledge.

This really gets old, since these feeble arguments skirt all around the real focus and essence of Church teachings.

 

[JM3]

JM3,

You need all lthree conditions to be mortal. In stating that mortal sin requires “sufficiently deliberate consent,” this is only one aspect.

1. If there is grievous matter,
   2)** sufficiently** deliberate consent, or even full consent,
2. but without full knowledge, there is no way it can become mortal.

Your argument is not valid. The persons being discussed here are not in possession of full knowledge. Please read again that only God, not humans, can determine the interior disposition. Intellectually reading or hearing about Catholicism does not automatically put one in the situation of having fullness of faith to make a conscious decision to enter it. Hence, no full knowledge.

This really gets old, since these feeble arguments skirt all around the real focus and essence of Church teachings.

My argument is not valid? So, it is okay to project “full deliberation” into the catechism, when it, clearly, doesn’t say that? I thought I was pointing out Church teaching. Maybe, I’m wrong. So, I will stop.

Have a nice life. :tiphat:

 

[Sirach2]

Yes, I realize the CCC says what you printed here. But that is not what we are talking about, nor is it a condition that qualifies for mortal sin, unless the other two conditions are also present.

Why is this so difficult to understand? I don’t know of any better way to say it, and I’m not the only one who brought this to your attention. You are beating the horse all around the point of whether it is FULL deliberation, or SUFFICIENT deliberation, but completely ignoring the importance of full knowledge which is lacking entirely in those who do not have the gift of faith to embrace Catholicism.

 

[Sirach2]

To further illustrate, I saw a post in another forum today that shocked the daylights out of me. It finger-pointed accusations at non-C’s asking them why they did not convert? The assumption Catholics sometimes fall into is making judgments on non-C’s that just because the truth is out there all laid out in black and white print, it follows that they are rejecting the truths of our faith and will therefore be condemned.

Yeah, sure they may make a choice, whether it is fully deliberate or sufficiently deliberate, NOT to change from their own denomination. However, unless the truth is fully known in their heart as well as their brain, they cannot embrace our faith with integrity of conscience. That is the area hidden to us and known to God alone. We can only plant the seeds, but God must water and give the increase. *

Bottom line, people are not held accountable by God for that personal decision, unless they possess FULL knowledge of truth in the heart, and then FULLY reject it.*

 

[Pitcharan]

To further illustrate, I saw a post in another forum today that shocked the daylights out of me. It finger-pointed accusations at non-C’s asking them why they did not convert? The assumption Catholics sometimes fall into is making judgments on non-C’s that just because the truth is out there all laid out in black and white print, it follows that they are rejecting the truths of our faith and will therefore be condemned.

Yeah, sure they may make a choice, whether it is fully deliberate or sufficiently deliberate, NOT to change from their own denomination. However, unless the truth is fully known in their heart as well as their brain, they cannot embrace our faith with integrity of conscience. That is the area hidden to us and known to God alone. We can only plant the seeds, but God must water and give the increase. *

Bottom line, people are not held accountable by God for that personal decision, unless they possess FULL knowledge of truth in the heart, and then FULLY reject it.* Don’t you think that the assumption Catholics would be held far more accountable to God? Do you consider them to be Catholics at all? I see a streak of similarity between them and the Pharisees.

 

[Sirach2]

You have a good point there, Pitcharan. To whom more is given, more will be expected. It causes me to tremble sometimes when I consider how much I have been given.

I was very impressed with Br. JReducation’s post that I copied in the first page of this thread. It is a perfect example of how wise evangelization led this Brother of ours to the faith. Quiet, humble, prudent witnessing with our lives, and our love … letting our light shine and our salt flavor. I can’t imagine anyone converting with strongarm tactics.

Thanks for your comments!

 

[Pitcharan]

You have a good point there, Pitcharan. To whom more is given, more will be expected. It causes me to tremble sometimes when I consider how much I have been given. …!

My trembling has started now.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps; and yet, it might seem that such ambiguities are the hallmark of magisterial documents… sometimes, they seem to be placed deliberately into the documents.

OK; I can agree with that. However, even though it doesn’t require a reading of ‘rejection’, it admits of such a reading. Therefore, according to the document, such a reading is possible. That’s sufficient for the sake of the argument I’m making…!

Ahhh, but remember Aquinas said a noble person argues against the best possible interpretation of his enemy’s ambiguities .
And indeed, given the subject matter (the damning of non Catholics) should we not be at least as compassionate as the God we believe in ?

 

[mardukm]

I don’t believe that merely knowing ABOUT Christ and the Catholic Faith, and then rejecting it, is sufficient to bring condemnation.

Mere intellectual knowledge is not sufficient to demand belief in the conscience. Thus, when the Church speaks of rejecting the Catholic Faith or falling away from it, she must be referring to a rejection that goes a lot deeper than the mere intellect.

I’m sorry I was not perfectly concise in my statement. When stated that “mere intellectual knowledge is not sufficient to demand belief in the conscience,” I meant specifically that AWARENESS (or “knowing ABOUT”) is not sufficient to demand belief in the conscience. There has to be COMPREHENSION. I think a lot of people know ABOUT the Catholic Faith, but few people outside of the Catholic Church actually COMPREHEND it enough to accept it. What I’m saying is that invincible ignorance is a mitigation that involves not just lack of awareness, but lack of COMPREHENSION. People are fond of saying, “well they must have heard ABOUT the Catholic Faith, and if they still reject it, then they are condemned.” I contend that awareness, and subsequent rejection is an INsufficient condition for condemnation. What is necessary for condemnation is the fact of COMPREHENSION (i.e., not merely “knowing ABOUT”) and then subsequent rejection.

But even then, while COMPREHENSION and subsequent rejection are necessary conditions for condemnation, it is insufficient. The element of VOLITION or free-will must also be involved. For example, let’s say a person fully comprehends the Catholic Faith, but that person was raped by a priest, then subsequently leaves the Catholic Faith because of that traumatic experience. That person’s VOLITION was affected by the experience, so the person cannot be held culpable, or fully culpable, for that decision to leave. God will surely search the heart of every person to see what that person’s reasons are for refusing to enter the Catholic Church, or leaving her, and will judge the matter accordingly and justly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m sorry I was not perfectly concise in my statement. When stated that “mere intellectual knowledge is not sufficient to demand belief in the conscience,” I meant specifically that AWARENESS (or “knowing ABOUT”) is not sufficient to demand belief in the conscience. There has to be COMPREHENSION. I think a lot of people know ABOUT the Catholic Faith, but few people outside of the Catholic Church actually COMPREHEND it enough to accept it. What I’m saying is that invincible ignorance is a mitigation that involves not just lack of awareness, but lack of COMPREHENSION. People are fond of saying, “well they must have heard ABOUT the Catholic Faith, and if they still reject it, then they are condemned.” I contend that awareness, and subsequent rejection is an INsufficient condition for condemnation. What is necessary for condemnation is the fact of COMPREHENSION (i.e., not merely “knowing ABOUT”) and then subsequent rejection.

But even then, while COMPREHENSION and subsequent rejection are necessary conditions for condemnation, it is insufficient. The element of VOLITION or free-will must also be involved. For example, let’s say a person fully comprehends the Catholic Faith, but that person was raped by a priest, then subsequently leaves the Catholic Faith because of that traumatic experience. That person’s VOLITION was affected by the experience, so the person cannot be held culpable, or fully culpable, for that decision to leave. God will surely search the heart of every person to see what that person’s reasons are for refusing to enter the Catholic Church, or leaving her, and will judge the matter accordingly and justly.

Blessings,
Marduk

Couldn’t agree with you more. Well put.

 

[Zackeera]

It is infallible.

The Church has always taught that nonCatholics have a chance at salvation. But technically you still have to be Catholic to go to heaven, because all salvation comes through the Church. What I mean is everyone who is saved is “Catholic”, even if technically that person wasn’t Catholic for most of their life.

Is salvation through “the Church” or is it through Jesus Christ. I believe it is the latter, however everyone who places their faith in Him is also part of the universal church, the Bride of Christ. Make sense?

 

[mardukm]

Is salvation through “the Church” or is it through Jesus Christ. I believe it is the latter, however everyone who places their faith in Him is also part of the universal church, the Bride of Christ. Make sense?

Salvation is FROM Christ and THROUGH the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk