What is exactly and precisely "invincible ignorance"?

[Nahar]

1. You wrote: “I am talking about those who learned and discarded those teachings - on rational grounds.”

• Invalid grounds for rejection of teachings on faith and morals.

Rational grounds “trump” everything.

1. You wrote: “Inapplicable for non-Catholics. (And for many Catholics, too.)”

• No, the Catholic Church has the fullness of the revealed truth.

Where is the evidence for it?

1. Your wrote: “And the word “mystery” is also inapplicable. What some people call a “mystery”, is only a contradiction.”

• Catechism 774 The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mystenum and sacramentum . In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium .

There is more than one definition for heart.

There is only one rational definition.

 

[Nahar]

Then the hypothetical case you mentioned is not comparable to Christianity. You can look at proof by researching about natural theology (logical proof of the existence and attributes of God) and at least research about some of the miracles and try to practice the Faith in things like praying.

I already did.

You are implicitly assuming that Christianity is irrational but it’s not. I don’t understand why would you worry about invincible ignorance if you don’t believe in a christian afterlife, though.

I am not worried. Merely curious.

 

[Titivillus]

What exactly and precisely is “invincible ignorance”?

tl; dr; joke answer

I don’t know.

 

[Ammi]

Luke 8

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved.

Matthew 13

“Hear then the parable of the sower. When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path.”

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: Where is the evidence for it [fullness of the revealed truth in the Catholic Church]?

• The revealed truth in scripture and tradition.

You wrote: “Rational grounds “trump” everything.”

• Faith is a gift from God that surpasses reason for truth.

You wrote: “There is only one rational definition. [for heart]”

• There is more than one actually. (See Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)

 

[Ammi]

What do those passages say to your heart?

 

[Nahar]

You wrote: Where is the evidence for it [fullness of the revealed truth in the Catholic Church]?

• The revealed truth in scripture and tradition.

You wrote: “Rational grounds “trump” everything.”

• Faith is a gift from God that surpasses reason for truth.

You wrote: “There is only one rational definition. [for heart]”

• There is more than one actually. (See Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)

A simple suggestion. It is useless to refer to the church, or to the bible when talking to a non-christian. You merely waste your time. And also your interlocutor’s time.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

You wrote: Where is the evidence for it [fullness of the revealed truth in the Catholic Church]?

• The revealed truth in scripture and tradition.

You wrote: “Rational grounds “trump” everything.”

• Faith is a gift from God that surpasses reason for truth.

You wrote: “There is only one rational definition. [for heart]”

• There is more than one actually. (See Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)

A simple suggestion. It is useless to refer to the church, or to the bible when talking to a non-christian. You merely waste your time. And also your interlocutor’s time.

It is not a waste of time for me to explain the Catholic faith.

 

[Ammi]

If someone had heard the catechism, understands it, but does not accept its premises because she does not find them logical and rational… is that person still “invincibly ignorant”?

What are the “premises” of the Catechism?

 

[thistle]

Getting into “Church Teaching” should be secondary to the Gospel message.

Nonsense. If you know the Church teachings you know the Gospel message.

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Getting into “Church Teaching” should be secondary to the Gospel message.

Nonsense. If you know the Church teachings you know the Gospel message.

1 Corinthians 15

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

 

[Zaccheus]

My take on it: invincible ignorance is ignorance for which the ignorant person is not culpable.

 

[thistle]

1 Corinthians 15

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel , which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures , that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

If you know the Church teachings you know the Gospel. The Church was tasked by Christ to spread the Gospel message.

 

[Ammi]

The point is that the Catechism is a very large book. It contains alot of Teachings that have proportional importance.

The OP expressed, “If someone had heard the catechism, understands it, but does not accept its premises because she does not find them logical and rational…”

I’m trying to ask her what is the premise of the Catechism, according to her, which she finds irrational. Is it the Gospel? Is the Gospel illogical and irrational to her?

If the Gospel is not believed, then many Teachings based on the Gospel (or which come from the Gospel) will likely not have meaning.

 

[Nahar]

I’m trying to ask her what is the premise of the Catechism, according to her, which she finds irrational. Is it the Gospel? Is the Gospel illogical and irrational to her?

That would be a huge undertaking. It would require volumes of postings, which is not possible due to limitations on the size of one post.

But I will give one example. In the catechism it is explicitly stated that God’s existence can be known by the unaided reason from the created world.

The Catholic Church, following the teachings of Paul the Apostle, Thomas Aquinas, and the First Vatican Council, affirms that God’s existence "can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason".

A very important stipulation. What is missing, however, is the explanation of HOW this can be known. It is an empty proposition. And there is another, major error in the text. The expression “from the created world” is a logical fallacy. It presupposes that the “world” was created.

 

[Ammi]

Ok, so the premise is belief in the existence of God first and foremost.

Yes, St Paul touches on this in Romans 1

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made

He is saying that we can know by the “things that have been made”. This includes ourselves, plant and animal life, the Earth and its universe.

Wisdom 13

For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists,
nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works

As for HOW we can know, you ask… Faith.

Hebrews 11

And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Faith is the Gift God has given to us. It is how we “see” what is not visible by carnal sight.

 

[whatistrue]

A simple suggestion. It is useless to refer to the church, or to the bible when talking to a non-christian. You merely waste your time. And also your interlocutor’s time.

A simple suggestion: If you ask a question of Christians about their Faith, expect God, their Church, and the Bible to be part of the answer.

 

[Crusader13]

What is missing, however, is the explanation of HOW this can be known. It is an empty proposition. And there is another, major error in the text. The expression “from the created world” is a logical fallacy. It presupposes that the “world” was created.

You’re practically answering your own question then. From that point of view it seems that there are two possibilities with regards to the world and life. Either everything was created or it came into being from some other cause.

So when you’re presented with the understanding that God created everything you can either believe in this option or chose a different one.

However, you’re creating a scenario where, based upon the teachings of the Church, a person can rightly refuse and reject this truth simply because the person finds them to be illogical. In a sense it’s akin to saying that a person isn’t culpable for their unbelief because the evidence that God “supposedly” left, is lacking.

 

[Maximus1]

Overcome with great personal effort?
That seems an idea that could create a prejudice against some and advantage for others that is virtually a predetermination.
And in terms of free will, to what extent does rational human thought ( vs irrational) play in determining whether actual free will is at work?
We recognize organic mental condition for example as a factor in determining the exercise of free will vel non.
God wants everyone to be saved, God is good, and God loves us, are all factors that we assume in addressing judgement. So Hell is a place we select for ourselves through exercise of free will. Hence, what is a true excercize of free will?

 

[Nahar]

A simple suggestion: If you ask a question of Christians about their Faith, expect God, their Church, and the Bible to be part of the answer.

Certainly. But I am asking if they can present a rational answer. After all there are many facets of life where the rational and religious points of view arrive at the same conclusion.

Anything and everything could be convincing to non-christians, if the argument is based upon rational premises. If you don’t have such arguments, it is fine. Just come clean and say it. Your honesty will be accepted and praised. It is not necessary to have agreement.