Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on September 20, 2011, 10:04:18 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm_j7kzcpjk&feature=player_embedded
-
Baloney.
NO priests don't receive the graces they need from the Novus Ordo.
-
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.
-
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.
That is not the teaching of invincible ignorence at all. In order for one to be invicilby ignorent one must not have any possiblity of knowing the truth. If I tell you you're going to hell for killing someone and you don't believe it, no matter how much you choose to not believe it dosn't make you invincibly ignorent.
This is how the Novus Ordo twist legitamate Dogma and make it into a heresy.
If someone from the America's had never heard of the True Church THEN he is invicibly ignorent and not guilty on that one account. That is what was always taught, this twist of if you don't believe something that you should is a contrary to what has and always was taught and is thus heresy.
-
LP, got the Magisterial References that distinguish Authentic and Ordinary magisterium yet? Which docuмents?
-
LP, got the Magisterial References that distinguish Authentic and Ordinary magisterium yet? Which docuмents?
You had to pester me in a random thread that has no bearing on this? Or are you mad that I am tearing into a Novus Ordo defender? Maybe you and he can go ecuмanise with each other. You are just as bad as they are and that is why you get along so well with them. Just remember if you think they are not Catholic, and they like you, then you yourself are not Catholic. For all Catholics are hated by those outside the Church.
-
Someone has to hold you accountable for shooting out information without any magisterial reference.
-
:heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic: :heretic:
Someone pass the petrol please!
-
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.
I think your post in not in line with what Christ says. Christ says that if a man does not acknowledge Him, then He cannot acknowledge that person to His Father.
Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in God, and therefore they are in mortal sin for denying His Existance.
-
Lord Phan,
Someone can be exposed to smatterings of arguments about Catholicism, the existance of God, etc. If their refusal to accept comes from a sincere and legitimate conscience which cannot understand the true teaching then it is without guilt. They may have sincerely believed certain untruths about the Church or think erroneous things about the Church in good conscience that they were told by people they trust. This is totally different from knowing in your heart there is a God and the Catholic Church is true and then rejecting it.
-
Atheists CHOOSE not to believe in God, and therefore they are in mortal sin for denying His Existance.
It's not that simple. If I'm hunting and I think I'm shooting a deer, but shoot a man instead, I'm not culpable for any sin. This is true even though I CHOSE to shoot the gun. Doesn't matter. I made a choice based on what I sincerely believed to be true.
-
Heresy, outside the church there is no salvation I now Cite the INFALLIBLE Council of Florence.
Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:
Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.
It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
-
Using your logic Santo, nearly all non-Catholics go to Heaven because they're practicing what THEY believe to be true. But it does not work that way, it isn't about what you think is true. Either you accept God and His Church or you aren't saved, simple as that. The only way an atheist could be saved is if he either repented or never even heard of God and has no one to teach Him of God (like the people in countries such as Africa, although I'm not sure they would be called atheists per se). There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
-
Lord Phan,
That dogma must be understood with the mind of the Church which has always realized exceptions.
-
Using your logic Santo, nearly all non-Catholics go to Heaven because they're practicing what THEY believe to be true. But it does not work that way, it isn't about what you think is true. Either you accept God and His Church or you aren't saved, simple as that. The only way an atheist could be saved is if he either repented or never even heard of God and has no one to teach Him of God (like the people in countries such as Africa, although I'm not sure they would be called atheists per se). There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
So someone raised Protestant who was fed lies about the Church all his life by people he trusted automatically goes to Hell just because the circuмstances of his life never allowed for him to know the Truth?
-
Lord Phan,
That dogma must be understood with the mind of the Church which has always realized exceptions.
Since when? Vatican II?
-
From the Syllubus of Errors:
"16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
CONDEMNED!
You are very quickly becoming a Formal Heretic.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
-
From the Syllubus of Errors:
"16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
CONDEMNED!
You are very quickly becoming a Formal Heretic.
Are you serious? Who is claiming that false religions offer "the way of eternal salvation"? As I said, if people are saved in false religions they are saved in spite of it and not because of it.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
And the Church interprets this to mean the following:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt
...Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this
Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July
27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the
following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that
the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that
invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things
which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or
Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely
revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the
ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will
never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by
which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the
Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments
that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained
in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there
is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He
explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe
all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least
place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into
the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain
united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a
visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been
divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the
Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of
Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the
Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation
without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for
one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed
toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by
divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances
when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see
clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to
the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of
penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far
as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may
obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be
incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is
necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in
catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance
God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included
in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to
be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was
issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On
the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193
ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes
between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as
members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on
earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be
included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess
the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate
themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate
authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most
affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body
of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and
desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation,
but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which
they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain
deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be
enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise
words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all
united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely
assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope
Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641
ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur
moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the
Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the
desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect
charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a
person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe
that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the
beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all
justification, without which it is impossible to please God and
attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are
proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the
genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and
are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain
conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which
cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by
which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of
submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops
"whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts
20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can
consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted
such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and
1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of
discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a
source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious
Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of
the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the
catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not
even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons
because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a
priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics
shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the
purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of
competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is
prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church
seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be
excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty
of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who
as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let
them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished
by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence,
having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused
from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any
restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to
the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
+ F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
-
Not a single thing in there was on your side. It validated what I have said and condemned your view. Read it over if you must.
-
Not a single thing in there was on your side. It validated what I have said and condemned your view. Read it over if you must.
It vitiates your absolutist stance and admitted of exceptions to the proof text dogma you cited, just as I said.
-
Using your logic Santo, nearly all non-Catholics go to Heaven because they're practicing what THEY believe to be true. But it does not work that way, it isn't about what you think is true. Either you accept God and His Church or you aren't saved, simple as that. The only way an atheist could be saved is if he either repented or never even heard of God and has no one to teach Him of God (like the people in countries such as Africa, although I'm not sure they would be called atheists per se). There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
So someone raised Protestant who was fed lies about the Church all his life by people he trusted automatically goes to Hell just because the circuмstances of his life never allowed for him to know the Truth?
What part of "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" do you not understand? But you know, I remember reading a post from someone on CAF, and that person said there being no salvation outside the Catholic Church just means that without the Church there would be no salvation and that people of other religions can still be saved. That is totally false, Novus Ordites don't seem to be able to properly interpret what the Church teaches.
If that's what you people on CAF believe, then I consider it a badge of honor I was banned from that modernist forum.
-
Read the letter from the Holy Office of Pius XII to see what I believe.
-
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.
Salvation by good intentions? Atheist of good will? Their denial of God is the result of a bad will. Your position as well as Fr. "Rober Baron" is worse than Pelagianism. Why? Because believing that a God exists is not the result of grace; in other words, people are not born atheists.
-
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.
Salvation by good intentions? Atheist of good will? Their denial of God is the result of a bad will. Your position as well as Fr. "Rober Baron" is worse than Pelagianism. Why? Because believing that a God exists is not the result of grace; in other words, people are not born atheists.
How can they be morally culpable for holding a position that they in good conscience believe to be true? This belief could be due to mental blocks of understanding, insufficient information, or faulty information.
-
(Latin in, not, and gnarus, knowing)
Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of our intellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself. In this article it is the ethical aspect and consequences of ignorance that are directly under consideration. From this point of view, since only voluntary and free acts are imputable, ignorance which either destroys or lessens the first-named characteristic is a factor to be reckoned with. It is customary then to narrow somewhat the definition already given of it. It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want of knowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of a person to possess it may be called nescience.
So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circuмstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circuмstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incuмbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.
The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted.
•Ignorance of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
•Ignorance of the fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circuмstance is unknown.
•Ignorance of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.
We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. Antecedent ignorance is in no sense voluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes any voluntary failure to inquire. Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same. Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements of doctrine.
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.
It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man's moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.
Sources
TAUNTON. The Law of the Church (London, 1906); JOSEPH RICKABY, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicuм Morale (Prato, 1898); TAPPARELLI, Dritto naturale (Rome, 1900); ZIGLIARA, Summa Philosophica (Paris, 1891).
-
He said it is possible for athiests OF GOOD WILL to be saved. This means based on what they know, they sincerely believe atheism. Moral theology teaches one must know something is a sin in order to commit a sin. If someone is sincerely convinced in an honest manner that atheism is true then that person will not go to Hell ON THAT ACCOUNT, though they might go for other reasons.
This is just the typical modernist subterfuge, moving from judging the objective namely, that the person rejects God to the subjective, this person may due to insufficient information or due to an honest but misguided act, decide to become an atheist. We pass from judging based on objective virtues (faith) or vices (unbelief) into judging subjective sentiments.
Now with regards to the so called honesty of the atheist and wether or not they may be saved, the Scriptures state that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrew 10:6), that it is the FOOL who says in his hearth that there is no God (Psalms 13:1) and that all are without excuse for it is clear to them that God exists (Romans 1:20).
So the preist who claims that atheists, who deny that which is manifest to them and who lack the very faith by which God is pleased, may be saved on account of their "good will" (which cannot be good if they reject God), is objectively wrong in his statement independently of the subjective reasons by which he came to embrace that position.
-
How can they be morally culpable for holding a position that they in good conscience believe to be true? This belief could be due to mental blocks of understanding, insufficient information, or faulty information.
Santo, your stance is illogical. If what you say is true that what they do is "of good will" then why would anyone end up in hell? Why would anyone go for doing what they believed to be true? Do you believe anyone goes to hell at all?
Our Lord said many, many times in the Bible that very few make it to Heaven.
-
I'm not SS but Abp. Lefebvre means that someone with invincible ignorance can be a member of the Church by desire, even if he attends the services of a false religion.
-
Santo Subito said:
How can they [ atheists ] be morally culpable for holding a position that they in good conscience believe to be true? This belief could be due to mental blocks of understanding, insufficient information, or faulty information.
Santo, there is a minimum that must be believed to be saved. Theologians have argued about this for centuries, but the BARE minimum is to believe, at least, that there is a God and He is a rewarder. No one says that you can be saved knowing less than that.
An atheist doesn't fit that category, and I've never heard of invincible ignorance reducing the culpability of an atheist. I don't think it's even possible to be invincibly ignorant that there's a God, since the world could not have created itself.
As for how many Prots or Quakers or Ooga-Boogiens from darkest Africa are invincibly ignorant, only God knows. It seems unlikely to me, considering that their church was founded as a reaction to the Catholic Church and they are even named "Protestants," that there are very many invincibly ignorant Prots... But who knows. We don't know.
-
http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/atheism
Q:“ Someone told me that atheists could be saved if they acted charitably, but I said that apart from God's saving works, man cannot save himself.
”A: While you are correct that man cannot save himself, God can choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have. Gaudium et Spes states about atheism:
Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation . . . To the extent that they [believers] neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion. (19)
This implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation of his culpability for unbelief. Ultimately we must trust that even he is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally (cf. Lumen Gentium 16). The second great commandment is love of neighbor (Matt. 22:39) and Christ said of those who serve others, even if they do not explicitly do it for Christ’s sake:
Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40).
-
To repeat the point that Raoul made, you can't be invincibly ignorant that a God exists. Belief that a God exists is not faith and can be known without supernatural grace/faith. The atheist believes that way he does because of a bad will of sin, whether that be in the past or present. Hence the charitable atheist is impossible. The answer from "This Rock" is a good example of anthropocentric humanism.
-
This came up in catechism for me recently. This is no different than "there is salvation outside the Church, all are saved, all religions are equal"...dun dun dun heresy.
-
One can most certainly be ignorant that God exists. The basic moral rule applies that if you don't know something is a sin, there is no sin, and you cannot go to Hell on that account. Thus if an atheist of good will sincerely believes there is no God based on what he believes sincerely to be true, he is mistaken, but commits no sin and is still able to be saved.
-
Then why did Christ say to teach all nations?
-
Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.
What Raoul said. People keep trying to use this and another quote to show ABL was a heretic but he didn't mean you could reject God and still be saved.
Some food for thought: if ABL really believed that then why was he so upset with Assisi? It's common sense.
-
One can most certainly be ignorant that God exists. The basic moral rule applies that if you don't know something is a sin, there is no sin, and you cannot go to Hell on that account. Thus if an atheist of good will sincerely believes there is no God based on what he believes sincerely to be true, he is mistaken, but commits no sin and is still able to be saved.
That is very wrong. It is a sin to reject God. Atheists don't reject Him out of good will, that is impossible. They look over the evidence and conclude on their own part that He does not exist. Again, using your logic practically nobody would go to hell because everyone who did what they thought was right would be saved. That is a direct contradiction of both the Bible and what the Catholic Church teaches.
-
Supposing an "atheist" is invincibly ignorant that God exists, such ignorance does not supply for the defect of lack of supernatural faith and divine charity. An erring conscience may bind for a time, but it does not excuse in necessary matters. And in the matter of the question of the basic fact of the existence of God, it is so rudimentary, bordering on self-evident, that there could be no practical justifying excuse to deny it. Thus, St. Paul says there is "no excuse" for such persons. The doctrine of invincible ignorance merely means that a person will not be punished for a particular personal sin, it does not mean that they are ipso facto placed in a state that prepares them for salvation; that they are thus translated from a state of sin to the state of justification.
-
To repeat the point that Raoul made, you can't be invincibly ignorant that a God exists. Belief that a God exists is not faith and can be known without supernatural grace/faith. The atheist believes that way he does because of a bad will of sin, whether that be in the past or present. Hence the charitable atheist is impossible. The answer from "This Rock" is a good example of anthropocentric humanism.
I agree with this completey. Doesn't St. Paul say that without faith it is impossible to please God and that those who deny Him will be without an excuse at the judgement? God has given us more than ample proof of his existence.
-
[/quote]I agree with this completely. Doesn't St. Paul say that without faith it is impossible to please God and that those who deny Him will be without an excuse at the judgement? God has given us more than ample proof of his existence.[/quote]
To be revealed the TRUTH then deny it dooms a person. Like I said before Christ said to teach all nations! If they deny Truth, well not too good for them. Same with the jews that said "Crucify him" and same with jews of today or anyone else that denies Christ.
Santo Subito said:
One can most certainly be ignorant that God exists. The basic moral rule applies that if you don't know something is a sin, there is no sin, and you cannot go to Hell on that account.
Then why was there an imperative to teach all nations?? Then what of Original Sin?
-
Then why was there an imperative to teach all nations?? Then what of Original Sin?
There are 8 sacraments of The Church now...besides the well known 7 there is also the 8th: Ignorance and Good Intentions. This, like all other Sacraments is also a cause of grace and by having it a man may be saved.
Pelagius has also been revived, for it is now true that a man may earn the grace of God by virtue of his good will, and that it is not due to said grace that a man has a good will.
-
The Heretics entire Last post was heresy, it is true that ignorence of some sins mostly church laws not divine laws, that ignorence can reduce CULPABILITY, but it is still a mortal sin and it still produces a mortal stain upon their soul just as Original Sin produces a mortal stain on our soul's that must be removed via Baptism.
The Mortal stain upon one's soul automatically sends one to hell, it is possible that the Souls of dead babies are sent to limbo instead, it is also possible that God could if he so wished send them to heaven, but that would never apply to anyone who has achieved the age of reason.
Mr. Subito would be wise to reject his false protestant faith and join with God's Church then he may learn what has always been believed and attain supernatural grace through the proper sacrements, those he listens to now are fastly leading him to hell.
-
Mr. Subito would be wise to reject his false protestant faith and join with God's Church then he may learn what has always been believed and attain supernatural grace through the proper sacrements, those he listens to now are fastly leading him to hell.
Some Protestants actually have a far clearer view on this matter than the modernist Catholics. For instance, Calvinists believe that:
Westminister Confession of Faith, Chapter X
"...much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."
Simple, straight...to the point. No compromise or subterfuge.
-
Then why did Christ say to teach all nations?
Because atheists are in a perilous state as regards salvation as are other non-Catholics. Just because they CAN be saved doesn't mean they will be. They are in a much safer position if they converted, certainly. But some of you would completely close the door to salvation to these people for a supposed sin that is not a sin at all and not their fault.
How can God possibly hold someone accountable for an action that they in good conscience did not know was wrong and, in fact, they sincerely believed to be true? This goes against natural justice.
-
it is true that ignorence of some sins mostly church laws not divine laws, that ignorence can reduce CULPABILITY, but it is still a mortal sin and it still produces a mortal stain upon their soul just as Original Sin produces a mortal stain on our soul's that must be removed via Baptism.
This is absolutely incorrect. Open any orthodox Catholic morality textbook and you'll see that knowledge is one of the three necessary conditions of mortal sin. If you don't know an action is wrong and commit it thinking it to be right it is impossible for that to be a mortal sin.
-
Because atheists are in a perilous state as regards salvation as are other non-Catholics.
If you truly believe this, then you are being evil by engaging in the completely fruitless and rash speculation over wether or not atheists may be saved as atheists. In trying to justify their atheism as anything other than a sin wholly displeasing to God, your speculation merely emboldens any atheist who sees your posts and thus you contribute to them remaining in their "perilous state".
-
it is true that ignorence of some sins mostly church laws not divine laws, that ignorence can reduce CULPABILITY, but it is still a mortal sin and it still produces a mortal stain upon their soul just as Original Sin produces a mortal stain on our soul's that must be removed via Baptism.
This is absolutely incorrect. Open any orthodox Catholic morality textbook and you'll see that knowledge is one of the three necessary conditions of mortal sin. If you don't know an action is wrong and commit it thinking it to be right it is impossible for that to be a mortal sin.
Santo, you aren't thinking logically. You go around with the viewpoint that someone has to want to sin to be sinning, but that is not entirely correct. Using that logic, satanists would be about the only group of religion that would go to hell since they know satan is bad but worship him anyway. You are forgetting that Christ says those who do not acknowledge Him, He cannot acknowledge to His Father.
So basically you're saying a person must be told there is a Trinity but say "Very well but I'd rather go my own way" to be sinning. That just is not in line with what the Church teaches. I suggest you get out of your Vatican II mindset and pay attention for once.
Atheists CHOOSE to deny God, and by doing so are in mortal sin. The same can be said for all false religions. If you choose to do something that is sinful, you're in sin. It's not like they act without thinking, they know very well what they're doing and are aware of proof that God exists but choose to put trust in science.
-
How can God possibly hold someone accountable for an action that they in good conscience did not know was wrong and, in fact, they sincerely believed to be true? This goes against natural justice.
Wrong again. It isn't out of good conscience, they are presented with the proof that God exists and say "I don't believe it, He does not exist". That is mortally sinful, and if you truly believe it's not then you are in heresy.
-
it is true that ignorence of some sins mostly church laws not divine laws, that ignorence can reduce CULPABILITY, but it is still a mortal sin and it still produces a mortal stain upon their soul just as Original Sin produces a mortal stain on our soul's that must be removed via Baptism.
This is absolutely incorrect. Open any orthodox Catholic morality textbook and you'll see that knowledge is one of the three necessary conditions of mortal sin. If you don't know an action is wrong and commit it thinking it to be right it is impossible for that to be a mortal sin.
That is true, but the question is rather is their lack of knowledge culpable or does it serve even as a form of punishment for sin in this life (see St. Thomas)? Even if their ignorance is inculpable, this fact still does not change their state one iota. Ignorance doesn't supply for anything, it might mitigate punishment or even remove a particular punishment for a particular sin, but it doesn't add anything to the condition of the soul itself. Positive qualities, such as supernatural faith and charity are absolutely necessary for salvation. An atheist, by definition possesses neither. Now if you are saying that it is possible for any man to be saved, this is a mere truism, but when you qualify the term "man" in some way, e.g. "atheist," "Jєωιѕн," "Muslim," etc. you are specifying a certain objective condition. That is why the Council of Florence could teach what it taught, because it was speaking objectively. The problem with Vatican II is that it attempted to objectify subjectivism and drove everyone's mind into the confusion of the latter.
-
Well color me surprised a NO dude pretending to be a real Priest said something heretical! He's just following his heretical Popes example.
-
From the Syllubus of Errors:
"16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
CONDEMNED!
And this should end the thread. But oh no people have to try and try to teach the kumbayah universal salvation of VII yet call themselves "traditional".
-
But oh no people have to try and try to teach the kumbayah universal salvation of VII yet call themselves "traditional".
Perfect word to describe it! :laugh1:
-
http://periodicals.faqs.org/201103/2277178011.html
SINE CULPA? VATICAN II AND INCULPABLE IGNORANCE
Publication: Theological Studies
Author: Bullivant, Stephen
Date published: March 1, 2011
VATICAN II'S LUMEN GENTIUM NO. 14 reiterates the traditional Catholic teaching on the trifold necessity of faith, baptism, and the (mediation of the) church for salvation. This is an infallible, de fide doctrine. Yet, as the theological controversies of preceding decades had shown, it must "be understood in the sense in which it is understood by the Church itself."1 Since the council, as Lumen gentium no. 16 proceeds to demonstrate, it must be understood in a way that is compatible with the affirmation that Jews, Muslims, "those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God,"2 and atheists, while remaining as such, are somehow able to be saved. In 1972, Joseph Ratzinger, commenting on the patristic axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("no salvation outside the church"), observed: "The primary question is no longer the salvation of the 'others,' the theoretical possibility of which is assured; the actual guiding question is rather how, given this undeniable certainty, the absolute requirement of the Church and its faith is still to be understood."3 It is this development that Francis Sullivan - in a monograph to which this article is indebted - regards as constituting a "radical change from pessimism to optimism"4 in the Church's understanding of the salvation of non-Christians.
It must be said, however, that the council's genuine optimism is nonetheless a qualified and restricted one. Two Latin words ring like a refrain throughout the council's statements as to who may be saved: sine culpa, "without fault/blame." Ignorantia and its cognates are equally prominent. Lumen gentium no. 16 thus refers to those "who are, without fault, ignorant [sine culpa, ignorantes] of the Gospel of Christ and his Church," and to those "who, without fault [sine culpa], have not yet arrived at an express recognition of God."5 Article 14's stipulation of faith, baptism, and the Church as necessary for salvation is suffixed with the warning: "those men cannot be saved, who not being ignorant [non ignorantes (of the fact that)] the Catholic Church has been founded as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, are nevertheless unwilling either to enter it, or to persevere in it."6 Significantly, the use of the awkward phrase non ignorantes was a deliberate decision by the Council Fathers: in several earlier drafts of Lumen gentium, referring to a single nonbeliever, the more natural sciens ("knowing") is used.7 It seems that those drafting these paragraphs intended to highlight the importance of ignorance to the question of salvation, hence this apparent inclusio between nos. 14 and 16. Elsewhere, in article 7 of Ad gentes, the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, the same point is reiterated: "God is able to lead men who are, without fault of their own, ignorant [sine eorum culpa ignorantes] of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him (Hebrews 11:6)."8 Vatican II's extension of the possibility of salvation to non-Christians is thus predicated on the sine qua non of their being inculpably (sine culpa) ignorant of one or more of these realities: the Church, Christ and - in the case of atheists - the existence of God (or, perhaps more accurately, inculpably ignorant of their own obligations in light of these realities).
The council's affirmation of inculpable ignorance as a precondition for a non-Christian's salvation raises a great many questions - none of which, perhaps sensibly, it answered. Who would count as being inculpably ignorant? Must one never have heard of Christianity, or would a merely superficial acquaintance with the gospel also count? What about people brought up in historically Christian countries, who have been baptized and perhaps confirmed and communicated, who have attended Catholic schools, or even been married in a Catholic Church - might even some of these be inculpably ignorant? (This latter point is by no means purely hypothetical, since a significant proportion of atheists, especially in the West, would have been, as they still are, in precisely this situation.) Matters are further complicated by the fact that Pius IX, in his 1854 allocution Singulari quadam, introduced the Thomistic principle of invincible ignorance into the Church's magisterial teaching on salvation. There he stresses the abiding truth of extra ecclesiam, and yet qualifies it by saying:
But equally, it is to be held for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not bound by any fault in this matter in the eyes of the Lord. Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?9
This teaching was repeated in the Holy Office's 1949 letter to the Archbishop of Boston, which is itself, in turn, cited in a footnote to Lumen gentium no. 16. Is inculpable ignorance, then, the same as invincible ignorance? If not, what material difference do the two terms signify? The issue is still more problematic in view of the fact that "invincible" ignorance was retained elsewhere in the conciliar corpus,10 and continues to be used in magisterial pronouncements on moral issues.
The Council Fathers' reticence on these questions is understandable. Indeed, as Henri de Lubac once remarked, "It is neither useful nor desirable for a council to concern itself with technical theological discussions."11 More puzzling, however, is contemporary Catholic theologians' seeming lack of interest. Recent major works on the salvation of non-Christians by, for example, Jacques Dupuis, Gerald O'Collins, and Gavin D'Costa offer no sustained expositions.12 This is, I contend, a significant lacuna, and one to which considerably more theological attention should be paid.
I intend this article to be a modest contribution toward this end; only some of the questions raised above will be broached. My argument proceeds in four, relatively brief movements. First, I examine the classical, Thomistic understanding of invincible ignorance, its roots in Scripture, and its subsequent employment by Pius IX. Next, I consider how, following the discovery of the New World in 1492, the application of the Thomistic understanding was significantly reappraised. This ressourcement focuses on two 16th-century Spanish Dominicans, Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de Las Casas. My third section returns to Vatican II and argues that the new emphasis on ignorantia sine culpa significantly mirrors the Vitorian and Lascasian developments of the doctrine of ignorantia invincibilis. My fourth and final section unites the foregoing analyses, elucidating Vatican II's understanding of inculpable ignorance as both a rediscovery of elements already present in the tradition, and (in light of insights from the sociology of knowledge) as justifying a wide-ranging "presumption of ignorance"13 on the part of contemporary non-Christians. My examples focus principally on atheists (understood here in the broad, value-neutral sense of those without a belief in the existence of a God or gods), since these have most to be inculpably ignorant about. But the general thrust of my argument also applies, mutatis mutandis, to members of non-Christian religions.14
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
In general terms, support for the mitigating nature of ignorance may ultimately be derived from Scripture. Note, for instance, Jesus' gloss on the parable of the watchful slaves in Luke: "That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating" (12:47-48).15 A similar idea is behind James's admonition: "Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin" (4:17) - the implication being, of course, that sin is not committed by someone who fails to do the right thing out of ignorance. Strikingly, 1 Timothy imputes to Paul the belief that, "even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor and a man of violence ... I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief" (1:13). Paul's speech at the Areopagus states that "God has overlooked the times of ignorance" (Acts 17:30). And at Romans 10:14 he famously asks, "But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?" The fact that Paul apparently does believe that "all" have heard (see 10:18), does not nullify the importance of the question. Elsewhere, the grave warning in Mark 16:16 that "the one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned" - a favored proof text of the dogmatic tradition for affirming the absolute necessity of faith for salvation (e.g., Lumen gentium no. 14; Dominus Iesus no. 3) - is dependent on the previous verse's command, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation" (16:15). Thus this stark condemnation of nonbelievers assumes that they have heard the gospel, and (culpably) rejected it. Finally, the Johannine Jesus says even of those who actively persecute the church: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. ... If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. . . . But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father" (Jn 15:22-24). Once again, Christ's condemnation explicitly presupposes a lack of ignorance and hence a culpable rejection.
Much later, these biblical precedents became crystallized in the moral theology of Thomas Aquinas. He writes in the Summa theologiae:
Now it is manifest that whosoever neglects to have or do those things that he is obliged to have or do, sins by a sin of omission. Thus because of negligence, ignorance of those things which someone is obliged to know, is a sin.
However, negligence is not imputed to a man if he is not able to know those things which he does not know. Thus ignorance of these things is called invincible: because it obviously cannot be overcome [even] by effort. Because of this, this kind of ignorance is not a sin, since it is not voluntary, and it is not in our power to repel it.
Thus it is obvious that invincible ignorance is never a sin: vincible ignorance is a sin, if it is of those things which someone is obliged to know, but not if it is of those things which he is not obliged to know.16
Aquinas draws an important and influential distinction between two kinds of ignorance. Vincible ignorance is such that a person both could and should have overcome it. Such ignorance, born from negligence, does not excuse sin. Conversely, invincible ignorance is such that the person is not able, even by diligence, to overcome it. Hence there is no sin to excuse. In the Summa, this consideration is presented as a general principle and is not applied to the question of salvation. In his Quaestiones disputatae de ventate, however, Aquinas had already considered the situation of someone being invincibly ignorant (although the precise phrase is not used) of the gospel. It is noteworthy that Aquinas, writing in the mid-1200s, was able only to envisage this scenario in terms of someone having been brought up "in the woods or among brute animals" (the assumption being that the gospel had, by now, been preached throughout the whole world). Given the exceptional nature of this case, Aquinas is justified in positing an exceptional solution:
For if someone was brought up in such a way, provided that he had followed his natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, it is certainly to be held that God would either reveal to him by an internal inspiration the things which are necessarily to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the faith to him, just as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10).17
Note that, in this thought-experiment, the subject literally could not even have heard of Christ. Aquinas does not, for example, pick a pious Muslim or Jew who, despite having heard of Christ and the Church, has no particular reason for wanting to find out more about them.18 Rather, this person's ignorance is "invincible" in a very strong sense of the word. When, several centuries later, Pius IX adopted Aquinas's terminology in order to qualify his robust defense of extra ecclesiam, it is therefore tempting to assume that he had in mind a similarly narrow frame of application. This interpretation would gain support from the pessimistic position, evinced in his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, impugning the opinion that: "Good hope at least is to be considered regarding the eternal salvation of all those who are not in the true Church of Christ."19 Yet in Singulari quadam, Pius's application of the principle is conspicuously wider than that apparently envisaged by Aquinas. Indeed, as I have noted, Pius resolutely refuses to set definitive limits to its application: "Who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, due to the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?"20 This is a startling admission, and constitutes a major landmark on the road to Lumen gentium. But, as so often with the development of doctrine, to move forward one must first look backward. For, as I will show, such a nuanced comprehension of invincible ignorance's possible extent was by no means a 19th-century innovation.
VITORIA AND LAS CASAS
Christopher Columbus discovered the Indies in 1492 and promptly claimed them for the Spanish crown (ratified the following year by Pope Alexander VFs bull Inter caetera). The ensuing gold rush was disastrous for the Continent. The population of the Indies fell precipitously within 30 years, primarily from disease, but also from, as Nathan Wachtel puts it, "murderous oppression."21 Las Casas, writing 50 years after Columbus's discovery, observed:
The pattern established at the outset has remained unchanged to this day, and the Spaniards still do nothing save tear the natives to shreds, murder them and inflict upon them untold misery, suffering and distress, tormenting, harrying and persecuting them mercilessly.22
His indictment is confirmed by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, appointed official historian of the Spanish Crown in 1523, and no friend to either Las Casas or the indigenous people: "If all were written in detail as it was done, there would be neither time nor paper to enumerate all that the captains did to destroy the Indians and to rob and ravish the land."23 It is against this background that the Vitorian and Lascasian developments of invincible ignorance must be understood.
As the destruction of the Indies continued unabated, members of the Spanish intelligentsia began to question whether or not these overseas campaigns constituted "just wars." Francisco de Vitoria (ca. 1492-1546) broached the issue in his professorial "relection" De Indis (On the Indies), delivered in Salamanca in 1539. He counters the opinion that war against the Indians is morally and legally justified because "they refuse to accept the faith of Christ, although it has been proposed to them, and they have been insistently admonished to accept it,"24 arguing instead that, due to certain mitigating factors, the Indians remain invincibly ignorant of the Christian proclamation. He contends, on the authority of Romans 10:14, that "if the faith has not been preached to them, they are invincibly ignorant [ignorant invincibiliter], because they are not capable of knowing."25 So far he agrees with Aquinas. But Vitoria goes further:
The barbarians are not bound to believe from the first announcement of the Christian faith, in the sense of sinning mortally by not believing due to this alone: because it is merely announced and proposed to them that the true religion is Christian, and that Christ is the savior and redeemer of the world, without miracles or any other proofs or arguments.26
If unbelievers are preserved from guilt by never having heard of Christianity (as in Aquinas's thought-experiment), then equally for Vitoria: "they are not obligated by this kind of simple statement and announcement. Such an announcement is no argument or motive for believing." Moreover, as he quotes from Cardinal Cajetan, "it is rash and imprudent of anyone to believe something (especially in matters such as these, concerning salvation) unless one knows it to be from a trustworthy source."27 Now of course, if Christianity is preached in a probable fashion, supported by rational arguments, and by people whose behavior concurs with what is taught, then the Indians are indeed "obliged to accept the faith of Christ under pain of mortal sin."28 With regard to the current situation, however1, "it is not sufficiently clear to me that the Christian faith has thus far been proposed and announced to the barbarians so as to obligate them to believe it. . . . It does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them suitably and piously, so as to obligate acquiescence."29 Hence Vitoria insists that ignorance remains fully invincible (and therefore morally inculpable) when Christianity is presented only very superficially, unaccompanied by any more persuasive catechesis.30
Bartolomé de Las Casas (1484-1566) concurs on key points with his Dominican confrère, railing in book after book against the conquistadores' failures to present Christianity in any remotely convincing manner. Due to the sheer volume of his writings on this topic, it is worth concentrating on his critique of one especially notorious example: the Requerimiento, devised in 1513 by the celebrated jurist Juan Palacios López de Rubos. This text, "one of the strangest docuмents in Spanish history,"31 was intended to be declaimed, in Latin, upon first contact with Indian nations. It outlines the history of the world from Creation, noting especially the establishment of the papacy and the pope's donation of the Indies to Spain. It then requires (hence its name) that those listening submit to the Church, the pope and the Spanish Crown, and that they allow the Christian faith to be preached to them; then comes the explanation of what will happen if they do not so consent: "We shall take you and your wives and children and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods and will do all the harm and damage that we can."32 Las Casas, not surprisingly, confesses in his History of the Indies not to "know whether to laugh or cry at [its] absurdity,"33 and asks, "What credit should a people who lived at peace in its territory without harming anyone be expected to give to such a bill of sale?"34 Naturally, he does not dispute the Requerimiento' % truthclaims concerning the Church and the papacy. Yet, importantly, he denies their authority for those who have only just been informed of the existence of these institutions, especially when delivered by "bearded messengers armed to the teeth with terrible weapons."35 Indeed, as he quotes elsewhere from Sirach 19:4: "Being too ready to trust shows shallowness of mind."36 Needless to say, such a skeletal presentation does not constitute evangelization in any meaningful sense and therefore does not nullify any hitherto-present invincible ignorance.
Yet the inadequacy of the proclamation was not the severest grievance of Vitoria and Las Casas. Rather, both object most vociferously to the defamation of the Faith by (in the latter's words) "the devils of the New World who masquerade as Christians."37 Thus Vitoria complains that he hears "only of many scandals, cruel atrocities, and multiple impieties,"38 and exasperatedly exclaims, "Would that the sins of some Christians were not much worse (the sin of unbelief notwithstanding) than those among these barbarians!"39 And for Las Casas, the conduct of those who "are not warriors for Christ, but for anti-Christ"40 have brought it about "that nothing is more odious nor more terrifying to the people than the name Christian."41 Such people have damned "those who grew to hate our faith because of the awful example you gave, grew to ridicule the universal Church, grew to blaspheme God."42 In his In Defense of the Indians (ca. 1550), Las Casas directly links this experience with invincible ignorance.43 After asserting that the invincibly ignorant "are not obliged to believe unless the faith is fully presented and explained to them by suitable ministers,"44 he declares: "A great many unbelievers are excused from accepting the faith for a long time and perhaps for their whole lifetime, no matter how long it lasts, so long as they see the extremely corrupt and detestable conduct of the Christians."45
Taking the writings of Vitoria and Las Casas together, it is possible to identify from them three interrelated reasons why invincible ignorance may perdure after someone has not only heard of Christ and the Church, but has perhaps even been (objectively) evangelized. The first reason is that the proclamation itself may be intrinsically inadequate. At its most extreme, the simple assertion of the mere existence of Christ or the Church is not sufficiently persuasive to demand assent. The second reason is that certain social factors, while extrinsic to the proclamation itself, may undermine its claims to authority. (This "sociological" point, which Las Casas only hints at, will be explained in more detail below.) And the third reason - which is, properly speaking, a notably conspicuous example of the second - recognizes that the misconduct of Christians (acting either singularly or collectively) may so defame Christianity as to prolong invincible ignorance over a long period of time, and perhaps indefinitely. It will be recognized that these reasons constitute a considerable widening of invincible ignorance's application compared to Aquinas's "in the woods or among brute animals" thought-experiment (framed as it was by his reasonable, but nonetheless false, assumptions regarding the extent and adequacy of evangelization up to that point). On that note, I return to Vatican II.
VATICAN II
As indicated above, neither Lumen gentium nos. 14-16 nor Ad gentes no. 7 explains quite what inculpable ignorance might entail. A revealing clue, however, may be found in Gaudium et spes no. 19. It avers, first of all, that "those who willfully try to drive God from their heart and to avoid religious questions, not following the dictate of their conscience, are not devoid of fault [culpae expertes non sunt]."46 This is an important and necessary qualification to the council's (and my own) salvific optimism: inculpability is by no means a foregone conclusion, and must not simply be taken for granted. Yet the very same sentence continues: "however, believers themselves often bear a certain responsibility for this." More strikingly, this claim is soon elaborated with reference to both the first ("inadequate proclamation") and third ("Christian misconduct") of the Lascasian/Vitorian criteria: "believers can have no small part in the rise of atheism, since by neglecting education in the faith, teaching false doctrine, or through defects in their own religious, moral, or social lives, they may be said rather more to conceal than reveal the true countenance of God and of religion."47
The Council Fathers' deliberations on this issue make for interesting reading. At the third session in 1964, Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens urged that while atheism is certainly a terrible error, ... it would be too easy simply to condemn it. It is necessary to examine why so many men profess themselves to be atheists, and who precisely is this "God" they so sharply attack. Thus dialogue should be begun with them so that they may seek and recognize the true image of God who is perhaps concealed under the caricatures they reject. On our part, meanwhile, we should examine our way of speaking of God and living the faith, lest the sun of the living God is darkened for them.48.
Similarly, during the fourth session in 1965, Cardinals Franjo Seper and Franz König expressed the opinion that Christians are largely to blame for the rise and spread of atheism.49 The Melkite patriarch of Antioch, Máximos Saigh, went further, asserting that atheists "are often scandalized by the sight of a mediocre and egotistical Christendom absorbed by money and false riches." He adds: "Is it not the egotism of certain Christians which has caused, and causes to a great extent, the atheism of the masses?"50 While these statements were made during the discussions leading to Gaudium et spes rather than to Lumen gentium, they nevertheless shed light on what the council meant by ignorantia sine culpa. Furthermore, although referring especially to atheists, there is no reason why these considerations do not also apply, mutatis mutandis, to other groupings. The "egotism of certain Christians" may just as easily scandalize Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists - or, for that matter, other Christians (perhaps these most of all) - as they do atheists. If so, then this would also be a factor in maintaining their inculpable ignorance regarding Catholic truth-claims about the gospel and the Church, even if not necessarily with regard to the existence of God.
What Vatican II seems to have intended by inculpable ignorance is, therefore, in substantial agreement with what, in the 16th century, Las Casas and Vitoria meant by invincible ignorance. That is not, of course, to ignore the major disparities between their respective Sitze im Leben: many of Vatican IPs ignorantes would, presumably, have been brought up either within at least nominally Christian societies, or would have had at least some acquaintance, however superficial, with Christianity. Differences aside, however, both Vatican II and the great Dominicans accept that (1) inculpable/invincible ignorance prevents unbelief from being sinful; and (2) this kind of ignorance may be prolonged, even after acquaintance with Christianity and the Church's proclamation, if the latter is either intrinsically insufficient or if Christians themselves fail scandalously (in the full, scriptural sense of the term) to live up to the name. This latter consideration constitutes, as I have shown, a significant development over Aquinas's own, apparently restricted, application.51 Such broadening of application perhaps explains the Council Fathers' avoidance of the term ignorantia invincibilis. For those schooled in (neo-) Thomism, as were the vast majority of at least the Latin-rite Council Fathers and periti, the phrase "invincible ignorance" may well have carried overtones of its original, narrow application. Pius IX, however, had already departed from this application by acknowledging the "variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and so many other things." Thus, with its doctrine of inculpable ignorance, Vatican II both authentically developed Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance and (apparently unwittingly) rediscovered an understanding of invincible ignorance already firmly present in the nonmagisterial tradition of the Church, while at the same time seemingly avoiding the phrase itself as something potentially misleading.52
-
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/the_salvation_o.html
The Salvation Of Atheists
A reader writes:
Can a sincere atheist get saved? I'm convinced he can, since God won't punish somebody for not knowing something he genuinely never knew, but it seems to me that his salvation requires that his choice be made after his death, since presumably he never saw the choice while he was alive. I think anybody has to at least say, "God, whoever or whatever you are, forgive my sins and take me to be with you." This lets in Moslems and (I suppose) Hindus and what-have-you -- Christ has a long reach -- but the real athesit wouldn't ever have occasion to say that.
I keep thinking of the bit in 1 Peter 3, where Christ preaches to the "spirits in prison." Since they needed preaching-to, it seems that their consequential decision was not yet made, but there they were in some Purgatory-like situation.
I always agree with Protestants -- mostly while discussing Purgatory -- that a person is saved or damned at his death, with no second chances, but now I wonder if people who truly never had the occasion to choose God while alive get that choice after they die. I suppose they might each have got a clear sight of it during their lives, and rejected it, but a lot of atheists seem to be completely honest.
The idea that someone at least has to say something like, "God, whoever or whatever you are, forgive my sins and take me to be with you" is found in the book of Hebrews, where we read that
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 [Heb. 11:6].
Based on this, many have conjectured that belief in God is an indispensible prerequisite for salvation and thus that atheists are damned.
There is a question, thoug, about whether the author of Hebrews means his statement to be an absolute statement about salvation that admits of no exceptions or whether it is meant in a looser sense that could allow some without an explicit belief in God to be saved.
This was a matter of discussion in Catholic theology prior to the Second Vatican Council, but Vatican II seemed to answer that, in addition to Jews and Muslims and others who believe in God, it was possible for people who do not believe in God to be saved:
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life [Lumen Gentium 16].
"Those who . . . have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" would seem to include not only members of non-Abrahamic religions but also atheists.
The constitution Gaudium et Spes also stressed the universal possibility of salvation:
Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery [Gaudium et Spes 22].
The question is: In what way does God offer this possibility of salvation? Is it something that comes to people after this life if they never heard the gospel during it or is it something that comes in this life?
The passage that you refer to in 1 Peter is one that has often been taken as suggesting that there is a kind of second chance after death for at least some people, and it is easy to see why. The passage reads:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water [1 Peter 3:18-20].
If the preaching that Christ does in this passage is the preaching of the gospel so that they may be saved then it would seem that there is a second chance after death for at least some people (i.e., those who died in the Flood). On the other hand, this may not be what Peter is referring to. He might mean something else. Possibilities could include:
1) The preaching is that the time of release has come. In this case it might be that the spirits who disobeyed in the past--although saved--were held in a kind of purgatorial prison and that now that Christ has died their time of purification is over and they will be going to heaven.
2) The preaching is a bare declaration of Christ's coming, with no offer of salvation. In this case it would seem to be a vindication of God's justice and/or mercy in the face of those who refused it. In other words: "God would have saved you from your sins if you had turned to him, as he has now proven by sending his Son to die for the sins of the world. You refused to repent and turn to God, so your condemnation is just."
3) These aren't human spirits at all and so aren't subject to redemption. They might be the spirits that Jude refers to as "the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling [and] have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). Peter might then be linking the non-human spirits with the sins that brought on the Flood. In this case Christ might be preaching to them the fact that he has now come and redeemed mankind, despite their attempt to so corrupt mankind that it would be completely wiped out and destroyed.
In each of these cases, there would be no second chance after death.
Because of the ambiguity in the passage--as well as the general impression that Scripture gives that we have only this lifetime to make our peace with God--it has remained a perpetual conundrum for Bible interpreters.
For its part, the Catholic Church has seen death as the definitive moment at which each must choose for or against God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ [CCC 1021].
I haven't been able to verify an infallible definition of this point (though there may be one; something in my memory is saying that I've seen a claim that there is one, though I'd have to see the original source docuмent to see if this particular point was defined). If there is no definition then it could be possible that there is a post-morten second chance for at least some, but the overall tenor of Catholic theology--with its focus on death as the definitive moment of life--is against it.
It strikes me that it would be easier to account for the salvation of atheists along the lines of an implicit openness to God.
In other words, if an atheist sincerely says to himself, "I want to do whatever is right--that is the controlling axiom of my life; whatever is ultimately true and good, that is what I intend to follow" then this atheist has fundamentally opened himself to God such that if he knew the truth of God's existence he would believe in and follow God. Due to his circuмstance, though, he is unaware that God is what is ultimately true and good.
Thus any atheist who could say, "I don't think that God exists, but if I was shown convincing reasons to believe that he does then I would go and get baptized immediately and become one of his devout followers" then this person's heart is such that God will not hold his ignorance against him and will allow him to be saved.
On the other hand, if an atheist says, "Even if there is a God, I'll still refuse to believe in him and I'll spit in his face when I die" then this person is toast.
Between the two would be atheists who display some openness to God but who also to one degree or another resist compelling reasons to believe that he exist when they encounter such reasons. These individuals would seem to be in an ambiguous condition. If their openness to believing in and following God is their more fundamental motive then they would be open to his grace and be saved. If their resistance to believing in or following God is their more fundamental motive then they would be closed to his grace and thus lost.
Or that's how it seems to me.
It's still a matter for debate.
-
I'll pass over that piling heap of confusion that passes for theology including errors that are proximate to heresy and repeat, once again, that even inculpable ignorance does not supply for a defect.
-
"Whereas the previous question is the same as inquiring "whether an erring conscience binds"; so this question is the same as inquiring "whether an erring conscience excuses." Now this question depends on what has been said above about ignorance. For it was said (6, 8) that ignorance sometimes causes an act to be involuntary, and sometimes not. And since moral good and evil consist in action in so far as it is voluntary, as was stated above (Article 2); it is evident that when ignorance causes an act to be involuntary, it takes away the character of moral good and evil; but not, when it does not cause the act to be involuntary. Again, it has been stated above (Question 6, Article 8) that when ignorance is in any way willed, either directly or indirectly, it does not cause the act to be involuntary. And I call that ignorance "directly" voluntary, to which the act of the will tends: and that, "indirectly" voluntary, which is due to negligence, by reason of a man not wishing to know what he ought to know, as stated above (Question 6, Article 8).
If then reason or conscience err with an error that is voluntary, either directly, or through negligence, so that one errs about what one ought to know; then such an error of reason or conscience does not excuse the will, that abides by that erring reason or conscience, from being evil. But if the error arise from ignorance of some circuмstance, and without any negligence, so that it cause the act to be involuntary, then that error of reason or conscience excuses the will, that abides by that erring reason, from being evil. For instance, if erring reason tell a man that he should go to another man's wife, the will that abides by that erring reason is evil; since this error arises from ignorance of the Divine Law, which he is bound to know. But if a man's reason, errs in mistaking another for his wife, and if he wish to give her her right when she asks for it, his will is excused from being evil: because this error arises from ignorance of a circuмstance, which ignorance excuses, and causes the act to be involuntary." Summa Theol., I-II, q. 19, a. 6, corp.
And in many cases, especially with so-called "atheists" it is not a question of "conscience" at all, but rather a stiff-necked prideful refusal to assent to a simple proposition that, though not directly self-evident to us, is nevertheless self-evident in itself. That is why St. Paul asserts that they are without an excuse. A man who simply denies the existence of God is no man of good faith and I can say that with moral certainty. Such blindness is usually the result of other sins and as such is a punishment from God. Hey, if we're going to deal in "probabilities" lets at least get them in the right order.
Be that as it may, and in light of the fact that you have consistently refused to engage my posts personally and directly, I shall rest my case. I simply have not the time nor the inclination to sort through that mess you posted above, but I would strongly suggest avoiding such "sources" in forming your intellect and return to approved theologians and Thomist theology.
-
Lumen Gentium 16 is a modernist masterpiece. It has to be the most pernicious paragraph in all of Vatican II.
-
Remember everyone...when in doubt and flailing in a losing argument, just post a massive article to back your claim up and you will LOOK more intelligent and have the upper hand.
*cough*Santo Subito*cough*
-
Um...using Vatican II to help your case? If anything, that HURTS your case. Come on Santo, get real.
-
I'll pass over that piling heap of confusion that passes for theology including errors that are proximate to heresy and repeat, once again, that even inculpable ignorance does not supply for a defect.
You seem to refuse to realize that if there is no culpability, there is no mortal sin and thus no punishment for mortal sin (Hell). As I've established, the Church teaches that those outside the visible structure of the Church CAN be saved.
Therefore it is simple logic and moral theology analysis to conclude that athiests acting in good faith are in ignorance and thus not culpable and able to be saved.
-
You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the head, reducing culpability reduces time in purgatory if you should repent. Without Sanctifying Grace there is no salvation. You are an obstinate heretic and I will have nothing to do with you anymore.
-
You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the head, reducing culpability reduces time in purgatory if you should repent. Without Sanctifying Grace there is no salvation. You are an obstinate heretic and I will have nothing to do with you anymore.
LordPhan, look at you...the basher of heretics now. I like this recent streak in you, are you a sede yet?
-
I'll pass over that piling heap of confusion that passes for theology including errors that are proximate to heresy and repeat, once again, that even inculpable ignorance does not supply for a defect.
You seem to refuse to realize that if there is no culpability, there is no mortal sin and thus no punishment for mortal sin (Hell). As I've established, the Church teaches that those outside the visible structure of the Church CAN be saved.
Therefore it is simple logic and moral theology analysis to conclude that athiests acting in good faith are in ignorance and thus not culpable and able to be saved.
You're not grasping the point. Even supposing their ignorance is not culpable, this fact does not change their spiritual state (that's what "it does not supply for a defect" means), they are still deprived of sanctifying grace and the virtues necessary for salvation. Even a mentally retarded person who is not at all culpable for any act cannot be saved unless he is baptized because there is nothing to remove the guilt of original sin. Now an atheist is in a much worse position which includes numerous mortal sins. These are matters about which men are bound to know and understand. Thus, failure to gain such knowledge is negligent and renders their ignorance voluntary, i.e. culpable.
-
You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the head, reducing culpability reduces time in purgatory if you should repent. Without Sanctifying Grace there is no salvation. You are an obstinate heretic and I will have nothing to do with you anymore.
Then how do you explain the Church's teaching on invincible ignorance?
-
You're not grasping the point. Even supposing their ignorance is not culpable, this fact does not change their spiritual state (that's what "it does not supply for a defect" means), they are still deprived of sanctifying grace and the virtues necessary for salvation. Even a mentally retarded person who is not at all culpable for any act cannot be saved unless he is baptized because there is nothing to remove the guilt of original sin. Now an atheist is in a much worse position which includes numerous mortal sins. These are matters about which men are bound to know and understand. Thus, failure to gain such knowledge is negligent and renders their ignorance voluntary, i.e. culpable.
I do grasp the point. My point is that your interpretation does not square with the Church's teaching that the invincibly ignorant can be saved without baptism.
-
Santo, there is a difference between what the Church taught up to 1962, and what Vatican II taught from 1962 to now. I suggest for ONCE you pay attention to what the Church taught before Vatican II. Until you do, don't waste your time responding to anyone else.
-
You're not grasping the point. Even supposing their ignorance is not culpable, this fact does not change their spiritual state (that's what "it does not supply for a defect" means), they are still deprived of sanctifying grace and the virtues necessary for salvation. Even a mentally retarded person who is not at all culpable for any act cannot be saved unless he is baptized because there is nothing to remove the guilt of original sin. Now an atheist is in a much worse position which includes numerous mortal sins. These are matters about which men are bound to know and understand. Thus, failure to gain such knowledge is negligent and renders their ignorance voluntary, i.e. culpable.
I do grasp the point. My point is that your interpretation does not square with the Church's teaching that the invincibly ignorant can be saved without baptism.
You are evading the point which is that ignorance does not supply for want of divine faith or charity and the other virtues necessary for salvation. An atheist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., by definition, possesses none of these, even if his ignorance is inculpable. You refer to the privation of ignorance, but fail to account for the positive virtue and sanctifying grace necessary for salvation. In essence, you are implying that a man can be saved without any of these; that no translation from a state of sin to a state of justification is necessary. And it is a dogma of divine and catholic faith that those who die in a state of original sin alone cannot possess the Beatific Vision.
-
Let me refine the implication. Rather, it seems that the implication of your position is that all men are de facto in a state of grace. Even though you will obviously deny this, I fail to see how your position does not rest upon this basic supposition. Either that, or you have fallen into a Pelagian view of man and salvation. Even if a man were to advance in every natural virtue, live in perfect accord with every precept of the natural law, multiplying good work after good work, that man, taken in that state of pure nature, would never attain to a supernatural end.
-
I'll pass over that piling heap of confusion that passes for theology including errors that are proximate to heresy and repeat, once again, that even inculpable ignorance does not supply for a defect.
You seem to refuse to realize that if there is no culpability, there is no mortal sin and thus no punishment for mortal sin (Hell). As I've established, the Church teaches that those outside the visible structure of the Church CAN be saved.
Therefore it is simple logic and moral theology analysis to conclude that athiests acting in good faith are in ignorance and thus not culpable and able to be saved.
Santo,
Invincible ignorance only applies to ONE SIN: The mortal sin of unbelief. By saying someone is invincibly ignorant of the truth, it means their unbelief is not criminal.
But that does NOT constitute an infusion of sanctifying grace, without which NONE are saved.
They are in Original Sin, and mortal Sin. They have their conscience, and the natural law. If they WILLFULLY defy their conscience, even if it is badly formed, on a serious and grave matter (masturbation, adultery, killing, theft, etc.), which are universally acknowledged as GRAVE, it constitutes a mortal sin.
So then, how do they receive sanctifying grace? Does GOd mMAKE them saved just because they are ignorant? No.
God does not violate free will. The Person who lives in a state of invincible ignorance MAY be saved: If his ignorance is dispelled and the truth is revealed!
The invincibly ignorant have NO MORAL MECHANISM whereby they can recognize the grace of God and freely respond to it. How then, can they be saved? Like St. Paul says; "How can they believe unless they have heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?"
If you insist on it, explain it in a hypothetical real world desert island circuмstance. Explain to me how this can work.
The invincibly ignorant are saved the same as Jews: Repudiating their former faith and converting to the Catholic faith.
-
Santo, this blows your stance out of the water.
Saint Gregory the Great: "The holy universal Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved."
-
Where is your humility, Santo Subito? You have been proven to be wrong repeatedly and still make no apology or recanting of your erroneous posture.
Knock knock, hello???
-
I'd like to see the docuмentation from Vatican II that supports Fr. Barron's claim that even atheists can attain heaven if they are good willed. To my thinking, there is no such thing as a good willed atheist. In Romans 1:16-22 St. Paul shows very clearly that can be certain that God exists just by observing creation. Each of us is free either to believe or deny God. Those who choose to deny God do so from an evil and perverted will and are without excuse. Habitual lapses into mortal sin cause the conscience to be dulled and when the conscience if persistently disobeyed, it becomes hardened and seared.
I'm posting this rather lengthly but interesting article that posits the idea that atheists often have fathers who are very deficient in Godly graces and virtues . Because their relationship with their own father is so flawed and warped, it affects how they perceive God. I know for example that Mao and Stalin who are renowned for their atheism, had fathers who were absolute monsters.
The Causes of Atheism
http://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80
-
Absurd. Atheism at least was one species of unbelief that the Second Vatican Council condemned.
19. ... Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.
21. In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence.
The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God's temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.
I would say it is at least morally certain that no atheist can be in invincible ignorance. And it is probably even dogmatically certain.