Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 [90] 91 92 ... 134

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 56193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #445 on: May 31, 2023, 12:49:14 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2023, 12:38:24 PM
The idea of invincible ignorance came about around the 1500s, due to the explorers discovering America and questioning how so many "innocent natives" could be damned.  St Thomas rejects the notion that an adult could die in such ignorance - before they die, they will either accept or reject the Truth.  Most people's ignorance is culpable, so says St Thomas.




On the contrary, he teaches they certainly could die in such a state, as a punishment for their sins:




Summa Theologica


II-II

Question 10.   Article 1.


https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article1


Quote
. . . we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ."


Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #446 on: May 31, 2023, 12:51:34 PM »


What does 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 state?


Quote
And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #447 on: May 31, 2023, 01:02:35 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2023, 12:38:24 PM
The idea of invincible ignorance came about around the 1500s, due to the explorers discovering America and questioning how so many "innocent natives" could be damned.


You're also mixing up invincible ignorance with implicit faith.   


It's implicit faith that needs to be condemned, not invincible ignorance.


Regarding invincible ignorance, writing before the 1500s:



Summa Theologica

I-II

Question 76.   Article 2.


https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article2


Quote
Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #448 on: May 31, 2023, 01:05:01 PM »



And I will post this again.

It's not invincible ignorance that's the issue, it's implicit faith.





St. Thomas Aquinas

Quaestiones disputatae de veritate

Question Fourteen: Faith

ARTICLE XI: In the eleventh article we ask: Is it necessary to believe explicitly?

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/g3i.htm






Quote
1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.

Answers to Difficulties

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).

Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #449 on: May 31, 2023, 01:09:58 PM »
No, invincible ignorance implies that the person “does not deserve” to be ignorant and they are “sincerely good-willed.”

The quotes you posted by St Thomas explain that those who are ignorant of the Faith, are so because of sin.  Therefore they aren’t “invincibly” ignorant (ie unable to be overcome) because if they followed the natural law, and their conscience, then God would give them Truth.  Thus, sinners who are ignorant are in culpable ignorance.  It’s their own fault.  

Implicit faith is just another heretical way to say that God would create people, not give them Truth, and let them into heaven, without testing them. Which is a mockery of the Church and of all the saints/martyrs who “fought the good fight”.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 88 89 [90] 91 92 ... 134
« previous next »