| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/13/2011 7:09:19 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Thread war |
Posted on 12/12/2011 7:10:39 PM PST by RnMomof7
Because it is a picture of a moment in time of her being his mother. Do you have pictures in your Family.
Because it is a picture of a moment in time of her being his mother. Do you have pictures in your Family.
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible
by James Akin
From Our Store: Witness of Suffering (eBook)
In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of. For example, a person who did not know the square root of 1429 would be ignorant of it if he were taking a math test, but he would be nescient of it if performing a task that didn’t require the number.
Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.
The gravity of a question is determined by how great a need the person has to know the answer. The answers to fundamental questions (how to save one’s soul, how to preserve one’s life) have grave weight. The answers to minor questions (the solution to a crossword puzzle) have light weight.
The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession. The graver the question and the greater the resources available, the more diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable. The lighter the question and the fewer the resources available, the less diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable.
Just as it is possible to show less than reasonable diligence, it is also possible to show more than reasonable diligence. Diligence can be supererogatory (and praiseworthy) if one shows more diligence than would be expected from an ordinary, conscientious person. Diligence can be excessive or scrupulous (and blameworthy) if someone spends so much time seeking the answer to a particular question that he fails to attend to other matters he should attend to, or if he refuses to come to a conclusion and continues seeking even when he has enough evidence.
Depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one’s culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859). Conversely, it may have the same effects on one’s imputability for a materially righteous act. Here we will deal only with the effects of ignorance on one’s culpability for sin,
Invincible ignorance removes one’s culpability for a materially sinful act, whether one of omission or commission (CCC 1793). Vincible ignorance may variously affect one’s culpability for a sinful act, depending on the kind of vincibility. If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.
If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.
Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).
Potentially, ignorance can diminish or remove imputability for any kind of sin. However, no one is presumed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law since these are written on the heart of every man (CCC 1860). It is possible for a person to be invincibly ignorant that an act is required by natural law. This may be true if the act involves a point that is not obvious, if the person is not mentally quick enough to discern the application of natural law to the case, or if he has been raised to strongly believe in a system that denies the point of natural law. However, such ignorance must be proven, not presumed.
In practical use, the terms vincible and invincible may pose problems for those unfamiliar with Catholic moral terminology. For many, vincible is a wholly unfamiliar term and invincible can suggest that which can never be overcome, no matter how much diligence is shown. Because of these difficulties, it may be advisable in practice to speak of innocent (invincible) and culpable (vincible) ignorance when addressing such people.
However, other individuals (notably radical traditionalists and Feeneyites) may view one as suspect if one substitutes the innocent/culpable ignorance terminology. When addressing such individuals, the standard terminology should be used.
A special case is the application of vincible and invincible ignorance to salvation. Failure to embrace the Christian faith (infidelity), total repudiation of the Christian faith (apostasy), and the post-baptismal obstinate denial or willful doubt of particular teachings of the Catholic faith (heresy) are objectively grave sins against the virtue of faith. Like any other grave sins, if they are committed with adequate knowledge and deliberate consent, they become mortal sins and will deprive one of salvation.
Also like any other grave sins, their imputability can be removed, diminished, unaffected, or increased by the varying types of ignorance. Invincible ignorance removes culpability for the sins against faith, merely vincible ignorance diminishes culpability (sometimes to the point of being venial), crass or supine ignorance will affect culpability for them little or not at all, and hard hearted, affected ignorance will increase culpability for them.
For those who have had their culpability for sins against faith removed or diminished to the point of veniality, they are not mortal sins and thus will not of themselves deprive one of heaven. A person who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (or, by extension, through his merely venial fault) can be saved—if he otherwise does what is required for salvation, according to the level of opportunity, enlightenment, and grace God gives him (CCC 847, 1260).
In such cases, people are not saved apart from the true Church. Though they are not “fully incorporated” into the mystical Body of Christ, they are “joined” or “related” to the Church Vatican II’s language) by the elements of saving grace God has given them. One might thus speak of them as having been “partially incorporated,” though not obtaining membership in the proper sense (Pius XII, Mysitici Corporis 22).
Unfortunately, there are a number of erroneous views regarding salvation and invincible ignorance that need to be pointed out. First, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant of the true faith is not a ticket to heaven. A person who is not culpable for sins against faith may still be culpable for other mortal sins—the same ones people of faith can commit—and may be damned on that account.
Second, the fact that someone is invincibly ignorant does not mean that they should not be evangelized. Even if they are not culpable for sins against faith, the fact they are ignorant of the true religion and do not have access to the sacraments means that they are more likely to commit mortal sin and thus more likely to be damned. Christ did not leave us the option of only evangelizing some peoples (Mark 16:15) or of only teaching them some doctrines (Matt. 28:20). Consequently, it is a false understanding of evangelism or a false spirit of ecumenism that would suggest that classes of people can be left in total or partial ignorance of the true faith on the pretext that they are invincibly ignorant and should not be disturbed.
Third, those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, “not deserting if he [God] be not deserted.” As a result of this special grace, “those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it” (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis.
Fourth, some radical traditionalists, those known as Feeneyites, assert that while invincible ignorance might excuse sins against faith, one would not thereby be excused from the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is false, since invincible ignorance excuses from acts of omission (such as failure to be baptized) as well as acts of commission. If one is invincibly ignorant of the requirement of baptism but would seek baptism if one knew it was required, then the lack of baptism will not be held against one. This is expressly taught by the Church (CCC 1260). One would thus be recognized as having baptism of desire, at least implicitly.
Fifth, Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him.
In many parts of the world it is easy for people to display reasonable but not supererogatory diligence and be invincibly ignorant concerning the Christian faith in general or the Catholic Church in particular. The assertion that there are no invincibly ignorant people also is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the Church, which acknowledges that there are “righteous people in all religions” (CCC 2569).
© This Rock, Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177
Please don’t give me what seems like a whole long book to read written by someone other than yourself. It isn’t a fair use of my time. Say it in your own words. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to wade through the vast amounts of often vague platitudes, ideas extrapolated from a few hardly related scriptures and the esoteric seeming babblings Catholics so often send my way. I always say if you can’t say it in your own words then you don’t own it.
In your opinion. Absurd on the face of it, but fanatics see what they will.
Ya know, I am a born again Christian. I often witness my faith in Christ to others. If they have honest disagreements with me or do not understand what I am saying, even if they do not believe God exists, I do not consider them as bashing my faith. I consider that it is my burden to help them understand who Christ is and what He has done for them.
There are times when mean spirited people who are ugly are bashing God, Jesus and having faith in them. Even then I remember that I once was like them and try to have patience and love towards them. If all one thinks if someone disagrees with you is that they are bashing you I do not think that you will have the proper love towards that person. If you are right in your beliefs you ought to be able to defend them without being so defensive as to label those who honestly disagree with you as bashers.
You mean you struggle to read more than a paragraph at a time?
Once again, a lack of logical rebuttal with name calling.
I was going to stay out of this whole thread but what you said is just preposterous. And no Catholic has ever thought of Mary as a “goddess”. If you heard that it was from some other person with no knowledge of Catholicism at all.
What is wrong and why do you seem to feel so angry and attacked by Catholics who have made a special place in their hearts for the one woman chosen to give birth to Jesus Christ? It in no way lessons my love of my God to have admiration for the woman chosen to bring him into this world! The very fact that he became human through a virgin birth ranks up there pretty high as a central tenant of most of Christianity. There is nothing wrong with celebrating that! It does not make Mary a goddess or Jesus any less. I could go on and on but unless you have a specific question for me I'll stop here.
I am perfectly interested in what you have to say in your own words. For one thing then I know that you own what you are saying and understand it yourself and how you understand it. If you want to give some paragraphs out of a book to support what you have already clearly said in your words that would be different.
It’s gotten really late and I am getting tired. Will try to answer you later. You misunderstand where I am coming from and also in my opinion Catholics put far more on Mary in written Catholic doctrine than just honoring her as the mother of Jesus. That means though, that I have to dig through doctrines about just what Catholics do believe about Mary and who she is to Catholics right out of Catholic doctrine. That will be work. I have done it before. I cannot believe that any Catholic that knows Catholic doctrine about who or should I say what Mary is suppose to be can say that they merely honor her as the mother of Jesus and no more.
You spew out rhetoric but not much logic. Mohammed mined the teachings of Jews and Christians, so we might surmise that he intended to worship the God of Abraham, whatever his personal conception of it was. But as he did not write, nor did his personal secretaries compile into its present form either the Koran nor the Hadiths, Islam does contain besides his thoughts, the views of his followers. The first Christians to encounter his followers thought them Christian heretics, although probably best thought of as like the Jews in their insistence on the unity of God, and a rejection of the Son. A son who, btw, had the bad manners to be born as Jew.
I and many other Catholics on Free Republic are sick of being told by ignorant, bigoted people that we worship Mary. Who tells you what you believe? Certainly no other FReeper does, and if they did, you would rightly reject it. Yet time after time, day after day, ignorant people -- are they your friends? -- tell Catholics what we believe and who we worship. I am finished being polite about it, that attitude is pure bigotry. Now, show some courage, and go tell a Moslem that Mohammed was a liar, if you want to witness for your pitiful, fraudulent church.
No, we are not Nestorians, and Mary is more than the mother of a prophet. Unlike either Luther or Calvin, you do not pay much honor to Mary.
I wasn’t going to ask, but I knew you were a born again Christian. I can tell by the way you attack Catholics. You aren’t Catholic, haven’t studied Theology at a Catholic school, but are some how able to recite what you think Catholics believe and you some how know how the image of Mary has made all of us Catholics worship her as a goddess. I don’t know where you get this information from, but why not talk to a Priest and learn what Catholics really believe in. They are open to talk with you just as I am when you come knocking on my door and I politely take (and read) your pamphlets.
I will not argue with you. I will not take my understanding of my Catholicism and my extensive study of my beliefs and change them because one clueless born again Christian has some sort of hatred toward the Catholic church. And it is hatred when you try to tell me I worship Mary and post angry sounding rants to other people about our church. Don’t waste your time searching for Catholic doctrine that you can twist to tell me how wrong I am. How about take that time and go help someone in need this Christmas season. Christmas, ya know when Jesus was a baby born in a manger to his mother, Mary?
And why do you even care what I believe? Your tone in no way makes me want to seek spiritual advise from you. Is that what you think Jesus wants, for you to put other Christians down because they feel an emotional and spiritual tie to the woman who gave birth to him on this
earth?
I am looking for what Paul Says about people who do not hear the gospel are judged on what they do know. Somehow I can not find it. But all those words pertain to ignorance of the Gospel thus invincible ignorance term. Does a baby or Child or mentally retarded adult or adult person trying to do good without the true gospel responsible to go to hell. It all comes to that in a nutshell. No.
This false claim illustrates the peril of putting Abraham up on a pedestal.
Abraham was never God, and is the source of nothing.
God is the source of all good things.
And whatever Islam worships, it isn't the Heavenly Father of Christ.
So that’s all you have? One picture, as opposed by two thousand years of history? This “article” is an Epic Fail.
One reason we are not to have any graven images is that God wants to have fellowship with us directly. He is immediately available for fellowship when we face Him, confess our sins to Him directly, through faith alone in Christ alone.
A graven image merely becomes a counterfeit substitute for that direct relationship He has made available to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.