Salvation For Those Who Never Know God.

[MorphRC]

So God punishes you to hell, for not knowing the truth?

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1203"][b]Ignorance: Invincible and Vincible[/b][/url]

By James Akin

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).

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 7 2004, 11:33 AM'] So God punishes you to hell, for not knowing the truth? [/quote]
Exactly... take an infant who is not baptized. You cannot say he goes to Heaven. He never knew the truth, either. To say he does is a condemnation of the Church, since She hastens to baptized infants (as St. Augustine wrote). Moreover, to say that a person can be saved without Baptism is a rejection of the Church's teaching on Baptism, which is that it is necessary for salvation. Why do we baptize infants if they are going to Heaven anyway, since they don't know the truth? We do so because regardless of whether they know it or not, Baptism is necessary. I would also suggest you read this fairly lengthy article: [[color=red][b]edited by phatcatholic: link to a feeneyite website[/b][/color]]

** Of course, you can believe in Limbo for such infants or those who TRULY are invincibly ignorant, but not Heaven. ** (Limbo is not defined by the Church, but She allows it as a viable option to be believed)

Edited September 7, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

HW, debating is not allowed here. if you see something you don't agree with, make a thread in the debate board.

[MorphRC]

^Ditto

[phatcatholic]

the ONLY reason i am keeping this thread open is b/c i have requested that Apotheoun and Laudate_Dominum respond to the information that has been provided

[MorphRC]

Phat. Cant you close it, then ask them to PM you the info, and post it? I dont think it will stop.

[phatcatholic]

i'm going to leave this open so that it will be easier for them to respond (so they can quote the words of other people and format their own words however they like). however, any further posts that instigate debate will be deleted.

[StColette]

Oy the thread turned into a mess. Well, I saw one thing I wanted to make sure got clarified since goldenchild seems to be searching and learning.

[quote]1. I heard that it's the Church's teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell rather than limbo. Is this true? [/quote]

No--but neither is it official teaching that they go to limbo. The fate of unbaptized children has not been determined.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them" [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism" (CCC 1261).

The idea of limbo is a theological speculation about what happens to people who depart this life in original sin (1 Cor. 15:22) but without actual sin (Rom. 9:11). The only such people would be the unborn, babies, young children, morons, and a few others. They lack actual sin, so they would not be in hell, but they have original sin, so they would not be in heaven. It was speculated that they would be in a place of natural glory (limbo).

The basis for this speculation has been undercut by recent reflection on God's salvific will. The Second Vatican Council stated, "For since Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32) . . . we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes 22). This includes the young and those severely retarded.

If, in whatever mysterious way the person receives the offer, he accepts it, then he has "baptism of desire" and goes to heaven. If the person rejects the offer, then he has committed mortal sin and goes to hell. Thus it can be argued that no one leaves this life with original sin but without actual sin. People die either in a state of grace or in a state of mortal sin.

Some have speculated about what form God's offer of salvation might take to children. One suggestion is that he might enlighten them at the moment of death and enable them to make a choice for or against him. This possibility was endorsed by the nineteenth-century Catholic theologian Heinrich Klee.

Another suggestion is that these persons may have a form of "baptism of desire" through the desire of their parents, of the Church, or of someone else. This would operate the way the faith of the Church suffices to allow infants to be baptized, even though they lack faith themselves. This idea ("vicarious baptism of desire") was endorsed by Cardinal Cajetan at the time of the Reformation.

[Reprinted with permission from the November 1994 issue of This Rock magazine.]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)"[/quote]
The New Catechism doesn't say that ignorance saves, but that the ignorant person's implicit desire (known only to God) to accept the True Faith if presented to them saves the person. I see no contradiction here.

And I couldn't get your links to the Feeneyite website, but I'de still like you to read mine. I wrote it myself . Trust me though, I've read a lot of Feeneyite material. The reason I became interested in Catholic theology is because I accidently accessed a Feeneyite website two years ago. It made me think and do research, and I came to the conclusion that Feeneyism is wrong.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 6 2004, 10:32 AM']No, she did not go to Heaven. The Church teaches the necessity of Baptism to be saved. Unbaptized infants (or those who never know right from wrong, she would be considered here) go to a place called Limbo, which is a part of Hell. It is not defined by the Church, but if Limbo is rejected, then one must say she went to Hell. However, I seriously doubt such a situation exists in which she responded to all the graces God gave her and she is in no way culpable. St. Thomas Aquinas said that if such a person existed, an Angel could come to teach him about the Church so he could be baptized (I tyhink the Angel would baptize him, St. Thomas said, or he could teach him how to instruct someone else to baptize him).[/quote]
The fanciful idea that angels go around baptizing people is not a doctrine of the faith; and so it really is an evasion to bring it up as a solution to the present problem under consideration. Instead of proposing fanciful solutions to a problem, it is far better to stick to the [i]de fide[/i] teaching of the Church, for she holds that a person who is struggling with invincible ignorance of the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation, will not on that account alone be condemned by God to eternal damnation. As Blessed Pope Pius IX said, "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. [i]Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of [b]divine light[/b] and [b]grace[/b][/i]. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, [i]His supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments[/i]." [Blessed Pope Pius IX, [u]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/u], no. 7] Now it is important to remember that anyone who is saved, is saved by the grace of God, even if they are invincibly ignorant of the necessity of membership in the Church. This doctrine was further clarified by the Holy Office when it issued, by command of Pope Pius XII, the 1949 letter to Archbishop Cushing, in which it explained the true nature of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. As the letter itself says:

[quote name='1949 Letter of the Holy Office'][T]his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. [i][b]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[/b][/i].

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, [i][b]knowing[/b][/i] the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, [i][b]nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth[/b][/i].

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, [i][b]can also be obtained in certain circumstances 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[/b][/i] ([u]Denzinger[/u], 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. [b][i]Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, 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[/i][/b].

[i][b]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[/b][/i].

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, [u]On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ[/u] (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, [b][i]and those who are united to the Church only by desire[/i][/b].

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 "[i][b]are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire[/b][/i]," and [b][i]these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation[/i][/b], 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, [u]Singulari quadam[/u], in [u]Denzinger[/u], n.  1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, [u]Quanto conficiamur moerore[/u], in [u]Denzinger[/u], 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" ([u]Denzinger[/u], n. 801).[/quote]
From all of this it is clear that grace can, in an extraordinary way, be given outside the visible structure of the Church, and so it is wrong to say that everyone who is not united to the Church visibly is by definition condemned to hell. But it is important to remember that anyone who is saved, is saved by the grace of God, which necessarily flows from the Church, even if the person saved is invincibly ignorant of this fact. Their invincible ignorance does not save them in this case; instead, it is grace that saves them in spite of their inculpable ignorance of the necessity of the Church.

God bless,
Todd

[phatcatholic]

dude........................thank you

if anyone wishes to debate what Apotheoun has presented here, please start a thread in the debate board. if you have any honest questions about what he has presented, you can start a new thread here.

this thread is now closed.

Edited September 9, 2004 by phatcatholic