Salvation through confusion?
#11
(10-02-2019, 04:57 PM)1Faith Wrote: Ignorance is not a means of salvation. While it may be true that those who are ignorant will be judged less severely than those who know the truth and willfully do not live up to it, we ought to remember that only inculpable ignorance can mitigate personal responsibility for sin. How many persons today are truly ignorant through no fault of there own? Is it not much more often the case that people do not want to know the truth? People love their sins, and very often endeavor to numb the perturbations of conscience, and to rationalize their behavior to themselves so that it may appear to them to be good or at least morally neutral. Will such persons be excused? Absolutely not, their guilt remains.

In this day and age anyone who is sincerely seeking God and the truth about God, can very easily find this truth. Even when the hierarchy is to a large decree proclaiming ambiguous and in some cases outright heterodox teachings, God has allowed this to happen in an age where vast amounts of knowledge are easily accessible to the vast majority of people. Those of good will can find the truth. How many follow heretical and ambiguous teachings because such teachings give them comfort in their sins? As scripture says, the people have itching ears, and bring to themselves pastors who will tickle their ears. The heterodoxy of these pastors in no way excuses the people of their sin, in fact very often these pastors are a just chastisement for the sins of the people.

Salvation is not easy, whether one is in the Church or outside. The only hope of salvation for one outside the church lays in making a perfect act of contrition before death, and their not being in the Church is only excusable if due to a genuine invincible ignorance. Salvation is much more accessible to those of us inside the Church, because we have the sacraments. Without the sacrament of penance for example, only a perfect act of contrition could save one's soul after a mortal sin. What implications does this have for the millions of protestants out there! Don't think for a minute the ignorant are more easily saved, the opposite is in fact the case.

I think it best put that the definition of ignorance is "lack of due knowledge". Ignorance is a gap where some knowledge is meant to be. In philosophical terms, it is a privation of a due good, when one is deprived of knowledge he ought to have.

That lack of knowledge can be eliminated here and now through prudent study and questions ("vincible") or not able to be prudently eliminated here and now ("invincible"). If we lack due knowledge and do not remove it when we can, it becomes culpable. Obviously if it is impossible to remove, we are not culpable.

The problem is that a lack of something, even when it's not our fault, cannot do anything. That's simple common sense.

I may be broke because of someone punching me in the face and stealing my wallet. Not my fault, but I still cannot buy lunch without my wallet. Imagine that conversation, "I'd like a large Big Mac combo." "That'll be $10." "Sorry, I can't pay you, my wallet was stolen." Your lack of wallet may give you a reason why you're not culpable for going hungry, but it certainly doesn't buy your lunch.

The analogy goes further : God, in his mercy, sends means to "pay for our lunch" by giving opportunities to remove that ignorance, since he gives to every soul the grace sufficient to save his soul.

Ignorance, when invincible, may excuse from sins which derive from sins which are not against easily knowable precepts of the Natural Law, but it does not cause our salvation. Sanctifying Grace and Final Perseverance does, and those come from God alone.

One cannot be invincibly ignorant of the basic precepts of the Natural Law and of Natural Religion, because these precepts are given by normal use of our reason.

Normal use of our reason (for those capable), plus cooperation with those sufficient graces God sends would get every person to Heaven. If every person does not get there, it will be his own fault because something he did failed to correspond with the impulse of grace sent to him. Ignorance cannot fix that failure. Ignorance cannot do anything.
Reply
#12
....................
Reply
#13
.......................
Reply
#14
(10-03-2019, 03:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: St Cyprian, as St Thomas mentions in article 11 argues from St Dismas that there are other means to be saved aside from Sacramental Baptism, but that only Our Lord can grant this, and so he promotes the notion of Baptism of Blood and of Desire, but he also, is very clear that these are not the Sacrament of Baptism, but substitutes in particular cases.

Wouldn't that apply to everyone who lived before Christ? Circumcision was the Old Covenant version of Baptism, but even that wasn't instituted until Abraham, and we believe Adam and Eve are in heaven. Females couldn't be circumcised, but we don't believe every woman who lived before Christ was damned, nor did the Jews see them as not Jewish, even though the unbaptised aren't Christian.
Reply
#15
The issue I have with the argument from ignorance is that God will still judge based upon the merits of each soul. Yes, many Catholics may be ignorant of their mortal sins, thereby making them potentially venial, but this doesn't mean the soul may not be damned. They simply won't be punished for those same sins as they would had they committed them willfully. This brings up a concern I've had with mortal vs venial sin: and that's the permissive attitude many Catholics take when it comes to sin. As if we are forgetting that every single sin, no matter how small, is still an infinite offense against God. Yes, a venial sin isn't willfully committed with the purpose of offending God, but it still is an offense against God and should be avoided as we would something more grave. This is just something I've noticed when I've read the lives of the saints, the sheer remorse they feel for even the 'smallest' sin which your average Catholic doesn't even come close to noticing.

I'm not trying to derail this thread, or push people to scruples, this is just something that came to mind in the moment.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#16
(10-03-2019, 03:49 PM)SeekSalvation Wrote: ....................

Please don't effectively delete posts by editing and posting what amounts to nothing.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#17
(10-03-2019, 07:44 PM)Paul Wrote:
(10-03-2019, 03:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: St Cyprian, as St Thomas mentions in article 11 argues from St Dismas that there are other means to be saved aside from Sacramental Baptism, but that only Our Lord can grant this, and so he promotes the notion of Baptism of Blood and of Desire, but he also, is very clear that these are not the Sacrament of Baptism, but substitutes in particular cases.

Wouldn't that apply to everyone who lived before Christ? Circumcision was the Old Covenant version of Baptism, but even that wasn't instituted until Abraham, and we believe Adam and Eve are in heaven. Females couldn't be circumcised, but we don't believe every woman who lived before Christ was damned, nor did the Jews see them as not Jewish, even though the unbaptised aren't Christian.

Before the Law of Baptism is sufficiently promulgated in the New Testament, there would have been other means like circumcision, but even this law was not universally imposed nor was it a Sacrament in the proper sense of giving grace ex opere operato. but ex fide significata. Thus, it was only beneficial insofar as there was a faith in the redeemer to come and a sorrow for sin. It was required only of those who were under the Jewish covenant and needed to follow the Mosaic law. Outside of this one could still save his soul, and as you suggest even females needed some other means and no means in the Old Testament were ex opere operato.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)