Featured Wrongly Dividing the Word:

Originally Posted by BobRyan
yet Christ was not at all pleased with even the most minor edit/modify of one of the Ten Commandments -

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When Christ speaks of one of the Ten Commandments He tells us that they are the “Word of God” – the “Commandment of God” and “Moses said”

[FONT=&quot]Notice that in thi[FONT=&quot]s case in Mark 7 the Jews [FONT=&quot]are "making stuff [FONT=&quot]up" in their [FONT=&quot]baptizing the cups and pots - regar[FONT=&quot]ding what you [FONT=&quot]"eat and [FONT=&quot]drink" - regar[FONT=&quot]ding food and drink - being con[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]taminated[/FONT] by sin - Christ in Mark 7 declares that to be [FONT=&quot]nonsense even before the cross.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Here you engage in story telling and "making stuff up"

why do that?

IF Jesus had insisted that they enforce civil law penalties under the theocracy he would have had the adulteress stoned as they insisted. This is the very trap they wanted him to fall in -- and you have argued that He did fall into it in Mark 7 -- and obviously you are wrong.

In Mark 7 Christ is pointing out how serious the violation is - not that they should invoke civil laws of their theocracy - while not under a theocracy.

You are ignoring the details, the context and just looking for 'spin' as you JOIN the Jews in attacking Christ's Ten Commandments. Try truth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The point remains -- your attempt at vacuous rant is mere fluff.

If your only response is to demonstrate the truth my signature line... well then... next thread

 

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,

Part 2 to follow-

 

Part 2 on ignorance

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).

 

JonC, gladly, I copied that post from Jim Adkins, another former Baptist writing that post for the "Catholic Answers " site. Hope you click to that site to read and digest it all. praying that you really read from Catholic apologist about Catholicism instead of non-Catholic apologist that are not Catholic, same goes for any other non-Catholics reading this.