Error
ERROR
A mistake of our judgment, giving assent to that which is not true. Mr. Locke reduces the causes of error to four.
1. Want of proofs.
2. Want of ability to use them.
3. Want of will to use them.
4. Wrong measures of probability. In a moral and scriptural sense it signifies sin.
See SIN.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
error
A false judgment; a discrepancy between the mental judgment and the object of this judgment. Error is different from ignorance, although it implies ignorance and proceeds from it. Ignorance implies lack of knowledge without the formation of a judgment; error can occur only in the presence of some knowledge, and expresses a mistaken judgment. If the error concerns the existence of some particular fact, it is factual; if it regards a precept of law, it is legal. It may affect either the substance of a thing or its quality. A substantial error exists in the case of one marrying other than the intended person, or, where slavery is legal, of a freeman marrying a slave. Error in such cases is a diriment impediment to matrimony. Such a substantial error, if proven, nullifies any ecclesiastical act. An error of quality or accidental error does not itself annul the act, unless expressly stated in the law. The law protects common error concerning jurisdiction.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Error
Error, reduplicatively regarded, is in one way or another the product of ignorance. But besides the lack of information which it implies, it adds the positive element of a mental judgment, by which something false is held to be true, or something true avouched to be false. The subject-matter of error so far as mortals go, like that of the want of knowledge whence it proceeds, is either (1) the law itself, or (2) a fact, or circumstance of a fact. In the first instance, one is astray in affirming or denying the existence of a law, or at any rate the inclusion of some individual case under its operation. In the second, one is labouring under an equal misapprehension, but with regard to some fact or aspect of a fact. Thus, for example, a Catholic, who is some unaccountable way would persuade himself that there was no law of abstinence on Friday, would be in error as to the law. If, although well aware of the precept of the Church, he is under the mistaken impression that a particular day, which happens to be Friday, is not Friday, he is in error as to the fact.
Taking account of the person in whom the error exists, it is said to be either vincible or invincible. Error is deemed to be invincible when, in spite of what is called moral diligence in the premises, it still persists. This may happen either because one has never been touched with any doubt as to the validity of one’s stand, or as to the necessity of an inquiry, or it may be that one having, with full honesty of purpose, used such efforts as are demanded by the importance of the question at issue, is nevertheless unable to discover the truth. Much depends on the value to be attached to the phrase “moral diligence”. It is not easy to state it in any set formula, unless it be this, that it is the diligence which prudent persons are accustomed to bringing to bear upon the settlement of like matters. This notion may be set forth more in detail by the following considerations: The moral diligence required does not mean that a person is to have recourse to every conceivable expedient. It does imply that the endeavours made by n agent, to set himself right, should be such as are exacted by the seriousness of the business involved, as well as bear a proper ratio to his capacity and resources. Error is reckoned morally vincible as often as it is chargeable to the failure to exercise these ordinary and necessary precautions.
When an agent deliberately omits means calculated to dispel his error, or purposely fosters it, it is called affected. It is not so styled to indicate that it is simulated, but rather to point out that the erroneous tenet has been studiously aimed at. When the error is the offspring of sheer unrelieved negligence, it is termed crass. The influence of error on moral responsibility may be determined as follows. An act done in invincible error, whether the latter r3egard the fact or the law, is never impeachable as sin. The reason is that, in this hypothesis, there is no knowledge of, and consequently no violation of evil. On the contrary, what is done in morally vincible error is esteemed properly imputable to the agent. This is so because the error itself is then of the agent’s own choosing, and he is therefore accountable for its outcome. It is obvious, however that the moral delinquency which has its rise in vincible error will have various degrees of guilt, in proportion to the greater or lesser culpability of the error itself.
———————————–
Slater, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); Ballerini, Opus Thelolgicum Morale (Prato, 1898); Meyer, Institutiones Juris Naturalis (Freiburg, 1885); Ojetti, Synopsis Rerum Moralium it Juris Pontificii (Prato, 1904).
JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by William J. Rosini In memory of Dorothy and Evoldo Rosini
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VCopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Error
“Knowledge being to be had only of visible certain truth, error is not a fault of our knowledge, but a mistake of our judgment, giving assent to that which is true (Locke, Essay on Human Underst. book 4, chapter 20). ‘The true,’ said Bossuet, after Augustine, ‘is that which is, the false is that which is not.’ To err is to fail of attaining to the true, which we do when we think that to be which is not, or think that not to be which is. Error is not in things themselves, but in the mind of him who errs, or judges not according to the truth. Our faculties, when employed within their proper sphere, are fitted to give us the knowledge of truth. We err by a wrong use of them. The causes of error are partly in objects of knowledge and partly in ourselves. As it is only the true and real which exists, it is only the true and real which can reveal itself. But it may not reveal itself fully, and man, mistaking a part for the whole, or partial evidence for complete evidence, falls into error. Hence it is that in all error there is some truth. To discover the relation which this partial truth bears on the whole truth is to discover the origin of the error. The causes in ourselves which lead to error arise from wrong views of our faculties and of the conditions under which they operate. Indolence, precipitation, passion, custom, authority, and education may also contribute to lead us into error (Bacon, Noevum Organum, lib. 1; Malebranche, Recherche de la Verite; Descartes, On Method; Locke, On Human Understand. book 6, c. 20).” Fleming, Vocabulary of Philosophy, pages 166-167.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Error
ERROR.As one who lived in the undimmed vision of holiness and truth, who saw life steadily and saw it whole, Jesus must have felt with an intensity we cannot fathom how sin had distorted the reason of man as well as perverted his affections. All around Him He saw men walking in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart (Eph 4:18). He saw, also, as no one else had ever seen, that the recovery of those who had become vain in their reasonings (Rom 1:21) was to be achieved less by attacking their godless errors than by aiming at the renewal of the moral and spiritual nature. This is the fundamental and vital point to emphasize. Underlying all Christs dealings with error there was the recognition of the dependence of mens opinions and beliefs upon their character. We seldom realize how much we contribute to the judgments we form. We set out with the intention of being wholly governed by the object. We want to know what it really is, and not merely what it appears to be. So we approach it, examine it, and form our opinion of it. But the eye brings with it the power of seeing; what we see depends not merely upon the object, but upon the organ of vision. This is true especially with respect to all judgments of value, all questions of right and wrong, of duty and religion. The possibilities of error increase not merely with the complexity of the subject-matter, but with the way in which our interests and convictions, our desires and predilections, are bound up with it. In the region of the moral and spiritual life not only must the intellect be clear,free from false theory,but still more necessary is it that the heart be pure and the practice sound. To appreciate goodness a man must love goodness; must be, if not good, at any rate good in many ways. Every one, said Jesus, that is of the truth heareth my voice (Joh 18:37). This does not, of course, mean that all moral and religious errors are due simply to a depraved heart. Violent upholders of orthodoxy have been only too ready to assume that such is the case, and to silence the heretic by declaring him a bad man. But it does mean that there is a moral aptitude for Christian discipleship. It was inevitable that men who had no enthusiasm for goodness should misunderstand Christ and reject Him. It was equally certain that His sheep would hear His voice and follow Him.
There are a few striking illustrations of these principles in the Gospels which demand our attention.
1. The necessity for inward, moral clarity and simplicity is strongly insisted on by Jesus (Mat 6:22-23, Luk 11:34-36). We so often talk as if we were only obliged to follow our conscience; as if no one could lay anything to our charge unless we were acting against the present voice of conscience. But this is very perilous error. We are also obliged to enlighten our conscience and keep it enlightened. It is as much liable to error as our uninstructed intelligence, as much liable to failure as our sight (Gore, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 146 f.). The thought is expressed in other forms equally suggestive. Thus the pure heart is the condition of the vision of God (Mat 5:8). It is the honest and good heart which, having heard the word, keeps it (Luk 8:15). Heavenly truth is hid from the wise and prudent, but revealed unto babes (Mat 11:25). The disciples must be converted and become as little children (Mat 18:2-5, Mar 10:15).
2. Our Lords method of dealing with the ignorant and erring is full of instruction. Take the case of the woman suffering from an issue of blood (Mat 9:20-22, Mar 5:25-34, Luk 8:43-48). It would be hard to exaggerate the poor womans ignorance. Her mind was full of erroneous thoughts of Jesus. At best she looks upon Him as a worker of magic. She thinks that she may be able to steal a blessing from Him in the crowd. But there was working, even in that darkness, the precious element of faith. She trusted Jesus as far as she understood Him, and that was enough for the Master. He knew that faith in Himself, even though it were only as a grain of mustard seed, would break through the incumbent weight of error and ignorance, and offer a free way for His grace: Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace. Jesus adopted essentially the same method in dealing with persons like Zacchaeus, Mary Magdalene, the woman of Samaria, and the publicans and sinners generally. These victims and slaves of passion and ignorance were certainly not good. Their lives were stained by error and sin. The religious classes looked upon them as moral outcasts. And yet there were those among them open to conviction. Their wilful and passionate lives had not destroyed in them a strange yearning for better things. And when purity drew near to them, adorned with such Divine graciousness as it was in the Person of Jesus, they became responsive to it and yearned after it. That was faith, and Jesus saw in it a power which would work for the redemption of the whole nature. His one endeavour was to call it forth into fullest exercise. Erroneous thoughts of God and life, of duty and religion, would all slowly disappear under the influence of this new devotion to Himself. But, after all, those who responded to His invitations (Mat 11:28-30) were never numerous. The great mass of the people was untouched and uninfluenced. Sunk in stupid ignorance, vice, and worldliness, the masses, at the best, followed Him for a time in gaping wonder, thinking far more of the loaves and fishes than of the new life and truth He placed before them. Hence the sad words with which Jesus upbraided the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done (Mat 11:20-24).
3. The Pharisees and the other religious leaders.At first it seems a strange thing that these men, on the whole, fell into the appalling error of rejecting Jesus. The gospel did not place itself, directly and at the outset, in opposition to the errors of the Pharisees. But the dividing gulf was none the less real, and would baffle every attempt to fathom or bridge it over (Reuss, Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, p. 227). A few reflexions on the lines of the previous remarks will make this clear. The whole life and thought of the typical Pharisee was a closed system. His religion was already fully organized. In the hands of the Pharisees, Judaism finally became petrified. It was a body of rules and doctrines which laid the main stress on conduct and outward ceremonies,a rigid mould without plasticity or capability of expansion. It could only react in antagonism towards one who offered a religion of the spirit, a worship of the Father in spirit and in truth. The Pharisee did not know what to make of a renovating and inspiring call which bade him begin afresh, and completely revise his life and religion in the light of a higher ideal. He was self-satisfied, and resented criticism as an intolerable impertinence. He was like one who says that he must follow his conscience, but who does not continually seek to enlighten his conscience by confronting it with higher aspects of truth. He had ears, but he heard not; eyes, yet he was blind. This was the most fatal kind of error, the most hopeless of all moral states; and it was inevitable that it should come into deadly collision with Jesus. While the Pharisaic spirit had changed religion into a narrow and barren formalism, the gospel carefully distinguished the form from the essence in things religious. Its estimate of mans true worth and the certainty of his hopes rested not upon the outward conduct of the life, but upon the inward direction of the heart and feelings (Reuss, The Gospel and Judaism, vol. i. p. 227). The errors of the Pharisees and the bitter hostility to Jesus which they provoked may be studied in the following passagesthey are a mere selection: Mat 6:1-8; Mat 12:1-45; Mat 21:23-46; Mat 23:1-39, Mar 3:1-6, Luk 6:1-11; Luk 11:37-54; Luk 18:9-14, Joh 5:30-47; Joh 7:14-52; Joh 8:12-59; Joh 9:1-41.
4. The errors of the disciples.It is not necessary to go into details here. In responding to His call the disciples of Jesus had placed themselves in training for the higher life. They had passed into a school where the scholars ignorance and error would be dealt with patiently and wisely. They had much to learn, but the essential thing was that they were in communion with the Light of Life.
Literature.Illingworth, Christian Character; Gore, The Sermon on the Mount; Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age; A. J. Balfour, Foundations of Belief; Personal Idealism, Essay I. by Prof. G. F. Stout; Descartes, Meditation IV.
A. J. Jenkinson.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Error
(Lat. error, from errare, to wander) Distorted or non-veridical apprehension, for example illusory perception and memory. See Veridical. The term, although sometimes used as a synonym of falsity, is properly applied to acts of apprehension like perception and memory and not to propositions and judgments. — L.W.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
Error
akin to planao (see ERR, No. 1), “a wandering, a forsaking of the right path, see Jam 5:20, whether in doctrine, 2Pe 3:17; 1Jo 4:6, or in morals, Rom 1:27; 2Pe 2:18; Jud 1:11, though, in Scripture, doctrine and morals are never divided by any sharp line. See also Mat 27:64, where it is equivalent to ‘fraud.'” * [* From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, p. 53.]
“Errors” in doctrine are not infrequently the effect of relaxed morality, and vice versa.
In Eph 4:14 the RV has “wiles of error,” for AV, “they lie in wait to decive;” in 1Th 2:3, RV, “Error,” for AV, “deceit;” in 2Th 2:11, RV, “a working of error,” for AV, “strong delusion.” See DECEIT. Cp. planetes, “a wandering,” Jud 1:13, and the adjective planos, “leading astray, deceiving, a deceiver.”
“a sin of ignorance” (cp. agnoia, “ignorance,” and agnoeo, “to be ignorant”), is used in the plural in Heb 9:7.