Can the Church change its teaching?

[ron77nyc]

Thus, a Jew, heretic or schismatic who is actively living as a Catholic, obedient to the Church even if he doesn’t know or ‘accept’ the Church (usually because he has an incorrect idea of the Catholic faith/church), is not only a part of the Church, but he IS obedient to God AND he is subject and willing to be so to the Pope.

This is not what Eugene and Boniface are saying. Boniface says: “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

This excludes Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox who are living good lives.

Pope Eugene says: "…that those not living within the Catholic Church, …cannot become participants in eternal life,…unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;…

This also excludes Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox who are living good lives.

no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Eugene even excludes candidates for baptism of desire.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No I’m sorry, Ron, but you are mistaken.

If you are a human being, you are part of the Catholic Church (it IS universal). If you are obedient to Christ, then (believe it or not), you are subject to the Roman Pontiff–because the Pope is not some ‘worldly figure’ but the Vicar of Christ. Any power he has is in that role, which of course all ultimately ‘goes back’ to God.

Any Christian who follows Christ (and does not willfully and knowingly reject His Church in its proper understanding) is ‘subject to the Roman Pontiff’ because the Pope is LEADER of the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And any NON Christian who likewise follows Christ --in so far as he/she is obedient to the Natural Law, and who likewise does not with full knowledge reject Christ and His Truth–is likewise subject to the Pope because the Pope is leader of ALL Humanity as ALL are “catholic”, UNIVERSAL, and subject to God. . .and therefore, subject to the leader God has established. . .the Pope. Q.E. D.

 

[ron77nyc]

If you are a human being, you are part of the Catholic Church (it IS universal).

Any Christian who follows Christ (and does not willfully and knowingly reject His Church in its proper understanding) is ‘subject to the Roman Pontiff’ because the Pope is LEADER of the Church.

And any NON Christian who likewise follows Christ --in so far as he/she is obedient to the Natural Law, and who likewise does not with full knowledge reject Christ and His Truth–is likewise subject to the Pope because the Pope is leader of ALL Humanity as ALL are “catholic”, UNIVERSAL, and subject to God. . .and therefore, subject to the leader God has established. . .the Pope. Q.E. D.

At this point I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the above statements. I’m only saying that these teachings are new and not consistent with traditional Catholic teaching.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\This excludes Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox who are living good lives.\

**No, it doesn’t.

This is not what the Church has ever taught.

You are pushing it beyond the meaning of the Church.**

 

[surritter]

Ron – your interpretation of those earlier popes is that anyone, in order to be saved, must be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church. This is not correct (a la Fr. Feeney) because it means that centuries ago Native Americans or any other person who was not exposed to the Gospel (through no fault of their own) was automatically destined for hell.

Since that should stand out as not a correct interpretation, then it follows that the quotes you give by those earlier popes must mean something other than what you are saying.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\This excludes Protestants, Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox who are living good lives.\

**No, it doesn’t.

This is not what the Church has ever taught.

You are pushing it beyond the meaning of the Church.

This is why Fr. Feeny got whacked by the Holy See–for pusing EENS to this extent.**

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron – your interpretation of those earlier popes is that anyone, in order to be saved, must be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church.

Formal memership was mandatory for salvation. That’s exactly what they were saying.

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

This is not correct (a la Fr. Feeney) because it means that centuries ago Native Americans or any other person who was not exposed to the Gospel (through no fault of their own) was automatically destined for hell.

Native American Indians were considered pagans by Catholics of that time. They were in no way united to the Church or the pope because they were respecting the natural law or doing good deeds.

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation

Since that should stand out as not a correct interpretation, then it follows that the quotes you give by those earlier popes must mean something other than what you are saying.

I don’t see how popes Pius XI, Eugene and Boniface could be understood any other way. They were very deliberate and definite about what they were saying. Where do you see in their encyclicals any room for non-Catholics?

 

[surritter]

I don’t see how popes Eugene and Boniface could be understood any other way. They were very deliberate and definite about what they were saying. Native American Indians were considered pagans by Catholics of that time. They were in no way united to the Church or the pope because they were respecting the natural law or doing good deeds.

Let’s go back to the first century. Jesus bestowed his message onto the Apostles, who were tasked with taking that message to the ends of the Earth.

You’re saying that those popes believed in the following: In the year 34 AD, baptized believers in Israel could go to heaven, but every single human being outside of the early circle of Christians automatically went to hell, simply because the Apostles hadn’t gotten there yet.

I think it’s impossible to assume that those popes believed in that scenario, so there MUST be an interpretation of their words that doesn’t set up such a drastic scenario. The other posters on here have offered a good explanation of how to square the intent of the Church’s teachings with the actual words of those popes.

 

[white_sheep]

The Church has not changed the teaching on no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and as far as I can tell hasn’t changed it in regards to baptism either. They acknowledge the possibility, or hopefully probability, that outside the normal necessity of baptism God allows exceptions for exceptional cases in His Great Mercy. This is how I understand it.

 

[ron77nyc]

Let’s go back to the first century. Jesus bestowed his message onto the Apostles, who were tasked with taking that message to the ends of the Earth.

You’re saying that those popes believed in the following: In the year 34 AD, baptized believers in Israel could go to heaven, but every single human being outside of the early circle of Christians automatically went to hell, simply because the Apostles hadn’t gotten there yet.

I think it’s impossible to assume that those popes believed in that scenario, so there MUST be an interpretation of their words that doesn’t set up such a drastic scenario. The other posters on here have offered a good explanation of how to square the intent of the Church’s teachings with the actual words of those popes.

Those popes in the early church didn’t believe or teach that. Popes Pius XI, Eugene and Boniface just to name a few taught that. Feeneyism as we know it today was prevalent for many centuries in church history but it was never correct doctrine.

 

[surritter]

The quotes from Eugene and Boniface and Pius IX and Pius XI use phrases like “outside of the Church” and “if any man enter not here” and “subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

But why do you insist that the phrase “outside of the Church” must mean “registered at a parish and visibly partaking of the sacraments”?

Why do you insist that the phrase “enter not here” must equate with “not formally baptized within the Catholic Church”?

Why must the phrase “subject to the Roman Pontiff” be interpreted as “cognitively subject to the pope”? Maybe someone who has not been blessed to hear about Jesus is still subject to the pope but has no way of knowing it, or knowing how that is to be accomplished, nor any method to follow the pope in the way that you or I can. That pagan is still fulfilling the phrase “subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[ron77nyc]

The quotes from Eugene and Boniface and Pius IX and Pius XI use phrases like “outside of the Church” and “if any man enter not here” and “subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

But why do you insist that the phrase “outside of the Church” must mean “registered at a parish and visibly partaking of the sacraments”?

Why do you insist that the phrase “outside of the Church” must equate with “not a formal member of the Church of Rome”?

Why must the phrase “subject to the Roman Pontiff” be interpreted as “cognitively subject to the pope”? Maybe someone who has not been blessed to hear about Jesus is still subject to the pope but has no way of knowing it, or knowing how that is to be accomplished, nor any method to follow the pope in the way that you or I can.

I’m just telling you what the popes said in papal encyclicals. If you’re saying that their words include non-Catholics in salvation I say OK, you have a gift and an insight that I don’t have.

 

[surritter]

I’m just saying that their quotes might not seem to square with what we believe today, but they definitely don’t eliminate or preclude what we believe today.

There’s a big difference.

 

[ron77nyc]

I’m just saying that their quotes might not seem to square with what we believe today, but they definitely don’t eliminate or preclude what we believe today.

There’s a big difference.

I don’t see why there was such opposition to Jews and Protestants from the middle ages to the 20th century if the Church has not changed its teaching.

 

[manualman]

I’m not theologian, but has it occurred to anyone to investigate the matter further? Not every encyclical or bull is infallible teaching. Are there council statements on the matter that seem to take the Feeneyite side? Did the Early Fathers make such statements?

When a pope reiterates and reinforces consistant church teaching his encyclical can become a part of the ordinary magisterium. (such as Humanae Vitae which backs up traditional catholic teaching with expanded explanation). But these quotes from three popes in isolation from the larger body of council documents, Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church do not attain the status of ‘de fide’ catholic teaching.

In short, it appears to me that there may have been some popes that took the Feeneyite position in the past, and their bulls would be binding on those who comprehended the authority of the catholic church. But that does not necessarily mean they were ‘ex cathedra’ statements. It IS hard to figure this stuff out, isn’t it? Hindsight sure is easier than foresight.

The idea that only formally registered members of the catholic church can be saved flies in the face of much of what revelation says about God going way out of his way to save every last lost soul. Hard to believe He just blew off the rest of humanity until missionaries could make it to where they were.

But at the same time, the idea of “everybody being judged on how they responded to the Grace they were offered” has problems too. It seems to negate the purpose of the Great Commission in the first place. Why go off to probable death in the mission field if those folks are just as likely to be saved through the Grace available to them anyways?

I think the key is to recognize that while possible to access the Grace that enters the world through the Church He made, people have a much better chance of accepting that Grace if they have it clearly proclaimed to them than if they are left to figure it out by themselves.

 

[ServantofMary]

Papal statements on “Outside the Church there is no Salvation”

 

[cothrige]

No it has not. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church; the teaching remains the same. However, the understanding of just who is part of the Catholic Church has deepened. Therefore, while some such as Fr. Feeney mistakenly thought that it was limited only to a baptised member of the Roman/Latin/ western rite, **we now know that all humanity is part of the Catholic Church **even though they may not be ‘members’ of the above rite. . .

I find this statement a bit too strong and it troubles me. I have never seen anything actually saying this from the Church. Surely all mankind is called by God to be part of the Church, but how can we say that they already are? What is the point of evangelising anybody if they are already Catholic? I understand that the Church has reinterpreted this dogma in the not so distant past, but I just don’t remember any new understanding of what it is to be Catholic and that this is now seen as including atheists and Muslims.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Church” has undergone a legitimate process of development over time. This is still a doctrine of the Church but our understanding of it has increased over time.

Many “traditionalists” take statements by previous popes and attempt to prove that the Church has changed her teaching regarding salvation outside of here visible boundaries. However, they fail to take into consideration the purpose of the statements and to whom they were originally addressed. If they take the time to study this topic, they will see that the Church has not changed its teaching on this doctrine, but would realise that the doctrine has developed over time.

This doctrine is too complex to discuss fully on an online forum. Therefore, I strongly encourage all who are interested in this topic to read the following book:

Salvation Outside the Church?: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response by Francis A Sullivan. You can purchase this book here: amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Church-Catholic-Response/dp/0809133040

This book covers this doctrine in depth and will address any questions and concerns you may have.

Everybody should realise that it is impossible for the Church to err in matters of faith and morals because it is protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church has never changed its teaching in over 2000 years. Sometimes it may seem like certain teachings have changed, but if you take the time to study these doctrines fully, you will see that this is not the case.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church has never changed its teaching in over 2000 years. Sometimes it may seem like certain teachings have changed, but if you take the time to study these doctrines fully, you will see that this is not the case.

Especially if you study them in the language of the Church, which is officially Latin.

When you start translating and paraphrasing and diagramming, then you become vulnerable to heresies and misinterpretations and confusions. This is what can be called the Tower of Babel rule.